White House says it will not support any extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthies

[Jhhnn]

Almost 50% of the population pay 0 tax, how is lowering taxes on the lower brackets going stimulate anything?

Same hogwash, different day. 50% of the population pays no federal income tax, but they still pay a lot of other taxes. For extremely high earners, those other taxes shrink to insignificance, because they spend only a small % of income on lifestyle, no matter how lavish.

Total taxes are a lot flatter than you think, actually regressive at the top-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

Raising taxes on people who aren't spending their incomes but rather saving them will have little to no effect of the economy. Why do you think interest rates are so low, anyway? It's because we have a savings glut in a liquidity trap... the private sector is deleveraging tremendously, particularly the wealthiest.

 

[fskimospy]

Stimulus spending doesn't work, the government cant create jobs but only redistribute wealth. It would make more sense to cut spending, the government is spending too much money and in areas where it definitely shouldn't. They need to cut spending and taxes.

Obviously false. Of course the government can create jobs, and the European experiment is quite clearly showing how stimulus works and cutting spending is a total failure. I don't even know why I'm responding to you as you seem to clearly be a parody account as no one could be quite this stupid.

 

[Incorruptible]

Obviously false. Of course the government can create jobs, and the European experiment is quite clearly showing how stimulus works and cutting spending is a total failure. I don't even know why I'm responding to you as you seem to clearly be a parody account as no one could be quite this stupid.

Stimulus doesnt work at all. Europe didn't cut spending they increased it.

I don't even know why I'm responding to you since you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Stimulus doesnt work at all. Europe didn't cut spending they increased it.

I don't even know why I'm responding to you since you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

Ummmm... You sure it's him?

http://www.europeaninstitute.org/Ap...a-country-by-country-table-updated-may-3.html

 

[nehalem256]

You realize that a huge percentage of those people are 1.) people who are on Social Security, which isn't taxed and 2.) do so because of the earned income tax credit that the Bush tax cuts expanded, right?
.

What?!?!?!?!? You mean the tax cuts liberals have been saying for 10 years were for the rich?

 

[nehalem256]

Same hogwash, different day. 50% of the population pays no federal income tax, but they still pay a lot of other taxes. For extremely high earners, those other taxes shrink to insignificance, because they spend only a small % of income on lifestyle, no matter how lavish.

Total taxes are a lot flatter than you think, actually regressive at the top-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

Stop quoting BS numbers that count taxes that someone else pays as taxes on the poor.

 

[fskimospy]

Stimulus doesnt work at all. Europe didn't cut spending they increased it.

I don't even know why I'm responding to you since you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

Ahh, the same old disingenuous arguments to try and justify the utter failure of conservative economics. You are either a parody account or a deeply stupid person, so I'm not going to rehash the same old discussions with you.

It's okay, sometimes you just have to admit that conservatives were utterly wrong. If you don't believe it now, Europe will make you believe it soon. They seem to be finally realizing the utter folly of what they were doing and changing to a more liberal course, but we can only hope it's not too late.

 

[Jhhnn]

Stop quoting BS numbers that count taxes that someone else pays as taxes on the poor.

Counter the source & the numbers with your own- show us just how progressive total taxes really are. Have at it.

 

[nehalem256]

Counter the source & the numbers with your own- show us just how progressive total taxes really are. Have at it.

well we can calculate using your numbers but subtracting off the employer paid payroll tax that you are counting as being paid by the employee.

so assuming I have done the math right it yields the following numbers for federal taxes

Income %income as federal tax
12500 -3.45
25300 2.15
40700 7.3
66300 10.97
100000 12.8
241000 18.1
1,254000 20.56

 

[Lithium381]

well we can calculate using your numbers but subtracting off the employer paid payroll tax that you are counting as being paid by the employee.

so assuming I have done the math right it yields the following numbers for federal taxes

Income %income as federal tax
12500 -3.45
25300 2.15
40700 7.3
66300 10.97
100000 12.8
241000 18.1
1,254000 20.56

this is assuming no deductions? single? married?

 

[Jhhnn]

well we can calculate using your numbers but subtracting off the employer paid payroll tax that you are counting as being paid by the employee.

so assuming I have done the math right it yields the following numbers for federal taxes

Income %income as federal tax
12500 -3.45
25300 2.15
40700 7.3
66300 10.97
100000 12.8
241000 18.1
1,254000 20.56

Federal taxes aren't the point, at all, but rather *total taxes*. But you already knew that, still attempt to obfuscate.

CTJ numbers are calculated on the basis that employees would otherwise receive the portion of payroll taxes currently paid on their behalf by employers, which is the usual contention from the Right.

If you're contradicting that, you're contradicting the Party line... trying to have it both ways.

 

[umbrella39]

Let the whitehouse do what it wants. Let them reap the rewards.

Rich people or people that are well-off are the ones making compaign donations. Who do you think they will donate their money to?

Apparently not all rich people are cheap assholes that think they are a protected class because many rich people donate(d) to Obama.

 

[sportage]

Tax cuts. Budgets. Spending. National debt.
Are you a sucker?
Not one republican in congress, especially John Boehner nor Eric Cantor, gives a hoot about spending no matter what they pretend. I won't believe one republican actually cares about spending until they do the one thing they will never do... Address their own federal government perks and benefits.

When Boehner retires, or gets the boot, he will enjoy a very generous life time government pension, as well as a generous government healthcare plan for he and his family.
Somehow, for some reason, that doesn't seem to bother one single republican congress person.
They are all gun-ho to cut union benefits and worker benefits for teachers and cops, but try putting one finger on John Boenher's government perks and benefits then just watch what happens.
I can guess his response "HELL NO".

Until I hear one of these blow hards address their own government, "big government" perks, you will know they are all just full of horse manure.
Funny how that works with American politics...

 

[Double Trouble]

Same hogwash, different day. 50% of the population pays no federal income tax, but they still pay a lot of other taxes.

The federal government can only control federal taxes, mostly income taxes. If 50% of the people don't pay federal income taxes, then lowering the federal income tax on that 50% of the population does nothing.

As a matter of principle I'm against raising taxes on any particular group. If you're going to raise them, raise them on everyone. Raising everyone's taxes in the middle of a recession isn't a good idea.

 

[nehalem256]

Federal taxes aren't the point, at all, but rather *total taxes*. But you already knew that, still attempt to obfuscate.

CTJ numbers are calculated on the basis that employees would otherwise receive the portion of payroll taxes currently paid on their behalf by employers, which is the usual contention from the Right.

If you're contradicting that, you're contradicting the Party line... trying to have it both ways.

Well, sorry, I dont have the necessary information to adjust the state/local taxes.

I dont follow any party line. But unless you recently switched to the Republican Party it sounds like you are conceding that the federal numbers at least are BS.

 

[nehalem256]

this is assuming no deductions? single? married?

It appears to be an average so some of both. It is what people actually pay.

As based on http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf, but subtracting off the employer paid payroll taxes.

 

[Anarchist420]

Obviously false. Of course the government can create jobs, and the European experiment is quite clearly showing how stimulus works and cutting spending is a total failure.

The government can create jobs, but it's not worthwhile because we can't income tax the wealthy anymore. It would have to be funded by so much inflation and borrowing that we'd never get out of it and the creditors would just quit loaning.

The only way the Federal government could "tax the rich" more is if there was a federal real estate tax that had a large exemption and a high rate. When liberals advocate for increases in the top marginal income tax rate to minimize inequalities in wealth, they look very uninformed.

 

[Thump553]

Good to see Obama show some spine. Excellent way to distringuish himself from the competition, especially when every opinion (of the moment) Romeny voices is based upon some poll or focus group.

Objectively viewed the Bush tax cuts were a horrible economic experiment, the main result of was a minor sugar rush to the economy and to turn a surplus into a ballooning deficit.

 

[hal2kilo]

Currently the economy is not suffering from a lack of capital(supply), but a lack of demand.

Therefore letting the tax cuts expire on the rich would not seem to have an overly bad effect on the economy. And would tell the bond markets that the US has the balls to actually do something about the deficit problem.

If you feel raising taxes during a recession is unacceptable. Than lower taxes on lower income brackets to make up for it. As the current problem is a lack of demand not supply this will do more to stimulate the economy. And to be clear this should not be any negative tax EITC BS.

I think I've had a stroke! I agree with something you said.

 

[piasabird]

When I took my actual taxes paid and divided by my gross pay, I pay about 3% in taxes. So what real precentage of your pay did you actually pay in taxes?

So what are the offsets?

Charity (10% tithe payer) + other charities United Way?

Housing: Taxes, Insurance, Loan interest.

Also paid a penalty for cashing in some investments.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'll ask this again. Precisely who are the wealthy? At what dollar amount does that start? A million? 100k?

Pig in a poke?

 

[Phokus]

You can ask Bill Clinton and Lawrence Summers.

Oh right they stepped out of line. It's okay though, your tent is so big it's bound to happen. Clinton has already 'clarified', no doubt Summers will as well. Your party ducks will get back in line and quack the same tune shortly.

It's a simple truth that you wish to raise taxes in the middle of this depression. That's not a good idea. Hide the decline with stimulus all you want, this is a depression and the economy is not healthy. Europe might just send it back over the edge. The Feds are talking more quantitative easing.

Why taxes now, do deficits matter?

The problem with the economy is lack of aggregate demand. Cutting taxes on the rich won't help, raising taxes on the rich won't hurt. That's because the rich have a much higher marginal propensity to save (and more savings for them won't help because there are very few good investments right now), while the poor/middle class has a higher marginal propensity to consume, so more money in THEIR hands would help the economy immensely. Learn some economics.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'll ask this again. Precisely who are the wealthy? At what dollar amount does that start? A million? 100k?

Pig in a poke?

Anyone that makes more than you think you are able to

 

[piasabird]

I dont think you can take a set amount and say anyone that makes more than that is wealthy. Also one man may give 0.00$ in charity and another person may give $10,000 in charity. Then Romney gave about $1,000,000 in charity (Just guessing here). Cost of living can be quite high if you live in a big city where the average cost of a home is around $400,000 or more. So in some locations $100,000 in pay is chickenfeed. However, in some locations $40,000 is doing alright.

So when states do things like raise license and registration fees they really dont take into account how much these charges hurt the working poor. I might be taking more trips in my car if I could afford to put gas in it.

 

[Ninjahedge]

They need to lower taxes on the lower bracket for one simple reason.

They spend more.

Remember that sketch by Dave Chapelle? The one where he has the black community all get paid back for Slavery?

He then shows ALL of them spending money frivolously on toys and glam.

This bit of satire is based on truth, and it is not limited by race. Poor people DO generally spend more when they have it available. I am not talking about fiscal responsibility, but rather just %in to %out.

You give $1000 more a year to one in the bottom brackets, chances are businesses will see $900 of it back that year.

You give $100,000 back to a $1M+ earner, you will be lucky to get half of it back in the stream.

The ultimate irony is this. Given that those with less are prone to spend more, what does that do the individuals that OWN Ames supermarkets? What about the shareholders at Sears, KMart, WalMart and Lowes? You think that they will not see this money?

More spending = more jobs = more money to SPEND = more profit.

F' "Trickle Down". Economics doesn't follow Physics. It is time we did some "Trickle Up".