or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have $1T deficits become the new norm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have... - Page 4

post #121 of 238

1000

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #122 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

1000

 

The history of the last 30 years of Democrat tactics in one simple picture.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #123 of 238

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).

post #124 of 238

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!

 

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/04/15674350-boehners-fiscal-cliff-offer-under-friendly-fire-from-right?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

 

 

Quote:
Boehner's fiscal cliff offer under friendly fire from right

 

 

 

 

This is why they need a reality check and stop just saying " No "  before they ruin their image for many years to come.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #125 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

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!

 

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/04/15674350-boehners-fiscal-cliff-offer-under-friendly-fire-from-right?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

 

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?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #126 of 238

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.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“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.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #127 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

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.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“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.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #128 of 238
Thread Starter 

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.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

How about we uncap the payroll tax, one of the most regressive taxes that we have? 

 

I think that's a good idea, actually.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Note, it has been raided for the general fund for years and years.  

 

Yes.  

 

 

 

Quote:
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.

 

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?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

 

lol.gif  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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #130 of 238
Thread Starter 

Why tax increases don't work:

 

Quote:

...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.

 

American Enterprise Institute economists Kevin Hassett, Andrew Biggs and Matthew Jensen examined the experiences of 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries between 1970 and 2007. They found that countries with successful fiscal reforms, on average, closed 85% of their budget gaps with spending cuts. The countries with failed reforms, on average, relied at least 50% on tax increases. President Obama's strategy falls firmly in the latter camp. After discounting the accounting tricks that create fictitious spending cuts, the president's plan would impose about $3 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts.
 
That is, his approach would probably land America in the "failed attempt" column. Five years down the line, we would be in the same fiscal mess we are in today, just with higher taxes and a bigger government.
 
Second, tax hikes aimed at small segments of the population wouldn't raise much in revenues. Consider the "Buffett Rule" that the president spent many months promoting. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would raise about $47 billion over a decade. The federal government currently spends about $4 billion more per day than it takes in. The Buffett Rule, then, would raise about enough next year to cover 28 hours of government overspending. Heritage Foundation economist Curtis Dubay finds that closing the deficit solely by raising the two highest tax brackets would require hiking them to 159% and 166%, respectively.
 
Third, as economists and business executives have noted repeatedly, raising taxes on families earning over $250,000 per year is effectively a massive tax hike on small businesses. Most small businesses today organize as S-corporations or other pass-through entities; their income is taxed as personal income. A study by Ernst and Young shows that Obama's proposed tax hike would force these small businesses to eliminate about 710,000 jobs. Moreover, these households already bear a great deal of tax liability. According to the most recent Internal Revenue Service data, those earning $250,000 and above -- roughly 2% of all taxpayers -- earn 22% of income, but pay 45% of all federal income taxes.

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #131 of 238
"...research, history and economics have demonstrated that raising taxes isn't an effective pro-growth solution."

Why the emphasis on "growth"?

Is a "growing" economy a healthy one? Is a healthy economy always "growing"?

What I want to know is what kind of economy creates a better society for all people. Not "growth".
post #132 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"...research, history and economics have demonstrated that raising taxes isn't an effective pro-growth solution."
Why the emphasis on "growth"?

 

Because growth creates prosperity for more people.  

 

 

Quote:
Is a "growing" economy a healthy one? 

 

Not necessarily.  It depends on where it starts and the rate at which it's growing.  

 

 

Quote:

Is a healthy economy always "growing"?

 

 

In practice, yes.  I suppose it's possible for it not to be growing, though.  

 

 

 

Quote:
What I want to know is what kind of economy creates a better society for all people. Not "growth".

 

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"...research, history and economics have demonstrated that raising taxes isn't an effective pro-growth solution."
Why the emphasis on "growth"?
Is a "growing" economy a healthy one? Is a healthy economy always "growing"?

 

Yes, probably.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What I want to know is what kind of economy creates a better society for all people. Not "growth".

 

A growing one.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #134 of 238
Perhaps if you yourself were one of the top 2% you might have first hand knowledge that restoring slightly higher historical tax rates on the rich won't affect business.
post #135 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"...research, history and economics have demonstrated that raising taxes isn't an effective pro-growth solution."

Why the emphasis on "growth"?

Is a "growing" economy a healthy one? Is a healthy economy always "growing"?

Yes, probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What I want to know is what kind of economy creates a better society for all people. Not "growth".

A growing one.
I strongly disagree with you. Obviously, if the economy is growing, but the wealth gap is expanding, and the poor are getting poorer in comparison to inflation, that's a diseased economy.

While if the poor are becoming better off, and the rich are losing as much as 10% (honestly it won't kill them), then that's a healthy economic result, even if growth is stagnant.

You're claiming that a scenario like that is impossible. You're ignoring Europe.
post #136 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

"...research, history and economics have demonstrated that raising taxes isn't an effective pro-growth solution."
Why the emphasis on "growth"?
Is a "growing" economy a healthy one? Is a healthy economy always "growing"?
What I want to know is what kind of economy creates a better society for all people. Not "growth".

This is a good point. "Growth" as the answer to everything is a complete lie. How much more can we grow? If a hamster born today kept growing, soon it would be bigger than the Earth.

The challenge is to either figure out how to survive without growth, ie. sustainable economics (not "sustainable growth", no growth is sustainable in a closed system).

That or colonising other planets, Super-Earths (Gilese) etc. etc.

But for the Earth itself growth isn't going to solve many problems.
post #137 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Perhaps if you yourself were one of the top 2% you might have first hand knowledge that restoring slightly higher historical tax rates on the rich won't affect business.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I strongly disagree with you. Obviously, if the economy is growing, but the wealth gap is expanding, and the poor are getting poorer in comparison to inflation, that's a diseased 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?  

 

 

Quote:
While if the poor are becoming better off,

 

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.  

 

 

 

Quote:
and the rich are losing as much as 10% (honestly it won't kill them), then that's a healthy economic result, even if growth is stagnant.
You're claiming that a scenario like that is impossible. You're ignoring Europe

 

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.  

 

 

 

.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #139 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Perhaps if you yourself were one of the top 2% you might have first hand knowledge that restoring slightly higher historical tax rates on the rich won't affect business.

 

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.

post #140 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Perhaps if you yourself were one of the top 2% you might have first hand knowledge that restoring slightly higher historical tax rates on the rich won't affect business.

 

This is an interesting statement. Are you part of that 2%?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #141 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I strongly disagree with you.

 

I know.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obviously, if the economy is growing, but the wealth gap is expanding, and the poor are getting poorer in comparison to inflation, that's a diseased economy.

 

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?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

While if the poor are becoming better off, and the rich are losing as much as 10% (honestly it won't kill them), then that's a healthy economic result, even if growth is stagnant.

 

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.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #142 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #143 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

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.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #144 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

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 can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #145 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I also would be interested to see who he thinks the top 2% actually are.

 

They are buying Ferraris and 3rd houses.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 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.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #146 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

They are buying Ferraris and 3rd houses.

 


LOL.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
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.

 

Me too.  

 

 

 

Quote:
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.

 

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.  

 

 

Quote:
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.

 

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.  

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #147 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.


Edited by MJ1970 - 12/6/12 at 8:34am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #148 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #149 of 238
Thread Starter 

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.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #150 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #151 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #152 of 238
Thread Starter 

Pelosi says Obama should have power to unilaterally raise debt limit without Congress:

 

Quote:
In 2008, then-presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for raising the nation’s debt limit as “unpatriotic.” “The problem is that the way Bush has done it in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents. No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man woman and child. That’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic,” Obama said.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #153 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/05/top-two-percent-tax_n_2245596.html?icid=hp_front_top_art
Quote:
On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would kill jobs was simply "mythology."

Read on, it gets better.
post #154 of 238
Thread Starter 

Huh. You still avoided the point. How interesting.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would bring in enough revenue to be worth it was simply "mythology."

 

Fixed that for Fred.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #156 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would bring in enough revenue to be worth it was simply "mythology."

Fixed that for Fred.
Oh, that's mature.

What about the right wing bastion of the aerospace industry? I wonder what those billionaire executives have to say.
post #157 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Huh. You still avoided the point. How interesting.
I really consider you a smart (misguided) guy. But if you fail to see my point here, I'll have to reconsider that assessment.
post #158 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I really consider you a smart (misguided) guy. But if you fail to see my point here, I'll have to reconsider that assessment.

 

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.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 238
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, that's mature.

 

Oh dear. Did someone have their sense of humor removed?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What about the right wing bastion of the aerospace industry? I wonder what those billionaire executives have to say.

 

1confused.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #160 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I really consider you a smart (misguided) guy. But if you fail to see my point here, I'll have to reconsider that assessment.

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.
Then you did miss my point. I wasn't making a claim here at all. And if you can find others besides Trump who support your assertion then please share.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Fiscal Cliff: Will House Republicans cave on taxes? Will anyone actually cut spending? Have $1T deficits become the new norm?