Democrats propose modest tax increase.

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Basic scaremongering. If Dems raise taxes, it'll be on the top incomes, rather than what the article suggests... And I doubt they'd even try before taking the Whitehouse in 2008.

But rave on, anti-tax fanatics, rave on...

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Operative word: "may." Doesn't sound like they have been added. Or at least, no specific information is available. Which means it's pure speculation. [Or "FUD" depending on how you look at it.]

ummm you are both wrong.

The stuff listed in the OP is what WILL happen if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed.
Now this won't happen till 2010, but it WILL happen, there is 100% certainty about that.
Unless congress either renews the Bush tax cuts, or creates a new tax cut bill that extends the benefits to the poor.

One of the best things about the Bush tax cuts, and the thing over looked by lefties in their zeal to point to what the rich get, is the fact that under Bush's tax cuts millions of people who were paying taxes in 2000 are not paying taxes now.
The number of poor people in this country who pay no federal income tax at all has gone from 20% to 30% since Bush took office.

Now if congress does NOTHING in the next 3 years all this will go away and those people will be forced to once again pay taxes and everything listed in the OP WILL happen.
Congress does not have to raise taxes, they will go up by themselves in 2010 when the Bush cuts expire.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Do you live in a cave, or do you just have NO knowledge of the country before 2003? I'm curious......

And you, Specop 007?

Taxes were huge during WW2. Traditionally, true Conservatives have seen the need to pay for war as much as possible with increased taxes... but then, modern "Conservatives" aren't conservative at all... more like desperate gamblers, borrowing against everything they own to feed their addiction...

Can you back up the bolded part with facts?

World War 2 was paid for mainly by the selling of war bonds, not through taxes.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Can't have wars without paying for them. I'd rather pay now than in 20 years with interest. Stop screwing the younger generation!

Do you live in a cave, or do you just have NO knowledge of the country before 2003? I'm curious......

When you actually have something to say, I will respond.. I have nothing to go by from that response.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ntdz
These tax increases by the democrats from 2008 to 2011 or whatever it is will be the largest tax increases ever.

This is false, stop reading Drudge or wherever you get your propaganda.

Reading is Fundamental

For those too lazy to click:

"Consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go requirement that all tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for, the plan assumes the same level of revenues over the 2007-2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline; the baseline essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. ? Charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct."

Interesting that everyone chooses to ignore the facts and just goes on with their blatherings about "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" F'n pathetic.

Continue on with your FUD, gentlemen.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
lol, the Reps hate people who try to be responsible and not pass the buck on the next guy.

Clinton raised taxes SENSIBLY in 1993 and what followed was the greatest economic boom in history.

Wall street loves fiscal responsibility.

the boom did not happen because of him raising taxes. The "Dot-Com" bubble came about for other reasons and did not readily become apparent until 1995 and didn't go really bezerk until 98. New technology combined with low business rates funded the boom which gave Clinton a postive looking economy, until it started collapsing.

 

[ProfJohn]

One last comment on war and taxes for all of you who like to make the argument that we should pay for Iraq via higher taxes.

1. Prior to WW2 only 10% of Americans paid some sort of income tax, by the end of the war nearly every working American was paying federal income tax.
2. Prior to WW2 people paid income tax at the end of the year in one lump sum, in order to get money to the government faster the federal tax withholding system was created.

Both of these ?innovations? were created to pay for the war. However, after the war ended these plans did not end with it. Instead they still exist today. Furthermore, remember the phone tax passed in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American war? It took 108 years before congress eliminated that ?war tax.?

My point is that we should be leery of paying for the war via tax increases because once you give government a means to collect money it never wants to give that means away.
Any tax increase designed to pay for the war will not end when the war ends, instead congress will just find new ways to spend that money.

For final proof of this in action look at spending during the Vietnam era compared to spending after the Vietnam era.
Throughout the 1960s the defense budget in terms of GDP was between 7-9%.link By 1976 it had dropped to under 5%. Yet looking at government spending in overall terms you will see that in 1960s the government spent around 18% of our GDP, but during the late 1970s it was spending over 20% of GDP. So not only was the government spending an additional 2% of our GDP, but it was also taking all the money it was saving via the end of the war and spending that too. (For budget numbers you can download any budget historical tables document via a government web site.)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Basic scaremongering. If Dems raise taxes, it'll be on the top incomes, rather than what the article suggests... And I doubt they'd even try before taking the Whitehouse in 2008.

But rave on, anti-tax fanatics, rave on...

Good point in bold above.

so taking property is ok as long as it's someone else's?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Interesting .... "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" ...

.....

Thanks for the info... I certainly will not vote Democrat!!! They will raise your taxes!!! now I need to tell my friends...

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
For those too lazy to click:

"Consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go requirement that all tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for, the plan assumes the same level of revenues over the 2007-2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline; the baseline essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. ? Charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct."

Interesting that everyone chooses to ignore the facts and just goes on with their blatherings about "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" F'n pathetic.

Continue on with your FUD, gentlemen.[/quote]


you should continue reading the article before sticking your foot in your mouth. A higher deficit is better? WOW, I though the libs were going to fix the budget.


Because the new budget plan accommodates the President?s proposed increases in funding both for defense generally and for the war in Iraq ? and to a very small degree, because of a proposed modest increase in nondefense discretionary funding ? the plan would increase the deficit by $672 billion above the levels CBO projects for 2007-2012 (see Table 1).[5] There would be a surplus of $153 billion in 2012



Basically your link shows they haven't even figured out how to pay for it, leaving the door open for tax increases. If they leave the current Bush tax cuts to expire that is a raise in taxes. Why do tax cuts get sunset clauses but spending bills do not?


The first thing that should be done is to require ANY budget item passing be signed off by the Congressmen as being required and essential to the United States. I mean for EVERY dollar they want to spend. Sign your name. Be accountable.

But no, its more fun to laugh at people who might have to pay more money because too many people are vindictive, they are jealous of the success of those who worked harder to get where they are today.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Basic scaremongering. If Dems raise taxes, it'll be on the top incomes, rather than what the article suggests... And I doubt they'd even try before taking the Whitehouse in 2008.

But rave on, anti-tax fanatics, rave on...

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Operative word: "may." Doesn't sound like they have been added. Or at least, no specific information is available. Which means it's pure speculation. [Or "FUD" depending on how you look at it.]

ummm you are both wrong.

The stuff listed in the OP is what WILL happen if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed.
Now this won't happen till 2010, but it WILL happen, there is 100% certainty about that.
Unless congress either renews the Bush tax cuts, or creates a new tax cut bill that extends the benefits to the poor.

One of the best things about the Bush tax cuts, and the thing over looked by lefties in their zeal to point to what the rich get, is the fact that under Bush's tax cuts millions of people who were paying taxes in 2000 are not paying taxes now.
The number of poor people in this country who pay no federal income tax at all has gone from 20% to 30% since Bush took office.

Now if congress does NOTHING in the next 3 years all this will go away and those people will be forced to once again pay taxes and everything listed in the OP WILL happen.
Congress does not have to raise taxes, they will go up by themselves in 2010 when the Bush cuts expire.

I'm in favor of renewing those tax cuts. I believe there is time to renew them and thus no crisis. The next tax cut to expire is the cut to capital gains/dividends which expires in 2009.

And yet that's NOT what the OP and his original article suggested. In fact, his linked article was titled: "What happens if the tax hikes are included in the 2008 Budget." Not "What happens if the Bush tax cuts fail to renew."

BIG difference. The OP as well as Congressman Paul Gillmor are full of FUD! Admit it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Basic scaremongering. If Dems raise taxes, it'll be on the top incomes, rather than what the article suggests... And I doubt they'd even try before taking the Whitehouse in 2008.

But rave on, anti-tax fanatics, rave on...

Good point in bold above.

so taking property is ok as long as it's someone else's?

When did I say that?!? 😕 I simply pointed out the likely course of action taken by the Dems.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Shivetya-

the boom did not happen because of him (Clinton) raising taxes.

Probably true- but the attribution that the current recovery occurred because Bush cut taxes probably falls along the same lines...

Real growth happens only within the confines of fiscal integrity on the part of the govt- anything else is just an illusion... one of those easy credit buy now pay later deals. You know, pay a lot sooner and a lot more than you expected...

 

[Jhhnn]

Deal Monkey has a point about the expiration of the taxcuts in 2010. Which is why it's important for Dems to control both the executive and the legislative branches at that time, to selectively extend cuts to the lower wage earners....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
you should continue reading the article before sticking your foot in your mouth. A higher deficit is better? WOW, I though the libs were going to fix the budget.

Basically your link shows they haven't even figured out how to pay for it, leaving the door open for tax increases. If they leave the current Bush tax cuts to expire that is a raise in taxes. Why do tax cuts get sunset clauses but spending bills do not?


The first thing that should be done is to require ANY budget item passing be signed off by the Congressmen as being required and essential to the United States. I mean for EVERY dollar they want to spend. Sign your name. Be accountable.

But no, its more fun to laugh at people who might have to pay more money because too many people are vindictive, they are jealous of the success of those who worked harder to get where they are today.

Let's see if I can make sense of your rantings. Perhaps this is the part you should have bolded?

The $672 billion increase in the deficit under the House plan is somewhat greater than the increase that would occur under the Senate Budget Committee plan (because it provides more emergency funding for 2007 and has modestly higher levels of funding for nondefense discretionary programs in 2008 through 2012), but is significantly smaller than the amount by which the President?s budget would increase the deficit. Even though the President?s budget proposes large cuts in domestic programs (which the neither the House nor Senate Budget Committee plan accepts), CBO estimates that the President?s budget would increase the deficit by $911 billion in 2007 through 2012 and would result in a deficit of $31 billion in 2012.[6] The House and SBC plans increase deficits considerably less because they adhere to the Pay-As-You-Go rule and reject the President?s proposals to cut taxes without offsetting the costs.

Awesome! Bush's own budget numbers would increase the deficit the most! Now, you were saying?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Basic scaremongering. If Dems raise taxes, it'll be on the top incomes, rather than what the article suggests... And I doubt they'd even try before taking the Whitehouse in 2008.

But rave on, anti-tax fanatics, rave on...

Good point in bold above.

so taking property is ok as long as it's someone else's?

When did I say that?!? 😕 I simply pointed out the likely course of action taken by the Dems.

it's what's implied in the statement. and, i'm asking you if it is ok? is it? it's a simple question. if you'd came right out and said it i wouldn't need to ask the question, now would i?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
For those too lazy to click:

"Consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go requirement that all tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for, the plan assumes the same level of revenues over the 2007-2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline; the baseline essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. ? Charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct."

Interesting that everyone chooses to ignore the facts and just goes on with their blatherings about "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" F'n pathetic.

Continue on with your FUD, gentlemen.

you should continue reading the article before sticking your foot in your mouth. A higher deficit is better? WOW, I though the libs were going to fix the budget.


Because the new budget plan accommodates the President?s proposed increases in funding both for defense generally and for the war in Iraq ? and to a very small degree, because of a proposed modest increase in nondefense discretionary funding ? the plan would increase the deficit by $672 billion above the levels CBO projects for 2007-2012 (see Table 1).[5] There would be a surplus of $153 billion in 2012



Basically your link shows they haven't even figured out how to pay for it, leaving the door open for tax increases. If they leave the current Bush tax cuts to expire that is a raise in taxes. Why do tax cuts get sunset clauses but spending bills do not?


The first thing that should be done is to require ANY budget item passing be signed off by the Congressmen as being required and essential to the United States. I mean for EVERY dollar they want to spend. Sign your name. Be accountable.

But no, its more fun to laugh at people who might have to pay more money because too many people are vindictive, they are jealous of the success of those who worked harder to get where they are today.


[/quote]

There's a little spittle in the corner of your mouth, have Rosie wipe that off for you.

Yeah we all laugh at rising taxes, in fact I pee my pants with glee and excitement.

These numbers are also assuming that the current tax revenue would be basically the same, however, total tax revenue increases every year so that's a wash.

Read it again: no change in current laws governing taxes

You can put your boogeyman back in the closet, "omg tax cuts going to expire, biggest tax hike in history! omg! f'ing D's why do they hate successful people? omg!"

k-thnx.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it's what's implied in the statement. and, i'm asking you if it is ok? is it? it's a simple question. if you'd came right out and said it i wouldn't need to ask the question, now would i?

I'm in favor of a flat tax if that gives you any indication. And to be factual, unless you're among the lowest wage-earners in this country, the IRS is taking property from ALL of us, just in different amounts. Is that fair? How about I turn this around? What's a fair system Elfenix. I mean, since you brought it up. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ntdz
These tax increases by the democrats from 2008 to 2011 or whatever it is will be the largest tax increases ever.

This is false, stop reading Drudge or wherever you get your propaganda.

Reading is Fundamental

For those too lazy to click:

"Consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go requirement that all tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for, the plan assumes the same level of revenues over the 2007-2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline; the baseline essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. ? Charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct."

Interesting that everyone chooses to ignore the facts and just goes on with their blatherings about "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" F'n pathetic.

Continue on with your FUD, gentlemen.

Just because they lay out a budget assuming to increase in revenue sure as hell doesnt mean they dont WANT to increase revenue.

 

[Genx87]

These douchebags cant find 5% of the budget to cut to balance the budget? So because they are greedy or incompetent, or both, they want me to pay more?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ntdz
These tax increases by the democrats from 2008 to 2011 or whatever it is will be the largest tax increases ever.

This is false, stop reading Drudge or wherever you get your propaganda.

Reading is Fundamental

For those too lazy to click:

"Consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go requirement that all tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for, the plan assumes the same level of revenues over the 2007-2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline; the baseline essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. ? Charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct."

Interesting that everyone chooses to ignore the facts and just goes on with their blatherings about "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" F'n pathetic.

Continue on with your FUD, gentlemen.

Just because they lay out a budget assuming to increase in revenue sure as hell doesnt mean they dont WANT to increase revenue.

So just because Senate Dems didn't actually include any tax increases in the budget, they're still guilty of doing so? Wow, that's quite a leap you've taken there. Congrats!

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ntdz
These tax increases by the democrats from 2008 to 2011 or whatever it is will be the largest tax increases ever.

This is false, stop reading Drudge or wherever you get your propaganda.

Reading is Fundamental

For those too lazy to click:

"Consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go requirement that all tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for, the plan assumes the same level of revenues over the 2007-2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline; the baseline essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. ? Charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct."

Interesting that everyone chooses to ignore the facts and just goes on with their blatherings about "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" F'n pathetic.

Continue on with your FUD, gentlemen.

Just because they lay out a budget assuming to increase in revenue sure as hell doesnt mean they dont WANT to increase revenue.

So just because Senate Dems didn't actually include any tax increases in the budget, they're still guilty of doing so? Wow, that's quite a leap you've taken there. Congrats!

Not much of a leap really. Hell many of the Dems themselves say they want more of my money. I would be suprised if they dont come take it.

Let me use your cute catchphrase...

"Reading is fundamental"

From the origianl article...

This week, the House will begin debating the FY2008 budget. Unfortunately, some very large tax increases may be included by the Democratic leadership. Here are some good figures from the Budget Committee of the taxes which may be increased if the budget passes in its current form:

So tell me, where is this great leap I'm making?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ntdz
These tax increases by the democrats from 2008 to 2011 or whatever it is will be the largest tax increases ever.

This is false, stop reading Drudge or wherever you get your propaganda.

Reading is Fundamental

For those too lazy to click:

"Consistent with the Pay-As-You-Go requirement that all tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for, the plan assumes the same level of revenues over the 2007-2012 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current-policy baseline; the baseline essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. ? Charges that the plan requires multi-hundred-billion dollar tax increases are not correct."

Interesting that everyone chooses to ignore the facts and just goes on with their blatherings about "Oh the noes! Dems are raising taxes!" F'n pathetic.

Continue on with your FUD, gentlemen.

Just because they lay out a budget assuming to increase in revenue sure as hell doesnt mean they dont WANT to increase revenue.

So just because Senate Dems didn't actually include any tax increases in the budget, they're still guilty of doing so? Wow, that's quite a leap you've taken there. Congrats!

Not much of a leap really. Hell many of the Dems themselves say they want more of my money. I would be suprised if they dont come take it.

Let me use your cute catchphrase...

"Reading is fundamental"

From the origianl article...

This week, the House will begin debating the FY2008 budget. Unfortunately, some very large tax increases may be included by the Democratic leadership.Here are some good figures from the Budget Committee of the taxes which may be increased if the budget passes in its current form:

So tell me, where is this great leap I'm making?

Actually that was my line.

The term 'may be' is used twice in the same paragraph, sorry but I'll stick to non partisan sources whose soul purpose of being isn't to spread FUD based on political hackery.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Jeebus. Thats gonna be a kick in the nuts if it goes through.

But thats the Democrats. You arent an individual. Your a member of a collective, and you must pay your share. And your neighbors too. All for the benefit of the government.

🙁

The path to communism is ahead; we've been at socialism for a while and have taught our children to relish in it. Now the redistribution will increase, and eventually someone will come along who abuses the fact that our wealth resides under a single centralized power.

?Understand that I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me... it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it's what's implied in the statement. and, i'm asking you if it is ok? is it? it's a simple question. if you'd came right out and said it i wouldn't need to ask the question, now would i?

I'm in favor of a flat tax if that gives you any indication. And to be factual, unless you're among the lowest wage-earners in this country, the IRS is taking property from ALL of us, just in different amounts. Is that fair? How about I turn this around? What's a fair system Elfenix. I mean, since you brought it up. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Hey we agree on something!
A flat tax with an exemption on say the first $25,000 in income. After that EVERYONE pays the same 15% tax rate.
So a person making $26,000 pays $150 in taxes.
A person making $125,000 pays $15,000 in taxes

Therefore the effective tax rate on poor person is .5%
And on the rich person the rate is 12%
So the rich still pay a large amount of their income in taxes, seems fair to me.
AND we get rid of the IRS and the 50,000 page tax code saving billions of dollars spent on tax preparation.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87
These douchebags cant find 5% of the budget to cut to balance the budget? So because they are greedy or incompetent, or both, they want me to pay more?

5% of the budget won't do CRAP to help these war debts... you are good for the war, be prepared to pay for it.