Page 7 of 76 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 758

Thread: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    This is such a freaking game. Too bad we can't "blanket impeach" Congress.
    LMAO sounds like a good idea!

  2. #62
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    people won't stop investing.
    whatever makes you think that the only place in the world to invest is in American business? capital is extremely fungible. You lower the return on investing in American business, you simply relatively increase the attractiveness of other venues. Given our #1 spot in the Corporate Tax rankings, other nations, eager for the capital, probably can't wait for us to shoot ourselves in the other foot. States will do well, too; their borrowing costs will go down.

    there have been many periods of growth under higher capital gains rates.
    yes. We also have had many beautiful moments of selflessness in wars in which we blew millions of people into little bits. I'm not really sure how the "we've made it harder before" argument translates into "therefore we should do something stupid now".

    however, the alternative system could be tweaked; for example, we could lower the rate further under the cap, or simply create a new progressively-tiered capital gains system. the idea is mostly just a theory, though, because i doubt that it will be seriously considered by either side.
    I wouldn't mind a single tier-split as was proposed during the last campaign - that all investment income under $200K, for example, be tax free. Let retirees live with full access to their savings, and encourage the middle and lower income tiers to save and invest.

    however, i agree with you that one-sided austerity is a losing proposition. soaking the lower and middle classes as the republicans want to do will put a serious crimp in demand
    and where do Republicans do this?

    Europe has tried two-sided austerity, where they reduce spending in order to free up more resources (good) and then try to suck them all back up with higher taxes (bad). The results have.... not been optimal.

    Fortunately, we have several decades of experience from which we can learn

    ...We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy, both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments, those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on the tax side are less likely to create recessions. We confirm these results with simple regression analysis...
    rapidly raising taxes only on the rich will also have negative consequences. everybody is going to have to give something.
    Agreed, but trying to get the wealthy to "give something" through increasing their tax rates A) will destroy more of the economy (according to the former chair of the PRESIDENTS" OWN council of economic advisers), and B) won't raise additional revenue.

    Far better is to stop spending on the wealthy. The Wealthy Need To Pay Up? Okay. Let's raise the retirement age to 67. Unless you have more than 5 million dollars. Then you do not need nor will you get Social Security or Medicare at all. Everyone gave up some, the wealthy gave up the most, and we actually managed to reduce the deficit without wrecking the economy any further.

    what is critical is that we address the problem from both the revenue and spending sides, and that we carefully phase in any changes.
    yes. the problem is that you can't increase revenue by increasing rates - you increase it by increasing GDP and growth while reducing the relative size of government.

  3. #63
    Guru
    Carleen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,613

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by keymanjim View Post
    Read that as "CLASS WARFARE".
    Not really. The rich should be paying more. It is fairness not class warfare IMHO.

  4. #64
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    I stated how much revenue would be raised by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2 income brackets of those couples making $250,000 0r more a year.
    I never said that the increase would take care of our deficit.

    It is just a start. Spending needs to cut in many places and perhaps we need more sources of revenue also.

    The $80 billion a year is a start.

    Gov. Romeny was going to start the spending cut by cutting out the funding for Big Bird/ PBS.

    Just cutting funding for PBS would not solve the deficit either, but it would have been a start.
    I don't disagree with you that he wanted to cut Big Bird, but his plan included more cuts than just big bird. He did have a lot of I will show you the tax loops I plan on eliminating later, and that is the issue. We need a plan, and not just class warfare. Obama is going to raise the taxes on the rich and talk about entitlement reform later. Both plans stink. Put out your whole plan, let's see all the cards, and forget this one little thing at a time. They get paid to make and enact a plan, something they haven't done for many years.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  5. #65
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    Not really. The rich should be paying more. It is fairness not class warfare IMHO.
    No Other Industrialized Nation Leans On Upper Income Earners As Much As The US

    If you want to talk about what's "fair", then "fairness", unfortunately, requires middle class tax hikes. I suggest perhaps we instead talk about what is wise policy, as that might be a better guide.

  6. #66
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    Not really. The rich should be paying more. It is fairness not class warfare IMHO.
    They already pay more, but now you want them to pay more yet.

    According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

    In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

    The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

    Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

    Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

    The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

    The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

    The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

    The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

    Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

    Who Pays the Most Income Tax?
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  7. #67
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Obama is playing politics with the lives of us Americans he supposedly is in office to do good things for. His statement that he will not sign a bill that does not raise taxes on the rich proves he is more interested in destroying Republicans than he is in leading us out of this horrible economy. If Reps can find a way to meet his dollar requirements through closing loop holes the rich use then there should be a deal. What obama wants though is to weaken Reps with their base by forcing them to break their pledge not to raise taxes or to go over the cliff and blame it on Reps in order to turn the general public against them. Obama just may drag us into another recession, possibly even a new depression.


    "President Obama today declared there would be no deal to avert the looming fiscal cliff unless Republicans agree to raise rates on the top 2 percent of income-earners."

    No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says - ABC News
    I disagree completely. Obama needs to stand firm on this and let the chips fall where they may. He was elected to do this the first time and caved to the Republicans. He was elected on the same agenda and given a second chance. He cannot allow the Republicans to hold the middle and working class hostage in order to protect the interests of their base. The American people understand that the Republicans care mostly about the wealthy and they will pay the political price if they take the middle class and working class over the cliff.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #68
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by keymanjim View Post
    Read that as "CLASS WARFARE".
    LOL....I love how its "Class Warfare" with you people when it adversely affects the wealthy....however when tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy you guys think its all fine and dandy.
    Give it up with the propoganda talking points. They ain't selling.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #69
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,495

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    Quote Originally Posted by keymanjim View Post
    So, $80 billion a year.
    What does that do when we see defects in excess of $1 trillion a year? Not much, huh?
    Time to drop the class warfare rhetoric and come up with real solutions. Like cutting spending.
    List the top ten things to cut please? And how much cut comes from each of those top ten?

    Please.

    I'll wait - but I won't hold my breath.

    What are "THE CUTS" that everybody wants to see happen?

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,318

    Re: No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

    The irony in the situation that is totally missed is that Obama can jump up and down, stomp his feet, give speeches, go on another apology tour, or go play B ball. In the end it does not matter. Other than proposing a budget and having veto power, it is the House that presents the budget. If I were the House, I would formulate a budget, including the cuts in spending and the tax situation, and vote on it and present it. Then Obama would have the choice of veto or acceptance. Traditionally, the President presents a suggested budget. He has not done that ever.

Page 7 of 76 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •