Boehner finally concedes to raise taxes on the rich.

[SP33Demon]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Does this mean disaster averted? The major obstacle has now finally been removed. I think this could turn into a win for both parties since nobody cares about the top 2% except themselves. Although I don't like the Robin Hood mentality, it's better than across the board tax increases. Thoughts?

 

[rudder]

Yeah disaster averted. The government can reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit by $100 billion.

 

[Jaskalas]

These aren't the taxes the President / Democrats want. They want flat out higher rates, not less deductions.

'FISCAL CLIFF' TALKS FREEZE

 

[airdata]

Now they just need to talk about how much money they can cut from the DEA for the failed war on drugs and how much revenue legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana will bring into the coffers.

 

[Lemon law]

Thought #1, even if Boehner is willing to make concessions, McConnell in the Senate still has the Filibuster veto he can play the remainder of 2012.

McConnell may not have much brains, but he sure is super partisan and stubborn.

 

[Ausm]

Yeah disaster averted. The government can reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit by $100 billion.

Didn't Cheney say deficits don't matter?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Nobody cares about the top 2% (except those of us who are in the 2%)? You guys sure as fuck to seem to care a lot about us. We have what you want - money - and are slobbering like the Foghorn Leghorn weasel trying to get after it.

You don't care about the 2%, except we are providing the new revenue.

The taxes for everyone should have been raised. According to the APPA Americans spent $50 BILLION on pets in 2011. All of us can afford to pay for school and infrastructure when we spend $50 BILLION on pets alone. Let me know when we are closing in on real poverty, not just American Poverty where we have to cancel HBO and drop our unlimited data plans to "make it."

 

[GuitarDaddy]

There is no new news here. No concession on the Republicans refusal to raise tax rates on the rich.

This is simply Boehner respinning the busted republican proposal for closing unspecified loop holes in lieu of tax increases.

Allready been rejected by the WH.

 

[First]

Yeah disaster averted. The government can reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit by $100 billion.

No actually, it's $1.1T. The upper income 2%'ers at 39.6% rates along with estate tax increases among several others is likely to save closer to $100B+/yr. Then there's another $200B more savings with lower spending in health care (making insurance & pharmaceutical companies pay more) and defense. And finally, probably another $400B-$600B in additional corporate tax revenue and general improvement in the labor market pushing up payroll tax revenue next year as the economy continues to improve.

 

[Fern]

I'm pretty sure Bohner conceded higher taxes right after the election. The question is how (higher rates or reduced deductions) and by what amount. Both the President and the Repubs have already proposed amounts of additional tax revenue. They are far apart.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

No actually, it's $1.1T. The upper income 2%'ers at 39.6% rates along with estate tax increases among several others is likely to save closer to $100B+/yr. Then there's another $200B more savings with lower spending in health care (making insurance & pharmaceutical companies pay more) and defense. And finally, probably another $400B-$600B in additional corporate tax revenue and general improvement in the labor market pushing up payroll tax revenue next year as the economy continues to improve.

You are claiming 700-900 billion increase in revenues?

 

[dank69]

Nobody cares about the top 2% (except those of us who are in the 2%)? You guys sure as fuck to seem to care a lot about us. We have what you want - money - and are slobbering like the Foghorn Leghorn weasel trying to get after it.

You don't care about the 2%, except we are providing the new revenue.

The taxes for everyone should have been raised. According to the APPA Americans spent $50 BILLION on pets in 2011. All of us can afford to pay for school and infrastructure when we spend $50 BILLION on pets alone. Let me know when we are closing in on real poverty, not just American Poverty where we have to cancel HBO and drop our unlimited data plans to "make it."

Suck it up, buttercup. The top tax rates should have never been lowered to where they are now. We were told it would create jobs. Count your blessings that enough Americans were stupid enough to believe that for as long as they did.

 

[paperfist]

Nobody cares about the top 2% (except those of us who are in the 2%)? You guys sure as fuck to seem to care a lot about us. We have what you want - money - and are slobbering like the Foghorn Leghorn weasel trying to get after it.

You don't care about the 2%, except we are providing the new revenue.

The taxes for everyone should have been raised. According to the APPA Americans spent $50 BILLION on pets in 2011. All of us can afford to pay for school and infrastructure when we spend $50 BILLION on pets alone. Let me know when we are closing in on real poverty, not just American Poverty where we have to cancel HBO and drop our unlimited data plans to "make it."

It's the 2% spending $50 BILLION on pets alone. I don't see no one up in da h00d taking their pitbulls down for a $120 shampoo and nail clip job.

 

[Matt1970]

Didn't Cheney say deficits don't matter?

Cheney said it, Obama proved it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Now they just need to talk about how much money they can cut from the DEA for the failed war on drugs and how much revenue legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana will bring into the coffers.

Cliff, here we come

 

[Matt1970]

Yeah disaster averted. The government can reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit by $100 billion.

Actually the latest number from the White House I heard was $80 Billion/year.

 

[First]

You are claiming 700-900 billion increase in revenues?

Yes, clearly that's what I said based on my post you just quoted. It's not hard to see that the economy (always the main driver of higher revenue) will significantly close the deficit with general economic growth; e.g. corporate tax receipts are higher with higher profits, and payroll revenue is higher as more people find work. Add in higher estate taxes, higher taxes on the upper 2% and especially higher investment taxes like dividends going back into the 30%'s from the current 15%, and that's easily an additional $700-$900B in revenue annually right there.

 

[hal2kilo]

Wow, he actually used the words "tax rate increases". Color me shocked.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Didn't Cheney say deficits don't matter?

Irrelevant. Your guy is in charge now. Even if the messiah gets his way on tax hikes, we're still screwed as he'll never cut spending, except defense. Defense certainly can stand some cutting, but it's not gonna get us anywhere near even the Bush deficits.

We do baseline budgeting. That means a 'cut' is merely a reduction in the increase. You could jack up tax rates to pre Reagan levels and drastically cut back deductions and we'd still be running deficits.

Thank you for playing, oh pathetic one.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes, clearly that's what I said based on my post you just quoted. It's not hard to see that the economy (always the main driver of higher revenue) will significantly close the deficit with a combination of general economic growth (corporate tax receipts are higher with higher profits and higher payroll revenue as more people find work, as two examples), higher estate taxes, higher taxes on the upper 2% and especially higher investment taxes like dividends going back into the 30%'s from the current 15%. Easily half a trillion additional revenue annually right there.

The last time Capital Gains Tax was increased was 1986 and revenue actually fell then.

 

[First]

The last time Capital Gains Tax was increased was 1986 and revenue actually fell then.

Revenue did not fall, sorry.

 

[thraashman]

The simple truth of the matter is that having lower tax rates on the top 1-2% of Americans actually takes money OUT of the economy. The rich don't have the need to spend money like everyone else. You lower their taxes, they hoard the money, not put it back in the economy. Lowering taxes or keeping low taxes on people who have no need to spend it hurts the economy by keeping money out of it. I personally right about crack the top 20% income, I support an increase in taxes on even my tax bracket.

 

[Matt1970]

The simple truth of the matter is that having lower tax rates on the top 1-2% of Americans actually takes money OUT of the economy. The rich don't have the need to spend money like everyone else. You lower their taxes, they hoard the money, not put it back in the economy. Lowering taxes or keeping low taxes on people who have no need to spend it hurts the economy by keeping money out of it. I personally right about crack the top 20% income, I support an increase in taxes on even my tax bracket.

Ya, they all keep it under mattresses. They don't have mansions built, buy more cars, hire people to work on thier houses. [/sarcasm]

 

[Engineer]

Yeah disaster averted. The government can reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit by $100 billion.

and as was said yesterday.....since we didn't solve the ENTIRE deficit with one motion, just throw this away and start over. You guys remind me of the damn managers in the factories demanding me (controls engineer) to cut x.xx amount of cycle time from the machinery. When I'm going through each stage of the process, I might cut 0.1 second at that stage. I always hear "but we need to cut 3.0 seconds, not 0.1 seconds". By the time I'm done with EVERY process, the time is usually cut by what they requested but because they were so damn impatient, the only thing that they accomplished was to piss me off in trying to get a magical x.xx cut in one swoop.

SMH at some of you people.

 

[hal2kilo]

http://news.msn.com/staging/republicans-weigh-swallowing-tax-hike-on-wealthy

Congressional aides, who asked not to be identified, said Republicans are losing the public relations battle over keeping low tax rates for the rich and are getting battered by President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress following their November 6 election victories.

On Capitol Hill aides often play an important role of communicating what members are thinking but cannot say themselves. In recent days, increasing numbers are putting out word through news organizations that Republicans now feel they cannot win on tax cuts for the wealthy, at least not now.

Without a deal by December 31, $600 billion in across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases, which are so severe that they likely would shove the economy into recession, are scheduled to begin.

Looks like they're caving.
:thumbsup: