Obama caving in on Bush tax cuts for Top2%?

[nehalem256]

Why is eliminating loopholes and deductions on the rich a joke? If Obama truely said that and democrats are open to it bravo to them.

Because liberals are too stupid to understand our tax code and think that the only thing that matters is the top marginal tax rate on the rich.

 

[Ausm]

heard on the radio while driving that congressional Dems are considering a proposal to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts as long as the tax revenue still comes from the Top2% but in the form of eliminateing loopholes and deductions.

eliminating loopholes and deductions on the rich is a joke.

I hope Obama doesnt cave in on killing the Bush tax cuts.

I doubt he will cave to the Republicons this time around but what's really going to be fun to watch is when the Republicons block every effort to give the middle class and working poor a tax break in favor of their sugar Daddies.

 

[Ausm]

Why is eliminating loopholes and deductions on the rich a joke? If Obama truely said that and democrats are open to it bravo to them.

We would bring in more Revenue prosecuting Republicons who exploit offshore tax havens.

 

[shira]

Because taxes will be even more regressive within the top 1%, given that the ultra wealthy derive their income from LTCG's, dividends, interest & carried interest, which is currently taxed at 15%. Those rates must go up to maintain (create) a truly progressive tax regimen.

This is a good point, though I do think that limiting deductions at some generous level will be progressive even within the top 1%. For example, people earning $10 million every year generally have much higher levels of charitable contributions than those earning $1 million a year.

But if limiting deductions isn't progressive enough, then limit the amount of LTCB, interest, and carried interest that can be claimed as such each year to some arbitrary level, maybe $100,000.

The point is, if Republicans cannot agree to a "rate increase" because of their tea party base, change the tax rules in such a way that rates stay the same but the effect of the changes raises the taxes on the wealthy in the desired way.

If it walks like a duck . . . .

 

[Genx87]

We would bring in more Revenue prosecuting Republicons who exploit offshore tax havens.

You are one of those brainwashed morons who believes the only thing that matters is we display a bigger number. Results be damned.

 

[Genx87]

This is a good point, though I do think that limiting deductions at some generous level will be progressive even within the top 1%. For example, people earning $10 million every year generally have much higher levels of charitable contributions than those earning $1 million a year.

But if limiting deductions isn't progressive enough, then limit the amount of LTCB, interest, and carried interest that can be claimed as such each year to some arbitrary level, maybe $100,000.

The point is, if Republicans cannot agree to a "rate increase" because of their tea party base, change the tax rules in such a way that rates stay the same but the effect of the changes raises the taxes on the wealthy in the desired way.

If it walks like a duck . . . .

Well holy shit we are making progress on the revenue side. This is exactly what republicans are saying. Close loopholes and clamp down on deductions to raise revenue instead of raising a rate the govt has no hope of collecting on.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This is a good point, though I do think that limiting deductions at some generous level will be progressive even within the top 1%. For example, people earning $10 million every year generally have much higher levels of charitable contributions than those earning $1 million a year.

But if limiting deductions isn't progressive enough, then limit the amount of LTCB, interest, and carried interest that can be claimed as such each year to some arbitrary level, maybe $100,000.

The point is, if Republicans cannot agree to a "rate increase" because of their tea party base, change the tax rules in such a way that rates stay the same but the effect of the changes raises the taxes on the wealthy in the desired way.

If it walks like a duck . . . .

I'm all for especially the super wealthy paying more, its simply real tough with our current tax system. Someone in the above category could simply move all their assets to real-estate or even gold/art collections that are worth money but don't produce and interest. They would then simply take loans against their assets to pay for crap and we would all be at the same place a super wealthy person basically not paying any tax.
Our current tax code is far too old to be effective, it's based on business principles from the late 70's/early 80's its not rational to think that its still effective in our current environment.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This is a good point, though I do think that limiting deductions at some generous level will be progressive even within the top 1%. For example, people earning $10 million every year generally have much higher levels of charitable contributions than those earning $1 million a year.

But if limiting deductions isn't progressive enough, then limit the amount of LTCB, interest, and carried interest that can be claimed as such each year to some arbitrary level, maybe $100,000.

The point is, if Republicans cannot agree to a "rate increase" because of their tea party base, change the tax rules in such a way that rates stay the same but the effect of the changes raises the taxes on the wealthy in the desired way.

If it walks like a duck . . . .

It seems like most of the Republicans have realized that the tea party base is a bunch of losers and they no longer want to be associated with them. Look at the election results, it was a disadvantage to be a tea party candidate.

 

[shira]

Well holy shit we are making progress on the revenue side. This is exactly what republicans are saying. Close loopholes and clamp down on deductions to raise revenue instead of raising a rate the govt has no hope of collecting on.

No, this isn't what Republicans are saying. So far, all I've heard from the right is that tax-code changes must be revenue neutral, and that any increases in tax revenue must come from the future growth of the American economy.

What you're starting to hear from the left is that tax revenue from the wealthy can be increased right now - without increasing taxes on the middle class and without raising tax rates - by changing other tax rules.

 

[Vic Vega]

It's hilarious to read posts where people are literally clamoring to take money from rich people to pay for their spending programs. And not even trying to hide it.

"You have the money, we want the money to spend on X, since you won't give it up voluntarily, we're going to take it by force."

 

[Genx87]

No, this isn't what Republicans are saying. So far, all I've heard from the right is that tax-code changes must be revenue neutral, and that any increases in tax revenue must come from the future growth of the American economy.

What you're starting to hear from the left is that tax revenue from the wealthy can be increased right now - without increasing taxes on the middle class and without raising tax rates - by changing other tax rules.

You and I are hearing two different things then. Closing loopholes and clamping down on deducations is supposed to be the revenue increase side of the conversation. Increasing the tax rate has proven in the past to not generate anywhere near what is promised from a revenue stand point.

 

[woolfe9999]

What difference does it make if the revenue comes from raising the marginal rate or eliminating deductions? This isn't Obama caving. This is the GOP caving. Obama should take this opening.

 

[Ausm]

You are one of those brainwashed morons who believes the only thing that matters is we display a bigger number. Results be damned.

LOLWUT??? SO you are one of those brainwashed morans who think ANY additional revenue no matter where we get it makes no difference at all??

Gotcha!

 

[Genx87]

LOLWUT??? SO you are one of those brainwashed morans who think ANY additional revenue no matter where we get it makes no difference at all??

Gotcha!

Did I say that? Pay closer attention to this thread and get back to me.

 

[Ausm]

Did I say that? Pay closer attention to this thread and get back to me.

Why should I, it's easy to read your small mind....

 

[Genx87]

Why should I, it's easy to read your small mind....

That is original. I suppose expecting you to pay attention within a single thread is asking too much.

 

[Ausm]

What difference does it make if the revenue comes from raising the marginal rate or eliminating deductions? This isn't Obama caving. This is the GOP caving. Obama should take this opening.

I think they should take it up to 70% like it was in the 50's thru the 70's and some how the rich still stayed rich.

 

[Ausm]

That is original. I suppose expecting you to pay attention within a single thread is asking too much.

OH I think I nailed it care to explain your rant further?

 

[Genx87]

I think they should take it up to 70% like it was in the 50's thru the 70's and some how the rich still stayed rich.

Yeah, by using loopholes and deductions to keep their effective rate much lower. You know that thing about having a high number results be damned? Pay closer attention so you wont look like such a dufus in the future.

 

[Genx87]

OH I think I nailed it care to explain your rant further?

What else is there to explain? You are incapable of doing the most basic requirement in conversation, paying attention.

 

[Ausm]

What else is there to explain? You are incapable of doing the most basic requirement in conversation, paying attention.

Come up dude explain it paaaaleaaaase!

 

[Throckmorton]

Well holy shit we are making progress on the revenue side. This is exactly what republicans are saying. Close loopholes and clamp down on deductions to raise revenue instead of raising a rate the govt has no hope of collecting on.

That's NOT what Republicans mean when they talk about raising revenue. They are saying they want to cut taxes because they believe in the Laffer Curve.

 

[Genx87]

Come up dude explain it paaaaleaaaase!

That doesnt even make sense. Now you are just sputtering out sentence fragments. Please tell me you are also lighting things on fire.

 

[Ausm]

Yeah, by using loopholes and deductions to keep their effective rate much lower. You know that thing about having a high number results be damned? Pay closer attention so you wont look like such a dufus in the future.

Hey dumbfuck do you realize closing "loopholes" and "deductions" wouldn't cover squat?

 

[Ausm]

That's NOT what Republicans mean when they talk about raising revenue. They are saying they want to cut taxes because they believe in the Laffer Curve.

You trying to talk sense to a dude who chokes on Republicon dick.....