• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

No tax republicans just raised YOUR taxes tonight

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
spidey07 said:
This is the same old stick
Democrats want to Tax and spend, tax and spend.
Republicans want to cut tax and spending. Polar opposites.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's more like this:
Dems: tax+ tax+ spend spend spend spend spend
Repubs: tax- tax- spend spend spend

The dimlibs just want to hide their continued excess spending by making a small group of people ("the rich") pay for it. That way, the rest of the people won't mind all the spending because they're not the ones paying the bill. It's just another way to keep driving up government spending.
 
PeshakJang said:
So Republicans wanted to extend the cuts by reducing spending somewhere else, and Democrats wanted to extend the cuts by taking money from somebody else... got it.

So when these taxes go back up, how is it that the 'rich' are stealing from me? I'm pretty sure the taxes get paid to the government.
Click to expand...

A tax break lost to the middle class is essentially a tax break for the rich. You either get it or you don't. By the wway, I am essentially quoting Warren Buffett, so call him an idiot.

A tax break on the rich is essentialyl a tax on the poor. Somethign along those lines. You need $X. If it is decided that group A is to pay more, that is essentialyl making the weight on group Bs back lighter. It's pretty damned simple logic.
 
spidey07 said:
Then why is the republican proposal going to "pay" for the tax cuts with spending cuts? I hate that phrasing, that some how keeping more of MY money is somehow an expenditure/expense. It's ass backwards.
Click to expand...

Because the spending cuts they're talking about are a drop in the bucket; a token gesture to make it seem like they're serious budget-cutters.

Try getting them to cut entitlements for current recipients and see what they do. I guarantee you they'll run and hide because too many of their constituents want those entitlements.
 
Last edited:
SparkyJJO said:
The democrats sure didn't help us out either.

I'll keep it in mind in the voting booth - but voting for a democrat over this would be stupid because the democrat would gladly raise my taxes anyway.



Actually, since millionaires theoretically use less services than others, well, they should pay less since they use less, right? 😛

/devil's advocate

I still think the tax code should be simplified down to just a couple pages. flat tax rate, no loopholes, only a couple deductions.
Click to expand...

Prove your theory.
 
zsdersw said:
Show me a Republican or Democratic proposal that very significantly cuts The Big Three for both current and future recipients.

Until such a proposal exists, all of you who are criticizing one side or another are entirely full of sh!t.
Click to expand...

Why is everyone seems to forget that Social Security is funded independently by a direct tax on our pay. And while I think it is stupid to cut the social security tax even temporarily, to put that in the same bucket as Medicare/Medicaid is at best dishonest.

We all seem think that if we cut or eliminate Medicare/Medicaid our medical costs would go down or government spending would decrease. If the past is any indication of what will happen, nothing will change, the spending will increase like it always has (think Defense spending).

Medicare/Medicaid both have enormous potential for savings by removing the waste that is inheritent in them, but they are nothing compared to the waste in private insurance industry.

http://masscare.org/health-care-costs/overhead-costs-of-health-care/

Irony in that link, its from the state that RomneyCare was created. 🙄
 
The Democrats are going to win this one. The Pubbies want to cut spending to pay for this cut, but without a Senate majority, let alone a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority, taxes are going to be raised on someone.

This is making me want to vote for anybody but Obama. It's apparent that, with the Democrats in charge of the White House or either chamber of Congress, spending is not going to be reduced. Ever. It's going to be tax increases combined with nebulous promises of future spending cuts combined with spending increases with nebulous promises of future savings.
 
Attic said:
That's a problem. I don't know how to solve it.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see it as a problem at all. Many do know how to solve it, if you'd care to hear.

Not taking something is not giving somebody more unless you believed what you were to take was yours already.
Click to expand...

Ideology is making you view this as 'taking their money' like some kind of theft.

That view will leave you with nothing but making excuses for the rich.

Not only is there nothing wrong with having policies to prevent that concentration of wealth, it's a main reason we have democracy.

There was a time when an ideology said allowing workers to negotiate together - which was illegal - was a 'theft' from the owners.

I have a saying, 'ideology is the enemy'.
 
I thought if the tax was temp it isnt really raising taxes? That is what the left said when discussing the bush tax cuts coming up for renewel.
 
Genx87 said:
I thought if the tax was temp it isnt really raising taxes? That is what the left said when discussing the bush tax cuts coming up for renewel.
Click to expand...

Republicans refused to support ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, because THEY considered it a tax increase. But suddenly, they don't consider ending a tax cut to be raising taxes... because it's US and not their wealthy buddies.
 
Craig234 said:
Because when we raised taxes on the rich, the economy was destroyed, all the rich left the country, productivity was slashed, people starved. Oh wait, that's not right.
Click to expand...

But the world is a different place now. In the 60s the US was way above the rest of the world in terms of economy and growing. That can't be said now. There might be better opportunities now outside the US and a 90% tax rate would definitely encourage people to explore them. Any effective tax rate above 50% seems wrong. Though I do support ending the Bush tax cuts.
 
Throckmorton said:
Republicans refused to support ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, because THEY considered it a tax increase. But suddenly, they don't consider ending a tax cut to be raising taxes... because it's US and not their wealthy buddies.
Click to expand...
They do see this as a tax increase. They simply want to pay for it by cutting spending elsewhere.

If you think having national debt exceeding GDP (NOT even including legal obligations) is a good thing, then the Democrats are your party. If you think having national debt exceeding GDP (NOT even including legal obligations) is NOT a good thing, then the Republicans are your party. (On this one issue, obviously, not necessarily across the board or on balance.)
 
werepossum said:
The Democrats are going to win this one. The Pubbies want to cut spending to pay for this cut, but without a Senate majority, let alone a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority, taxes are going to be raised on someone.

This is making me want to vote for anybody but Obama. It's apparent that, with the Democrats in charge of the White House or either chamber of Congress, spending is not going to be reduced. Ever. It's going to be tax increases combined with nebulous promises of future spending cuts combined with spending increases with nebulous promises of future savings.
Click to expand...

Arent auto triggered cuts of 1.6 trillion going to happen?

And be honest, you would vote for anyone besides obama anyhow.
 
werepossum said:
They do see this as a tax increase. They simply want to pay for it by cutting spending elsewhere.

If you think having national debt exceeding GDP (NOT even including legal obligations) is a good thing, then the Democrats are your party. If you think having national debt exceeding GDP (NOT even including legal obligations) is NOT a good thing, then the Republicans are your party. (On this one issue, obviously, not necessarily across the board or on balance.)
Click to expand...

So, as I see it, You think the vote should go to the most fiscally historically, party. The Dems. What pres has ballanced a budget in the last 30-40 years? A dem pres. Thanks, :whiste:
 
Throckmorton said:
Republicans refused to support ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, because THEY considered it a tax increase. But suddenly, they don't consider ending a tax cut to be raising taxes... because it's US and not their wealthy buddies.
Click to expand...

I witnessed many lefties on this board say ending the bush cuts is not a tax increase. While claiming the same here is an increase.
 
Genx87 said:
I witnessed many lefties on this board say ending the bush cuts is not a tax increase. While claiming the same here is an increase.
Click to expand...

That was a cover that Democrats were trying to GIVE to Republicans, so they could vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and poor, but let them end for the rich... Republicans refused, arguing that it was a violation of their pledge. They took the hard line so that they could keep taxes from going up on their rich friends.

So where is their pledge now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top