SDW, the massive tax hike in question, proposed by the Republicans, opposed by Obama's proposal, is letting the payroll tax cuts expire.
I'm waiting for you to somehow say that's not a tax hike, since they were scheduled to expire anyway (while conveniently forgetting about the Bush tax cuts).
The GOP is so screwed up with their all or nothing attitude they can't even get along with their own people who might want to compromise!
This is why they need a reality check and stop just saying " No " before they ruin their image for many years to come.
SDW, the massive tax hike in question, proposed by the Republicans, opposed by Obama's proposal, is letting the payroll tax cuts expire.
I'm waiting for you to somehow say that's not a tax hike, since they were scheduled to expire anyway (while conveniently forgetting about the Bush tax cuts).
Sorry...I had forgotten. That is not anywhere near a "massive" tax hike. It's quite small, actually. Regardless, I've never supported it because it takes funds directly away from Medicare and SS. It's a different animal than the income tax, which goes into the general fund.
The GOP is so screwed up with their all or nothing attitude they can't even get along with their own people who might want to compromise!
This is why they need a reality check and stop just saying " No " before they ruin their image for many years to come.
That's an odd interpretation. In fact, it's downright bizarre. The point of the article is that the hard right (fiscally speaking) is unhappy with Boehner's offer, which represents the party leadership's position. The offer is more moderate than they would like. How is that an "all or nothing" approach?
By contrast, it is Obama who is completely unwilling to compromise. He has stated that any deal requires higher tax rates on the rich (not just revenue from other sources). Do you think that's reasonable?
How about we uncap the payroll tax, one of the most regressive taxes that we have? Note, it has been raided for the general fund for years and years. Republicans complain about those who don't pay income tax, but when the surplus of the payroll tax goes into the general fund, those who pay social security in the 47% are damn well paying the equivalent of federal income taxes.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Sorry...I had forgotten. That is not anywhere near a "massive" tax hike. It's quite small, actually. Regardless, I've never supported it because it takes funds directly away from Medicare and SS. It's a different animal than the income tax, which goes into the general fund.
That's an odd interpretation. In fact, it's downright bizarre. The point of the article is that the hard right (fiscally speaking) is unhappy with Boehner's offer, which represents the party leadership's position. The offer is more moderate than they would like. How is that an "all or nothing" approach?
By contrast, it is Obama who is completely unwilling to compromise. He has stated that any deal requires higher tax rates on the rich (not just revenue from other sources). Do you think that's reasonable?
In what world is the Republican offer moderate in the least? Oh right, the parallel one that Republicans have constructed. Maybe parallel universe Obama actually was sitting in Clint Eastwood's chair and only Republicans could see him.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Or we could start be cutting spending. A lot. On many things. Not just defense.
This would, of course, lead to exposing an uncomfortable reality about what most the federal budget consists of.
It would also require an admission that maybe there are some things the government shouldn't be doing or should be doing much less of.
We surely don't want that.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
How about we uncap the payroll tax, one of the most regressive taxes that we have?
I think that's a good idea, actually.
Yes.
Uh, no. Not even close. Employees normally pay 6.2% (less now), and another 1.45% for Medicare. That's 7.65%. I don't know many people who have that very low effective tax rate on income taxes. And remember, employees who do pay federal income taxes are paying those taxes (effective 10-25% or more) PLUS the payroll tax.
You do understand that we have people earning $30-50,000 a year or more who are paying no income taxes, right? Do you not see this as a problem?
In what world is the Republican offer moderate in the least? Oh right, the parallel one that Republicans have constructed. Maybe parallel universe Obama actually was sitting in Clint Eastwood's chair and only Republicans could see him.
I don't see how you support that. No matter how you slice it, Republicans are offering $800 billion in tax increases. They just aren't touching rates. That is quite moderate compared to what the more fiscally conservative members of the party want. Boehner is even now starting to purge the real fiscal conservatives from leadership positions. What makes you think their position is not moderate?
Or we could start be cutting spending. A lot. On many things. Not just defense.
This would, of course, lead to exposing an uncomfortable reality about what most the federal budget consists of.
It would also require an admission that maybe there are some things the government shouldn't be doing or should be doing much less of.
We surely don't want that.
Yeah, that would rip a hole in the space-time continuum for sure. Seriously though, it shows what complete bullshit this political freak-circus is. Neither party is willing to do anything serious to fix our financial situation, reduce spending and taxes, etc. This is one reason I've started to take the "**** it, let's go over the so-called cliff" position. At least then we'd get some somewhat significant spending cuts.
Honestly, I am starting to understand the position Jazz took on the recent election. I still think Romney would have been a far, far better alternative to Obama, but the GOP is just as corrupt and dysfunctional as the Democrats are. They're just not quite the snarky dicks that the Dems are.
...research, history and economics have demonstrated that raising taxes isn't an effective pro-growth solution.
First, there is no evidence that tax increases will actually solve our troubles. On the contrary, years of data from around the world show that when nations try to solve a fiscal crisis primarily by raising tax revenues, they tend to fail. In contrast, fiscal approaches based on entitlement reform and spending cuts tend to succeed.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Because growth creates prosperity for more people.
Not necessarily. It depends on where it starts and the rate at which it's growing.
Is a healthy economy always "growing"?
In practice, yes. I suppose it's possible for it not to be growing, though.
You've got it backwards. The economy is a result of society, not the other way around. The American economy became the world's strongest because of our system of government, ideals, etc. These ideals came not from the state, but from the individual. This is what you fail to understand.
Yes, probably.
A growing one.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
That is simply and purely wrong. Please allow me to explain why:
Many small businesses do not file their taxes on corporate returns. They file as Subchapter-S corps, meaning they pay taxes as if they were individuals. Obviously, rate increases affect them dramatically. Going from a 35% top rate to a 39.6% rate is, in fact, a 25% tax increase. That money would have been used to expand business, invest in equipment, facilities and employees. Owner after owner has talked about what kind of effect this will have, and it's not good. I won't even get into the massive cost increases nearly ALL businesses will face once Obamacare is fully implemented.
Now, what the President and his surrogates have claimed is that "97% of businesses" aren't affected by the change. From what I can tell, this is an accurate statement. However, it's also highly misleading. The reason is the 97% figure merely represents a percentage of the total number of businesses (i.e. 9,700 out of 10,000 businesses). But here's the rub: Those 3% of businesses actually employ about one quarter of all workers in America. Think that might affect the economy and workers in general?
You might next be tempted to go the Obama debate route on this by throwing out a "Donald Trump is a small business according to you" sort of line. So let's discuss what a small business actually is. Hint: It's not a just a Mom and Pop candy store. These are businesses with anywhere from one to 1,500 employees and revenues from $1 to $20,000,000. These businesses provide the lion's share of jobs in an economic recovery, so raising their taxes is clearly an issue.
This, tonton, is why the GOP is offering to raise taxes on "the rich," but through specifically targeted deductions and the closing of loopholes. These can be crafted in a way that avoids penalizing small and medium sized business. It raises an equal or greater amount of revenue, but won't have as much of an effect on the economy. That being said (and as MJ points out), raising taxes on anyone will have an effect on the economy.
That's not necessarily true. Why is the wealth gap an indicator of economic health? And you do realize that inflation is practically non-existent right now, right? Speaking of which, which person is implementing policies that will lead to huge inflation down the road?
Sorry to parse a sentence, but I wanted to address just this. What you need to understand is that everyone wants to the poor to be better off. We disagree on how to achieve it. Expanding entitlements, social programs, public sector employment, stimulus, direct cash assistance etc only ends up hurting the poor and keeping them, well, poor.
That is not a healthy economic result. It's simply a result that satisfies your antipathy towards evil, greedy rich people. In reality it represents a stagnant economy paired with destruction of wealth. No, the "rich" losing 10% of their net worth won't kill them, just as them going from 35% to 39.6% won't kill them tax-wise. But that is entirely besides the point. The important point is the flawed underlying assumptions that you and all socialists make: You think that the rich become poorer so the poor can become richer. When the Eat the Rich mentality is enshrined in subsequent policy decisions, only the first part of the statement becomes true. And eventually, you realize what most of Europe is starting to realize: There simply aren't enough rich people to tax.
.
That is simply and purely wrong. Please allow me to explain why:
Many small businesses do not file their taxes on corporate returns. They file as Subchapter-S corps, meaning they pay taxes as if they were individuals. Obviously, rate increases affect them dramatically. Going from a 35% top rate to a 39.6% rate is, in fact, a 25% tax increase. That money would have been used to expand business, invest in equipment, facilities and employees. Owner after owner has talked about what kind of effect this will have, and it's not good. I won't even get into the massive cost increases nearly ALL businesses will face once Obamacare is fully implemented.
Now, what the President and his surrogates have claimed is that "97% of businesses" aren't affected by the change. From what I can tell, this is an accurate statement. However, it's also highly misleading. The reason is the 97% figure merely represents a percentage of the total number of businesses (i.e. 9,700 out of 10,000 businesses). But here's the rub: Those 3% of businesses actually employ about one quarter of all workers in America. Think that might affect the economy and workers in general?
