From the Washington Post.
All this to protect the rich? What a bunch of fools. Someone has drunk too much kool ade.
Let’s look at the reality. We are coming out of a recession. Can we afford to do a nose dive right back in?
Who are these Republican losers who refuse compromise? Send them packing. Yes, I trust Obama, not the trogladytes who are running us over the cliff like the natives used to do the buffalo.
Should Sequestration go into affect, those losers will have thrown their party to the wolves. The Republicans will forever own the financial disaster we will be mired in. There will be no forgiveness.
Why is it so important to Obama that taxes be raised on the rich? If the plans are so close, why not just accept Boehner’s plan to avert the cliff and move on? Obama could then work with the new Congress (and possibly new speaker) in 2013 to tinker with tax rates and deductions.
For the same reason some Republicans find it so important to protect the rich. Many Americans, were sickened by the 47% comment. Obama picked up the middle class white vote in the Midwest probably as a result. Not exactly an endorsement of Obama, but enough of a statement that is apparently being ignored.
@Kelly, it was a campaign promise to the American people.
Most of us find it revolting that the very rich pay a lower tax rate than we do. Doesn’t that bother you?
Why do you care?
Protect the rich? When the taxes by Boehner were to be raised on rich people?
How was that “protecting the rich?”
Obama doesn’t care about the cliff. He cares about doing damage to the GOP.
@Moon-howler
Why do you care? Pay a lower tax rate? Only if you are considering non-income tax rates.
Envy is not a good trait.
@Cargosquid
Bullshit! re Obama
I think he is protecting the American people and the economy.
What was Boehner going to? A million?
@Cargosquid
That doesn’t even make sense.
Listen to Lyssa. She is more patient than I am.
Let’s tax the assets of the “tax shelter” foundations, like the one Warren Buffett put his money in.
Let Buffett pay the taxes that he actually owes before spouting off that rich people owe more.
Let’s raise the capital gains tax and dividend tax. That won’t hurt anything, right?
If raising taxes to cut the deficit is so important and raising taxes won’t hurt anyone, why should it supposedly be limited to those making $250,000? I mean, 3% isn’t going to hurt anyone. And if you mean rich, why is taxing those making $1 million a year not the limit? Boehner proposed that.
Face it. Your fanaticism on taxing “the rich” is pure envy. Taxing them more has been proven to be useless in reducing any deficit spending or the debt. The idea behind Obama’s mantra of “taxing the rich” is purely to set a precedent and to get the GOP behind the idea that our problem is a lack of taxes, not of spending.
Besides, when are you going to answer the question, “What do you consider to be a “fair share for the “rich” and why?” When is ANYONE going to answer that question?
Here’s an idea. For every percentage point raised in taxes, lets reduce spending by 1%.
Here’s another: Begin a new tax. 1% on everyone. It does nothing but pay down the debt.
Buffet said he would pay. Now, what is this “tax shelter” foundation? most tax shelters are really tax deferemnts. Want to hear about what I pay in “tax deferments?”
Didn’t think so. those damn facts! I pay 24% almost as a payroll tax every time I take a disbursement. All of a sudden those tax shelters don’t look so good, do they? 401K does the same thing. IRA doesn’t. You still pay whatever but 24% isn’t syphoned off before you touch it.
@Cargo,
Raising capital gains taxation should be done proportionally.
Now let’s address the jealousy part of my personality. First do I have to find something wrong with Warren Buffett? I am a fanatic. Yup. When the rest of us are sitting here packing away 20% or 28% of our income on taxes and some rich boy is paying 12% or 15% yea, I tend to think maybe I am getting stung. But that’s ok. Cargo has told me I am greedy and I should welcome the chance to make some fly-boy richer. silly me.
You have been reading way too much garbage, Cargo.
You would think we were taking it from you.
Cargo you are still operating under the illusion that the GOP is a functioning party with strong influence.
@Lyssa
As opposed to a non-functioning party that doesn’t control 1/3 of the gov’t?
When are the Democrats going to negotiate? Reid is silent and has refused to bring to a vote either House idea or the President’s.
But, lets say you are right. Does that mean that the House is supposed to rubber stamp everything proposed by Obama? What is it that you are saying?
@Moon-howler
Buffet owes 1 billion dollars in back taxes on Berkeshire Hathaway and he has been in court for years, fighting that payment.
@Moon-howler
Buffett is a hypocrite.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/30/buffetts-billions-cant-buy-him-exemption-from-his-tax-averse-past/
The charitable foundations that pay the donor a percentage back, tax free, that shelter the wealth from taxes, are the foundations that I’m writing about.
Want the rich to pay their fair share? Flat tax, no deductions. All money is taxed first. Then you can send your billions to any foundation that you want.
I only know about one kind of tax shelter.
I dont know about rich people tax shelters.
I don’t trust Steve Forbes on much of anything.
Why do assume what people think? Not good for a gun owner. I think both parties are non functional. The Democrats have had problems with the extreme left for years. Now the Republican have the same problem. That’s all.
@Lyssa
HAHAHHAHAHAHA….. The Democrats have had problems with the extreme left for years. Now the Republican have the same problem. That’s all.
Yep…so true….we do have problems with the extreme left.
“Why do assume what people think? Not good for a gun owner.”
Huh?
By the way…who here actually believes that any of those “reductions” actually reduce spending OR that the stated tax increases will actually raise anywhere near that amount of money.
Also, any plan that spreads any of the above over 10 years is completely useless.
If spending control is so important, why hasn’t the Senate produced a budget in 4 years? How can Congress manage any money without a budget? And my complaint is also pointed at the House. Why have they approved spending bills without forcing the Senate to obey the law?
@Moon-howler
I do not find it revolting like you do. The rich pay higher tax rates for standard payroll income and the same tax rates for investment income. As you clearly know, income for most of them is limited to returns on their investments, which I am happy they are making and which is taxed at a lower rate than payroll income. I see no reason to discourage investment among really large investors at a time when the economy seems poised for rebound.
In addition, they achieve a lower net tax rate by making large contributions to tax-deductible charities and research organizations. Overall, I see this as a good thing as well.
There are some gaping loopholes that probably need to be closed, but there is no reason why these issues cannot be fixed after the fiscal cliff has been averted.
@Lyssa
The Democrats seem to have gotten their act together more, with Bill Clinton. I remember the bad old days. I mean what else would make me vote for Ronald Reagan?
Hell I even voted for Tricky Dick.
@kelly_3406
Kool ade, Kool ade, tastes great. Kool ade Kool ade, tastes great.
Sorry, I am not buying that some CEO making a cool million in salary is paying only on investment earnings. I want those raised after a certain bench mark also.
Why is that discouraging investment? It isn’t. Am I not going to invest if capital gains go up? Am I going off on a pout and bury what little money I have in the back yard? Of course not.
I hope investment taxation will stay the same for the middle class. Mitt Romney is on his own.
@Cargosquid
Every little bit helps.
@Cargosquid
He obviously feels he doesn’t Why do you think you know more about his fiances than he does?
I voted for Re
I voted for Reagan and against Clinton the second time – couldn’t get around partial abortion.
@Moon-howler
Okay, so you are referring to people who DO get very large salaries. These people are in the 35% tax bracket compared to those making less than $212K who pay 28% (married, filing jointly) and on down the scale.
So they already do pay more. How much more do you want them to pay?
What does it matter what I think. You are willing to let them coast. I am not.
I would put it at $500k and take them up to 40%. Most at that level can work it down with gross adjusted income anyway.
Have you asked youself why they shouldn’t be at a little higher rate? Who can afford it more, someone at $50k or someone at $495k?
@Moon-howler
And higher tax rates do discourage investment, because they reduce the net benefit of taking a risk. It does not mean that there will be no investment at all, but certainly you can see how it might discourage investment if it puts them over a certain threshold of taxation.
Obamacare is likely to work the same way for employment. Small businesses are likely to hold off as long as possible from hiring that 50th full-time employee, because they will then be required to provide health coverage. Instead, they will use part-time employees as long as possible to avoid going over the threshold.
Bridge for sale…..that is so hypothetical. Not really, I can’t see it. It has nothing to do with what they invest. It has everything to do with whether they sell or not. If I were going to double my money, do you really think it would matter if I got taxed at 15% or at 20%?
For that matter, how many people take their profit before a year is up? Plenty.
@kelly_3406
Kelly, try looking at this in a slightly different way.
The Bush tax cuts were passed at a time when we had a large surplus. Bush felt that a surplus meant that the taxpayers had been overcharged, so we needed to give them the overcharge back. That’s why it was temporary- everybody knew that the lower rates couldn’t be sustained indefinitely.
Now we’re obviously in a different situation and the numbers don’t add up anymore. Most reputable economists agree that added revenue in addition to savings have to be part of the plan to begin to reduce the deficit. We should really eliminate all the Bush temporary tax cuts, but with the economy still weak that’s probably not a good idea. Nobody wants to punish any one group, but the revenue has to come from somewhere, and repealing the cuts on over $250,000 income hurts the economy the least.
The reason Obama seems stuck on this $250,000 tax idea is that the numbers don’t add up otherwise- without extreme cuts to entitlement programs and/or elimination of popular deductions like for children, healthcare or home mortgage interest. The GOP refuses to say what they would cut to make the numbers work without the added revenue. My guess is that they won’t say because most Americans wouldn’t appreciate their extreme measures…
The numbers don’t add up WITH the $250,000 limit since Obama proposes increased spending.
Its been shown that 100% confiscation would not put a dent in the deficit.
If you want to use Keynesian economics, tax rates should be coming down down. They should go up during surpluses. The debt should be paid back during those times. Oh..look. They increased spending, instead.
They are not using any reasonable system at all except borrow, spend, ignore.
We are already seeing effects of the cliff. Holiday sales were flat and stocks are down this week.
When we do go off the cliff, expect our local economy to take a hit. Northern Virginia’s economy is largely government based, so the spending cuts, especially defense, will hit hard. Expect unemployment to rise, home foreclosures to increase, property values and tax revenues to decline. Declining tax revenues will mean more local spending cuts and will adversely affect plans to hire more police for schools, making our discussion here about that a moot point. If anything, we will be laying off police, as well as other first responders, teachers, etc., not hiring more.
It is a grim picture but for those if you who want austerity, here it comes. Small price to pay for deficit reduction, I guess
@Moon-howler
I have become increasinglly uncomfortable with the government sub-dividing people into different groups. It is nothing more than tribalism for a citizen to choose a policy/candidate who has promised to keep personal tax rates fixed while increasing someone else’s in order to maintain personal benefits. As I am sure you know, that is an example of the “tyranny of the majority.”
Democracy is not supposed to work that way. This sounds more and more like the proletariat rising up against the Bourgeoisie.
Democracy isn’t supposed to be based on who gets deported and who doesn’t either. If you are Republican you really aren’t going to find a high road going this route, Kelly. “Redistribution of wealth” is a bumper sticker.
Let’s appeal to the seniors, the women, the Latinos, the blacks, the soccer moms, the Christian right, the Catholics, the Jewish voters, the students, the home schoolers, the Cubans, the farmers, the Indians, the unions, the men, etc etc.
Every one of those groups wants a little sliver of cheese. Please don’t act like the Republicans don’t try to appeal to their base. They most certainly do.
@middleman
That’s a beautiful explanation. Unfortunately, I do not buy it because it does very little to reduce the deficit (as we have discussed and disagreed on before). I think it has more to do with redistribution of wealth.
Republicans are fighting very, very hard to increase taxes on the poor and the middle class. Funny, I thought they were the low tax party.
…and the NRA are fiscal conservatives.
@Starryflights
I was expecting this November 7.
@Moon-howler
“Redistribution of wealth” is a bumper sticker.
Its also an Obama philosophy.
Says you, not sez Obama.
Every time you give to charity you are redistibuting wealth.
@Starryflights
Really? And the do nothing Senate has done what, exactly, to stop the tax raises?
@kelly_3406
It may not be the total answer on eliminating the deficit, but it’s a start, Kelly.
Cargo-all taxes are a redistribution of wealth, but there’s more than one way to redistribute wealth, and more than one direction. Over the past 30 years there has been a significant transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%. I’m not saying this was purposeful on the part of the 1%- that they wanted to rob the middle class or anything- but this transfer WAS done with the help and coercion of the Federal Government, through specific policies and lack of oversight. Here’s a chart to illustrate the issue:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/tanden.png.
The middle class isn’t gaining in the good times, and they’re (we’re) losing big time in the bad times. I’m not suggesting we should tax the top 1% to even this out, only that we need to stop the government from enabling and encouraging this wealth transfer from one group to another- what some call “class warfare.”
This is one of the reasons that the top 1% can afford to help us out on the deficit now- they’ve made most of the gains in the past 20 years.
@middleman
The ongoing devaluation of the dollar by the government is a major source of the “transfer of wealth.” That’s a major reason that the middle class is not gaining. The BLS statistics for inflation are ludicrous.
I’m all for getting the gov’t to stop enabling and encouraging any wealth transfer….. perhaps if we had less crony capitalism and protection of “too big to fail” businesses….
The top 1% can afford to help us out…ok, say that you’re right. What’s the fair share? Can you answer that question? No one seems to want to answer it. The “rich” may the major percentages of the taxes now. As long as the gov’t can borrow and print money, “starving the beast” has turned into a fools game. The House only pays lip service…so as long as all the politicians want keep spending…. we are doomed. We CANNOT tax our way out of this. As long as the average citizen is insulated by low taxes….. they will continue to ask for more and more spending.
Everyone should have skin in the game. So, lets raise taxes, but not just on the “rich,” however that is defined by the politicians. Both parties are idiotic.
The Senate passed a bill extending the tax cuts for everyone but the House refuses to even hold a vote on it. Boehner’s refuses not because it won’t pass but because his own members will not vote for it. The measure would pass with a handful of republicans and all the dems.
Cargo- take a breath, man!
I’m not saying we can tax our way out of this- according to most economists it has to be a balance of more revenue and less spending. I’m absolutely sure there’s a lot of savings to be had in the Federal Government, especially in the military, but what we really have is a runaway medical cost problem. The big drivers of the deficit in the future will be Medicare and Medicaid.
The “fair share” for anyone is a moving target. The upper brackets have gotten many of the tax breaks in the past 12 years. Cap gains, inheritance, corporate rates, dividends have all come down if I’m not mistaken. The “rich” pay the majority of the taxes because they make the majority of the income- no big surprise there. The top 2% got a lot of breaks under Bush, now maybe they help out with some of that to support the country. That’s all.