• 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!

No Fiscal Deal Without Higher Tax Rates On Rich, Obama Says

once again, i tend to doubt that treating investment income as income above a cap is going to make most people stop investing in the long term.

I agree. What I also think (and what you did not address) is that people invest to maximize return while minimizing risk, US business is not the only place to invest. Lower the return while keeping risk a constant (or rather, actually, mildly increasing it), and you make other investment venues more competitive relative to US Business. Canada (whose corporate tax rate is now 15%), for example, will do rather well off of a decision by us to hike up the capital gains rate.

i would also argue that one tax that is ripe for lowering is the corporate tax. we're much better off taxing individuals while having a very competitive corporate rate. we're kind of doing the opposite right now, and i think that we should make some changes.

On this we would agree. Sadly, though he has mentioned it several times, the President seems to have no desire whatsoever to do so, and I imagine would infuriate a significant section of his base if he tried to.

stupid would be going over the cliff and enacting these cuts and rate hikes all at once.

:shrug: We tried to spend our way into prosperity and, once that didn't get us there, tried to borrow and spend our way into prosperity. We are in for some pain. Let's get it over with.

we could probably tier it, but i doubt that the cap for no tax could be set at $200k. someone who has done the math on such a proposed system would have to weigh in, though.

Looking at.... static losses?

the compromise put forward by them includes no rate hikes and depends on unspecified loopholes to fill the gap. which loopholes?

Oh. So in fact they do not do this, but you are imagining that they might.

To answer your follow on question - the proposals that the Republicans have put forward include limiting the total size of deductions, getting rid of the state tax deduction, limiting the mortgage interest deduction to a primary residence below a lower worth cap, and a few others. Their plan is explicitly modeled after the Presidents OWN Simpson Bowles Commissions' model, which got rid of the vast majority of deductions and loopholes.

Likewise, Obama's plan puts it all on the wealthy to solve the problem. both plans are nonstarters, and are designed to be goalposts.

That is not true, as the GOP plan starts from the Simpson-Bowles position, but (and this is important) without the significant nominal rate reductions.

improperly phased in. that should be a lesson to us.

Improperly phased in?

i'm ok with means testing and perhaps raising the contribution ceiling, but cutting the wealthy completely out of the system isn't something i support. if they paid in, they should be able to collect.

Well, that was the Ryan Argument as well - to means test and then simply reduce payouts to higher net worth individuals in order to protect lower net worth individuals. Frankly I think that reality is a bit starker than that. The alternative to drastic reductions in our entitlement expenditure is to at some point not too far in the future (think, within the next 15 years) that we cease having an entitlement structure. Then we really are going to face the choice of kicking grandma out in the cold. If cuts in spending have to be made, let them be made first on those who do not require these services.

i doubt that we're at the far right of the Laffer curve, and i haven't read too many unbiased economists arguing that we were.

there is no such thing as an unbiased economist for the simple enough reason that there is no such thing as an unbiased human being. That being said, you will note that the economist I cited was Christina Romer, who is not exactly a noted Grover Norquist type.

raising rates will increase revenue, but it has to be done carefully, as do the spending cuts. we definitely need growth, but going over the cliff risks killing both supply and demand sides for years to come. growth is screwed if we go over the cliff.

I see no historical evidence to suppose that raising rates will increase revenue; especially given that revenue is tied to growth, and that over the past 4-5 decades rate hikes have been recessionary. Growth is screwed if we hike rates. It is not screwed if we slash spending, unless we do it in such a way as to destroy the security guarantee that the US Navy provides to global trade.
 
Britain’s Missing Millionaires | Casino Capitalism and Crapshoot Politics

It's the same reason why Californians are moving to Texas and why England lost many of their rock stars to the US during "The British Invasion", or even why people died attempting to escape communist countries.

Examples of this futile exercise of "taxing the rich" to solve a nation's spending problems abound. That people still believe it is possible to solve excessive government spending by taxing a small segment of society is difficult to explain when the evidence to the contrary remains so very clear.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — "Americans prefer letting tax cuts expire for the country's top earners, as President Barack Obama insists, while support has declined for cutting government services to curb budget deficits, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows. Fewer than half the Republicans polled favor continuing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.

There's also a reluctance to trim Social Security, Medicare or defense programs, three of the biggest drivers of federal spending, the survey released Wednesday found. The results could strengthen Obama's hand in his fiscal cliff duel with Republicans, in which he wants to raise taxes on the rich and cut spending by less than the GOP wants."

Poll shows support for raising taxes on the rich - Yahoo! News

This puts House Republicans running for reelection in 2014 in a very bad position, and an opportunity for Democrats to take the House if Republicans don't extend the middle class tax cuts before they expire.
 
The only purpose for raising tax rates is to damage the Republican Party. There IS no other reason. ....

Why will letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2 percent earners damage the Republican Party?

There is another reason.
When more of the middle class has more spending money they buy more/better housing and more goods and services which helps businesses grow. When businesses grow they hire more people who will spend more and help grow the economy.

That is a win/win situation for our nation.
 
With Obamas figures, a small amount to help nearly balance the budget. And still they refuse to pay this
TINY amount.

They need to be taxed 80% untill debt is $2B.

Course Obama actually having Correct figures for a Change might help.....huh?
rolleyes.png
 
This would prove what exactly? Nothing other than making the Republicans more of a laughing stock than they already are. Obama still hasnt taken more time off than Bush 1 and two combined. Need we mentioned the disaster the Republicans made out of Katrina. Please I hope this happens because SNL will get funny again! I think this is one of the main reason Republicans lost this last election political madness that somehow some way Obama is taking something, hiding something. A strong majority in this country does not buy into the Republican mantra of: we are the party of fiscal responcibility, or morals. Please tell me how they are the last three republican presidents and congress are to blame for the huge debt we are in now. Yes Obama owns alot of things but not the 80% of the debt that was racked up under the Republicans watch. Yes there is a way to pay down the debt. However, both parties do not want to do it. I think the cuts should start at 20% cut in military and the tax rates go back up to Reagan levels.



Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.

Bottom Line

While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it......snip~

Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute Wealth


U were Allegedly saying something about some sort of Strong majority.....huh? What do you think happens when ya takes the Majority of Independents and put them in with a Ranking that is nearly tied in statistics? So much on the fallacy of the hyped up so called majority!

Seems the majority of Americans don't favor using the Federal tax Code to do so......seems that's where some of the confusion comes in. Or that Progressives refuse to acknowledge that fact while saying 60% percent say go ahead and tax the Rich. Do you think that such is due to their ability to not ready all the words when reports comes out. Or do they just deliberately forget?
rolleyes.png
427809_457689890948529_1440798947_s.jpg
 
This would prove what exactly? Nothing other than making the Republicans more of a laughing stock than they already are. Obama still hasnt taken more time off than Bush 1 and two combined. Need we mentioned the disaster the Republicans made out of Katrina. Please I hope this happens because SNL will get funny again! I think this is one of the main reason Republicans lost this last election political madness that somehow some way Obama is taking something, hiding something. A strong majority in this country does not buy into the Republican mantra of: we are the party of fiscal responcibility, or morals. Please tell me how they are the last three republican presidents and congress are to blame for the huge debt we are in now. Yes Obama owns alot of things but not the 80% of the debt that was racked up under the Republicans watch. Yes there is a way to pay down the debt. However, both parties do not want to do it. I think the cuts should start at 20% cut in military and the tax rates go back up to Reagan levels.

Democratic Party thinks they're the winners, so using their tactics should make them proud.
 
Why will letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2 percent earners damage the Republican Party?

There is another reason.
When more of the middle class has more spending money they buy more/better housing and more goods and services which helps businesses grow. When businesses grow they hire more people who will spend more and help grow the economy.

That is a win/win situation for our nation.

Because they don't believe in raising taxes.
 
Why will letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2 percent earners damage the Republican Party?

There is another reason.
When more of the middle class has more spending money they buy more/better housing and more goods and services which helps businesses grow. When businesses grow they hire more people who will spend more and help grow the economy.

That is a win/win situation for our nation.

Hows that work when they have less money to spend? Again all those under 250k will be paying the price.....which we did show ya some of why remember?

By ruling that ObamaCare is constitutional, the Supreme Court has set in motion a slew of tax hikes. Well, someone has to pay for it. For rich folks, looming big is the 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income, and the 0.9% Medicare payroll tax hike (from 1.45% to 2.35%). And then there are the tax hikes for everybody else.

Obama’s pledge against any form of tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 a year “was thrown out the window” when he signed the healthcare law, says John Kartch, communications director with Americans For Tax Reform (founded by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist).


No. 1. The Individual Mandate Excise Tax. Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher of $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

No. 2. The Over-The-Counter Drugs Trap. Since Jan. 1, 2011, employees with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts or health reimbursement accounts have no longer been able to use pre-tax funds stashed in these accounts to buy over-the-counter medicines for allergy relief and the like without a doctor’s prescription (there’s an exception for insulin).

No. 3. The Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Cap. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, employees will face a $2,500 cap on the amount of pre-tax salary deferrals they can make into a healthcare flexible spending account. There is no cap under current law. In light of the new cap, employee benefits groups are lobbying for Congress to modify the use-it-or-lose-it rule that means employees forfeit unused funds in their accounts at the end of the plan year.

No. 4. The Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, taxpayers who face high medical expenses will only be allowed a deduction for expenses to the extent they exceed 10% of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5% now. Taxpayers 65 and older can still use the old 7.5% threshold through 2016. For how to score the medical expense deduction before 2013, click here.

No. 5. The Health Savings Account Withdrawal Penalty. Since Jan. 1, 2011, taxpayers who withdraw money from health savings accounts for non-medical expenses before age 65 face a 20% penalty, up from 10% before.

No. 6. The Indoor Tanning Services Tax. Since July 1, 2010, folks using indoor tanning salons face a new 10% excise tax. This one hasn’t been bringing in as much revenue as anticipated.

No. 7. The Cadillac Health Insurance Plan Tax. Starting in 2018, there will be a new 40% excise tax on taxpayers who are covered by high-cost health insurance plans (with premiums at or above $10,200 for a single or $27,500 for a family). Insurers or employers who are self-insured will pay the tax, but it is expected to trickle down to mean higher costs for consumers.

Americans For Tax Reform has a full list of ObamaCare’s 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.....snip~

ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners - Forbes


Did ya want to look at the 20 others? :rolleyes:
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — "Americans prefer letting tax cuts expire for the country's top earners, as President Barack Obama insists, while support has declined for cutting government services to curb budget deficits, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows. Fewer than half the Republicans polled favor continuing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.

There's also a reluctance to trim Social Security, Medicare or defense programs, three of the biggest drivers of federal spending, the survey released Wednesday found. The results could strengthen Obama's hand in his fiscal cliff duel with Republicans, in which he wants to raise taxes on the rich and cut spending by less than the GOP wants."

Poll shows support for raising taxes on the rich - Yahoo! News

This puts House Republicans running for reelection in 2014 in a very bad position, and an opportunity for Democrats to take the House if Republicans don't extend the middle class tax cuts before they expire.

In other words, polls show people want handouts to continue and want someone else to pay for them. Is that really a surprise?
 
yeah it might make that guy stop voting for big spending politicians

its the middle and lower classes who vote in big spenders. its time the sucklers of the public tits start realizing they have to pay for the milk
brokenrecord.jpg
 
123342_600.jpg


mrz120512dAPR20121205014551.jpg


Yeah....We have Seen it all before!
rolleyes.png
 
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.

Bottom Line

While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it......snip~

Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute Wealth


U were Allegedly saying something about some sort of Strong majority.....huh? What do you think happens when ya takes the Majority of Independents and put them in with a Ranking that is nearly tied in statistics? So much on the fallacy of the hyped up so called majority!

Seems the majority of Americans don't favor using the Federal tax Code to do so......seems that's where some of the confusion comes in. Or that Progressives refuse to acknowledge that fact while saying 60% percent say go ahead and tax the Rich. Do you think that such is due to their ability to not ready all the words when reports comes out. Or do they just deliberately forget?
rolleyes.png
427809_457689890948529_1440798947_s.jpg

No the bottom line is 30 years ago Republicans started the Redistribute Wealth, How else can you explain stagnant wages for the middle class over that time period while the top has reaped a windfall off the back of middle class Americans. You want to talk about class warfare that an debate that Republicans will lose on.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-voters-want-to-raise-taxes-on-wealthy-84675.htm

61% are in favor of raising the tax on the rich that is a strong majority. The sad part is Republicans still have their head in the sand and most still think trickle down economics works.
 
Democratic Party thinks they're the winners, so using their tactics should make them proud.

No the Democratic Party did win and win big. I am sure you watched Fox News and how they said for weeks that it was in the bag for Romney. Then wegot to laugh at Rove and his deer in the headlight moment. Republicans keep attacking middle America they will lose big 2014. Especcially if they tie the wagon to the looney teabaggers
 
No the Democratic Party did win and win big. I am sure you watched Fox News and how they said for weeks that it was in the bag for Romney. Then wegot to laugh at Rove and his deer in the headlight moment. Republicans keep attacking middle America they will lose big 2014. Especcially if they tie the wagon to the looney teabaggers

Winning by less than 2% isnt winning big. Thanks for playing rationalization politics.
 
123342_600.jpg


mrz120512dAPR20121205014551.jpg


Yeah....We have Seen it all before!
rolleyes.png

the Obunny position is patently dishonest

as others have noted, Obunny's state of the union early this year claimed that everyone but the rich sacrifices when government spending is cut-but the rich will have to pay more taxes. Meaning the rich don't benefit from government services so why should they pay even more for stuff they don't benefit from

the fact is its pure pandering to class envy. and the obama slurpers who whine that this point is repetitive fail to acknowledge that the tax the rich nonsense is the same old crap over and over and over
 
No the Democratic Party did win and win big. I am sure you watched Fox News and how they said for weeks that it was in the bag for Romney. Then wegot to laugh at Rove and his deer in the headlight moment. Republicans keep attacking middle America they will lose big 2014. Especcially if they tie the wagon to the looney teabaggers

psychobabble-the GOP retained congress

and its hardly attacking middle america to oppose class warfare against the most productive tax payers

I wonder what the voting would be if it was based on federal taxes paid. the majority of those who use more than they pay voted for Obama. The majority of those who pay more than they get in government benefits-Romney
 
No the bottom line is 30 years ago Republicans started the Redistribute Wealth, How else can you explain stagnant wages for the middle class over that time period while the top has reaped a windfall off the back of middle class Americans. You want to talk about class warfare that an debate that Republicans will lose on.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-voters-want-to-raise-taxes-on-wealthy-84675.htm

61% are in favor of raising the tax on the rich that is a strong majority. The sad part is Republicans still have their head in the sand and most still think trickle down economics works.

In the last 30 years the government has been taking 14% greater amount implemented as taxes visible on your paycheck. That may explain some of it. Id have to dig to find the info on which ones were raised by which amount and which were added but I can assure you that are you being taxed on your paycheck at a greater amount than people were in the past.
 
You do understand the debt ceiling is used to pay for the bills we already have like the 12 trillion Republicans have racked up over they years. The whole mess is nothing more than a joke! SS has not add any debt to the deficit. So that is off the table! I am a firm believer that rates should go up for everyone. Then no pay or benefits for congress or the president. Now that is mostly symbolic but let get real if you want to get spending under control lets get with it.

I got it, only Republican's racked up debt. Great point and partisan.

The mess is not a joke...we are in deep. If it were a joke, Spain and Greece would be having a party right now.

Ok, Social Security is off the table. Not sure what that has to do with my point of not having a unlimited debt ceiling.

Sure, cut the president and congresses pay and benefits. I don't care.

Getting spending under control is a must, but let me put it this way. The debt ceiling is a check and balance. Taking that away from Congress could be disasterous. Removing the check and balance is a safety, keep it in place. I am sure that for my lifetime, our national debt will not go down. So tying it to a percentage of the GDP gives a real deficit to income ratio that I think I could be ok with. It would also take these constant debates about the debt ceiling off the table.
 
Obama and his cronies are hoping to see the next year begin with higher taxes for those of us who actually work and pay taxes while at the same time seeing the defense budget slashed. It is the progressive way. In order to redistribute wealth, they have to get more and more access to the wealth. That's what ObamaCare is about, it's what "fair share" economics is about and it is what his "proposal" for avoiding the "fiscal cliff" is all about. He has made a proposal that the Republicans cannot accept and it's primary intention is to keep any deal from being reached in order to ensure that taxes are increased. His backup plan is that if the Republicans are stupid enough to cave he then has more control on the spending or more important the threat of not increasing the federal debt limit is removed and he has the GOP over a barrell.
 
I got it, only Republican's racked up debt. Great point and partisan.

The mess is not a joke...we are in deep. If it were a joke, Spain and Greece would be having a party right now.

Ok, Social Security is off the table. Not sure what that has to do with my point of not having a unlimited debt ceiling.

Sure, cut the president and congresses pay and benefits. I don't care.

Getting spending under control is a must, but let me put it this way. The debt ceiling is a check and balance. Taking that away from Congress could be disasterous. Removing the check and balance is a safety, keep it in place. I am sure that for my lifetime, our national debt will not go down. So tying it to a percentage of the GDP gives a real deficit to income ratio that I think I could be ok with. It would also take these constant debates about the debt ceiling off the table.

Because the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending. That has to do with paying the bills. I do recall the House has the check book. You do not seem to understand the concept of the debt ceiling. Plus being a Republican idea I just figured the right would be all for it. Yes I do blame the Republicans for a majority of the debt. The problem with Spain, and Greece is austarity which is what Ryan proposed in his budget all the while letting the wealthy off scott free.
 
In the last 30 years the government has been taking 14% greater amount implemented as taxes visible on your paycheck. That may explain some of it. Id have to dig to find the info on which ones were raised by which amount and which were added but I can assure you that are you being taxed on your paycheck at a greater amount than people were in the past.

Taxes are lower than they have ever been sorry that will not pass the sniff testb either.
 
Because the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending. That has to do with paying the bills. I do recall the House has the check book. You do not seem to understand the concept of the debt ceiling. Plus being a Republican idea I just figured the right would be all for it. Yes I do blame the Republicans for a majority of the debt. The problem with Spain, and Greece is austarity which is what Ryan proposed in his budget all the while letting the wealthy off scott free.

The debt ceiling is the tool so we can pay the bills, but we have to many bills.

This is like telling a fat person their problem is they don't have enough food.
 
No the bottom line is 30 years ago Republicans started the Redistribute Wealth, How else can you explain stagnant wages for the middle class over that time period while the top has reaped a windfall off the back of middle class Americans. You want to talk about class warfare that an debate that Republicans will lose on.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-voters-want-to-raise-taxes-on-wealthy-84675.htm

61% are in favor of raising the tax on the rich that is a strong majority. The sad part is Republicans still have their head in the sand and most still think trickle down economics works.

It's real simple.....the Progressives began back in the 1900's. Took Root in the 30's and we are not talking about Teddy Roosevelt's Progressives. Course realizing that the left has Controlled what was over 2/3rds of this Nations Economy with California being in the Top 5 in the World and now dropped to 8th. Does distinctly put it on the Democrats. That would be Chicago Illinois, L.A. California, New York, Detroit, Baltimore......U can catch the drift.

All one needs do is look at those Keynesian Economics played out in Chicago, L.A. and Detroit, Baltimore, New York.....huh? Actually out of 300 Worldwide cities and with the US having the Most 76 and not one of them recovering last year or the year before. Pretty much says it all about the Democrats and their ridiculous spending and waste. Even moreso since Obama declared the Recession over in 2009. The net result.....huh?
f_whistle.gif


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Retailers moving into old downtown buildings, an abundance of freshly planted greenspaces, and a stream of new jobs in Knoxville, Tennessee, are all signs to Mayor Madeline Rogero that for the last year prosperity has been blooming in her city.

Knoxville is a member of a very small club. Three and a half years since the 2007-09 economic recession ended, only three major U.S. metropolitan areas are experiencing an economic recovery, according to the Brookings Institution. <<<<<
rolleyes.png


The Washington-based research group has also deemed Dallas and Pittsburgh in recovery after analyzing their employment levels and gross domestic product per capita.

The United States has the most major metropolitan economies of all countries - 76 - according to an annual report on the 300 largest metropolitan economies worldwide that Brookings released on Friday.

"It was still better than last year when the U.S. had no metro recoveries," Brookings Associate Fellow Emilia Istrate said.

"People always want to know what metros are recovering, what they are doing, so they can replicate it. There is no single industry that can help, but there is an industrial structure that can help you grow year to year," she said. "More and more metropolitan areas are looking at the export sector, at foreign investors, at infrastructure."

Any improvements could take a while to impact budgets, said Christy McFarland, who researches fiscal issues for the National League of Cities.....snip~

When the Right has had no Control. Can they be blamed for over 60 - 75 yrs of failed Keynesian Economics that never worked. Course the reality of the last 4 years is quite different especially with all of those 76 cities. Do you think being last on the list 4 years Prior helped the these three? Other than Dallas that is.
studying.gif
 
No the Democratic Party did win and win big. I am sure you watched Fox News and how they said for weeks that it was in the bag for Romney. Then wegot to laugh at Rove and his deer in the headlight moment. Republicans keep attacking middle America they will lose big 2014. Especcially if they tie the wagon to the looney teabaggers

They didn't win big, we're right where we were prior to the election. Looks like Obama has problems in the Senate.

White House Swats Away McConnell's Suggestion
 
Back
Top Bottom