• 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!

Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

Redress said:
That is entirely 100 % dishonest representation of Kandahar's beliefs.
Click to expand...

That is what I see and I call it like I see it. Given he has (to the best of my knowledge) never said that there is a certain point where taxes are too high (and given he thinks a 55% rate on an estate over one million is just fine) My view is honest
 
TurtleDude said:
so the howls about the deficit are just rants with no substance. You libs claim the tax rates cost money yet your response to this "cost" is to spend even more.
Click to expand...

Howls about the deficit? What are you talking about? I have said numerous times on this forum that I don't give a damn about the deficit until the economy recovers. I'm completely in favor of high spending and low taxes during a recession, provided that they are stimulative. Tax cuts for corporations are stimulative. Tax cuts for the middle-class are stimulative. Extending the EITC is stimulative. Extending unemployment benefits is stimulative. Giving federal money to the states is stimulative. Low taxes for the wealthy and a low estate tax are NOT stimulative.

And to the extent that anyone has been "howling about the deficit" in recent months, it's mostly been conservative Republicans. Not that they actually care about it either...it's just another issue that the out-party uses to attack the incumbent party.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
That is what I see and I call it like I see it. Given he has (to the best of my knowledge) never said that there is a certain point where taxes are too high (and given he thinks a 55% rate on an estate over one million is just fine) My view is honest
Click to expand...

You might think it is honest, but it is not. It is also a very slanted view that spins his actual beliefs.
 
MaggieD said:
This, I am certain, comes as no surprise to anyone on The Hill. It's all about perception. IMO, they will lower the threshhold for inheritance taxes from its proposed $5 million and increase the tax percentage back to what it was before. I predict this will happen -- and that both sides knew it was going to happen all along.
Click to expand...

I give up guessing. I know there are conservatives really upset about any death tax at all and all the other spending Obama put in there.
 
Kandahar said:
The Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this year...that was part of the original deal. So it's a cut from what the taxes would be, in the absence of any congressional action. But really, this is irrelevant. You can call them tax cuts or maintaining low tax rates or whatever you want. The point is that if Obama is going to capitulate to the Republicans and give them everything they want and then some, he sure as **** better get something more than some unemployment benefits out of the deal.
Click to expand...

So, they are not a tax cut based on the current tax rate... they are a tax cut based on a rate that does not exist, is that about it?

I can certainly see your point of view on your last statement, and I do not entirely disagree.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is what I see and I call it like I see it. Given he has (to the best of my knowledge) never said that there is a certain point where taxes are too high (and given he thinks a 55% rate on an estate over one million is just fine) My view is honest
Click to expand...

- There is a point at which income taxes are too high.
- One million is a lower floor than I'd prefer for the estate tax.
 
Kandahar said:
The Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this year...that was part of the original deal. So it's a cut from what the taxes would be, in the absence of any congressional action. But really, this is irrelevant. You can call them tax cuts or maintaining low tax rates or whatever you want. The point is that if Obama is going to capitulate to the Republicans and give them everything they want and then some, he sure as **** better get something more than some unemployment benefits out of the deal.
Click to expand...

Good-you should be happy. It will help Obama's reelection effort to sign this compromise. and the people mostly hurt will be the dems who are about to lose power anyway. iF taxes are jacked up, Obama and the dems will look bad-and in January, the only bills will be to extend the Bush rates for EVERYONE so the dems will be forced to block tax rates for everyone which again will KILL the dems in 2012.

the dems best hope would be to get tax extensions for all but those who pay most of the taxes---then when the GOP tries to extend the rates for the people who pay the most taxes, Obama can veto it or the dems can block it and claim its only to help the rich. But if no tax cuts go through, the dems are really toast come January. Because again there will be two choices-allow huge tax hikes to occur by blocking the GOP or allowing all people to maintain the favorable (compared to dem desires) tax rates.

Its a lose lose situation for the dems. The only downside would be for McConnell to blink and allow the rich to get shafted and I don't think he is stupid enough to do that because we all know what it would mean--the dems would be able to play their class warfare divide and conquer game. If no tax cuts go through the dems cannot and they will lose
 
Kandahar said:
- There is a point at which income taxes are too high.
- One million is a lower floor than I'd prefer for the estate tax.
Click to expand...

so what rate is too high

40% on all income over 200K

45%

50%

I think progressive income taxes are an abomination so I don't have to deal with defending a certain cutoff
 
Kandahar said:
Victory for who? Obama? The Republicans? **** them both. This deal sucks and SHOULD be defeated. How about a victory for the American people - if Obama insists on caving to the Republicans for tax cuts for the wealthy, he should at least get some economic stimulus in exchange.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that there is lots of stimulus in it and that's what conservatives are complaining about.
 
Whovian said:
what about the rate itself? more than half is ok?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with high estate tax rates, provided that the floor is relatively high. Like Warren Buffett said about his estate planning, he wants to leave his kids enough that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. Makes sense to me. I understand why someone would be motivated to work hard to provide a nice future for their kids...but I think it's pretty dubious that wealthy people are motivated to be more productive out of a desire to leave their kids $50 million instead of $10 million.

So yeah, if the government wants to tax estates pretty heavily, that seems to be one of the more economically effective ways to ease some of the high levels of wealth disparity in the country. You tax it at the point when people are least inclined to care (when they're dead), and where it's least likely to have a negative impact on the economy.
 
Kandahar said:
Victory for who? Obama? The Republicans? **** them both. This deal sucks and SHOULD be defeated. How about a victory for the American people - if Obama insists on caving to the Republicans for tax cuts for the wealthy, he should at least get some economic stimulus in exchange.
Click to expand...

Obama got this.


Unemployment benefits: $56 billion. The package would also leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits -- which go as high as 99 weeks in states hit hardest by job loss. The White House estimates it would cost $56 billion. A formal estimate is expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office.

Social Security tax break: $111.7 billion. The package would also offer workers a payroll tax holiday worth 2 percentage points next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The measure would cost $112 billion.

Individual tax credits: $8.3 billion. The compromise framework would also extend for two years the increased value of a number of tax credits that benefit low- and middle-income tax filers, such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and a revamped tax credit for college costs. The measure would cost $8 billion.

Business tax breaks: $69 billion. The bill contains more than 40 business tax breaks. Some, like an extension of the research and development credit, has drawn bipartisan support and is typically renewed annually. But also included are roughly $11 billion worth of energy credits and a new temporary option for businesses to write off 100% of their expenses in 2011. That measure would cost $21 billion.
 
Barbbtx said:
Obama got this.


Unemployment benefits: $56 billion. The package would also leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits -- which go as high as 99 weeks in states hit hardest by job loss. The White House estimates it would cost $56 billion. A formal estimate is expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office.

Social Security tax break: $111.7 billion. The package would also offer workers a payroll tax holiday worth 2 percentage points next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The measure would cost $112 billion.

Individual tax credits: $8.3 billion. The compromise framework would also extend for two years the increased value of a number of tax credits that benefit low- and middle-income tax filers, such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and a revamped tax credit for college costs. The measure would cost $8 billion.

Business tax breaks: $69 billion. The bill contains more than 40 business tax breaks. Some, like an extension of the research and development credit, has drawn bipartisan support and is typically renewed annually. But also included are roughly $11 billion worth of energy credits and a new temporary option for businesses to write off 100% of their expenses in 2011. That measure would cost $21 billion.
Click to expand...

thanks.......where did you copy that from?
 
TurtleDude said:
so what rate is too high

40% on all income over 200K

45%

50%
Click to expand...

It depends on the state of the economy, and how wide the tax brackets are. If I was in charge of setting income tax brackets, they'd probably look something like this:

For a family of 4:
Under $20K: -40%
$20K to $250K: 25%
Over $250K: 40%

Those are just back-of-the-envelope estimates that seem about right to me; I didn't actually calculate how they'd affect the budget.
And after the economy recovered a bit, I'd probably raise the top bracket to around 45%.

TurtleDude said:
I think progressive income taxes are an abomination so I don't have to deal with defending a certain cutoff
Click to expand...

That's a pretty silly reason for opposing a policy.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
It's my understanding that there is lots of stimulus in it and that's what conservatives are complaining about.
Click to expand...

By my count, in this compromise there was about $300 billion of stuff that only the Republicans wanted (e.g. an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, a low estate tax). There was about $350 billion of stuff that was relatively uncontroversial that everyone could support (e.g. an extension of the EITC, the middle-class tax cuts, corporate expensing). And there was about $60 billion of stuff that only the Democrats wanted (e.g. an extension of unemployment benefits).

That looks to me like Obama gave the Republicans everything they wanted and then some, and got nothing more than a token concession in exchange.
 
Socialist Bernie Sanders has been fillibustering for hours.
 
Kandahar said:
Yeah, I don't really have a problem with high estate tax rates, provided that the floor is relatively high. Like Warren Buffett said about his estate planning, he wants to leave his kids enough that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. Makes sense to me. I understand why someone would be motivated to work hard to provide a nice future for their kids...but I think it's pretty dubious that wealthy people are motivated to be more productive out of a desire to leave their kids $50 million instead of $10 million.

So yeah, if the government wants to tax estates pretty heavily, that seems to be one of the more economically effective ways to ease some of the high levels of wealth disparity in the country. You tax it at the point when people are least inclined to care (when they're dead), and where it's least likely to have a negative impact on the economy.
Click to expand...

why should you, or anyone else for that matter, get to decide how much is TOO MUCH for me to leave my children? Why should someone be required to pay 55% estate tax, on top of all the taxes that have already been paid on that propery over the years?
 
Barbbtx said:
Obama got this.


Unemployment benefits: $56 billion. The package would also leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits -- which go as high as 99 weeks in states hit hardest by job loss. The White House estimates it would cost $56 billion. A formal estimate is expected soon from the Congressional Budget Office.
Click to expand...

OK. $56 billion of stuff that the Democrats wanted.

Barbbtx said:
Social Security tax break: $111.7 billion. The package would also offer workers a payroll tax holiday worth 2 percentage points next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The measure would cost $112 billion.

Individual tax credits: $8.3 billion. The compromise framework would also extend for two years the increased value of a number of tax credits that benefit low- and middle-income tax filers, such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and a revamped tax credit for college costs. The measure would cost $8 billion.

Business tax breaks: $69 billion. The bill contains more than 40 business tax breaks. Some, like an extension of the research and development credit, has drawn bipartisan support and is typically renewed annually. But also included are roughly $11 billion worth of energy credits and a new temporary option for businesses to write off 100% of their expenses in 2011. That measure would cost $21 billion.
Click to expand...

These things are not concessions. Are Republicans philosophically opposed to ANY of them? Not to my knowledge. This is just stuff that everyone wanted, not stuff that Obama cajoled the Republicans into supporting in exchange for tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
Whovian said:
why should you, or anyone else for that matter, get to decide how much is TOO MUCH for me to leave my children? Why should someone be required to pay 55% estate tax, on top of all the taxes that have already been paid on that propery over the years?
Click to expand...

Because the death of the property owner is one of the least disruptive times (for both the estate and the economy as a whole) for the government to tax property. It prevents property from concentrating too heavily and reduces wealth disparity.
 
Kandahar said:
Because the death of the property owner is one of the least disruptive times (for both the estate and the economy as a whole) for the government to tax property. It prevents property from concentrating too heavily and reduces wealth disparity.
Click to expand...
doesn't really answer the question. What gives someone the right to tell me how much I can leave my children? It's MY money, not someone elses. They are MY kids, not someone elses.

As for the whole 'wealth disparity' thing, I could care less. If I earned it, it's mine, not yours. If you earned it, it's yours not mine.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
By my count, in this compromise there was about $300 billion of stuff that only the Republicans wanted (e.g. an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, a low estate tax). There was about $350 billion of stuff that was relatively uncontroversial that everyone could support (e.g. an extension of the EITC, the middle-class tax cuts, corporate expensing). And there was about $60 billion of stuff that only the Democrats wanted (e.g. an extension of unemployment benefits).

That looks to me like Obama gave the Republicans everything they wanted and then some, and got nothing more than a token concession in exchange.
Click to expand...
Bush tax cut deal and surprise stimulus - what they cost - Dec. 7, 2010
 
Whovian said:
doesn't really answer the question. What gives someone the right to tell me how much I can leave my children? It's MY money, not someone elses. They are MY kids, not someone elses.
Click to expand...

Well if you accept the premise that the government has SOME legitimate interest in taxing someone at some point in their lives, then it's just a question of where is the best time to do it. And the death of the property-owner makes logical sense.

Whovian said:
As for the whole 'wealth disparity' thing, I could care less. If I earned it, it's mine, not yours. If you earned it, it's yours not mine.
Click to expand...

This is just a moral argument that you've accepted as an article of faith. Since I simply disagree, there's really not much debate to be had. Which is why I generally focus on pragmatic arguments instead of moralistic arguments.

High levels of wealth disparity create all sorts of other economic problems which society ends up paying for (e.g. crime, poverty, unhealthy and poorly educated work forces). Additionally, more concentrated wealth tends to reduce consumer purchasing power, which hurts the economy.
 
Kandahar said:
OK. $56 billion of stuff that the Democrats wanted.



These things are not concessions. Are Republicans philosophically opposed to ANY of them? Not to my knowledge. This is just stuff that everyone wanted, not stuff that Obama cajoled the Republicans into supporting in exchange for tax cuts for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Demint and the Tea Party Patriots are outraged about them. That's all I know. They didn't want any spending and they wanted the death tax at 0%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom