• 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!

Employers In US Start Bracing For Higher Tax Withholding

Erod said:
Add to this, Prof, the intentions of Obama to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.

This will lead to massive foreclosures at a scale we've never seen. We're talking raises in federal taxes to many homeowners of potentially $10,000+ per year.
Click to expand...

I suggest you study the issue rather than show ignorance by perpetuating the myth..... Obama has no intention of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. The bipartisan commission chartered with considering ways of reducing deficits is looking at this along with 1,000's of other variables that are potential sources of revenue or expense reduction.
 
Taboon said:
Great, no arguments from me on those! Now that constitutes about $150 Billion in spending cuts. Only about $600-800 Billion to go. Keep em coming!
Click to expand...

Lol. I really like this guy (or gal). Spoken like a true moderate.
 
Taboon said:
And that's my whole point in a nutshell Ockham. So, why is everyone arguing with me?
Click to expand...

I think people are arguing with you because you have "slightly liberal" by your name, which means democrat to most, and there is absolutely zero chance of any elected democrat that I know of ever cutting spending in a social welfare program. It might not be fair, but I think that's why people argue with you.
 
FederalRepublic said:
I think people are arguing with you because you have "slightly liberal" by your name, which means democrat to most, and there is absolutely zero chance of any elected democrat that I know of ever cutting spending in a social welfare program. It might not be fair, but I think that's why people argue with you.
Click to expand...

Moderate liberals are fine because they usually have a shorter partisan fuse and have a realist streak. When it's survival mode - moderate liberals, fiscal conservatives and others who can think beyond sound byte politics will understand and take action to do what's necessary to save the country. We may not agree on HOW that should be done, but at the base level, that it should be done at all will be agreed upon. I agree spending needs to be cut - I think Taboon does as well. Where and how much is the next argument. I like letting the people have a voice here and telling the politicians what to cut for the easy stuff. The hard stuff will hurt (R) and (D) alike as there's no easy choices. We're all gonna stink on that one.
 
disneydude said:
The Democrats tried to cut taxes for everyone....except the Party of No, of course said "NO....unless you extend tax cuts to our corporate elite".

The GOP is responsible for this.
Click to expand...

So the democrats wanted tax cuts for everyone but the GOP stopped it because it was not for everyone. This does not make sense
 
FederalRepublic said:
I think people are arguing with you because you have "slightly liberal" by your name, which means democrat to most,...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe, but not so much as say a back handed insult like found in this posting....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-higher-tax-withholding-3.html#post1059069824

Look, to ignore that the tax cuts of the 80's and 90's didn't spur the greatest chain of growth and prosperity in this country is to simply bury your head in a true partisan fashion.

I don't own a business, nor am I an economist by any means, but I do know that when taxes are cut to business, and to the public spending happens, and tax receipts at the federal level always seem to be reported as 'unexpectedly high' the media. Also when business knows what is coming their way they can plan for it and move forward.

Problem is on that point, is that we seem to have a President, and party in charge at the moment that loathes business, thinks our greatness is undeserved, and views America as an ignoble venture. That can not continue if we are to remain at the level of living standard we have enjoyed since before any of us were born.

...and there is absolutely zero chance of any elected democrat that I know of ever cutting spending in a social welfare program.
Click to expand...

And you're right about that. Why do you think that is? because there is a vested interest in keeping that block of voters dependent on government handouts. Same with the pension system in this country.

It might not be fair, but I think that's why people argue with you.
Click to expand...

No, people are arguing now because we have a current government that produces extremely complex bills of 2000 plus pages, that the legislators will not even read, laden with unintended consequences that in the final assessment are going to kill business, kill standard of living in this country, and force working people like me to subsidize those towing the liberal government line.

remember this?



Yeah, these people have got to go!


j-mac
 
FederalRepublic said:
I think people are arguing with you because you have "slightly liberal" by your name
Click to expand...

@Taboon, anyone who argues with you because of the political leaning you have written by your name, instead of actually arguing the issues, is not worth arguing with.
 
Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion - WSJ.com

Looks like a great start and includes cuts to the areas I was being hounded on (i.e. Social Security, Defense, Medicare). Guess we'll see if this gets anwhere. They're not even halfway there and they are already making cuts to the sacred programs. At least some politicians are seeing the light. Will it be enough?
 
ptif219 said:
Don't cut earmarks screw old people and make us defenseless
Click to expand...

Actually earmarks are cut in this proposal.
Screw old people? It includes a proposal to make sure "old people" have a minimum payout if they are below certain income thresholds. We don't have that right now.
Defenseless? We spent $663 Billion dollars on defense in 2009. A cut of $100 Billion would bring us down to $563 Billion. China spends the second most on defense (about $100 Billion). We still will be spending more than five times more on defense than any other country in the world. I would hardly call that defenseless.
 
Taboon said:
Actually earmarks are cut in this proposal.
Screw old people? It includes a proposal to make sure "old people" have a minimum payout if they are below certain income thresholds. We don't have that right now.
Defenseless? We spent $663 Billion dollars on defense in 2009. A cut of $100 Billion would bring us down to $563 Billion. China spends the second most on defense (about $100 Billion). We still will be spending more than five times more on defense than any other country in the world. I would hardly call that defenseless.
Click to expand...

Earmarks will be cut because of the GOP not Obama. The democrats passed pay go and it was a joke. This is more BS that will do nothing
 
Taboon said:
Actually earmarks are cut in this proposal.
Screw old people? It includes a proposal to make sure "old people" have a minimum payout if they are below certain income thresholds. We don't have that right now.
Defenseless? We spent $663 Billion dollars on defense in 2009. A cut of $100 Billion would bring us down to $563 Billion. China spends the second most on defense (about $100 Billion). We still will be spending more than five times more on defense than any other country in the world. I would hardly call that defenseless.
Click to expand...

Earmarks will be cut because of the GOP not Obama. The democrats passed pay go and it was a joke. This is more BS that will do nothing
 
ptif219 said:
Earmarks will be cut because of the GOP not Obama. The democrats passed pay go and it was a joke. This is more BS that will do nothing
Click to expand...
I don't really care who is responsible for getting earmarks cut. It's a good thing either way. Besides, my state ranks like 49th when it comes to earmark dollars per capita. I won't be missing them as much as say, Alaska or Mississippi.
 
Taboon said:
I don't really care who is responsible for getting earmarks cut. It's a good thing either way. Besides, my state ranks like 49th when it comes to earmark dollars per capita. I won't be missing them as much as say, Alaska or Mississippi.
Click to expand...

So you give Obama and his cronies a pass for this useless report
 
Between the 11 to 13 new taxes coming from the "Obama I Don't care about Your Health Kill Granny Plan" and the Death to California Prop 23 that just failed the once great Golden State is now doomed to be a wasteland for illegals where they already control so much of L.A. county that it's hard to buy anything at a few 7-11 stores if you don't speak Mexican. I know because I live next door where it's not quite that bad yet.

It's not we didn't warn Obama was going to be just another Tax spend Liberal, what we didn't yet know was he was so wrapped up in his Black Liberation Theology Anti-Americanism on top of that.

These new taxes will translates into more Liberal spending and less jobs, just as Obama has planned. Remember he always says one thing and does another then he simply blames President Bush comes up with another lie.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Please... enlighten me.

Government controlled Socialism... isn't that an oxymoron? Is there such a thing as privately controlled socialism?

Life is better up here for more people. Reason for that? Who knows. But one of the determining factors of our lives and our economy is not taxes. Our taxes are higher, yet for the vast majority of people, we have a higher standard of living.
Click to expand...

I've been to Canada a few times. I loved it, but I prefer less government and keeping more of my own money.

Figure 1 provides a snapshot of living standards among the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2001, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Canada ranks eighth among the 21 countries chosen for comparison. Only Luxembourg and the United States have substantially higher standards of living than does Canada, but Ireland, Norway and Switzerland are also notably better off. Iceland and Denmark are ranked higher than Canada, but not significantly so, and thus can be considered equals in terms of standard of living. Though ranked lower than Canada, the Netherlands and Austria could also be considered equals to Canada on an income per capita basis. Overall, Canada compares well to the countries of Europe and Australasia.
Canada's Productivity And Standard Of Living: Past, Present And Future
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom