Rapunzel52
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 233
- Location
- The Great Midwest
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The American wealthy are making their arrangements...
Ending Bush tax cuts for rich would save about $80 billion in 2013, analysts say
Ending Bush tax cuts for rich would save about $28 billion in 2013, analysts say - The Washington Post
That doesn't mean it's the correct course of action.
Just out of curiosity, how much do you think will be generated by the increased tax?
This was never about how much would be generated. It has been a fairness issue.
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.Only 1.5 Trillion a year short.
This was never about how much would be generated. It has been a fairness issue.
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.
You subsidize what you want more of, and you tax what you want less of. So you are saying we want less investment in America right now? We are filled to the brim with capital, and there are more jobs than people, and gosh we just can't take any more advancement and need to slow down for a bit?
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
This is such a freaking game. Too bad we can't "blanket impeach" Congress.
people won't stop investing.
there have been many periods of growth under higher capital gains rates.
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.
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
...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.
what is critical is that we address the problem from both the revenue and spending sides, and that we carefully phase in any changes.
Read that as "CLASS WARFARE".
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.
Not really. The rich should be paying more. It is fairness not class warfare IMHO.
Not really. The rich should be paying more. It is fairness not class warfare IMHO.
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
Read that as "CLASS WARFARE".
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.
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.
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".
:shrug: 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.
:lol: 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.
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.
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.
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?
The newly elected Socialist Party in France is poised to institute a major tax hike on the nation's wealthiest. To help pay down the country's debt, French President Francois Hollande wants to raise the tax rate on income over 1 million euros (or $1.23 million) from 48 percent to 75 percent. This tax hike would affect about 30,000 French citizens - or .046 percent of the population. The French Parliament will take up the issue in September.
Hollande's tax hike on the rich was part of his presidential campaign platform. There are a number of experts - in France and the U.S. - who are skeptical that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce the country's fiscal burden.
"France is headed into a recession, if it is not in one already," says former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes in the accompanying interview. "Piling on new taxes when you have a contracting economy, that is lethal. That is poison."
There is no question that a top tax rate of 75 percent is very high. But many countries in Europe already have a tax rate of 50 percent or more.
It is also the promise he campaigned on. And in part due to that promise the People delivered him the Presidency. So he should break that promise to assuage the Republicans? I am not yet convinced he won't break that promise, but he shouldn't. And if he does break that promise, you can be sure the Republicans will pain him the liar. And they would be correct in doing so if he does cave on this.
Many countries in Europe have higher tax rates for their weathy than the US has>
From this article:
read more:
Tax Rates: Does the U.S. Have the Highest in the World? | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance