Returning and Reporting

I’m back home and beginning to regain contact with the online world. 

During last week’s conference I was able to attend a couple of lectures on Israel—the history and the current situation. I’m hoping that will enhance what I had already been planning to write. 

Next up is about the miraculous 1967 War. I’ll be working on that today, and hopefully post that piece tomorrow, which will be Part V in this series on Israel. Thank you for your patience during the week-long break. 

I had intended this series far ahead of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Courage” event in Israel. I heard on the radio this morning that today is the day he is speaking there (available if you subscribe to GBTV.com). I haven’t closely followed his plans, but in general I’m glad he is standing to support Israel and bringing attention to that little nation. Those efforts seem in line with my purposes in writing this series. 

Additionally, at the conference I attended, I heard many things related to philosophy and civilization. I can’t reproduce my notes here, but I’m hoping some of what I learned will fill out in my writing in days to come.

R & R (Refreshing and Refilling)

I am taking a break before finishing the series on Israel. I expect Part V to be on the refugee problem and 1967 war, and Part VI to be on the current situation. But until I get them written I'm not certain.

I am on vacation, with very limited internet access. The posts earlier this week had been set up ahead of time or caught up this hour in the week that I had open near a library. So posting again is uncertain until I'm home in about a week.

I am at a conference, while also getting my daughter, Social Sphere, ready for her coming school year, and visiting my mom (where the computer and online world have not reached). The conference happens to be at my alma mater, where Spherical Model is studying, within an hour's drive of my mom's home. It is a very full week of classes on religion, family, and many other principles related to civilization. So I am taking enough notes to cause carpal tunnel and hoping to come away refreshed and refilled.

Israel, Part IV: Holocaust and Statehood

This if Part IV of a series on Israel, to cover some basic history and how we got where we are. For Part I covered ancient history; Part II covered Zionism; and Part III covered conflict and violence. Today we cover the Holocaust and statehood. This will take us up to 1948. It will take at least a couple more parts to get us up to the present.

It is impossible to overstate the effect of the Holocaust on Jews as well as on civilized people worldwide. As of 1933 there were about nine million Jews living in the 21 European countries. By the end of WWII in 1945 six million of them had been murdered—that’s two out of every three. The number included 1.5 million children.
 

To give you perspective, worldwide there are about 14 million Jews today. Six million of that number would be a known loss to every civilized person in the world—people they actually knew or loved ones of people they know. Compare to 9/11. That day we lost about three thousand; all of us know someone who was lost or who knew someone lost that day. We are a country of over 300 million. Twenty times that actual number of Jews were killed in the Holocaust, from a population much much smaller. If two thirds of the total US population were annihilated, that would be a loss of 200 million people. That’s how it felt to Jews in Europe.
 

But they were not allowed to immigrate to their homeland as promised, even to escape certain death from savage tyrants—because civilized people failed to keep their promises to them.
 

Despite betrayals against the Jews, among the British were 26,000 Jewish volunteers fighting against the Axis powers. In 1944 the Jewish Brigade became an independent military unit of the British army, seeing action in Egypt, Italy and northwest Europe. Following victory, these same soldiers joined the “illegal immigration” efforts to carry Holocaust survivors to Eretz Israel.
 

Victory against Hitler didn’t mean victory for the Jews. The White Papers had essentially nullified the Balfour Declaration, and they used diplomatic means worldwide to let their complaints be known. Diplomacy was not enough. People networked to smuggle in thousands of refugees past the British blockade. And simultaneously underground groups worked to defend Jewish neighborhoods, as well as supplies and infrastructure, from Arab attack. Some also worked to subvert British command. A handful were executed for their underground activities.
 

Working and fighting for their own survival, while simultaneously rallying support worldwide eventually resulted in delegations to the United Nations to explore the possibility of independent statehood. President Harry Truman took an interest almost as soon as he took office, and on Yom Kippur 1946 Truman declared his support for the Jewish Agency’s plan to partition the Palestine area into separate Jewish and Arab states.
 

Britain withdrew its paternal role, having failed to keep basic order, and referred the problem to the United Nations. After a UN study, a commission recommended that the Jews become sovereign over the area that included their main holdings (Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel-Aviv), and leave the rest to become an independent Arab state.

At the time, Arabs in the Jewish areas outnumbered Jews, and the partition severely restricted new settlement areas for the influx of European refugees. Nevertheless, the Jews agreed to the partition, and they continued diplomatic efforts, particularly to gain US support. Up until just days before the vote, the solution seemed impossible, but worldwide efforts finally came to fruition. On November 29, 1947, Resolution 181 was approved by the UN General Assembly—to much Jewish fanfare around the globe.
 

The Arabs outright rejected the partition. They responded by blowing up buses, attacking people in their neighborhoods and businesses, and destroying the main roads between Jewish cities. Jews were attacked throughout the Middle East.

With British protection withdrawing, Jews and Arabs struggled for control of strategic positions. Yet amid the conflict, on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the formation of the State of Israel. Within hours the Arab response was to bring in the armies of surrounding Arab countries, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and contributing forces from other countries as well, to “drive the Jews into the Mediterranean.”
 

Beleaguered new Israelis used light artillery and not much more than handguns and rifles to hold off the onslaught of the surrounding Arab world—and prevailed, slightly increasing their territory during the dispute
.

One of the byproducts of this battle to defend their right to exist was the refugee problem. That will be Part V.

Israel, Part III: Conflict and Violence

This is the third part of a series on Israel, to cover some basic history and how we got where we are. For Part I on Ancient History and Part II on Zionism, see last Thursday and Friday’s posts. Today we cover the conflict and violence that marked the decades prior to WWII. 

At the end of WWI, when the Palestine area came under British care, and Syria was placed under France, the local Arabs, rather than seeing this as a step toward independence and freedom, felt the world had betrayed them, eliminating the “protection” they had gotten under Turkish rule. 

Britain allowed the basically separated Jewish and Arab communities to essentially rule themselves. The Jewish community elected a self-governing representative body called the National Council, which implemented policies. And in 1922 they constituted a Jewish Agency to represent the Jewish people to the British authorities, and also to other foreign governments and organizations.  

City view taken by my niece during
this summer's semester abroad

During the next three decades, they developed agriculture, factories, roads, hydroelectric power, and tapped mineral resources. Cultural life abounded. Universities were formed. Art galleries and performance venues popped up, and there was lively discussion wherever people met to socialize. Also notable, the Hebrew language was revived as a living language, eventually developing vocabulary necessary for the modern world. Hebrew became one of three official languages, along with English and Arabic. 

Meanwhile, the Arabic people of the region resisted progress and felt threatened by both the influx of Jewish people and also the progress they instigated. 

Britain had additionally made commitments to the Arabs, simultaneous to the Balfour Declaration. Jewish leaders visualized a bi-national population, never meaning to limit the Arabs living in Palestine, but insisted that migration of Jews should never be restricted. The Jews put great effort into preserving Arab autonomy. In fact, at this beginning time, Arab leader Emir Feisal referred to Dr. Chaim Weizmann as “a great helper in our cause,” adding that he hoped “the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness.” 

World history would be different if this early working relationship had continued. Unfortunately, it didn’t last. The first anti-Jewish riots broke out on April 4, 1920, and continued igniting steadily over the next two decades. 

From what I can ascertain, this date could identify the introduction of terrorism into the world. Also, from what I can find, every riot was instigated by Arabs against Jews, never the reverse. Nor was there retribution beyond trying to quell the violence and hold perpetrators accountable. 

Yesterday we mentioned a couple of the reasons: Palestinian Arabs wanted to return to the older status quo. And they were upset that the malarial swampland and wilderness they had sold got turned into valuable farmland—and was no longer in their hands. But there were additional reasons. While Arab Muslims viewed the Bible as a sacred book, they did not accept as fact that the Jews had any divine right to the area Palestinian area. 

And then there’s the Dome of the Rock, one of the most sacred shrines in the Muslim world. It happens to be located on the site the Jews recognize as the historic location of Solomon’s temple—which they intend to rebuild. Muslims consider this a threat to their sacred site. 

The Zionists continued efforts to discuss the problems and reach an understanding with the Arabs, but they were unsuccessful. The British, as guardian of the region, first recommended in 1937 a two-state solution, one of Jews and one of Arabs. Jewish leadership considered the idea and decided to allow the Jewish Agency to negotiate for the proposal with the British government. The Arabs, however, absolutely and completely rejected any plan for partition. 

During this period, underground movements developed among the Jews, a kind of defense militia: Haganah (founded 1920), Etzel (1931), and Lehi (1940). Some of their acts included retaliation for Arab attacks and sabotage, as well as demonstrations against British restrictions on immigration. The least restrained of these was Etzel. All were disbanded at the founding of the Israel Defense Forces in May 1948. 

How to quell the continuing riots and attacks was an annoying concern to Britain. The most notable response was the series of directives issued in May 1939, called the White Papers, which severely restricted Jewish immigration to Eretz Israel—coinciding with the desperate need for Jews escaping from German Nazis to have a place of refuge. Nor did these restrictions appease the Arabs. 

Zionists remained consistent on two fronts: continue Zionist goals without compromise, and continue loyalty to Britain and the free world, despite what appeared to be a lack of loyalty in return. At the onset of WWII, David Ben-Gurion (who later became Israel’s prime minister,” put it this way: “We will fight the war as if there were no White Paper, and the White Paper as if there were no war.”

Tomorrow, in Part IV, we should get to the forming of the state of Israel.

Israel, Part II: Zionism and Migration

This is part II of a several part series on Israel, to give background to the conflict there today. For part I, see Thursday's post here.

Zionism

Somewhere during the 19^th Century, there began to be a worldwide desire among individual Jews to return to their homeland. Several influences caused this feeling to grow, mainly to escape the nationalism and anti-Semitism in Western Europe, and, even worse, the violent persecutions (pogroms) of Eastern Europe. 

Jericho Market *

In 1956 the first group of Jews tried to set up a Jewish-owned orange grove near Jaffa. This first wave of migration to Palestine (the Roman name for this Ottoman territory, not a Palestinian state) included about 25,000. But it didn’t work out well. These weren’t experienced farmers, and they were just about done in by malaria, the typical plague of swampland. But during this time the idea of Zionism grew around the world, thanks in large part to a mane named Theodore Herzl. 

During this period, freedom loving liberals in France (liberal in the classic sense, in favor of Republicanism instead of monarchy, with guaranteed individual rights) recognized persecution against Jews as wrong. A spy case against a man named Dreyfus was a catalyst; Dreyfus was falsely accused and twice convicted, when the actual traitor was liberated. The people recognized the wrong, replaced the leaders, and reinstated Dreyfus. It was the biggest issue of its day, and led to the end of state religion in France in 1905. 

Herzl dedicated his life to raising funds from Jews around the world to buy land in Israel to be settled by Jews. He died in 1904, but his influence had multiplied greatly to a worldwide movement, and others continued to seek an independent secular Jewish state in the area of Palestine. 

In Basel, Switzerland, August 1897, the First Zionist Congress set out the following formula: 

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel [land of Israel] secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end: 

1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.
2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.
3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism.

Jewish communities all over the world lit up over this idea, including in the US. Rabbis around the country became strong leaders in the movement. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “This is a cause to which I will give my life.” He eventually stepped down from the bench and lobbied for the Jewish cause. He set up the Palestine Land and Development Company, the Palestine Economic Corporation, and the American Zion Commonwealth. He evidenced a rather new idea, ethnic American Jews, with the idea that “to be a good American meant that local Jews should be Zionists.” 

Migration

The Second aliyah—wave of immigration--was made up of several segments. The first was from Russia, escaping pogroms (bloodbaths), from about 1904 to 1914. These people were intrigued by some of the socialist ideas taking root at that time in Russia. They were interpreted in Israel as the kibbutz, a collective farm where everyone did manual labor. The people benefited from a natural willingness to be industrious. By the outbreak of WWI in 1914 there were 85,000 Jews in the Palestine region, compared to a mere 5,000 when the Ottoman Empire took control. 

Balfour Declaration

During WWI, the Zionists supported the Allied Powers, including the Jewish Legion under the British Army, and served in intelligence for the British. 

If you’ll recall, the Palestine region had been under the Ottoman Turks for 400 years or so. When there was finally hope that the British would be able to overcome the Turkish forces in Palestine, the Zionists sought reassurance that the British would commit to supporting Zionist goals. This was successfully done in the Balfour Declaration. In a letter from Lord Balfour representing the British Cabinet sent to Lord Rothschild representing the Zionists in Eretz Israel, the November 1917 declaration said this:  

“His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Following the Balfour Declaration, the aliyah (immigration waves) came in three segments: 1919-1923 mainly from Russia, about 35,000, mostly manual laborers, continuing the establishment of rural settlements. The next was from Poland between 1924-1932, adding small businesses and light industry in cities, mainly Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem.  The last segment came mainly from Germany during the 1930s, about 165,000, in response to Hitler’s rise to power. This group included professionals and academics, contributing significantly to education and intellectual culture. 

The significant cultural development in Eretz Israel is one of the main sources of conflict in the region. The native Arab peoples willingly sold land to Jewish immigrants; they were selling swamplands and worthless rocks. But then the Jewish communities drained the swamps, planted orange groves, and developed farmland—so it looked to the former owners that they were deprived unwittingly of valuable land. 

As the cities began to develop, there was the additional conflict between developing civilization and the nomadic Arabs, who preferred the simpler way things had been for millennia.  

That leads us to Part III next time, as conflict led to violence.

_______________________________
* The photo of the oranges in the Jericho Market comes from a beautiful photo book called, The Way, the Truth, and the Life: Images of the New Testament, text by S. Michael Wilcox, photos by Floyd Holdman and Don O. Thorpe, 2002, Covenant Communications. This photo is from p. 64, taken by Thorpe. This is merely a photograph of the page, which doesn't do it justice.

Israel, Part I: Ancient History

Satellite Image of Israel 2003

About a decade ago, when we were about a year into our homeschooling adventure, our history text had a sizable section on Middle Eastern history, focusing on Israel. Up until then my understanding of the nuances of the modern-day conflict was pretty minimal. Still, I’m no expert, but I thought the historical overview might be useful right now. It is something I had been intending to cover, even before Glenn Beck set up his Restoring Courage event there. But I’m pleased he’s doing it. 

This is going to take a few days. Today we’ll cover the background, the ancient history. Next comes the Zionist movement in the early 1900s. Then we’ll cover the history of modern Israel. I don’t know exactly how many days this will take, but as long as this is, it’s only a thumbnail version. I hope you find it useful.

Ancient History

Abraham was an inhabitant of the region at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea around 2000 BC. In his old age he and his wife Sarah had a son named Isaac. He also had a slightly older son named Ishmael, with Sarah’s handmaid Hagar as a surrogate, since Sarah had reached old age childless. To this day there is contention about which of the two sons is the birthright son—the one Abraham nearly sacrificed. I believe the Bible version with Isaac, but the Arab world, some descending from Ishmael, claim it is him. This is just to point out how very long the memory of differences is 

Isaac had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. Jacob received the birthright, also with some controversy, since he was born literally on the heels of his brother, mainly because he cared about the birthright and Esau was willing to give it up for a mess of pottage (food). 

Jacob was renamed Israel; he had twelve sons, who headed (to make a long story shorter) twelve tribes of people. The brothers were jealous of one of the younger sons, Joseph, and sold him to travelers on the way to Egypt. Joseph ended up thriving there, rising from slavery to just below the pharaoh. At a time of famine, he managed grain so the people didn’t starve.  

Meanwhile, Israel and his sons were experiencing famine back in Israel’s land. They traveled to Egypt to request help, and Joseph managed a reconciliation. They ended up relocating to Egypt, and in time this large family grew to appear a threat to later Egyptian leaders, who enslaved them. This was not personal ownership-type slavery; it was oppression of the people as a whole. 

Eventually Moses came along, helping bring about the release of the House of Israel (the total group of twelve tribes). After 50 years of wandering in the wilderness, they were led back to the original land of Israel, assigning each tribe its own land, covering what is now Israel and beyond to, I believe Syria and Lebanon. So, since about 1500 BC the House of Israel has continuously held a presence in this land. 

There have been occupations, takeovers, and dispersals. Around 720 BC the Assyrians came in and captured much of the area, dispersing the northern ten tribes. The ones left were mainly the Jews, in and around Jerusalem, and Levi, the tribe without a land inheritance but who worked in the temple, essentially the cleric class, along with part of the tribe of Benjamin. The others were spread out who knows where. 

In 600 BC the Babylonians came in and took over. They captured many of the ruling class and took them to Babylon. This included Daniel (of the lion’s den) and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (who were thrown into the fiery furnace for refusing to worship any god but the One True God and were spared in the fire). Around 450 BC many were able to return to those still in Israel, and were able to rebuild and rededicate their temple. 

By the time of Christ, the Romans had taken over, occupying the land and managing it with their governors. In 70 AD there was a destruction of the temple. And from this time the Jews were unable to regain their autonomy there. Most were dispersed across the diaspora (the world outside of Israel). The Romans renamed the area Palestine. 

Following the fall of Rome and the rise of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman Turks ruled the area from about 1517 AD. At this point the coastal area was mostly swamps and desolate rocky-strewn mountains. Small numbers of Jews continued to live there, but also nomadic Arabs. Most Jews lived in European countries. Some countries welcomed them, but most persecuted and despised them. Always the Jews remained a singular people, indentifying with one another, rather than totally assimilating into their various societies. And they continued to long to return someday to their homeland in Israel.

The story of Zionism in Part II tomorrow.

Number Crunching

A couple of days ago I accidentally listened to part of the president’s speech (while trying to listen to something else), and I heard him say some things that were remarkably vague but clearly untrue. One was that, even though our nation’s credit rating has been downgraded below triple-A, he (who has been around the world apologizing for this terrible country that embarrasses him) insists that we always have been and always will be a triple-A country. That sounds like a disappointed parent of a youth sports team who tells the kids, “Even though they got more runs that you did, even though they performed better on the field, and even though we lost the game by all the usual measures, you’re still a winning team to me.” Right. Any kid hearing that would know what it really meant—they lost the game by not performing well enough. 

The other thing Obama said was that any solutions to our economic woes must include making the rich pay their fair share. I’m pretty sure I know what he means by that—more from me. But when listeners hear him say it and go, “Yeah, make those rich guys pay their fair share,” what do they have in mind?  

I asked my son Political Sphere if he knew, and he said he’d heard there was a study asking that question, and most people said they thought it would be about 25% of income. He said the whole percentage of the total tax burden that they pay isn’t what the envious poor are looking at; the pound of flesh they require is a quarter taken out of every dollar earned by those rich people (but not from themselves). 

I did some research; I didn’t find that particular study. But let’s go with that assumption and do some number crunching, first with percentage of total tax burden, and then also with that magical 25% number. 

The numbers we’ll use are from the IRS 2010 report (even though I’ll be using 2011 budget numbers, so the best we can do is estimate). Warning: math ahead, but nothing we can’t handle. The numbers are big, but the functions are pretty simple. 

Percentages of Taxes Paid

There were 139,960,580 tax returns (including only those with positive adjusted gross income—people who earned money). These earners reported an adjusted gross income totaling $8,426,625,000,000 ($8.5 Trillion). On that income they paid a total of $1,031,512,000,000 (a Trillion and some change). That’s only a quarter of the annual budget, so it’s good that income isn’t the only measure of GDP, and income tax isn’t the only source of revenue. 

The top 1% includes millionaires and billionaires, but also anyone making $380,354 a year or more; average in this group was $1.2 Million—wealthy, but not filthy rich. This percentile earned a total of $1,685,472,000,000 ($1.6 Trillion) and paid $392,149,000,000 (nearly $400 Billion). [Save these numbers; we’ll come back to them.] They earned 20% of total income and paid 38% of total income taxes. 

The top 5% needed to earn $159,619 to merit the honor of this category. (Note: all the US legislative branch and the president are at least in this category.) They earn 34.73% of income and pay 58.72% of income tax. Fair?  

The coveted top 10% earn at least $113,799. They earn 45.77% of income and pay 69.94% (round to 70%) of taxes. This is the category our household has inched its way into, following college degrees, graduate school, student loan payments, and nearly three decades of hard work and experience.  

Now for a paradigm shift. Average per capita income in the US is $47,500, in the top 10 nations worldwide. That means that an “average” household—married couple with two kids—would need to earn $190,000 to meet the average. They would need to be well into the top 5% of earners as a household. Our household (temporarily) has nine. To meet the average, we would need income of $427,500, far into the top 1% range. Instead, we earn about $30,000 less per capita than the average, explaining why we live in one just-below-median-cost home instead of several separate residences (just for this year, or part of this year, so don’t start up a donation fund or anything).[*] 

The point is, there is good reason we don’t feel rich. But we are considered a target by those who think we’re not paying our fair share. 

Just for completion, the top 25% earn $67,280 or more a year. They earn 67.38% of income and pay 86.34% (sometimes rounded to 90%) of taxes. 

The top 50% earn 87.25% (again close to 90%) of income, and pay 97.30%. So that resentful bottom half earns 12.75% of income and is paying only 2.7% of taxes. Fair?

Percentage Per Dollar Earned

OK, now for the all-important part about percentage per dollar earned. Those bottom 50% who want the rich to pay their fair share must define fair as “almost 10 times more per dollar earned than I pay,” because that bottom 50% is paying an average effective tax rate of just 2.59%. And, to be honest, only the top earners of the bottom 50% are paying that; the rest are paying nothing. Or less than nothing—receiving earned income tax credit, or possibly getting government handouts in the form of student grants, food stamps, or subsidized housing. 

But we want those top earners to be paying 25%; that’s what’s important, right? And they’re only paying an average effective tax rate of 23.27%. What’s with that? What it is is only part of the story.  

The top tax tier, you may know, is about 36%--that is, 36 cents out of every dollar earned above a certain income level. It will go up if Obama raises that upper rate to what it was before across-the-board Bush tax cuts nearly a decade ago. So their “richest” dollars are taxed well beyond the 25-cent fair level. That rate has been at times 78% (Reagan dropped it drastically, thus increasing revenue) and even 90% back during the Depression.  

But not all of their income is taxed that way. That’s right—because we have a progressive tax and not a flat tax.  

Also, some income of higher earners (and also some lower earners) comes in forms other than wages. They earn capital gains, for example, which are taxed at 15-25%. There’s a reason for the lower rate—to encourage capital investment, which equates to economic growth and jobs. And you have to remember that, when a person (you, even) invests capital, you’re taking a risk. The government doesn’t come in and give you a refund on your losses. Sunk costs are sunk. So, if an investor is expected to risk his capital, he needs to be able to accumulate enough growth that it doesn’t disappear into tax payments the moment he cashes it out; that would prevent him from reinvesting that money in another capital project. So raising that rate might look “fair,” but it would result in a worse economy and higher unemployment—also defined as a 100% tax on laid-off workers’ income.

The Answer You’re Looking For

For the sake of argument, what if we did “fairly” tax the top 1% of income earners at a flat 25%, just them? Their total income (you kept this number in mind from above, right?) is $1,685,472,000,000. So at 25% the tax revenue would be $421,368,000,000; that is $29,219,000,000 ($29.2 Billion) more—assuming all of it would be collected, meaning that the top 1% would behave no differently, make no attempt to put their income into other investments, or out of the country, or that they would refuse to bother earning the additional income.  

In the world of Washington spending, $29 Billion is a rounding error. Payroll for some random department.  

What if we included ALL the rich, those like us who make at least $113,799 a year? The total income of the top 10% (that includes, of course the top 5% and top 1%, by definition) is a little over $3.8 Trillion. Let’s say we raise the rate from 18.71% to 25% to be “fair.” Assuming no changes in behavior [which is impossible; read about the Laffer Curve], you could ideally increase revenue by $243 Billion (rounded up).  

Spending for 2011 is estimated to be $3.8 Trillion, with a deficit (less revenue than spending) of $1.27 Trillion. This hypothetical additional revenue would reduce this single year deficit to $1.03 Trillion. Not much of a dent. 

If we stopped fussing about who makes how much and just across the board taxed everybody 25 cents of every dollar earned (not including state and local, FICA, etc., that are not in this set of numbers at all), then we’d be bringing in not a mere $1.032 Trillion (total tax from all filers), but $2.11 Trillion. We’d reduce the deficit by $1.075 Trillion, still in the hole (with a painful chunk taken out of everyone’s paycheck).

How Much Is Enough?

What tax rate would we need to pay to meet this year’s expenditures? A little over 45%. From every income earner, rich to poverty-stricken.  

That’s just for this year. Obama insists that just about everything that can be cut has been cut, so you would need to expect another 45% to be taken out next year too. And that wouldn’t be to pay off the national debt. No, that would be just to keep our heads above water and not have to raise the debt ceiling yet again. 

Or, we can disregard everything this president says and do what it takes to cut spending to the specific lawful expenditures enumerated in the Constitution.

---

[*] My son Economic Sphere read this and wondered about the high per capita income number, so I tracked it down. It is most likely per capita GDP, which is higher (like revenue without subtracting expenses in a business). One stat I located put 2009 per capita income at $27,000 or so, which may be closer to accurate. If you want to redo the math for this paragraph, it would mean a family of four would earn $108,000, still nearly in the top 10% category. Our huge household would need $243,000 to be average—so the point that we would need to be rich to feel average still holds. I got the original stat, and the chart of IRS stats I used, from here: http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/