Page 82 of 87 FirstFirst ... 32728081828384 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 862

Thread: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

  1. #811
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,628

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    It's not up to me to determine or feed your speculation as to what a Democratic Congress may or may not do should they get that +$36M in tax collections. All I can tell you should that happen is monitor what they do with it and hold their feet to the fire if they don't do what you think they should do which, I'm sure, would be to pay down the deficit. My hope is that's exactly what they'd do, but until it happens there's just no use speculating. Still, based on projects from the article, it would seem that the deficit would increase under Republican control should they allow the Bush tax cuts to continue. If true, then my question remains: How would the tax cuts be paid for?

    Here's where I see Republicans saying one thing but unwilling to make the tough choices as well and do what's right. Here they say the deficit's too high, we're borrowing money and we're treating the Treasury like it's our personal printing press. Okay then...why not make a hardline decision and give up on letting the tax cuts expire for those who make $250K if it is shown through whatever non-partisan egency that doing so will reduce the deficit? If it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you not be in favor of this?

    Are you so stuck on principle that you'd put your partisanship over what's best for the country?
    you cannot reduce the deficit when the government continues to spend at a higher rate than even these tax hikes will supposedly bring in

    and since those pushing for most of the idiotic spending won't suffer tax hikes, there will be no incentive for those who pander to them to stop this massive spending



  2. #812
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Tell me how raising taxes on anyone is in the best interest of the country? Do you believe that expiration of those tax cuts will generate 36 billion to the Treasury? We have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit so even if the 36 billion goes to the Treasury and is used to lower the deficit it then becomes 1.36 trillion and you lose the multiplier affect of that 36 million in consumer spending or saving.
    But the deficit would have decreased by .4 trillion dollars, correct? 1.4 trillion...down to 1.36 trillion. And the good of the country would mean that's .4 trillion dollars we don't have to borrow or print which are the very issue staunce Conservatives are arguing against?

    So, again, if it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you be in favor of this?

    It's a very simply question.

  3. #813
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    But the deficit would have decreased by .4 trillion dollars, correct? 1.4 trillion...down to 1.36 trillion. And the good of the country would mean that's .4 trillion dollars we don't have to borrow or print which are the very issue staunce Conservatives are arguing against?

    So, again, if it can be demonstrated mathmatically that taking this action would allow the Treasury to take in revenue and, thus paydown the deficit, why would you be in favor of this?

    It's a very simply question.
    Interesting that you are betting on an Administration that has yet to be accurate on any economic prediction. The question is why? What exactly did the Obama Administration do with the TARP payback? Did they reduce the deficit? What makes this different, simple question?

  4. #814
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,628

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Interesting that you are betting on an Administration that has yet to be accurate on any economic prediction. The question is why? What exactly did the Obama Administration do with the TARP payback? Did they reduce the deficit? What makes this different, simple question?
    Its a faith based operation for them



  5. #815
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you cannot reduce the deficit when the government continues to spend at a higher rate than even these tax hikes will supposedly bring in.
    Okay, fair enough. The deficit will increase before it begins to decrease. And just when should that process begin? Now, you say? Well then, these minor tax cuts could be the start. So, let's assume this is where it begins. Simple question: Would you support letting the Bush tax cuts expire if you could be convinced that the collected revenues would go toward paying down the deficit?

    and since those pushing for most of the idiotic spending won't suffer tax hikes, there will be no incentive for those who pander to them to stop this massive spending
    Oh, but it does! I don't think we Democrats want such an enormous deficit anymore than the next guy, but anyone who thinks this happened only since Obama took office is not living in reality. Now, I'm not going the route saying, "We inherited" anything (although we all know the truth of the matter), but I think the majority of the measures taken since Oct 2008, whether they took place in the latter portion of GW Bush's tenure or since Obama took office, were done with the best interest of the country at heart. Not all of them I agree with 100% but I do see the good and the bad in it. And I think the good out-weighs the bad. But that's my opinion. What I'm trying to get to is if there were any tax cuts that excluded the wealthy and were applied to the deficit would Republicans accept?

    You guys label it as class warfare, but I see it as those who can best help their country making such a sacrafice for the good of the country. I don't see it as classes of people based on their economic position. I see it as people of greater privilage who are in a better position than others to help the country. Now, if Republicans are so much more patriotic than Democrats, why wouldn't such a sacrafic not be the patriotic thing to do?

    You guys have said here in this thread that the poor shouldn't receive a tax refund because they didn't pay taxes. Well, if that's the case that would mean you cannot get the money from that economic "class" of people, right?

    And although those in the middle-class do earn enough to pay taxes, in most cases by your own argument, this group of wage earners don't pay half of the nation's total tax revenue. By your own admission, this group could help, but not make much of a difference.

    So, who else is left to make this sacrafic? Who?

    I'll say it here and now: I don't mind paying taxes as long as my tax dollars are being properly allocated. I believe this is the issue Republicans have with government (Democrats) overall, but it's interesting that you still felt that way under Clinton who handed this country a surplus when he left office. So, I ask at what point are you willing to live your own narrative and make the hardline choices and do what's best for the country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Interesting that you are betting on an Administration that has yet to be accurate on any economic prediction. The question is why? What exactly did the Obama Administration do with the TARP payback? Did they reduce the deficit? What makes this different, simple question?
    I don't think the 2011 budget has been estalished yet. So, none of us know how those funds will be utilized. And yes, I know there was some flap over how the Obama administration wanted to use those funds, but I can't remember what the outcome was. So, I can't speak to that w/o researching the matter further.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-07-10 at 12:53 AM.

  6. #816
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Okay, fair enough. The deficit will increase before it begins to decrease. And just when should that process begin? Now, you say? Well then, these minor tax cuts could be the start. So, let's assume this is where it begins. Simple question: Would you support letting the Bush tax cuts expire if you could be convinced that the collected revenues would go toward paying down the deficit?



    Oh, but it does! I don't think we Democrats want such an enormous deficit anymore than the next guy, but anyone who thinks this happened only since Obama took office is not living in reality. Now, I'm not going the route saying, "We inherited" anything (although we all know the truth of the matter), but I think the majority of the measures taken since Oct 2008, whether they took place in the latter portion of GW Bush's tenure or since Obama took office, were done with the best interest of the country at heart. Not all of them I agree with 100% but I do see the good and the bad in it. And I think the good out-weighs the bad. But that's my opinion. What I'm trying to get to is if there were any tax cuts that excluded the wealthy and were applied to the deficit would Republicans accept?

    You guys label it as class warfare, but I see it as those who can best help their country making such a sacrafice for the good of the country. I don't see it as classes of people based on their economic position. I see it as people of greater privilage who are in a better position than others to help the country. Now, if Republicans are so much more patriotic than Democrats, why wouldn't such a sacrafic not be the patriotic thing to do?

    You guys have said here in this thread that the poor shouldn't receive a tax refund because they didn't pay taxes. Well, if that's the case that would mean you cannot get the money from that economic "class" of people, right?

    And although those in the middle-class do earn enough to pay taxes, in most cases by your own argument, this group of wage earners don't pay half of the nation's total tax revenue. By your own admission, this group could help, but not make much of a difference.

    So, who else is left to make this sacrafic? Who?

    I'll say it here and now: I don't mind paying taxes as long as my tax dollars are being properly allocated. I believe this is the issue Republicans have with government (Democrats) overall, but it's interesting that you still felt that way under Clinton who handed this country a surplus when he left office. So, I ask at what point are you willing to live your own narrative and make the hardline choices and do what's best for the country?



    I don't think the 2011 budget has been estalished yet. So, none of us know how those funds will be utilized. And yes, I know there was some flap over how the Obama administration wanted to use those funds, but I can't remember what the outcome was. So, I can't speak to that w/o researching the matter further.
    So if you would not mind paying taxes that are properly allocated are you saying that Obama should let ALL of the tax cuts expire? If not, what did you mean with this statement?

    As you are probably aware there is already an idea out there to spend the $300 billion from the added taxes on people over $250K. That is to eliminate payroll taxes on the first 20K of earnings. Just another class warfare arguement.

    It has to be a hoot for the folks like Axelrod and Obama's other handlers during the election. They sold us this not ready for prime time clown under the guise of bringing people together. I think even you would admit that Obama has shown no interest except to be a most partisan everyday political hack.

  7. #817
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    So if you would not mind paying taxes that are properly allocated are you saying that Obama should let ALL of the tax cuts expire? If not, what did you mean with this statement?
    If doing so under the right circumstances would help with the issue at hand, yes. For example, if the economy was in decent shape but the nation still had a high deficit and the issue now was merely getting the deficit under control, then yes, I would support paying more in taxes as long as I was convinced that those tax revenues were going to do exactly what they were implemented for - to pay down the deficit. But right now, the issue is two-fold: 1) increase demand so that consumers will buy more so that industry will produce more so that people can get back to work; and, 2) to pay down the deficit.

    You can't do both by taxing both sides of the economic divide. It just cann't be done. You increase taxes for everyone, then you eliminate the very reason to produce more goods and services domestically because you've done the one thing Conservatives say they covet - not allowing wage earns to keep more of what they earn by taxing them when they really can't be taxed anymore to cover the cost of the deficit. That time will come, but in this down economy where the people most affected are the working/middle-class, you just can't tax them anymore. But the wealthy can still afford to pay more in taxes because althought they are doing more with less perhaps like everyone else, they likely are not as negatively affected as everyone else.

    As you are probably aware there is already an idea out there to spend the $300 billion from the added taxes on people over $250K. That is to eliminate payroll taxes on the first 20K of earnings. Just another class warfare arguement.
    Well, since it's already been argued that people who earn such low wages don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway and, thus, are not entitled to a tax refund, I don't see why this would be a problem.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-07-10 at 01:31 AM.

  8. #818
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    If doing so under the right circumstances would help with the issue at hand, yes. For example, if the economy was in decent shape but the nation still had a high deficit and the issue now was merely getting the deficit under control, then yes, I would support paying more in taxes as long as I was convinced that those tax revenues were going to do exactly what they were implemented for - to pay down the deficit. But right now, the issue is two-fold: 1) increase demand so that consumers will buy more so that industry will produce more so that people can get back to work; and, 2) to pay down the deficit.

    You can't do both by taxing both sides of the economic divide. It just cann't be done. You increase taxes for everyone, then you eliminate the very reason to produce more goods and services domestically because you've done the one thing Conservatives say they covet - not allowing wage earns to keep more of what they earn by taxing them when they really can't be taxed anymore to cover the cost of the deficit. That time will come, but in this down economy where the people most affected are the working/middle-class, you just can't tax them anymore. But the wealthy can still afford to pay more in taxes because althought they are doing more with less perhaps like everyone else, they likely are not as negatively affected as everyone else.



    Well, since it's already been argued that people who earn such low wages don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway and, thus, are not entitled to a tax refund, I don't see why this would be a problem.
    Part of the reason the stimulus did not work as well as expected is that the tax benefits did not increase demand as much as anticipated. This is a monetary recession not a standard the economy is stalled recession. People are in debt up to their necks as much as the federal government. They can't use their house as a piggybank. They have to repair their balance sheets. So that is why this added spending along with the Fed keeping interest rates at all time lows is just like pushing on a string.

    I wish the President would tell people the truth. It took a long time to get into this mess and it will take a long time to get out.

    There have to be real tax and economic policy changes and even then it will take time. Robbing from Peter to pay Pan might be good politics for a democratic president but it is lousy policy.

    Lastly I have to giggle about where you started. You would be fine to have your taxes raised, but now is not the right time. But it is exactly the proper time to raise other people's taxes. Sort of like the character in the old Popeye cartoons. I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.

  9. #819
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Question to the anti stimulus crowd. Why has the US growth rate fluctuated in proportion to the rate of stimulus spending? During the peak spending rates (late 2009-early 2010), the economy was expanding between 3% and 5%. As the rate of spending has diminished, growth has been less than 2.5% and looks to be trending lower. In early 2010, federal stimulus spending was near $200 million/ hr.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #820
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Part of the reason the stimulus did not work as well as expected is that the tax benefits did not increase demand as much as anticipated. This is a monetary recession not a standard the economy is stalled recession. People are in debt up to their necks as much as the federal government. They can't use their house as a piggybank. They have to repair their balance sheets. So that is why this added spending along with the Fed keeping interest rates at all time lows is just like pushing on a string.
    Please, let's not deflect again. My question wasn't about the affectiveness or ineffectiveness of the stimulus program. My commentary was just about taxation and how one group of people could have a much better affect on our nation's economy than another at this stage of our nation's economic problems. If you wish to classify such as "class warfare", fine. Stay stuck in the political divide. For me, it's about doing what I believe is the right thing for the country. And from all the counter-arguments I've heard none really make sense.

    You can't tax the poor. They don't have the income to make a difference on the economy tax-wise.

    You could tax the working/middle-class, but they're already struggling to keep their heads above water. Besides, as has been stated time and again they apparently don't pay half the total taxes collected in this country. So, while their added tax would help, it wouldn't draw down the deficit that much.

    The only other tax base that's left are the wealthy who likely could afford to pay more. And many have said so.

    I wish the President would tell people the truth. It took a long time to get into this mess and it will take a long time to get out.
    But he has been saying that since he took office, and he has been slammed for it by those who claim that by repeating it all he's doing is creating anxiety and fear among investors. Investors know the deal. They'll just shift their investment from stocks to bonds, from domestic interest to foreign investments. It's what they do...find the best venue to invest their money in order to make money. I've heard several infomercials advertising just that since the recession began. I don't begrudge them.

    There have to be real tax and economic policy changes and even then it will take time.
    The President has stated this as well several times.

    Robbing from Peter to pay Pan might be good politics for a democratic president but it is lousy policy.

    Lastly I have to giggle about where you started. You would be fine to have your taxes raised, but now is not the right time. But it is exactly the proper time to raise other people's taxes. Sort of like the character in the old Popeye cartoons. I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.
    And I stand by that not because I'm against paying higher taxes, but because like many Republican politicians I don't think raising taxes against a certain class of people in a non-targetted way to correct the economic problems this country has will resolve the problem. So, as I see it...

    Q. What is our nation's problem?

    A. The lack of jobs.

    Q. Why aren't there many jobs available?

    A. They went away due to excessive risk in the financial sector. As such, they're not lending money to small businesses.

    Q. What affect does this have on small businesses?

    A. They don't have the operating capital to grow their business or pay salaries for their employees.

    Q. What's the end result of small businesses not being able to grow/expand nor hire employees?

    A. Their productivity generally falls off because demand for their products and services is no longer there.

    Q. How do you break this gridlock?

    A. There's no easy answer here, but one recommendation has been that since larger banks aren't willing to free up capital, maybe the thing to do is give loans to smaller regional banks and credit unions so that small businesses can go to them instead to get loans. The other issue, of course, is what we're debating right now - to extend the tax cuts to the working/middle-class - that segment of people who can spur product/service demand and get businesses producing again - and allow them to expire for those who make over $250K and use those funds to pay down the deficit. The way I see it, it's a strategy that should work because doing so would tackle all parts of our nation's economic problems: job growth, increased productivity and pay down the deficit.

    Will it work? In theory, it should but only time will tell. But as you have said, "It took a long time to get into this mess and it will take a long time to get out."
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-07-10 at 11:29 AM.

Page 82 of 87 FirstFirst ... 32728081828384 ... 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
  •