10
   

Everyone Has This Tax Argument Wrong

 
 
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2010 08:01 am
Instead of deciding who gets a continued tax break... just let the damn things expire for EVERYONE. If you are single and make the very top of the 25% bracket... your taxes will rise 2500.00. If you are a married couple at the top of the 25% bracket yout taxes will rise 4185.00.

Do you stop for coffee every day 5 days a week while working?
783.00

Do you smoke? cut out 1 pack a week
260.00

do you go out, especially if you're single and spend 20.00 a week on beverages? (a pittance)
1000.00

do you go out to eat one night a week and spend a pittance of 12.00?

624.00

do you eat luch out at work and spend a lousy 4.00 a meal (Less than Mcdonalds money)
1040.00

That right there is 3083.00 a year which means if you're single you've paid for the 3% with just under 600.00 to spare .

If you're married and filing on 139, 500.00 a year in income you'll have to find a way to save an additional 1000.00 a year. Boo Hoo.

I just had one of the worst financial years I've had in 20, but I'm only too willing to see a stinking 3% rise in my taxes to get the country in better shape for my great grandchildren.

EVERYONE needs to cut the damn whining and step up. We're not the country we were when the boomers were growing up and we probably never will be. Adjust.

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/nation-world-news/will-you-pay-more-when-bush-tax-cuts-expire--646402.html?bigName=&bigPhotog=&bigCap=How+the+expiration+of+President+Bush's+tax+cuts+might+affect+you+in+2011&bigDeclCap=&bigCred=&bigUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ohio-share.coxnewsweb.com%2fmultimedia%2fdynamic%2f00668%2fddn041110taxesgd_668287c.jpg&superSizeImage=y
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 10:16 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
I agree. We need the tax increase to pay down the debt. The dems are showing a lack of balls AGAIN. God I wish there was a viable third party to vote for instead of the parties of dumb and dumber. Let the repubs kill help for the unemployed so they can cut thier own throats.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 10:33 am
Agreed. And this may end up actually happening; spending bills have to originate in the House, and the current House isn't going to pass a tax-cuts-for-the-rich spending bill.

I guess the current one will probably expire, and the weak-ass Dems in the Senate will sign a bill that the Republicans put forward next year.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 11:04 am
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

I agree. We need the tax increase to pay down the debt.


Wrong!
Tax increases end up reducing revenues.


We need to cut taxes and we need government spending to be decreased.
rabel22
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:14 pm
@H2O MAN,
I dont usually reply to you but in this case I will make an exception. A tax increase will give the government more revenue which will enable them to pay down the debt. Your contention that more taxes lowers revenue is stupid. A rock has twice the intellegance you have or will ever have. Now I will continue to ignore your stupid posts.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:22 pm
It seems that Obama has once again caved into the conseratives. the rich will get thier thousands of dollars in tax breakes while the middle class gets its hundreds. I will not vote for Obama in the next election. This leaves me in a very bad position because I cant vote for any conserative that might run for president at this time unless they come up with a completely new candidate. I think the conseratives are out of thier mind dissing Obama because he is the most conserative democrat since Clinton. I will vote but not for Obama!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:26 pm
@rabel22,
Yeah, we need to pay down the debt. Tax increases result in higher spending.
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:33 pm
@roger,
The tax rate and the spending rate have become completely disconnected. Bush's theory was the cutting taxes would force spending cuts, but even though his party controlled all three branches of government, spending did not get cut. Let's return to the Clinton tax rate so we can at least start paying for what we spend.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 04:14 pm
@engineer,
I forgot. Spending would only be limited by revenues if congress lost the ability to authorize debt.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 04:44 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

I forgot. Spending would only be limited by revenues if congress lost the ability to authorize debt.


... which we don't want to happen, because when emergencies come up, it's handy to have the ability to do so.

Why can't we all agree to just go back to the model of the late 90's? Lower spending, higher taxes, especially on the wealthy. It's the only time in my entire LIFE that Washington has had a budget surplus! How can this not be seen as the model of success for our nation?

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 04:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Because Bill Clinton got a bj from a woman who was not his wife.

<sigh>
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:15 pm
It looks like they'll do the exact opposite, and press for a 2-year extension on the rates in exchange for a bunch of votes on things like START, DADT and unemployment extensions.

Sigh is right.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It's sausage-making though.

START, DADT and unemployment extensions are all important, too.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:20 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

It's sausage-making though.

START, DADT and unemployment extensions are all important, too.


I dunno. I'm the biggest Obama supporter on this board and I am really getting sick of this bullshit.

I don't care that Obama can't get everything done - that's politics - but I care that he doesn't even fight for stuff. He didn't fight for these tax cuts on the rich to expire, he has no clue how to play hardball at all. Frustrating.

All he had to do is come out and have a press conference 6 months ago and announce that he just wouldn't sign any bill that keeps tax rates on the rich low - period. That he would veto any and all bills that contain that language. It would have changed the game dramatically. But, he's surrounded by Rubinites on his economic team and probably is being fed a continual line of bullshit by them, so I don't know why I'm surprised...

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yeah he's not getting anything done at all (mightily resisting the urge to eyeroll)...

That's how this **** works. Checks and balances. We love checks and balances when an idiot is in power, hate it when one of our guys is in power.

You edited:

Quote:
All he had to do is come out and have a press conference 6 months ago and announce that he just wouldn't sign any bill that keeps tax rates on the rich low - period. That he would veto any and all bills that contain that language. It would have changed the game dramatically.


And then he gives up a powerful bargaining tool. How is that better?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:29 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Yeah he's not getting anything done at all (mightily resisting the urge to eyeroll)...


Now now, don't exaggerate. You know I'm behind the guy and his accomplishments through my posting here.

Quote:
That's how this **** works. Checks and balances. We love checks and balances when an idiot is in power, hate it when one of our guys is in power.

You edited:

Quote:
All he had to do is come out and have a press conference 6 months ago and announce that he just wouldn't sign any bill that keeps tax rates on the rich low - period. That he would veto any and all bills that contain that language. It would have changed the game dramatically.


And then he gives up a powerful bargaining tool. How is that better?


It's not giving up a bargaining tool - it's USING a bargaining tool. The veto is a bargaining tool. He has the ability to set the rules of the match to a certain extent - if he simply used them. He chose not to. Not only that, it would have given House and Senate Dems cover to push these votes before the election - which would have gotten the policy we wanted with none of this bullshit hostage situation.

I'm also of the opinion that allowing these tax rates to remain low is absolutely disastrous to the future of our society; in a way that DADT and START simply are not. It is more important to have reasonable tax policy than it is to deal with social issues. And this does nothing but allow Republicans to claim the high ground over and over, with their one-way tax ratchet. At some point taxes will have to go back up on everyone. You and I know it and Obama probably knows it too. But he doesn't have the guts to do anything about it, and neither do the Dems in Congress.

Pelosi should flat-out refuse to put this bill forward; the Dems in the Senate should filibuster their own leadership on this issue.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
START isn't a social issue. And there are meta issues of continuing to be the collaborative guy, especially with this new group of Republicans, so it's very clear that he's the one who's trying and they're the ones who are being obstructionist. He's never ever been the unilateral my way or the highway guy, not as a Senator or a candidate or as President.

I have no doubt that he'd prefer to let the tax cuts expire. However it's also something he can take another whack at down the line. And so everything has to be looked at big picture, give this to get that.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:42 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

START isn't a social issue.


START is a 100% non-binding treaty. It's window-dressing, stopping no country from doing anything. At best it allows us to tut tut at Russia if they don't do what we like. It is a social issue.

Quote:
And there are meta issues of continuing to be the collaborative guy, especially with this new group of Republicans, so it's very clear that he's the one who's trying and they're the ones who are being obstructionist.


I just think this is a flawed analysis on his part, because the public will never know that the Republicans are the ones being obstructionist. It is impossible to be more obstructionist than the Republicans have been over the last two years, and nobody other than us politicos knows **** about that. Nobody. This is already as clear as it's going to get. So what is the point of this strategy?

Quote:
He's never ever been the unilateral my way or the highway guy, not as a Senator or a candidate or as President.

I have no doubt that he'd prefer to let the tax cuts expire. However it's also something he can take another whack at down the line. And so everything has to be looked at big picture, give this to get that.


Yeah, nothing like a 2012 presidential campaign in which the other side has a tax issue to use as a big stick. That's going to work out just great for Obama and the Dems in two years. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The midterms and presidential elections are really different balls of wax.

I think changing who he is in a core way midstream doesn't help anything, either. Being consistent while continuing to get stuff done (and yes, he so is, I know you agree I'm just reiterating) is by far the better strategy IMO, both in policy terms and political terms.

I said this before recently but it does seem to keep getting lost, he's less than halfway through his first term. He has between two and six more years to get craploads of stuff done. He's always been the big-picture finesse guy. People get all anxious about short-term stuff and then lo and behold, long-term he makes it happen.

edit: "It" is pretty general here. "It" is never going to be all that the most lefty voters want, nor all that the most righty voters fear. He is was and always will be a moderate.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 05:52 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

The midterms and presidential elections are really different balls of wax.

I think changing who he is in a core way midstream doesn't help anything, either. Being consistent while continuing to get stuff done (and yes, he so is, I know you agree I'm just reiterating) is by far the better strategy IMO, both in policy terms and political terms.

I said this before recently but it does seem to keep getting lost, he's less than halfway through his first term. He has between two and six more years to get craploads of stuff done. He's always been the big-picture finesse guy. People get all anxious about short-term stuff and then lo and behold, long-term he makes it happen.


Yah, and I get that, but it's difficult to see why they did what they did in this case. I mean, why not push to get the tax issue solved over the Summer? The Dems clearly could have done it in either half of Congress (Reconciliation in the Senate). So why did they not do so?

It's got me upset because rates of taxation could accurately be described as my core issue. Every year which passes in which we continue this incredible idiocy of pretending that low taxes - on everyone, but especially on the wealthy - works, is another year that just destroys us as a nation in the future. Then, Republicans turn around and use those deficits (ran up by their insistence of rock-bottom taxes) to justify spending cuts. Standing by calmly while the other side goes about a very effective strategy to demolish everything you care about that has happened in the last 50 years is not an option... especially when you get so little in return! Nothing in return. Because this all could have been done, and over with, far earlier.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Everyone Has This Tax Argument Wrong
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 04:41:25