You might next be tempted to go the Obama debate route on this by throwing out a "Donald Trump is a small business according to you" sort of line. So let's discuss what a small business actually is. Hint: It's not a just a Mom and Pop candy store. These are businesses with anywhere from one to 1,500 employees and revenues from $1 to $20,000,000. These businesses provide the lion's share of jobs in an economic recovery, so raising their taxes is clearly an issue.
This, tonton, is why the GOP is offering to raise taxes on "the rich," but through specifically targeted deductions and the closing of loopholes. These can be crafted in a way that avoids penalizing small and medium sized business. It raises an equal or greater amount of revenue, but won't have as much of an effect on the economy. That being said (and as MJ points out), raising taxes on anyone will have an effect on the economy.
Like I said, perhaps if you were actually part of the 2%, you'd have first hand knowledge. I wonder what representatives of the 2% are saying about the issue.
This is an interesting statement. Are you part of that 2%?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I know.
This needs to be broken apart because you are conflating issues a bit.
First, why is the "wealth gap" a concern?
Second, what does the "wealth gap" have to do with inflation?
Third, do you understand how inflation happens and who is creating it?
This may be true in the short term but not in the long term.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Like I said, perhaps if you were actually part of the 2%, you'd have first hand knowledge. I wonder what representatives of the 2% are saying about the issue.
Like I said, perhaps if you actually were a small business owner, you'd have first hand knowledge. I wonder what representatives of business are saying about the issue.
TFTFY
Like I said, perhaps if you actually were a small business owner, you'd have first hand knowledge. I wonder what representatives of business are saying about the issue.
TFTFY
The real irony (and hypocrisy) here is that I'm quite sure that tonton is not part of the 2% but wishes to speak with authority about what they can afford and how they will react to changes in the tax code, but then attempts here to dismiss anything you or I say based on the fact that we are not part of the 2% and cannot speak with any first-hand knowledge about how these changes might affect them or alter they behavior.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The real irony (and hypocrisy) here is that I'm quite sure that tonton is not part of the 2% but wishes to speak with authority about what they can afford and how they will react to changes in the tax code, but then attempts here to dismiss anything you or I say based on the fact that we are not part of the 2% and cannot speak with any first-hand knowledge about how these changes might affect them or alter they behavior.
I know. I also would be interested to see who he thinks the top 2% actually are. According to what I can find, the top 2% is anyone over $250,000 a year. This fits with the Obama mantra of pushing for tax rates on incomes above that level. From what I recall, his line is $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Now, $250,000 is not a small amount of money. My wife and I don't earn quite that much, but we're going to get there at some point...probably within 10 years. $125,000/year jobs are not at all uncommon in today's workplace. That's the salary of many school administrators, teachers at the maximum pay step in affluent school districts, middle level executives, etc. In my field, a principal or supervisor married to a mid-level or middle-upper level manager at an insurance company (cough cough) could achieve that well before retirement. Are they well off? I'd say so. But rich? Hardly. And this affects the economy tremendously, because these upper-middle income people/almost rich people consume. If you hit them with 25% tax increase, they are going to consume less.
I also would be interested to see who he thinks the top 2% actually are.
They are buying Ferraris and 3rd houses.
Now, $250,000 is not a small amount of money. My wife and I don't earn quite that much, but we're going to get there at some point...probably within 10 years. $125,000/year jobs are not at all uncommon in today's workplace.
I know many couples that are pretty middle class that certainly make that much between the two of them. Two professionals in a high-tech careers and hi-tech industries.
That doesn't even touch the disparate costs of living in different areas. I suspect that $250K/year almost anywhere in CA or NY is different from that same amount in the south or midwest.
And this affects the economy tremendously, because these upper-middle income people/almost rich people consume. If you hit them with 25% tax increase, they are going to consume less.
Actually...they have a lower propensity to consume and a higher propensity to save (invest). So "the rich" actually are the primary investors. That's why a tax increase on them would be more damaging.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
They are buying Ferraris and 3rd houses.
LOL.
Me too.
Yeah, I didn't even get to that. It's a huge issue. I recall reading a post here about 5-10 years ago. It was on the topic of getting a "first job" right out of college in the Silicon Valley area. The offer--even at the time--was $80K. The OP said he couldn't even consider it as the money was insufficient. Even understanding cost of living pretty well (I thought), I was surprised to learn that it was basically impossible to exist on that salary if one wanted to live within 90 minutes of work. Good point.
They definitely have a higher propensity to invest. But I don't know if I agree with a lower propensity to consume. They do tend to spend less of their total income, but that's because less of it goes to needs. Not to be a pain, but do you have any links/articles to support that? I'd be interested to read about that.
They do tend to spend less of their total income, but that's because less of it goes to needs.
In economic terms that's what I mean: As income rises a smaller percentage goes to consumption and larger percentage goes to savings/investment. This it explains it in more technical detail. See also: propensity to save and propensity to consume.
Not to be a pain, but do you have any links/articles to support that? I'd be interested to read about that.
I'll see if I can find any. But it is generally wide accepted and understood that propensity to save increases with income (and conversely propensity to consume changes inversely to income changes.) This is generally not a controversial claim (though there may debates about the precise degrees of the changes) except among liberals who assume that all the rich do is buy Ferraris and extra homes.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
In economic terms that's what I mean: As income rises a smaller percentage goes to consumption and larger percentage goes to savings/investment. This it explains it in more technical detail. Seaa also: propensity to save and propensity to consume.
I'll see if I can find any. But it is generally wide accepted and understood that propensity to save increases with income (and conversely propensity to consume changes inversely to income changes.) This is generally not a controversial claim (though there may debates about the precise degrees of the changes) except among liberals who assume that all the rich do is buy Ferraris and extra homes.
Oh, I see. For some reason I wasn't thinking along the same lines (economic terms). Understood and agreed.
This is just amazing.
WH 'Absolutely' Willing To Go Off 'Fiscal Cliff'
So the Obama administration is absolutely willing to raise taxes on everyone if it can't get tax increases on the "rich", meanwhile polls suggest that Americans are dumb enough to be blaming the Republicans if that happens.
Priceless.
You can't make this shit up.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
This is just amazing.
WH 'Absolutely' Willing To Go Off 'Fiscal Cliff'
So the Obama administration is absolutely willing to raise taxes on everyone if it can't get tax increases on the "rich", meanwhile polls suggest that Americans are dumb enough to be blaming the Republicans if that happens.
Priceless.
You can't make this shit up.
No, you can't. I find it amazing that despite record deficits and debt, the electorate still thought (according to exit polls) that the Democrats were more fiscally responsible. Obama has been blaming Bush since taking office, and probably longer. 4 years and we're still hearing crap like "Bush paid for two wars on a credit card" and " Bush cut taxes for the rich and wrecked the economy." The stupidity and ignorance is amazing.
As for the cliff: While I'll shared my thoughts on these useless negotiations, I do think there is a "third way" here, at least politically (we both know that neither party is going to do what needs to be done, so let's get that off the table right now). Other than walking away, the GOP could come to Obama and very publicly propose:
1. The rate increases on "the rich" Obama has been crowing about.
BUT
2. These rate hikes do not apply to small businesses.
AND
3. Spending cuts that go beyond what the current GOP proposal is (significantly*).
That's right...give Obama the rope to...well, you know** He's tied himself to these rate increases in the press like white on rice. So give them to him and then let him explain why he won't support the bill. What will his reason be then? He wants to raise taxes on small business? He won't accept spending cuts? Both make him look incredibly bad. It's using the Dems own tactics against them. Their plan is to make the GOP vote for/against middle class tax "cuts" as a standalone measure. So make them vote against the rate hikes they are married to.
*"Significant" relative to Washington, not to what we know needs to be done.
**Don't even go there. It's an expression, BR, tonton, et al.
As for the cliff: While I'll shared my thoughts on these useless negotiations, I do think there is a "third way" here, at least politically (we both know that neither party is going to do what needs to be done, so let's get that off the table right now). Other than walking away, the GOP could come to Obama and very publicly propose:
1. The rate increases on "the rich" Obama has been crowing about.
BUT
2. These rate hikes do not apply to small businesses.
AND
3. Spending cuts that go beyond what the current GOP proposal is (significantly*).
That's right...give Obama the rope to...well, you know** He's tied himself to these rate increases in the press like white on rice. So give them to him and then let him explain why he won't support the bill. What will his reason be then? He wants to raise taxes on small business? He won't accept spending cuts? Both make him look incredibly bad. It's using the Dems own tactics against them. Their plan is to make the GOP vote for/against middle class tax "cuts" as a standalone measure. So make them vote against the rate hikes they are married to.
That's actually a good approach. We'd find out immediately how serious Obama is.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Pelosi says Obama should have power to unilaterally raise debt limit without Congress:
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Fixed that for Fred.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
No, I saw your point.
We can pick and chose statements from all sorts of people (in and out) if the 2% to support both claims. That's kind meaningless.
I noticed how you ignored the point though that you were dismissing those of us not in the 2% because we had no first hand experience, but then offered your analysis despite also lacking first hand experience.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Oh dear. Did someone have their sense of humor removed?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
