Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 90

Thread: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

  1. #31
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    That is what I see and I call it like I see it. Given he has (to the best of my knowledge) never said that there is a certain point where taxes are too high (and given he thinks a 55% rate on an estate over one million is just fine) My view is honest
    - There is a point at which income taxes are too high.
    - One million is a lower floor than I'd prefer for the estate tax.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #32
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this year...that was part of the original deal. So it's a cut from what the taxes would be, in the absence of any congressional action. But really, this is irrelevant. You can call them tax cuts or maintaining low tax rates or whatever you want. The point is that if Obama is going to capitulate to the Republicans and give them everything they want and then some, he sure as **** better get something more than some unemployment benefits out of the deal.
    Good-you should be happy. It will help Obama's reelection effort to sign this compromise. and the people mostly hurt will be the dems who are about to lose power anyway. iF taxes are jacked up, Obama and the dems will look bad-and in January, the only bills will be to extend the Bush rates for EVERYONE so the dems will be forced to block tax rates for everyone which again will KILL the dems in 2012.

    the dems best hope would be to get tax extensions for all but those who pay most of the taxes---then when the GOP tries to extend the rates for the people who pay the most taxes, Obama can veto it or the dems can block it and claim its only to help the rich. But if no tax cuts go through, the dems are really toast come January. Because again there will be two choices-allow huge tax hikes to occur by blocking the GOP or allowing all people to maintain the favorable (compared to dem desires) tax rates.

    Its a lose lose situation for the dems. The only downside would be for McConnell to blink and allow the rich to get shafted and I don't think he is stupid enough to do that because we all know what it would mean--the dems would be able to play their class warfare divide and conquer game. If no tax cuts go through the dems cannot and they will lose



  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    - There is a point at which income taxes are too high.
    - One million is a lower floor than I'd prefer for the estate tax.
    what about the rate itself? more than half is ok?

  4. #34
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    - There is a point at which income taxes are too high.
    - One million is a lower floor than I'd prefer for the estate tax.
    so what rate is too high

    40% on all income over 200K

    45%

    50%

    I think progressive income taxes are an abomination so I don't have to deal with defending a certain cutoff



  5. #35
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Victory for who? Obama? The Republicans? **** them both. This deal sucks and SHOULD be defeated. How about a victory for the American people - if Obama insists on caving to the Republicans for tax cuts for the wealthy, he should at least get some economic stimulus in exchange.
    It's my understanding that there is lots of stimulus in it and that's what conservatives are complaining about.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  6. #36
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    what about the rate itself? more than half is ok?
    Yeah, I don't really have a problem with high estate tax rates, provided that the floor is relatively high. Like Warren Buffett said about his estate planning, he wants to leave his kids enough that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. Makes sense to me. I understand why someone would be motivated to work hard to provide a nice future for their kids...but I think it's pretty dubious that wealthy people are motivated to be more productive out of a desire to leave their kids $50 million instead of $10 million.

    So yeah, if the government wants to tax estates pretty heavily, that seems to be one of the more economically effective ways to ease some of the high levels of wealth disparity in the country. You tax it at the point when people are least inclined to care (when they're dead), and where it's least likely to have a negative impact on the economy.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #37
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Victory for who? Obama? The Republicans? **** them both. This deal sucks and SHOULD be defeated. How about a victory for the American people - if Obama insists on caving to the Republicans for tax cuts for the wealthy, he should at least get some economic stimulus in exchange.
    Obama got this.


    Unemployment benefits: $56 billion. The package would also leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits -- which go as high as 99 weeks in states hit hardest by job loss. The White House estimates it would cost $56 billion. A formal estimate is expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office.

    Social Security tax break: $111.7 billion. The package would also offer workers a payroll tax holiday worth 2 percentage points next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The measure would cost $112 billion.

    Individual tax credits: $8.3 billion. The compromise framework would also extend for two years the increased value of a number of tax credits that benefit low- and middle-income tax filers, such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and a revamped tax credit for college costs. The measure would cost $8 billion.

    Business tax breaks: $69 billion. The bill contains more than 40 business tax breaks. Some, like an extension of the research and development credit, has drawn bipartisan support and is typically renewed annually. But also included are roughly $11 billion worth of energy credits and a new temporary option for businesses to write off 100% of their expenses in 2011. That measure would cost $21 billion.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  8. #38
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Obama got this.


    Unemployment benefits: $56 billion. The package would also leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits -- which go as high as 99 weeks in states hit hardest by job loss. The White House estimates it would cost $56 billion. A formal estimate is expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office.

    Social Security tax break: $111.7 billion. The package would also offer workers a payroll tax holiday worth 2 percentage points next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The measure would cost $112 billion.

    Individual tax credits: $8.3 billion. The compromise framework would also extend for two years the increased value of a number of tax credits that benefit low- and middle-income tax filers, such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and a revamped tax credit for college costs. The measure would cost $8 billion.

    Business tax breaks: $69 billion. The bill contains more than 40 business tax breaks. Some, like an extension of the research and development credit, has drawn bipartisan support and is typically renewed annually. But also included are roughly $11 billion worth of energy credits and a new temporary option for businesses to write off 100% of their expenses in 2011. That measure would cost $21 billion.
    thanks.......where did you copy that from?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  9. #39
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so what rate is too high

    40% on all income over 200K

    45%

    50%
    It depends on the state of the economy, and how wide the tax brackets are. If I was in charge of setting income tax brackets, they'd probably look something like this:

    For a family of 4:
    Under $20K: -40%
    $20K to $250K: 25%
    Over $250K: 40%

    Those are just back-of-the-envelope estimates that seem about right to me; I didn't actually calculate how they'd affect the budget.
    And after the economy recovered a bit, I'd probably raise the top bracket to around 45%.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude
    I think progressive income taxes are an abomination so I don't have to deal with defending a certain cutoff
    That's a pretty silly reason for opposing a policy.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 12-10-10 at 05:24 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #40
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    It's my understanding that there is lots of stimulus in it and that's what conservatives are complaining about.
    By my count, in this compromise there was about $300 billion of stuff that only the Republicans wanted (e.g. an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, a low estate tax). There was about $350 billion of stuff that was relatively uncontroversial that everyone could support (e.g. an extension of the EITC, the middle-class tax cuts, corporate expensing). And there was about $60 billion of stuff that only the Democrats wanted (e.g. an extension of unemployment benefits).

    That looks to me like Obama gave the Republicans everything they wanted and then some, and got nothing more than a token concession in exchange.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •