GOP starting to cave on The Pledge?

[Brovane]

So if pay-roll taxes unfairly burden the poor I assume you would be in favor of eliminating social security and medicare?

No I would not be in favor of eliminating SS and medicare. I was just pointing out that by leaving out pay-roll taxes in the graph this shows the lower-middle class as having a signficantly reduced tax burden that what they actually have. The statistics are being twisted by a group with a agenda.

 

[crashtestdummy]

No I would not be in favor of eliminating SS and medicare. I was just pointing out that by leaving out pay-roll taxes in the graph this shows the lower-middle class as having a signficantly reduced tax burden that what they actually have. The statistics are being twisted by a group with a agenda.

It actually doesn't change that much. If you look at the individual income tax paid, the top 1% paid 21.8% in 1979 and 19.4% in 2005.

 

[nehalem256]

No I would not be in favor of eliminating SS and medicare. I was just pointing out that by leaving out pay-roll taxes in the graph this shows the lower-middle class as having a signficantly reduced tax burden that what they actually have. The statistics are being twisted by a group with a agenda.

Pay-roll taxes are a government run retirement plan. If you are going to look at them without an agenda you also have to take into account that benefits unfairly benefit the poor.

Based on how SS gives more benefits/$ for lower income people

And how health care costs will be about the same regardless of income.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Funny how the left....

You lost me right there.


Geez. You ALMOST had me read your post and then you started partisan hackery instead of intelligent discussion......

 

[Brovane]

Pay-roll taxes are a government run retirement plan. If you are going to look at them without an agenda you also have to take into account that benefits unfairly benefit the poor.

Based on how SS gives more benefits/$ for lower income people

And how health care costs will be about the same regardless of income.

We are not talking about benefits we are talking about Tax Burden. The graph has big bold letters stating that this is the tax burden with smaller lettering indicating that it is just income tax. At first glance a lot of people would assume that this shows tax burden when it only shows one part of the overall tax burden that is faced by the poor/middle class. Income tax for the top 5% is a overall higher % of the tax burden than the lower 95%. However for the lower 95% Pay Roll taxes come more into play as a tax burden. At this point you also have to look at sales tax, gasoline tax etc. If you are making the majority of your income off investments you will pay significantly less as a % of your income in taxes than someone you makes the majority of their income through W-2. This graph only shows one part of the overall puzzle piece.

 

[Fern]

GOP starting to cave on The Pledge?

Link

As a conservative Republican, Lindsey Graham has never had a problem promising not to raise taxes. Like almost every other Republican member of Congress, he has signed the anti-tax pledge put forth by Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform.
But now Graham says the debt crisis is so severe that the tax pledge — which says no tax loopholes can be eliminated unless every dollar raised by closing loopholes goes to tax cuts -- has got to go.
"When you eliminate a deduction, it's okay with me to use some of that money to get us out of debt. That's where I disagree with the pledge," said Graham.
...
"I just think that makes a lot of sense. And if I'm willing to do that as a Republican, I've crossed a rubicon," said Graham.

Will more members of the GOP follow? Somehow I doubt it. I don't like the idea of eliminating deductions to pay for lower taxes, but props to Graham for at least being semi-rational about the situation. :thumbsup:

I think to say that they're caving on the pledge over does it. More like modifying it.

His position seems reasonable enough and I think many independents and conservatives support it.

But what he suggests strikes me as nearly impossible. For one thing, I don't care how many deductions you remove we're still going to be in a deficit, so no debt will be paid down. It will still be increasing. He should've said reduce the deficit, but that's just not as 'sexy' and reminds people we're still deficit spending and increasing the debt.

Otherwise I have a hard time seeing a spending freeze, which would mean scrapping the baseline budgeting system, so that any tax increase would reduce the deficit.

I'm not sure what he's up to with this remark.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

I think to say that they're caving on the pledge over does it. More like modifying it.

His position seems reasonable enough and I think many independents and conservatives support it.

But what he suggests strikes me as nearly impossible. For one thing, I don't care how many deductions you remove we're still going to be in a deficit, so no debt will be paid down. It will still be increasing. He should've said reduce the deficit, but that's just not as 'sexy' and reminds people we're still deficit spending and increasing the debt.

Otherwise I have a hard time seeing a spending freeze, which would mean scrapping the baseline budgeting system, so that any tax increase would reduce the deficit.

I'm not sure what he's up to with this remark.

Fern

I think you're misreading Graham's comment as suggesting that eliminating certain deductions alone would get us out of debt. Though he doesn't say it in this particular article, or at least he isn't quoted as saying it, I'm fairly certain he wants spending cuts as well, and believes that they're necessary to "get us out of debt."

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. What Graham is suggesting is to eliminate middle class deductions, not to change the system that allows Mitt & his peers to pay <15% federal income tax.

So it's just a flimflam, a way to pander to both his deficit hating base & his big money donors.

I won't argue against raising taxes, but that has to start at the top, and has to establish real progressivity for the uber wealthy, not merely the appearance of it we have today.

Repubs' idea of raising taxes is to raise taxes at the bottom & up through the middle, leave those at the top untouched-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/19/467476/cantor-raise-taxes-on-poor/

 

[dank69]

Heh. What Graham is suggesting is to eliminate middle class deductions, not to change the system that allows Mitt & his peers to pay <15% federal income tax.

So it's just a flimflam, a way to pander to both his deficit hating base & his big money donors.

I won't argue against raising taxes, but that has to start at the top, and has to establish real progressivity for the uber wealthy, not merely the appearance of it we have today.

Repubs' idea of raising taxes is to raise taxes at the bottom & up through the middle, leave those at the top untouched-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/19/467476/cantor-raise-taxes-on-poor/

This is exactly what bothers me most. He states he wants to eliminate some deductions AND use the 'free[d] up money' to lower tax rates. Net effect is lower taxes on rich and about the same taxes on middle class. Maybe higher taxes for some middle class people. It's pretty sick which is why I said semi-rational.

Rational:

We're so far in debt, that if you don't give up some ideological ground, the country sinks," said Graham.

Irrational:

Graham said eliminating some deductions should free up money to lower tax rates — but also to pay down U.S. debt.

Why not just use it all to pay down debt? Why lower taxes further when the deficit is so high?

 

[cybrsage]

Lowering taxes during a recession aids in economic recovery. People have more money to spend.

 

[dank69]

Lowering taxes during a recession aids in economic recovery. People have more money to spend.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[cybrsage]

What does that have to do with anything?

The US is still in a recession. You are saying taxes should not be lowered. The best way to increase government income is to improve the economy - more people are paying more taxes that way. More income means debt paydown is faster.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Ironically, only lowering taxes on people in the lower income brackets... that HAVE incomes... would increase spending.

Cutting the taxes on the rich will not get that money back into circulation when they have the luxury of decising whether or not they want to spend it.

When you have little, sometimes the money coming in is not earmarked for retirement, but for the next months car payments or cable bill..... You know, CONSUMPTION.

 

[dank69]

The US is still in a recession. You are saying taxes should not be lowered. The best way to increase government income is to improve the economy - more people are paying more taxes that way. More income means debt paydown is faster.

US recession ended in 2009.

 

[Ausm]

US recession ended in 2009.

True but the Republican's on the hill are rubbing their magic 8 balls in hope of a double dip Recession.

 

[werepossum]

Ironically, only lowering taxes on people in the lower income brackets... that HAVE incomes... would increase spending.

Cutting the taxes on the rich will not get that money back into circulation when they have the luxury of decising whether or not they want to spend it.

When you have little, sometimes the money coming in is not earmarked for retirement, but for the next months car payments or cable bill..... You know, CONSUMPTION.

If what matters is consumption, then clearly Government should hire all the unemployed poor people as Czars or "general experts" at $100K a year. Before the November election, our problems would surely all be solved and the Republicans defeated once and for all.

 

[cybrsage]

US recession ended in 2009.

On paper, sure, but in reality, not so much.

 

[Ausm]

If what matters is consumption, then clearly Government should hire all the unemployed poor people as Czars or "general experts" at $100K a year. Before the November election, our problems would surely all be solved and the Republicans defeated once and for all.

It would never get through the Republicans in Congress...maybe you could woo them to your line of thinking?

 

[dank69]

If what matters is consumption, then clearly Government should hire all the unemployed poor people as Czars or "general experts" at $100K a year. Before the November election, our problems would surely all be solved and the Republicans defeated once and for all.

Argumentum ad absurdum

 

[Brovane]

Lowering taxes during a recession aids in economic recovery. People have more money to spend.

The problem is that will the economic growth from lower taxes off-set the loss of tax money into the US treasury. So far it doesn't seem to be working.

Unfortunately the US is in a real hard spot right now. We didn't have a balanced budget before the recission. We keep adding more money to overall Federal Debt. The Debt to GDP ratio keeps increasing. We cannot afford anymore the tax cuts that where en-acted in 2001-2002. They need to be alloweed to expire. If we would have been more financially responsible we wouldn't have racked up so much debt during the economic good times. That way we would have had room to borrow when the economy is in a recission. Unfortunately it is a bitter pill to swallow but we need to allow the tax cuts to expire. We also need to start doing some serious cutting. It will be tough but eventually the party needs to end.

 

[werepossum]

Argumentum ad absurdum

In what respect? If the problem is lack of demand, flooding the economy with 15 million newly rich consumers has to work better than continuing to pump hundreds of billions into the economy through bankers and public servants. You guys continually complain that the stimulus only failed because it was too small and assert that only demand is important.

But if that is too bold for you, how about we just award the ~50 million Americans receiving food stamps $60,000 - with the legal requirement to spend it every penny, not be an evil "hoarder". That's the three trillion you guys say we need to fix the economy. Personally I think you should have the courage of your convictions and really fix the economy, but perhaps we'll just give you the minimum you say is needed. Wouldn't that work?

Or is the enlightenment of government required for each purchase to make the magical consumption fairy solve all our problems?

 

[Exterous]

Argumentum ad absurdum

Are you supporting his position?

Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.

A method of proof in which it is first supposed that the fact to be proved is false, and then it is shown that this supposition leads to the contradiction of accepted facts. Also known as indirect proof; proof by contradiction.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Argumentum+ad+absurdum
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Argumentum+ad+absurdum

 

[Ninjahedge]

Giving the poor a little money is a better way to see than money work its way back through our system.

Give the poor a LOT of money and they will buy foreign goods.

 

[sm625]

Even if they didnt "raise taxes" they would still be raising taxes. They continually serially borrow debt money into existence, debt money which bears interest I might add. Each dollar that is borrowed is newly created money. When you spend this money into the economy you are increasign the total amount of money in the economy, thus lowering the value of each existing dollar. This is exactly the same as "raising taxes".

Instead of taking $500 from your $1000 paycheck, they only take $300, and borrow $200. That $200 devalues the money supply and so your $700 net pay only buys $500 worth of stuff. As an added bonus, Wall Street takes their cut of every one of these serial perpetual devaluations, which is why you keep seeing those fancy charts that show the top 1% getting richer and richer. This is really simple, in-your-face deception, but for some reason people eat this crap up all day long and worship it.

 

[Ausm]

Giving the poor a little money is a better way to see than money work its way back through our system.

Give the poor a LOT of money and they will buy foreign goods.

Billionaires shop at Walmart too.