• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

Do you hear that? No? It's called silence, and its very peaceful. When you hit the Cons with facts like that the threads suddenly become inactive, lol.

Maybe it's time for tea? All kidding aside in the limited time I have spent here I have noticed that there are some very smart conservatives here. I'm guessing there may be a rebuttal or two yet that I will have to think about before responding.
 
Maybe it's time for tea? All kidding aside in the limited time I have spent here I have noticed that there are some very smart conservatives here. I'm guessing there may be a rebuttal or two yet that I will have to think about before responding.

No, not that smart, if you really pay attention they actually use the same talking points and same statistics over and over again and completely refute any studies that show otherwise. I'll prepare you in advance for this one, they will show statistics that jobs and the economy grew from Bush tax cuts. However, this was only short lived, and the cuts ended up having a negative effect in the long run.
 
The Democrats tried to cut taxes for everyone....except the Party of No, of course said "NO....unless you extend tax cuts to our corporate elite".

The GOP is responsible for this.
Sounds good to me - the less that's done the less the civilians of this country suffer. And the Democrats weren't cutting taxes for everyone ... unless your view of everyone doesn't include "everyone". Corporate taxes in this country is 2nd in the world behind Japan, and in my state of NJ, corprate tax is at 41%. Other than following the standard view of punitive punishiment for those evil corporations, why wouldn't Republicans want to cut taxes for Corporations?

The Tax Foundation - U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes
 
Can we look at the current budget for those things?

No we cannot. Why?

New year, but no new federal budget - Sep. 12, 2010

Exactly why I am using the 2010 budget, which also has budget estimates based on current policies through 2019. If anything, those estimates are now optimistic because the economy continues to sputter so expected receipts will probably have to be brought down. The overall premise remains the same so I can't see why you would say we cannot use the most recent budget as something to base my stances on. Seems to be a bit of a punt to me really.
 
House Democrats punt on voting to extend taxes - Jake Sherman and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

Echo Chamber: Punting Congress - Alexander Trowbridge - POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42836.html:

Forty-seven House Democrats broke with Democratic leaders Tuesday to call for an extension of current capital gains and dividends tax rates for the wealthy.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats echoed many of the arguments that Republicans have made in urging extension of all the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire Jan. 1.

They argued that “our economy is fragile,” and that raising these taxes would discourage saving and investment that the economy needs to grow. President Barack Obama wants to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for 98 percent of taxpayers but allow them to expire for the highest-earning 2 percent of households.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/15/more-democrats-break-with-obama-on-tax-cuts/:

Washington (CNN) – Thirty-one House Democrats, most of whom face tough re-election bids this fall, have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them to extend expiring tax breaks for all income levels, including the wealthy.

The letter–written by Utah Rep. Jim Matheson, Illinois Rep. Melissa Bean, Virginia Rep. Glenn Nye and Michigan Rep. Gary Peters–states that after listening to economists, small businesses and families over recent weeks they are concerned that "raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth."
 
Sounds good to me - the less that's done the less the civilians of this country suffer. And the Democrats weren't cutting taxes for everyone ... unless your view of everyone doesn't include "everyone". Corporate taxes in this country is 2nd in the world behind Japan, and in my state of NJ, corprate tax is at 41%. Other than following the standard view of punitive punishiment for those evil corporations, why wouldn't Republicans want to cut taxes for Corporations?

The Tax Foundation - U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes

Its all very frustrating when you think about it. Dems want to keep the taxes high for corporate which makes the country unfriendly for businesses. Republicans want to lower them but then ironically want to spend trillions on overseas wars that are incredibly hard to justify as "necessary". Who do you vote for? Ron Paul 2012.
 
Last edited:
Sounds good to me - the less that's done the less the civilians of this country suffer. And the Democrats weren't cutting taxes for everyone ... unless your view of everyone doesn't include "everyone". Corporate taxes in this country is 2nd in the world behind Japan, and in my state of NJ, corprate tax is at 41%. Other than following the standard view of punitive punishiment for those evil corporations, why wouldn't Republicans want to cut taxes for Corporations?

The Tax Foundation - U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes

Consideraing corporate tax receipts only amount to about 7% of our total receipts, I would be open to a tax cut that would keep us more competitive with other nations from that standpoint. But, with a tax cut comes a spending cut and I don't see enough spending cuts on any Republican (or Democratic) platforms that will get us there with current tax policy, much less a lower tax policy.
 
Exactly why I am using the 2010 budget, which also has budget estimates based on current policies through 2019. If anything, those estimates are now optimistic because the economy continues to sputter so expected receipts will probably have to be brought down. The overall premise remains the same so I can't see why you would say we cannot use the most recent budget as something to base my stances on. Seems to be a bit of a punt to me really.

Not having a budget passed for the next year hasn't occurred in 35 years. If estimates are so easily used and common as you paint them to be, the budget would be passed onto the next session of congress all the time, yet that's not what occurrs. Why doesn't it occur all the time? It doesn't occur all the time because missing a budget or the 3 dates for passing the budget for the coming fiscal year only occurs when there's a real disaster. This year the problem is the deficit. So your logic and application have nothing to do with reality.

CBS News said:
WASHINGTON -- Congress will not pass a budget resolution this year because the issue of the soaring national debt hangs over every policy debate in Washington, House Majority Steny Hoyer said today, and it will be impossible to pass a realistic long-term budget until the nation's structural deficit is addressed.

"Our problem is structural--the product of a generation's worth of easy decisions," Hoyer said at a discussion about the national deficit, hosted by the Third Way, a left-leaning, moderate think tank.

Hoyer said today that instead of passing a budget resolution, the House is working to adopt a budget enforcement resolution, which will call for even more spending cuts than the president's budget. It will also, he said, reaffirm Congress' commitment to PAYGO rules and endorse the goals of President Obama's bipartisan deficit commission, an 18-member panel charged with creating a plan to bring down the deficit to 3 percent of the economy by 2015.

Hoyer: No Budget Resolution This Year because of Deficit Concerns - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

So something realistic isn't possible, therefore your logic of estimates cannot be employed. :2wave:
 
I love the idea of removing the mortgage interest deductions. Why do people that took out larger loans get to pay less then someone that saved a greater down payment and was more financially responsible?

But first, we need to cut spending. We have a spending problem more then a taxation problem.
 
Do you hear that? No? It's called silence, and its very peaceful. When you hit the Cons with facts like that the threads suddenly become inactive, lol.

Please. A complete opinion from a "tax website" hardly constitutes facts. I know first hand what I'm talking about because every company I've worked for, many of which I've been senior staff, makes projections based on many factors, a major one of which is tax liability.

EVERY business makes projections based on tax implications. This is pretty basic stuff.
 
I love the idea of removing the mortgage interest deductions. Why do people that took out larger loans get to pay less then someone that saved a greater down payment and was more financially responsible?

But first, we need to cut spending. We have a spending problem more then a taxation problem.

Because by buying that house, expecially if you are building, you are impacting the economy about as much as a single individual can. You are feeding the banks, the builder, multiple contractors, the suppliers to those contractors, the city you are building in (property improvement and immediate appreciation, annual taxes), appraisers, real estate agencies, newspapers, etc.

Housing sales and starts is almost always the leading indicator of economic health. It fuels the nation.
 
Consideraing corporate tax receipts only amount to about 7% of our total receipts, I would be open to a tax cut that would keep us more competitive with other nations from that standpoint. But, with a tax cut comes a spending cut and I don't see enough spending cuts on any Republican (or Democratic) platforms that will get us there with current tax policy, much less a lower tax policy.

YouCut said:
Each week, the public votes on which items should be brought to the House Floor. Here is a list of previous winning items.



Week One: Cut the New Non-Reformed Welfare Program ($25 Billion Savings)

Week Two: Eliminate Federal Employee Pay Raise ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Three: Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Four: Sell Excess Federal Property ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Five: Prohibit Hiring New IRS Agents to Enforce Health Care Law ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Six: Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities ($1.2 Billion Savings)

Week Seven: Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage (Tens of Millions)

Week Eight: Prohibit Sleeper Car Subsidies on Amtrak ($1.2 billion Savings)

Week Nine: Bipartisan Proposal to Terminate AEITC ($1.1 billion Savings)

Week Ten: Require Collection of Unpaid Taxes From Federal Employees ($1 billion Savings)

Week Eleven: Reduce Government Employment to 2008 Levels ($35 billion Savings)

Eric Cantor || Republican Whip || YouCut

Republican 'Pledge to America': spending caps, tax cuts - Jonathan Allen and Jake Sherman and Richard E. Cohen - POLITICO.com


And old saying: "I can see!" said the blind man, when he opened his eyes.
 
