Well you clearly misunderstand the meaning of empirical. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments.
Yeah key word is experiment, we've tried this experiment before it is called your failed government spending.
Its called 30 trillion dollar debt, lol. Deficit is not debt, time to get an S2 dictionary. No I'm relying on the CBO math genius. You're getting owned by Obama's own debt calculators. Our #1 problem is spending. No we wouldn't prevent terrible entitlement programs from bankrupting us. They're going to use up 100%+ of our federal-revenue-GDP. The US will bankrupt once we reach Greece territory. Which is 2020 or sooner if Barry wins again.
Your math doesn't even address the problem, we wouldn't even get 1 trillion off THIS year's deficit if you tax US billionaires 100% of their money. [video=youtube;Z6zM1WYhwPw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6zM1WYhwPw[/video] Been there done that, it's called Canada and Puerto Rico. Your brand of government has been failing for far too long, your policies and apologizing are over.
Wiki is where I got my info. Forbes says there are nearly twice as many, making my suggestion nearly twice as effective in paying down the debt. Many others place the number at twice the number Forbes uses, which would put us in great shape indeed if true. When millionaires increase, so do billionaires. Everyone seems to agree the numbers for each will nearly double by 2020, which would mean my plan would nearly wipe out the deficit without even having to cut spending. Since you seem to relate to rich people, you'll be elated to know their numbers are increasing at an insane rate: http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/05/pf/millionaire_rise/index.htm NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Despite the Great Recession, which wiped out $15.5 trillion in household wealth in the United States alone, the number of millionaires in this country and abroad will grow rapidly over the next decade. In the U.S., the total number of families with a net worth of over $1 million, including real estate, will double by 2020, according to a report by the Deloitte Center for Financial Services. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7475023.html
Gibberish. Clearly, you have no interest in an honest debate, nor the education to participate in one. I'm off to find a thread with substance.
Maris, there's no such thing as "revenue" get that into your terribly constructed perspective. Billionaires, not millionaires I meant. Actually you're completely ignoring interest on past debt, so you're still screwed. Your plan was ridiculous, what do you think happens when a billionaire loses 375 million dollars? Lol what a joke.
Yeah your high tax rates don't amount to anything, and secondly you need to adjust for inflation and additional debt. Btw since you love Wiki so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law Open wide and Gobble it up. History dominates you, not very smart to skim over that vid you could learn a lot.
Canada got rid of its massive public Unions and unemployment fell from 12% to 6%. Puerto Rico flourished after firing 17,000 union workers from the government. Awesome. Overpriced dead weight, you can't dunk a basketball you are not special.
Someone who bought a house in Silicon Valley in the 1980s for $150K is now a millionaire because his house could be sold for $1M+. You continuously confuse wealth with income (and debt with deficits). The data I provided says that you'd wipe out every single $billionaire in the world and in 3 years we'd still have $16T in debt and $1.5T deficits. If you did wipe out every single $billionaire, you wouldn't get much in taxes from them since they'd be paupers, so the deficits would certainly be worse. And those figures are world wide. They include rich oil shieks in the middle east, for example, that we can't tax or confiscate their money. When your logic has only a little scrutiny put on it, it fails miserably.
I would like to point out that rather than give his wealth to the government in the form of estate taxes when he dies, Buffett has chosen to give away his wealth through charities. Not only Buffett, but numerous other $billionaires. If they love government so much and believe in it, why would they not just hand over the money to the government when they're dead? http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/04/40-billionaires-sign-the-gates-buffett-giving-pledge/ Bill Gates and Warren Buffett announced today that 40 signers, including at least 30 billionaires and other wealthy families, had officially made the Giving Pledge–a promise to give away more than half their fortunes. The list includes a few old-money (or at least older-money) names: Barron Hilton and David Rockefeller. Still, almost all are self-made billionaires or near-billionaires. The turnout is impressive, especially since the Gates-Buffett-sponsored pledge was just announced a month and a half ago.
Oh dear... Your two scenarios add up to $150 billion each. You think a ONE TIME payment of $300 billion puts us on our way to solvency when we have a $1.6 TRILLION yearly deficit? I don't think you know what the difference between billion and trillion is. This is a great example of why the typical idiot American has no grasp of how bad our situation really is.
Nice ownage there yet so simple. By the way it is the poor that suffer the most when a Billionaire loses 20-40% of his net wealth. It happened in 2008 and has been getting worse, it is called unemployment rate.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation (CNSNews.com) – Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds. “Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes. “There's simply not enough wealth in the community of the rich to erase this country's problems by waving some magic tax wand,” said Logan. Buffett, in an August 15 op-ed in the New York Times said it was time to stop “coddling” the wealthy and called on Congress to raise taxes on those making $1 million or more. “But for those making more than $1 million there were 236,883 such households in 2009 I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more there were 8,274 in 2009 I would suggest an additional increase in rate,” Buffett wrote. “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” wrote Buffett. However, according to the Tax Foundation study written by Logan, even taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent. “[T]aking half of the yearly income from every person making between one and ten million dollars would only decrease the nation's debt by 1%,” the report said. Taxing millionaires at an effective tax rate of 50 percent would raise only $120 billion more, according to Tax Foundation calculations based on IRS data. Taxing those who make $10 million or more at an even higher rate, as Buffett advised, would also do little to reduce the deficit and debt. Tax Foundation calculations indicate that taxing these individuals at an effective rate of 100 percent would only net the government $186 billion, reducing the deficit by 12 percent and the debt by an additional 2 percent. In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said.
