Obama Sets White House Meeting on Fiscal Cliff

[danarhea]

President Obama invited Congressional Republicans and Democrats to the White House next week to begin talks to resolve the country's impending fiscal crisis, but he insisted on raising taxes on the wealthiest.

"I'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. I'm open to compromise, I'm open to new ideas, I'm committed to solving our fiscal challenges, but I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced," the president said in his first statement since winning re-election.

Here is my problem with this - The so called "fiscal cliff". It's not a cliff. Even under the worst of circumstances, where no deal is reached, and present spending levels, along with tax breaks, end for everybody, the CBO figures call for a contraction of half a percent, and unemployment up to 9.1% - BY THE END OF 2013!!

OK, so we have a problem, but now is not the time to hurry this up. Obama and Congress need to take their time and work out a GOOD solution, instead of passing something based on fear and knee jerk reactions that turns out to be bad. Relax, Congress. Take a chill pill, and work this out logically instead of emotionally, and all will be good.

Finally, now is not the time for Democrats to take a "my way or the highway" approach. They might have won, but there are still 47.9% of voters who picked Romney (47%=oh, the irony - LOL), so this is not political capital. "Slash and burn" did not work for Bush, and it certainly won't work for Obama either. Pull your heads out of your collective asses, and think, for a change. I know this is asking for a lot, but I think you can do it. You guys in Washington can't be as idiotic as you appear to be. So, just do it, and do it right.

Article is here.

 

[MaggieD]

President Obama invited Congressional Republicans and Democrats to the White House next week to begin talks to resolve the country's impending fiscal crisis, but he insisted on raising taxes on the wealthiest.
"I'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. I'm open to compromise, I'm open to new ideas, I'm committed to solving our fiscal challenges, but I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced," the president said in his first statement since winning re-election.

[\quote]

Here is my problem with this - The so called "fiscal cliff". It's not a cliff. Even under the worst of circumstances, where no deal is reached, and spending cuts and tax breaks end for everybody, the CBO figures call for a contraction of half a percent, and unemployment up to 9.1% - BY THE END OF 2013!!

OK, so we have a problem, but now is not the time to hurry this up. Obama and Congress need to take their time and work out a GOOD solution, instead of passing something based on fear and knee jerk reactions that turns out to be bad. Relax, Congress. Take a chill pill, and work this out logically instead of emotionally, and all will be good.

Article is here.

Congress really needs to reform the tax code. Making $250K as a number is futile.

My advice to anyone with a small business earning $250,000 a year, would be -- change to a Subchapter S Corporation. Pay you and your spouse each $75,000 a year, Pay out the balance of $100,000 as dividends. Thus avoiding corporate income tax. Pay 15% capital gains tax on the $100,000; avoid payroll taxes on the $100K, and go on your merry way. The combined $150K the spouses take as salary won't see any increase in taxes.

See how easy that is?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The laws that created this "cliff" situation were signed by Obama, thus he simply seeks to undo his own moronic policy now. Playing the let's make a "new deal" game now is funny. Note how Obama can now call a tax increase on "the rich" a tax break for the middle class since he has effectively raised the taxes on everyone already as of 2013. Why are those, once cherished, Clinton FIT bracket rates now seen as bad news?

 

[The Barbarian]

-chuckles- want to have some fun ? Google Obama’s budget plan, look for the CBO’s numbers, something like 9.7 trillion dollars of deficits over the next 10 years .. Now there is a plan set on destruction of the US

 

[Diogenes]

Congress really needs to reform the tax code. Making $250K as a number is futile.

My advice to anyone with a small business earning $250,000 a year, would be -- change to a Subchapter S Corporation. Pay you and your spouse each $75,000 a year, Pay out the balance of $100,000 as dividends. Thus avoiding corporate income tax. Pay 15% capital gains tax on the $100,000; avoid payroll taxes on the $100K, and go on your merry way. The combined $150K the spouses take as salary won't see any increase in taxes.

See how easy that is?

Subchapter S means that there are no retained earnings, it all has to be allocated to the stockholders and they have to pay the individual tax rate. That's why Obama's plan is so poisonous.

 

[jonny5]

I like how he said hes open to compromise and new ideas, and then immediately drew a line in the sand that he wouldnt accept anything HE didnt think was balanced. That sounds like the typical Obama to me, not someone planning on doing things differently.

 

[iguanaman]

Congress really needs to reform the tax code. Making $250K as a number is futile.

My advice to anyone with a small business earning $250,000 a year, would be -- change to a Subchapter S Corporation. Pay you and your spouse each $75,000 a year, Pay out the balance of $100,000 as dividends. Thus avoiding corporate income tax. Pay 15% capital gains tax on the $100,000; avoid payroll taxes on the $100K, and go on your merry way. The combined $150K the spouses take as salary won't see any increase in taxes.

See how easy that is?

That might be good advice but you do know that Obama's plan only calls for increasing rates for income ABOVE $250,000 and ONLY on the income that is over that threshold.
Alot of people are under the impression that the rates for your entire income go up when your salary enters a higher bracket. That is not true.
Of course if the House refuses to pass the Senate bill that maintains tax levels for the lower brackets, all rates will be going up. It's up to them. T's voting against a tax cut.....how ironic.

 

[MaggieD]

Subchapter S means that there are no retained earnings, it all has to be allocated to the stockholders and they have to pay the individual tax rate. That's why Obama's plan is so poisonous.

Make no mistake...modifying the "tax rate" will cause many corps to become SubS and, by doing so, as per my example, will legally avoid any higher tax brackets imposed by Obama in those making $250K and over.

Reform the tax code!!

 

[MaggieD]

That might be good advice but you do know that Obama's plan only calls for increasing rates for income ABOVE $250,000 and ONLY on the income that is over that threshold.
Alot of people are under the impression that the rates for your entire income go up when your salary enters a higher bracket. That is not true.
Of course if the House refuses to pass the Senate bill that maintains tax levels for the lower brackets, all rates will be going up. It's up to them. T's voting against a tax cut.....how ironic.

Good for you to point that out. Their going to maintain tax levels for the lower brackets or risk a lynching. Ha!

 

[Diogenes]

Make no mistake...modifying the "tax rate" will cause many corps to become SubS and, by doing so, as per my example, will legally avoid any higher tax brackets imposed by Obama in those making $250K and over.

Reform the tax code!!

Agreed with the last part. But Sub S corporations don't work the way you described because the the Sub S "dividends" are taxed as ordinary income, not with the lower rate of dividends like from corporations that have already paid corporate tax.

 

[MaggieD]

Agreed with the last part. But Sub S corporations don't work the way you described because the the Sub S "dividends" are taxed as ordinary income, not with the lower rate of dividends like from corporations that have already paid corporate tax.

OMG!!! You're absolutely right. It's been a few years since I had my SubS -- I had forgotten that. We avoided payroll taxes, that was it.

I wish I could delete that post!!! Thank you for setting the record straight.

 

[jonny5]

That might be good advice but you do know that Obama's plan only calls for increasing rates for income ABOVE $250,000 and ONLY on the income that is over that threshold.
Alot of people are under the impression that the rates for your entire income go up when your salary enters a higher bracket. That is not true.
Of course if the House refuses to pass the Senate bill that maintains tax levels for the lower brackets, all rates will be going up. It's up to them. T's voting against a tax cut.....how ironic.

The senate refuses to pass the house bill that maintains tax levels for all brackets. Thus democrats are voting against a tax cut, using your definition.

 

[iguanaman]

The senate refuses to pass the house bill that maintains tax levels for all brackets. Thus democrats are voting against a tax cut, using your definition.

Obama won't sign that bill anyway. The House has totally forgotten that the President needs to sign bills in order for them to become law. They are the dumbest body of Congress in history. The Senate has passed a bill that keeps rates the same for the lower brackets and Obama will sign it. What is holding them up? Do they want to raise taxes on 98% of us? That's going to look real good come relection time. Everyone will know they voted to raise everyones taxes. If that's their choice, we will see in 2014 how that works out for them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Obama won't sign that bill anyway. The House has totally forgotten that the President needs to sign bills in order for them to become law. They are the dumbest body of Congress in history. The Senate has passed a bill that keeps rates the same for the lower brackets and Obama will sign it. What is holding them up? Do they want to raise taxes on 98% of us? That's going to look real good come relection time. Everyone will know they voted to raise everyones taxes. If that's their choice, we will see in 2014 how that works out for them.

Let me ask you a question, liberals like you have always referred to the Bush Tax cuts as tax cuts for the Rich. So what is the worry, seeing the rich will have to pay so much more, shouldn’t the rest willingly give up their tiny tax cut Bush gave them?

Why is it that liberals think America’s problems only ride on the shoulders of the rich? Why would it be wrong in any way, if you are going to ask the rich to pay millions more in taxes, to ask the other 95% to pay “their” share in to the tune of a few dollars more per week ?

It’s goes right back to the mentality, of the liberals, hating the rich, be it envy, or whatever. 5% of this country didn’t put us in a trillion dollar a year deficit .. We all did. So why should 5% of the country be expected to dig us out of the whole?

There will be no blame to anyone, the tax cut were set to expire in 2010... Obama and the Dem's extended them, there is no bill that need be presented, no vote need be taken, simply put those tax cuts will expire, just as they were meant to do. So you can go back and blame Bush some more, because he intended them to expire in 2010 for EVERYONE..... opps I guess they aren't so dumb after all... because even Obama can't stop them from expiring.

 

[LizardofOz]

The compromise will end up being all the tax deductions for the rich are taken away and there are spending cuts in entitlements and military. The current payroll tax cut could get an expiration date as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

The compromise will end up being all the tax deductions for the rich are taken away and there are spending cuts in entitlements and military. The current payroll tax cut could get an expiration date as well.

I’m closer to agreement with what you are saying then anything else. I just don’t think the wealthy will lose all their deductions…. Some will remain . .some will be taken away, and the tax rates remain the same as they are now . … That’s my opinion,

I think that is what the right will offer up, if the left refuses ... then we will see all the tax cuts just expire

 

[iguanaman]

I’m closer to agreement with what you are saying then anything else. I just don’t think the wealthy will lose all their deductions…. Some will remain . .some will be taken away, and the tax rates remain the same as they are now . … That’s my opinion,

I think that is what the right will offer up, if the left refuses ... then we will see all the tax cuts just expire

Read Obama's lips. Tax rates for the top 2 brackets are going back to the Clinton rates, that includes capital gaiins and everything. That part is not negotiable.
If they play nice they may get some of the sequester cut, which the additional revenue of $80 billlion will pay for nicely.

 

[The Barbarian]

Read Obama's lips. Tax rates for the top 2 brackets are going back to the Clinton rates, that includes capital gaiins and everything. That part is not negotiable.
If they play nice they may get some of the sequester cut, which the additional revenue of $80 billlion will pay for nicely.

okay have it your way ... and if they don't play nice ... then all the tax cuts expire .. simple as that ..

 

[iguanaman]

okay have it your way ... and if they don't play nice ... then all the tax cuts expire .. simple as that ..

And expire they will, nearly everyone is expecting it. The tricky part is where the House Republicans go on record voting against a tax cut for 98% of Americans in Jan.You know the one that has aleady passed the Senate. It's going to be real hard to explain come 2014. They will be out on their brown noses in a heartbeat.

 

[The Barbarian]

And expire they will, nearly everyone is expecting it. The tricky part is where the House Republicans go on record voting against a tax cut for 98% of Americans in Jan.You know the one that has aleady passed the Senate. It's going to be real hard to explain come 2014. They will be out on their brown noses in a heartbeat.

Excuse me ?? they aren't voting against anything, the tax cuts expire, no vote, no signing of a bill .. What the expiring will show .. is the " neither" side was willing to give an inch, and lets not forget .. Democrats still own the senate and the white house .. they control 2/3 of the government .. I see it as both sides not willing to work to a goal ..

Lets not forget ... the house just passed a bill extending the tax cuts for everyone ... So are you saying that the Dem's are going to have a hard time explaining why they raised taxes on the middle class if that bill doesn't pass ??

 

[zimmer]

It's funny to listen to Parasite nation claim there is no cliff. There is no problem.
It means they were full of lies and deceit making debt an issue for years.
Now that they have Parasite Nation, and an incompetent leader whose ideas will make matters worse... and there is no defense... it doesn't matter.

 

[Diogenes]

Let me ask you a question, liberals like you have always referred to the Bush Tax cuts as tax cuts for the Rich. So what is the worry, seeing the rich will have to pay so much more, shouldn’t the rest willingly give up their tiny tax cut Bush gave them?

It's their talking point, even though it is false. My objection to the Bush tax cuts at the time was that it made the tax system more[/] progressive than it had been under Clinton, and taxing "the rich" only works as long as you have rich people to tax. It worked very well in California in the nineties until the tech bubble burst and so many of the surviving "millionaires" moved on to less kleptocratic areas. Maggie Thatcher had it right.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's their talking point, even though it is false. My objection to the Bush tax cuts at the time was that it made the tax system more[/] progressive than it had been under Clinton, and taxing "the rich" only works as long as you have rich people to tax. It worked very well in California in the nineties until the tech bubble burst and so many of the surviving "millionaires" moved on to less kleptocratic areas. Maggie Thatcher had it right.

I agree, those tax cuts added, in great numbers, those that don’t pay any Fed. Income tax, what liberals don’t like to hear is that it also cut middle class taxes by about 2,000 a year. Another point they often conveniently like to forget, the Bush tax cuts expired in 2010, the existing tax code and rates are now all Obama and Democrats … “they” extended the tax cuts no one else.

 

[Deuce]

It's their talking point, even though it is false. My objection to the Bush tax cuts at the time was that it made the tax system more[/] progressive than it had been under Clinton, and taxing "the rich" only works as long as you have rich people to tax. It worked very well in California in the nineties until the tech bubble burst and so many of the surviving "millionaires" moved on to less kleptocratic areas. Maggie Thatcher had it right.

Except the rich have continued to get richer. Clearly we're not running out of rich people.

I agree, those tax cuts added, in great numbers, those that don’t pay any Fed. Income tax, what liberals don’t like to hear is that it also cut middle class taxes by about 2,000 a year. Another point they often conveniently like to forget, the Bush tax cuts expired in 2010, the existing tax code and rates are now all Obama and Democrats … “they” extended the tax cuts no one else.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that most of those people paying no federal income tax are either paying payroll taxes or are retired. You also seem to have forgotten that Republicans voted for the extension too.

And what do you mean liberals "don't like to hear" that it also cut middle class taxes? Why would that bother us?

 

[AdamT]

They will simply end up kicking the can down the road another six months, unfortunately. But perhaps that will give them time to put in something like Bowles-Simpson, which makes sense over the long haul.

The short term solution is obvious, assuming both sides are actually interested in compromise, as they claim. Obama and the Dems want the top Bush cuts to expire. Boehner (and presumably the Republicans *cough*) says he would accept revenue hikes, but he wants them through the elimination of deductions. So just split the difference. Cut the top Bush tax cut in half and make up the difference by reducing some deductions. Easy peasy.