Republicans win tax cut (extention) for the rich

[Londo_Jowo]

Keep dreaming, or you could have them putting in 40 hrs a week now to actually build stuff.

What working on the non-existent shovel ready jobs?

I'm sure there's plenty of work that can be done in their local area that would benefit everyone for their unemployment check. Plus this would be a motivator to seek other employment rather than suck on the government tit for 99+ weeks.

 

[The-Noid]

I as well. However if I'm going to sign up for that for say, the next 10 years, I want to know ahead of time my increased taxes (and I'm well under $200k, so no rich boy here) are directly going to pay against the debt, and that each and every year, without exception (that literally means, no exception), the budget will be balanced.

What are the chances a.) the Congress for each of those 10 years would actually ensure that and b.) the POTUS for each of those 10 years would ensure that?

Zero.

We can now see why people who pay taxes, including the rich, aren't in favor of having their taxes raised....

Chuck

Well I can say I am on the higher end of the spectrum and the extra 3% will go into assets, its not going to go into consumption or investment. There is unfortunately a finite amount of things that a person can buy and a finite amount of investment that small business can accomplish. To expand like many business we would be looking at a consolidation of another small business which provides de minimis benefits to GDP and tax rolls.

I do believe the Norway method works as well. Two of Three years has to be balanced with if memory serves me right a maximum of 6% deficit/GDP in the third year.

Maybe that is one of the cheapest Sovereigns in the world to insure against default. Amazing the correlation there.

I will say over the last three years I have become more disenchanted with the political system and for the first time am glad my wife has dual citizenship outside the country.

 

[Tom]

I as well. However if I'm going to sign up for that for say, the next 10 years, I want to know ahead of time my increased taxes (and I'm well under $200k, so no rich boy here) are directly going to pay against the debt, and that each and every year, without exception (that literally means, no exception), the budget will be balanced.

What are the chances a.) the Congress for each of those 10 years would actually ensure that and b.) the POTUS for each of those 10 years would ensure that?

Zero.

We can now see why people who pay taxes, including the rich, aren't in favor of having their taxes raised....

Chuck

I actually agree with you in a way, and feel that the Democrats should use this opportunity to propose cuts that match the revenue of the increased taxes on higher income. So if those amount to a trillion over a decade they should propose cuts in spending of a trillion too.

 

[Kanalua]

....Democrats should use this opportunity to propose cuts that match the revenue of the increased taxes on higher income. So if those amount to a trillion over a decade they should propose cuts in spending of a trillion too.

If only this was true...Dems proposing and actually following through on spending cuts.

 

[Attic]

Apparently you're confusing deficit and spending.

The deficit is the difference between the money you take in and the money you spend.

Good point. I see our countries deficit and spending so intertwined that I do see them as the same thing. The deficit is as it's defined, a result of overspending.

The point i'm more interested in is how not taking someones earnings is being linked to increasing the deficit. I'm unclear of the motivating or underlying thinking making that argument.

I think the way you add to the deficit is by spending, though I see how not taking someones money can be used to show an increase in the deficit based on any given chosen tax rate/s. IE) If you taxed a group of people 80% it would generate X amount of tax revenue, if you tax them 30% it would genreate X - (the difference in revenue of the two rates). That is a gross way of looking at cutting the deficit though. Using the argument that the lack of a higher tax is increasing deficit is frankly cowardly from the viewpoint I have on business sense.

I think it would be better if we looked at tax generated revenue and also the countries spending behavior and then made the argument that if they are not equal (spending being greater) that the government needs to spend less, not tax more.

What is really adding to the deficit is not a positive value of tax revenue relative to a larger positive value of tax revenue, what is fundamentally adding to our countries deficit is overspending. I think that's where the focus should be put and where the responisbility lies on the matter, not the tax rate of a certain class of people.

 

[Vic Vega]

Yes, the rich get to keep their tax cut despite taking home a larger share of the nation wealth than they ever have.

See, now that is where you went wrong. There is no "share" of "national wealth". The statement alone implies that all wealth held by US Citizens and US Companies is in fact a big pool that is shared by everyone. It isn't.

 

[chucky2]

snip

I do believe the Norway method works as well. Two of Three years has to be balanced with if memory serves me right a maximum of 6% deficit/GDP in the third year.

Maybe that is one of the cheapest Sovereigns in the world to insure against default. Amazing the correlation there.

I will say over the last three years I have become more disenchanted with the political system and for the first time am glad my wife has dual citizenship outside the country.

I'd be fine with a system like that, as long as we first pay down the debt to zero first before enacting it.

And then, on the 3rd year, when they "surprisingly" go to a max of the 6%, we need to ensure that no subsequent years can go past even on the debt/tax receipts ratio until not only that 6% is paid off, but, the interest/whatever other hits we took on that 6% are paid off.

When they get all zero'd back out, then the 2 out of 3 can resume.

We get something like that in place, I'm all for it.

And should we ever hit this mythical condition, they need to pass another law that it takes a 80% majority to either change it or pass something else that affects it.

Lock a system like that in as tight as possible....

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

I actually agree with you in a way, and feel that the Democrats should use this opportunity to propose cuts that match the revenue of the increased taxes on higher income. So if those amount to a trillion over a decade they should propose cuts in spending of a trillion too.

That would be nice, but, the Dem's - nor the Rep's - are capable of such a thing.

You'd mine as well ask that fire not be hot, and water not be wet.

Chuck

 

[Tom]

If only this was true...Dems proposing and actually following through on spending cuts.

We have a better history of doing so than Republicans. Look to Clinton, Kennedy, Truman and FDR for examples.

 

[Vic Vega]

We have a better history of doing so than Republicans. Look to Clinton, Kennedy, Truman and FDR for examples.

Democrats have a history of cutting spending on things they don't like... just like Republicans have a history of cutting spending on things they don't like.

You guys are hilarious.

 

[spidey07]

So are we actually going to get a 2% deduction in FICA/SS? If so, then sweet. That's like an extra 2 grand+. Or is is just a reduction in the employer's portion?

 

[The-Noid]

I think it is on the employer side which is going to be a big number for a lot of people ourselves included. As I said not a whole of things to spend money on though we wouldn't go out to buy anyway.

My wife who has a master's in tax nailed this one right on "Wasn't the band on the Titanic instructed to play louder on the way down?"

 

[spidey07]

I think it is on the employer side which is going to be a big number for a lot of people ourselves included. As I said not a whole of things to spend money on though we wouldn't go out to buy anyway.

Even if it's on the employer side that's still huge tax savings for employers. I'm fine with that. I'd rather it be split one point on each side but if self employed can also take the 2% that's good as well.

Overall, a good idea if only temporary.

 

[The-Noid]

As far as economists are concerned (so take this with a grain of salt). Greatest multipliers achieved for stimulus are as follows: UI (sorry to say it I hate the program), R & D write-offs, expense write-offs instead of depreciation, employer tax holiday's (but haven't been tested for a long time) and finally tax cuts.

One of the highest multipliers ever achieved by the Federal government was on the cash for clunkers programs, I have seen projections of anywhere from 4-8 times the amount given was actually run through the economy.

There is so much stimulus in the system today the good ole' boys need to remember that you can make the economy jump but you can't make it fly.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd be fine with a system like that, as long as we first pay down the debt to zero first before enacting it.

And then, on the 3rd year, when they "surprisingly" go to a max of the 6%, we need to ensure that no subsequent years can go past even on the debt/tax receipts ratio until not only that 6% is paid off, but, the interest/whatever other hits we took on that 6% are paid off.

When they get all zero'd back out, then the 2 out of 3 can resume.

We get something like that in place, I'm all for it.

And should we ever hit this mythical condition, they need to pass another law that it takes a 80% majority to either change it or pass something else that affects it.

Lock a system like that in as tight as possible....

Chuck

ALL of the debt paid down?

You have any idea how much you would dislike that? They would need to tax you at something like 100% of your income for something like a long time to do that, along with everyone else, along with HUGE spending cuts.

Unless you are a big Glenn Beck listener and have been stocking up on food and gold (if you are I really hope your my neighbor), not such a good idea.

We need to balance the budget, even with the funny accounting they do, and then talk about reducing the debt. We will never have zero debt though, just ain't gonna happen unless we say fuck you to everyone who holds our debt.

 

[The-Noid]

Could pay down the debt by having a balanced budget and viewing the maturity table as a payoff table over 30 years. Move anything on the short fly out and payoff each piece as it comes through. It would take fiscal responsibility over the longish term but could be done.

Having said that the entitlements basically need to be scrapped and re-examined for anything like that to happen.

 

[theeedude]

What working on the non-existent shovel ready jobs?

I'm sure there's plenty of work that can be done in their local area that would benefit everyone for their unemployment check. Plus this would be a motivator to seek other employment rather than suck on the government tit for 99+ weeks.

non-existent shovel ready jobs? I can't drive 5 miles without seeing a paid for by stimulus road maintenance sign.

 

[Engineer]

So are we actually going to get a 2% deduction in FICA/SS? If so, then sweet. That's like an extra 2 grand+. Or is is just a reduction in the employer's portion?

Per yahoo, it's the employee side.

Wonder if there will be any offsetting spending cuts? Doubt it.

I wonder if the "tax credits" are going to be extended (Making America work or what bullshit name it was a few years ago and other credits)?

I can see employers now saying..."You effectively have a 2% raise next year because of the temporary SS cut so you are getting a smaller/NO raise this year".

 

[manimal]

I think democrats need to learn the definition of negotiations.....I dont think they realize compromise is a two way street....


its time we turn the keys over to people who actually give a shit about the country long term....screw these idiots....all of them....

 

[The-Noid]

I think democrats need to learn the definition of negotiations.....I dont think they realize compromise is a two way street....


its time we turn the keys over to people who actually give a shit about the country long term....screw these idiots....all of them....

Hehe that's cute. There is no negotiation because no one wants to look like the guy that blocked UI benefits (even though he blocked them by not voting for a non tax cut extension package) and had it slammed in his face next election. Most people aren't like the P & N crowd and have very little idea what is actually going on. They hear anything that has to do with what they got and unfortunately that is why the budget is so big.

The goal of every vote, every thought of a politician is how it will affect them come next election. If you think they are attempting to help you by compromising you are sadly mistaken.

 

[manimal]

Hehe that's cute. There is no negotiation because no one wants to look like the guy that blocked UI benefits (even though he blocked them by not voting for a non tax cut extension package) and had it slammed in his face next election. Most people aren't like the P & N crowd and have very little idea what is actually going on. They hear anything that has to do with what they got and unfortunately that is why the budget is so big.

The goal of every vote, every thought of a politician is how it will affect them come next election. If you think they are attempting to help you by compromising you are sadly mistaken.

They do take oaths on a bible dont they?


...above comment heavily draped in sarcasm...

 

[Zebo]

I think it is on the employer side which is going to be a big number for a lot of people ourselves included. As I said not a whole of things to spend money on though we wouldn't go out to buy anyway.

My wife who has a master's in tax nailed this one right on "Wasn't the band on the Titanic instructed to play louder on the way down?"

hehe Your wife is a wise woman.

Estimates are this "package" will add $500 billion to the deficit each year to an already 1.6 T dollar deficit. Why do we even pay taxes at all if they can gin up 2.1 Trillion? Make it 3 and save a few trees...Go Green!


Just a matter of time...

 

[Zebo]

Could pay down the debt by having a balanced budget and viewing the maturity table as a payoff table over 30 years. Move anything on the short fly out and payoff each piece as it comes through. It would take fiscal responsibility over the longish term but could be done.

Having said that the entitlements basically need to be scrapped and re-examined for anything like that to happen.

Wall street sold America out. We are over paid over benefitted and under-worked. WTF would those with all the marbles bother with pesky things like minimum wage, OSHA, UE, EPA, 40 hr work weeks, right to organize, etc etc etc when you can play emerging economies off against one another full of people who think a bowl of rice is a good day? Best part is you get state heavies over there to bust a few heads if workers get uppity, real uppity? just move.... Vietnam, Thailand, India, Shi Lanka, back to China possiblites are limitless.. You'd have to be retarded to open a factory here.

Entitlements are a necessary evil so their is no riots in the streets.

 

[Balt]

So we're cutting payments into SS which is already in trouble, increasing spending, and lowering our tax revenue for the next 2 years.

Yup, good compromise. Everyone gets what they want, which is just continuing to dig ourselves into a deeper fiscal grave. 🙄

 

[chucky2]

ALL of the debt paid down?

You have any idea how much you would dislike that? They would need to tax you at something like 100% of your income for something like a long time to do that, along with everyone else, along with HUGE spending cuts.

Unless you are a big Glenn Beck listener and have been stocking up on food and gold (if you are I really hope your my neighbor), not such a good idea.

We need to balance the budget, even with the funny accounting they do, and then talk about reducing the debt. We will never have zero debt though, just ain't gonna happen unless we say fuck you to everyone who holds our debt.

I didn't say pay it off next year, or in the next 3 years. First they obviously need to balance the budget with current tax revenue's, so as to stop adding to the debt.

Then they need to both slash - LARGE slashing - and also raise taxes - on everyone - and take that direct extra tax money and put it into paying off the debt.

If they can do that for 10 years straight, maybe, just maybe, we'll have a F'ing chance.

If they can't even do that...heck, if they can't even try to do that, then WTF do they need more of my, or anyone else's, money for? Because if they can't do that, we're F'd. And if we're F'd, they mine as well let us keep our money and blow it on cheap chinese goods, beer, and cigs. WhyTF not?

People want to keep thinking there's a magic way out of these massive huge untackled issues we've got, without having to go through real countrywide pain in solving them. Well, Reality Check! There is no way to solve them without Everyone taking a nice big bite of the shit sandwhich, and swallowing.

The WWI generation fought WWI, WWII generation fought WWII, Korea generation fought Korea, Vietnam generation fought Vietnam, then we've got the Gulf War I and II generations, along with Afghanistan. Well, there's a new battle now, and instead of sacrificing limbs and lives, we'll be sacrificing money and time...less time to retire, and more time worked, before dying.

Or we can just keep up with our Consumer of Shit culture and have it all blow up....I can already tell which direction a disturbing number of Americans are choosing to go....

Chuck