Senate Republicans say they'll block tax increase on wealthy

[techs]

First of all, that is over 10 years and only $700B of that is from the "tax cuts for the rich".
So am I to assume that you are in favor of raising everyones taxes? Or is adding $3.3T to the deficit over 10 years acceptable to you but $4T isn't?

Also, does the next guy get to complain about the "unfunded" tax cuts that Obama and the Dems passed if they are extended for all but the rich?

Please post your source for the bolded part.
Thanks

 

[matt0611]

No, the money we borrow puts money that is sitting on the sidelines into the real economy. The government can borrow at interest rates at or below the rate of inflation. In real term it's getting paid interest to borrow money. If it's invested in infrastructure that helps increase our future GDP potential, it's a no brainer. The alternative is paying people to sit at home and have their skills deteriorate. That is a guaranteed loss. It's not rocket surgery.

Well I'm definitely not supporting paying people to sit at home. Thats definitely a waste.

Exactly how much money is "on the sidelines" anyway? If this money was not spent on goods and instead saved wouldn't that just make it into the economy by banks lending out that money anyway? To companies etc?

If there really is all this money on the sidelines it should be easy for people to get money to invest in capital, open up factories for the unemployed people to work in.

Must be some reason why this isn't happening, too high minimum wage perhaps? Prohibitively high business taxes? Low confidence? All of the above? There must be some reason why China is cranking out so much while we are not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well I'm definitely not supporting paying people to sit at home. Thats definitely a waste.

Exactly how much money is "on the sidelines" anyway? If this money was not spent on goods and instead saved wouldn't that just make it into the economy by banks lending out that money anyway? To companies etc?

If there really is all this money on the sidelines it should be easy for people to get money to invest in capital, open up factories for the unemployed people to work in.

Must be some reason why this isn't happening, too high minimum wage perhaps? Prohibitively high business taxes? Low confidence? All of the above? There must be some reason why China is cranking out so much while we are not.

The banks are lending money- just not in this country-

http://seekingalpha.com/article/172201-implications-of-the-dollar-carry-trade

Having made a killing in frothing up and crashing the US economy, they're moving the action abroad...

 

[JS80]

The top 5% is not doing well now?

Being in our 20s, my wife and I top 250k and we are not wealthy. Why should I be taxed at the same rate as a 60 year old lawyer making $500k, with $15 million in real estate, $5 million in his 401k, and about to rake in social security?

 

[Acanthus]

Being in our 20s, my wife and I top 250k and we are not wealthy. Why should I be taxed at the same rate as a 60 year old lawyer making $500k, with $15 million in real estate, $5 million in his 401k, and about to rake in social security?

While i agree that there should be a bracket higher than $250k... you're doing better than the vast majority of americans and are NOT middle class.

 

[Craig234]

Please post your source for the bolded part.
Thanks

While I'm not posting a source, Darwin's figure of $700B over ten years for the $250K+ income tax cuts is the one I've seen widely reported and seem to be accepted by both sides.

Edit: OK, here's one example link, as it makes an argument for not extending those cuts:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

 

[Craig234]

While i agree that there should be a bracket higher than $250k... you're doing better than the vast majority of americans and are NOT middle class.

It seems the 'upper middle class' bracket they're in extends up to anyone below the 10 richest Americans. I'm not sure the bottom of those 10 doesn't claim it, too.

 

[ebaycj]

There are enormous sums of money sitting on the sidelines already. We have banks sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and not lending. There is no shortage in money supply.

If that's the case (and I agree with you that it most likely is), wouldn't a tax increase also increase borrowing?

Wouldn't that then raise interest rates (demand for borrowing)?

Wouldn't the increased demand for borrowing likely also increase the utility of that "sideline" money since it can now be lent out at a better rate than before?

Tax increase FTMFW.

 

[ebaycj]

The money we borrow takes money out of the economy too, don't forget. It has to come from somewhere. We also have to make interest payments on what we borrow.

But your interest payment is someone else's profit, where before there was none. So it is a net increase to the economy overall even if it is a negative for you personally.

 

[ebaycj]

Well I'm definitely not supporting paying people to sit at home. Thats definitely a waste.

Exactly how much money is "on the sidelines" anyway? If this money was not spent on goods and instead saved wouldn't that just make it into the economy by banks lending out that money anyway? To companies etc?

If there really is all this money on the sidelines it should be easy for people to get money to invest in capital, open up factories for the unemployed people to work in.

Must be some reason why this isn't happening, too high minimum wage perhaps? Prohibitively high business taxes? Low confidence? All of the above? There must be some reason why China is cranking out so much while we are not.

It's on the sidelines because the interest rates currently being paid for "safe" investment are so low that it is not worth the risk of any loss.

 

[ebaycj]

Being in our 20s, my wife and I top 250k and we are not wealthy. Why should I be taxed at the same rate as a 60 year old lawyer making $500k, with $15 million in real estate, $5 million in his 401k, and about to rake in social security?

You are wealthy, you just haven't realized it yet.

 

[Mursilis]

Being in our 20s, my wife and I top 250k and we are not wealthy.

If you made that statement in all seriousness and without a trace of irony, you're totally out of touch. I suggest you open your eyes.

 

[matt0611]

But your interest payment is someone else's profit, where before there was none. So it is a net increase to the economy overall even if it is a negative for you personally.

Yeah, someone else in another country probably.

 

[Acanthus]

But your interest payment is someone else's profit, where before there was none. So it is a net increase to the economy overall even if it is a negative for you personally.

There is a problem though when 41% of your economy does nothing but extract money from the other 59%.

It is horribly inefficient at the very least.

 

[JS80]

While i agree that there should be a bracket higher than $250k... you're doing better than the vast majority of americans and are NOT middle class.

Who gives a shit? It wasn't an accident that I am where I am today. I was never handed shit to me. I did not win the genetics lottery. As you all are aware I'm just a dumb convervative God believing immigrant with poor immigrant parents. Yet you want to classify me in a class higher than some spoiled white privileged brat making shit but enjoys the fruits of their fathers. Fuck you all.

 

[Acanthus]

Who gives a shit? It wasn't an accident that I am where I am today. I was never handed shit to me. I did not win the genetics lottery. As you all are aware I'm just a dumb convervative God believing immigrant with poor immigrant parents. Yet you want to classify me in a class higher than some spoiled white privileged brat making shit but enjoys the fruits of their fathers. Fuck you all.

You enjoy a standard of living that is very high relative to the other 6 billion people on earth.

Your quality of life will not be adversely affected by a bump in taxes.

Maybe if you want lower taxes, you would consider voting in candidates with more responsible fiscal policies that don't send 20% of our labor to 3rd world nations and leave 1/7th of the country on food stamps.

 

[JS80]

You enjoy a standard of living that is very high relative to the other 6 billion people on earth.

Your quality of life will not be adversely affected by a bump in taxes.

Maybe if you want lower taxes, you would consider voting in candidates with more responsible fiscal policies that don't send 20% of our labor to 3rd world nations and leave 1/7th of the country on food stamps.

I live in California. My vote doesn't count for shit. And I did not vote for McCain nor Obama in 2008.

But you are aware of my stance. I fully support making China our slave labor and cutting off welfare at home.

 

[Acanthus]

I live in California. My vote doesn't count for shit. And I did not vote for McCain nor Obama in 2008.

But you are aware of my stance. I fully support making China our slave labor and cutting off welfare at home.

You do realize that would likely lead to a dramatic increase in crime in a good scenario, and all out looting and revolt in a bad one?

 

[JS80]

You do realize that would likely lead to a dramatic increase in crime in a good scenario, and all out looting and revolt in a bad one?

So basically you're saying those that are on welfare are effectively committing extortion?

If you slowly ween off welfare, or even stop its growth, the probability of looting/revolt is low. Cutting it off cold turkey would obviously cause social disruption.

 

[theeedude]

Don't worry, rich folks, these guys are gonna save you:

Look at Boehner, he's feeling your pain right now.

 

[theeedude]

Well I'm definitely not supporting paying people to sit at home. Thats definitely a waste.

Exactly how much money is "on the sidelines" anyway? If this money was not spent on goods and instead saved wouldn't that just make it into the economy by banks lending out that money anyway? To companies etc?

If there really is all this money on the sidelines it should be easy for people to get money to invest in capital, open up factories for the unemployed people to work in.

Must be some reason why this isn't happening, too high minimum wage perhaps? Prohibitively high business taxes? Low confidence? All of the above? There must be some reason why China is cranking out so much while we are not.

China pumps enormous sums of money relative to its GDP into infrastructure spending, and enormous sums on top of that subsidizing its industries with currency manipulation. They don't waste their time debating government spending to death.

 

[matt0611]

China pumps enormous sums of money relative to its GDP into infrastructure spending, and enormous sums on top of that subsidizing its industries with currency manipulation. They don't waste their time debating government spending to death.

Wouldn't it make sense that a country that has less infrastructure divert more spending to build it? Do you have a source for this btw? I'm curious to how much certain countries spend on infrastructure.

If we didn't have the borrow the money and we weren't already doing massive deficits each year then go for it. Much better than most things that the government does. We already spend about 150 billion each year on interest payments alone if I recall? Think of the infrastructure that could buy every year.

China *can't* waste their time arguing, one party rule ftw.

 

[nonlnear]

China pumps enormous sums of money relative to its GDP into infrastructure spending, and enormous sums on top of that subsidizing its industries with currency manipulation. They don't waste their time debating government spending to death.

In their own way, yes they do "waste their time debating government spending to death". It's not in the nominally open way that debate happens in the US. It's with bribes, favors, and brownie points within the party hierarchy. The Chinese government is not as boisterous in its operation as many others, especially considering its size. Don't make the common error of mistaking silence for efficiency. Operational silence is only indicative of governmental efficiency in an environment where public dissent is accepted.

 

[Craig234]

I called Senator Boxer's office today to follow up on the question why reconciliation is not used to pass the Democrats' tax policies with 50 votes.

I got an answer finally. They said it's because reconciliation required a formal budget be in place, and the 2011 budget has not passed so it can't be used.

They say the budget is not likely to pass soon, they're using temporary funding.

The budget will require the 60 votes given Republican abuse of the filibuster.

 

[Fern]

I called Senator Boxer's office today to follow up on the question why reconciliation is not used to pass the Democrats' tax policies with 50 votes.

I got an answer finally. They said it's because reconciliation required a formal budget be in place, and the 2011 budget has not passed so it can't be used.

They say the budget is not likely to pass soon, they're using temporary funding.

The budget will require the 60 votes given Republican abuse of the filibuster.

So they dithered until it was too late to use the 2010 budget?

The Bush cuts passed under reconcilliation on June 7th of the year. Presumably, if the excuse is valid, the dems could have done it this Summer too.

Fern