Not having a budget passed for the next year hasn't occurred in 35 years. If estimates are so easily used and common as you paint them to be, the budget would be passed onto the next session of congress all the time, yet that's not what occurrs. Why doesn't it occur all the time? It doesn't occur all the time because missing a budget or the 3 dates for passing the budget for the coming fiscal year only occurs when there's a real disaster. This year the problem is the deficit. So your logic and application have nothing to do with reality.



Hoyer: No Budget Resolution This Year because of Deficit Concerns - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

So something realistic isn't possible, therefore your logic of estimates cannot be employed. :2wave:


You have got to be kidding me. There have been no reforms since the inception of the 2010 budget that would equate to a lower budget deficit than is in the related yearly estimates through 2019. If nothing changes, the deficit will be worse, not better than the 2010 budget estimates. So, there is no reason to change my stance on this issue or question the budget I am using because of that stance. Sorry, but there will be no "Fiscal Policy Ferry" that will magically make things better than they currently are without some major reform. Based on the projected budget deficits there is no way whatsoever to believe that we won't have to make cuts in the areas of Defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid if we are to accomplish a balanced budget. Nice try at changing the subject, or at least delaying it, but your argument really doesn't hold any water. Unless you can prove to me that our estimates in the 2011 budget have any iota of a chance of being rosier than what was included in the 2010 budget estimates.
 
Because by buying that house, expecially if you are building, you are impacting the economy about as much as a single individual can. You are feeding the banks, the builder, multiple contractors, the suppliers to those contractors, the city you are building in (property improvement and immediate appreciation, annual taxes), appraisers, real estate agencies, newspapers, etc.

Housing sales and starts is almost always the leading indicator of economic health. It fuels the nation.

it's an artifical bubble created by govenment decree. It's the very attitude that gets us into messes like the one we are in. Once all those that can responsibly own a house are in one, the government is compelled to up the anti to keep the bubble inflated.

At its root, you are making a similar argument as raising minimum wage.
 
You have got to be kidding me. There have been no reforms since the inception of the 2010 budget that would equate to a lower budget deficit than is in the related yearly estimates through 2019. If nothing changes, the deficit will be worse, not better than the 2010 budget estimates. So, there is no reason to change my stance on this issue or question the budget I am using because of that stance. Sorry, but there will be no "Fiscal Policy Ferry" that will magically make things better than they currently are without some major reform. Based on the projected budget deficits there is no way whatsoever to believe that we won't have to make cuts in the areas of Defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid if we are to accomplish a balanced budget. Nice try at changing the subject, or at least delaying it, but your argument really doesn't hold any water. Unless you can prove to me that our estimates in the 2011 budget have any iota of a chance of being rosier than what was included in the 2010 budget estimates.

Well, it must be nice to always have the correct opinion with yourself. Obviously Hoyer disagrees and so do I. What holds water is there's no budget passed for the reasons I already posted in the article provided. You want to be a genius in your own mind - that's your choice. :shrug:
 
Great, no arguments from me on those! Now that constitutes about $150 Billion in spending cuts. Only about $600-800 Billion to go. Keep em coming!

You know, those cuts off of that YouCut site (some of them anyway) sounded good. I think the first 200-400 billion will be easy to do. The second 400 billion will be a lot harder and will cause a lot of pain and grousing by both liberals and conservatives. But, they'll have to happen.
 
it's an artifical bubble created by govenment decree. It's the very attitude that gets us into messes like the one we are in. Once all those that can responsibly own a house are in one, the government is compelled to up the anti to keep the bubble inflated.

At its root, you are making a similar argument as raising minimum wage.

It's no different than deducting business expenses at a company. If you don't lessen the risk of doing business, business won't get done, and the tax base will suffer. If you don't provide enticements to build a house (or anything), them you won't have people that will take the risk, and property will not be developed, and the economy will stagnate.

The government get FAR more out of letting you deduct that interest than it does by you not building in the first place. And to be clear, it is not the role of the government to make money like a business. It's their role to provide a stable environment for the growth of the individual and private enterprise.
 
Last edited:
You know, those cuts off of that YouCut site (some of them anyway) sounded good. I think the first 200-400 billion will be easy to do. The second 400 billion will be a lot harder and will cause a lot of pain and grousing by both liberals and conservatives. But, they'll have to happen.
And that's my whole point in a nutshell Ockham. So, why is everyone arguing with me?
 
Well, it must be nice to always have the correct opinion with yourself. Obviously Hoyer disagrees and so do I. What holds water is there's no budget passed for the reasons I already posted in the article provided. You want to be a genius in your own mind - that's your choice. :shrug:
Well, I guess we'll see what the outcome of the next approved budget becomes. If they balance the budget, count me mezmerized. If they balance the budget without touching the "sacred" programs, call me dumbfounded.
 
Well, I guess we'll see what the outcome of the next approved budget becomes. If they balance the budget, count me mezmerized. If they balance the budget without touching the "sacred" programs, call me dumbfounded.

I share your skepticism.
 
Well, I guess we'll see what the outcome of the next approved budget becomes. If they balance the budget, count me mezmerized. If they balance the budget without touching the "sacred" programs, call me dumbfounded.

As will we all.
 
It's no different than deducting business expenses at a company.

Say what? A business expense is a direct impact on revenue, which is what we pay taxes on.

interest on loans for personal reasons is completely different. It has as much to do with taxable revenue as how much you spend on the credit card drinking at the local pub.

All you are doing is saying you deem these industries more important, and you use government force to reward one industry over another industry. Furthermore, you are upping the incentive for people to live beyond their means, which is not a responsible signal for government to ever send to the market.

If you don't lessen the risk of doing business, business won't get done, and the tax base will suffer. If you don't provide enticements to build a house (or anything), than you don't have people that will take the risk, and property will not be developed, and the economy will stagnate.

This 21st century notion that the economy must always be in growth mode is bad anyway.

I know this is a more typical liberal position, but I am tired of the cries about how we consume so much causing too much polution but the minute the economy wants to pull back and slow down (largely from a lack fo savings), all the people and politicians start freaking out about doom and gloom.
 
Maybe it's time for tea? All kidding aside in the limited time I have spent here I have noticed that there are some very smart conservatives here. I'm guessing there may be a rebuttal or two yet that I will have to think about before responding.

Hmmm... Well Johnny DooWop seems to be convinced that your link to the site "Tax Foundation", made it very clear that cutting spending, all whilst lowering taxes boosts economic indexes was wrong. Except that the site didn't say that, know why? Because no one knows for sure, know why no one knows for sure? Coz there are WAY too many intangibles involved to effectively model, and measure economic indexes. Even the best modeled indexes like the CPI, as an example are results based; they are not indicative of factor based models.

In lay terms, all the indexes available that I'm aware of are not predictive, they are reflective, and they ONLY reflect what data is input into them. Does any of it equal economic understanding, unique to the conditions present in complex economies like that if the USA, and the globe? Not a chance! However, consider this.

Game theory suggests that sacrifices are intuitively arrived at, given certain circumstances, and they are predictable in almost all situations where they purport to return a result that improves the players position prior to the sacrifice being made. If I'm a tax paying individual, or as large as a corporation, the theory holds true. When you have more to sacrifice, it holds consistent that, the player tends to lean towards improving their position by making calculated moves.

In a nut-shell, and analogous to economies, when we have more money in our pockets, whether individual, or corporations, the inclination to spend our surplus, or even the perception of surplus to the furtherance of our position, is a logical axiom. Governments that tax, are a hindrance to this theory, in that, Governments are not players in the game; they are the game board, or the framework within which the players are to make their moves.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess we'll see what the outcome of the next approved budget becomes. If they balance the budget, count me mezmerized. If they balance the budget without touching the "sacred" programs, call me dumbfounded.

It's literally impossible to balance the budget without cutting Defense, Medicare, or Social Security. All three of those items are career-enders for politicians.

We're boned.

I mean, remember what happened when Obamacare planned to "cut" $50-60 billion per year in Medicare waste, mostly through the Medicare Advantage, payout increases holds, and fraud prevention stuff?

The Democrats cut half a trillion dollars from your Medicare. (cut to sad old lady) "Obama, please don't take away my Medicare?"
Paid for by Republicans who are lying to your face.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom