PDA

View Full Version : Obama NYT: Obama will not extend Bush Tax Cuts


DJ's left nut
09-07-2010, 09:53 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39049387/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

WASHINGTON — President Obama will rule out on Wednesday any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.

Mr. Obama’s opposition to allowing the high-end tax cuts to remain in place for even another year or two would be the signal many Congressional Democrats have been awaiting as they prepare for a showdown with Republicans on the issue and ends speculation that the White House might be open to an extension. Democrats say only the president can rally wavering lawmakers who, amid the party’s weakened poll numbers, feel increasingly vulnerable to Republican attacks if they let the top rates lapse at the end of this year as scheduled.

It is not clear that Mr. Obama can prevail given his own diminished popularity, the tepid nature of the economic recovery and the divisions within his party. But by proposing to extend the rates for the 98 percent of households with income below $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals — and insisting that federal income tax rates in 2011 go back to their 2001 levels for income above those cutoffs — he intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy.

In a speech in Cleveland on Wednesday, Mr. Obama also will make a case for the package of roughly $180 billion in expanded business tax cuts and infrastructure spending disclosed by the White House in bits and pieces over the past few days. He would offset the cost by closing other tax breaks for multinational corporations, oil and gas companies and others.

While the speech will be centrist in its policy prescriptions other than the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Obama’s language will be partisan as he seeks to sharpen the contrasts between Republicans’ record and efforts by Democrats to create more jobs, aides said.

White House officials have strenuously avoided labeling the proposal a second stimulus plan, a phrase that has taken on negative political connotations since the original roughly $800 billion recovery plan and subsequent additions have failed to push unemployment down substantially.

But it would provide his party with an agenda for the home stretch of the midterm campaign — though one with small chance of being enacted quickly or helping the economy before Election Day if it were.

The two major pieces of the package — expanding and making permanent a popular credit for businesses’ research and experimentation expenses, and allowing them to write off the full value of new equipment purchases through 2011 — are ones that have longstanding Republican and corporate support.

The administration calculated that the package had to be attractive to Republicans and business groups if it has any chance of passage in the short time Congress will be in session before going home to campaign.

Politically, however, the president in effect is daring Republicans to oppose the plan, in that way proving Democrats’ contention that they will block even their own ideas to deny Mr. Obama any victories. And by proposing business tax breaks that, according to nonpartisan analyses, would do more to stimulate the economy than extending the Bush tax rates for the wealthy, Mr. Obama hopes to buttress Democrats’ opposition to extending those rates.

With its tilt toward business tax cuts, the package that Mr. Obama is proposing risks discouraging liberals in his party who want more spending for projects that provide jobs, especially for a construction industry still staggered by the collapse of the housing boom.

They are not likely to be satisfied by another of the president’s proposals – to provide $50 billion immediately to build roads, air traffic control systems, waterways and more, and, for the long term, to create a national infrastructure bank — another bipartisan idea — that would leverage federal money with state, local and private-sector investments to finance projects.

In any case, the administration acknowledges that its blueprint might not pass before Election Day, or even in the lameduck Congress afterward.


__________________________________________________________

Brilliant - businesses aren't hiring because they're terrified of this Administration and Obama's still pushing his class warfare rhetoric. He can trump up his own 'business credits' all he wants, but the business owners aren't going to care. They're simply tired of being targets and if these tax cuts are not renewed, watch unemployment spike again and the market tank shortly thereafter.

Politics are really the only thing this man knows, and he doesn't even know politics as much as he knows unabashed partisian bickering and thinly veiled populism.

Guru
09-07-2010, 09:57 PM
Thread title is misleading. Makes it seem as if he is taking the tax cut away from everyone which, at this point, is NOT the case.

Cave Johnson
09-07-2010, 10:04 PM
2nd Guru.

Nice obfuscation, DJ.

Direckshun
09-07-2010, 10:06 PM
Finally. Backbone.

DJ's left nut
09-07-2010, 10:11 PM
I only posted the damn article - yeah, I'm really trying to hide the ball.

How 'bout you address the point?

The country's biggest problem is unquestionably joblessness and Obama is essentially eliminating the tax cuts for the folks that create jobs in the name of class warfare.

Who's obfuscating?

patteeu
09-07-2010, 11:42 PM
A big, class warfare blast just in time for the elections from our Divider in Chief. What a swell guy. :shake:

Guru
09-08-2010, 01:19 AM
I only posted the damn article - yeah, I'm really trying to hide the ball.

How 'bout you address the point?

The country's biggest problem is unquestionably joblessness and Obama is essentially eliminating the tax cuts for the folks that create jobs in the name of class warfare.

Who's obfuscating?It wasn't my intention to make you feel bad man. I'm sure you just posted the title of the article. I just hate it when they create article titles like that because it is only a half truth.

Guru
09-08-2010, 01:20 AM
A big, class warfare blast just in time for the elections from our Divider in Chief. What a swell guy. :shake:I don't view it as that big of a deal really.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 06:02 AM
This has almost zero chance of becoming reality

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 08:53 AM
I only posted the damn article - yeah, I'm really trying to hide the ball.

How 'bout you address the point?

The country's biggest problem is unquestionably joblessness and Obama is essentially eliminating the tax cuts for the folks that create jobs in the name of class warfare.

Who's obfuscating?

Your headline: Obama will not extend Bush Tax Cuts

Actual headline: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

Why would anyone accuse you of obfuscating?

mikey23545
09-08-2010, 08:56 AM
The evil Successful must be destroyed so the Worthless do not feel so bad about themselves in comparison...

Oh, and of course so we can divvy up their loot as well!

ROYC75
09-08-2010, 09:01 AM
American manufacturing is one of the highest taxed countries in the world. Sure the rich have the money, they invest it into business for the economy to grow jobs. Between Cap & Trade, Taxing Corporate America and the rich, Obama is going to do the obvious,send more jobs away to other countries.

Good move Barry ! Still creating a crisis so that he can push his agenda even farther down the road.

Dave Lane
09-08-2010, 09:01 AM
Well thats one bit of good news...

fan4ever
09-08-2010, 09:01 AM
The child tax credit is for the wealthy?

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 09:04 AM
I only posted the damn article - yeah, I'm really trying to hide the ball.

How 'bout you address the point?

I'll go the Donger route and ask a question. Where do you think uncertainty over the highest marginal tax bracket rates as an impediment to hiring, as opposed to the massive loss in investment values (stocks and real estate) of business owners, concerns over a double dip recession, and the troubling implications for consumer spending caused by 10% unemployment.

fan4ever
09-08-2010, 09:04 AM
Let's split the country; I'll go live with the wealthy pricks who create the jobs and get the tax breaks and you guys can go live with the one's that don't.

Being spoon fed that wealth is evil has been very effective for liberals; gobble it down.

mlyonsd
09-08-2010, 09:07 AM
A big, class warfare blast just in time for the elections from our Divider in Chief. What a swell guy. :shake:

Bingo. Except for the swell part.

Chief Henry
09-08-2010, 09:27 AM
Tax the job creators...what a brilliant way to help us out of the recession.

Saul Good
09-08-2010, 09:30 AM
Tonight we feast on golden goose.

DJ's left nut
09-08-2010, 09:34 AM
Your headline: Obama will not extend Bush Tax Cuts

Actual headline: Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy

Why would anyone accuse you of obfuscating?

The headline: fewer than a dozen words explaining the article.
The article: yet more populist, class warfare garbage on a down economy that you're all to willing to ignore.

Again - the whole article is posted for review. Care to speak to it or are you going to keep dodging the substance?

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 09:35 AM
Tonight we feast on golden goose.

Tis best to eat the beast if it wont lay eggs.

ROYC75
09-08-2010, 09:37 AM
Hey Libs?

When was the last time a poor person gave you a good job ?


( crickets, crickets, crickets , etc. )

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 09:39 AM
Need to get small business to kneel and do as told. Tax them and force HC on them all at the time when they are suffering from lack of demand for goods and services. Then we fix it by buying concrete.

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 09:39 AM
Hey Libs?

When was the last time a poor person gave you a good job ?


( crickets, crickets, crickets , etc. )

Yes, fair and balanced Roy, all small business owners are in the highest marginal tax bracket....

chiefsnorth
09-08-2010, 09:42 AM
Hey America, I know I had the power to stop the biggest tax increase in recent memory during the biggest recession in recent memory with a stoke of a pen, but just remember - I didn't do it.(we just let it happen on purpose. Please don't take this under consideration at the ballot box.)

DJ's left nut
09-08-2010, 09:43 AM
I'll go the Donger route and ask a question. Where do you think uncertainty over the highest marginal tax bracket rates as an impediment to hiring, as opposed to the massive loss in investment values (stocks and real estate) of business owners, concerns over a double dip recession, and the troubling implications for consumer spending caused by 10% unemployment.

Oh, so they're mutually exclusive now? Eh, economy's bad anyway, might as well just pile on.
You honestly believe that repealing these cuts won't make a bad situation worse? I guarantee we'll see a spike in unemployment and a massive selloff if these are repealed. We cannot keep making job creation harder and imposing additional burdens on business owners.

ROYC75
09-08-2010, 09:47 AM
Yes, fair and balanced Roy, all small business owners are in the highest marginal tax bracket....

I'm talking about the poor level that is below a small business owner. I'm a small business owner, I can only hire when the economy is good and this jerk wants to tax the rich which drives the Corporate America ?

You failed in basic economics classes, didn't you. Go ahead and admit, your actions are showing it.

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 09:53 AM
Oh, so they're mutually exclusive now? Eh, economy's bad anyway, might as well just pile on.
You honestly believe that repealing these cuts won't make a bad situation worse? I guarantee we'll see a spike in unemployment and a massive selloff if these are repealed. We cannot keep making job creation harder and imposing additional burdens on business owners.

First, the most likely outcome is for Obama to cave and keep the top bracket as is to prevent being accused of raising taxes on the middle class. Probably the right thing to do, but it still doesn't stop me from considering him spineless.

Second, asking you to rank factors isn't the same as calling them mutually exclusive. But you knew that.

Third, essentially, your position is that a sig. percentage of top bracket small business owners will take their ball and go home over a 3% marginal tax increase. I don't see it, especially in light of the fact that the alternatives to invest their capital (again, stocks and real estate) aren't returning like they were in 2002-2008.

Where are we at on the Laffer curve?

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 10:02 AM
I'm talking about the poor level that is below a small business owner.

Care to explain that in English?

I'm a small business owner, I can only hire when the economy is good and this jerk wants to tax the rich which drives the Corporate America ?

So you and Mrs. Fair and Balanced make more than $250K/year after the myriad ways small businesses can expense personal expenses? Congrats. Keep doing what you're doing.

You failed in basic economics classes, didn't you. Go ahead and admit, your actions are showing it.

Degree in Finance and honors micro, but thanks for playing.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 10:09 AM
Care to explain that in English?



So you and Mrs. Fair and Balanced make more than $250K/year after the myriad ways small businesses can expense personal expenses? Congrats. Keep doing what you're doing.



Degree in Finance and honors micro, but thanks for playing.


Supports that a great classroom education is only made a value when the student has to apply theory in the real world.

You do understand a $1 in the expense line costs a $1 and after taxes it still costs a $1?

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 10:12 AM
Supports that a great classroom education is only made a value when the student has to apply theory in the real world.

You do understand a $1 in the expense line costs a $1 and after taxes it still costs a $1?

Your point being?

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 10:14 AM
Your point being?



Hard to grasp this stuff. Income is on the plus side, expenses are on the minus. Should we slow down?

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 10:22 AM
Hard to grasp this stuff. Income is on the plus side, expenses are on the minus. Should we slow down?

F**k off.

If you'd like to discuss this seriously, let me know.

Chief Henry
09-08-2010, 10:23 AM
Care to explain that in English?






Degree in Finance and honors micro, but thanks for playing.

Your parents should demand the money back they paid for your college education.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 10:24 AM
Honors Micro...Must have skipped that profit and loss thing, return on assets, cost of money and cash flows. Sad if you really did get such a degree that you were so poorly prepared to deal with reality.

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 10:39 AM
Your parents should demand the money back they paid for your college education.

That would be zero.

Honors Micro...Must have skipped that profit and loss thing, return on assets, cost of money and cash flows. Sad if you really did get such a degree that you were so poorly prepared to deal with reality.

You can't distinguish econ from accounting/finance, but I'm the idiot. ;)

BucEyedPea
09-08-2010, 10:42 AM
That would be zero.



You can't distinguish econ from accounting/finance, but I'm the idiot. ;)

I can but to be honest neither could KCNative who passed himself off as the expert on both.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 10:47 AM
It's comical the way you guys all pile on regarding restoring a tax that was only lowered temporarily because it was politically impossible for a number of reasons to make it permanent.

It's also comical that you think a fairly nominal increase in highest marginal tax is really going to signficiantly affect much of anything on the hiring front.

But none of you guys voted Obama in 2008, or were going to vote for him in 2010, so he doesn't much care about your opinion or your votes regardless. The fact is that he's a Democrat and highest marginal rates are, in historical terms, quite low. Meanwhile, the deficit is a large and only looking to grow. What do you think he's going to want to do? It's neither the end of the world, as you're painting it, nor surprising that he's taking this stance.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 10:55 AM
It's comical the way you guys all pile on regarding restoring a tax that was only lowered temporarily because it was politically impossible for a number of reasons to make it permanent.

It's also comical that you think a fairly nominal increase in highest marginal tax is really going to signficiantly affect much of anything on the hiring front.

But none of you guys voted Obama in 2008, or were going to vote for him in 2010, so he doesn't much care about your opinion or your votes regardless. The fact is that he's a Democrat and highest marginal rates are, in historical terms, quite low. Meanwhile, the deficit is a large and only looking to grow. What do you think he's going to want to do? It's neither the end of the world, as you're painting it, nor surprising that he's taking this stance.


Its freaking hilarious to those who apply daily for jobs all across the country in businesses from mom and pop to 25 employees only to find no one is hiring.

And even more a laugh riot to those who are facing the boss making a decision to reduce staff more as a result of tax increases, income decreases, and HC costs rolling downhill.

Even the uberliberal KC Star did a well written piece in the business section yesterday on the impact of all this on real businesses. For the guy making his payroll or the guy facing being the next once let go, your fancy little dance around maypole is rather irrelevant. For you its theory and politics. For them its survival.

Chief Henry
09-08-2010, 10:59 AM
Its freaking hilarious to those who apply daily for jobs all across the country in businesses from mom and pop to 25 employees only to find no one is hiring.

And even more a laugh riot to those who are facing the boss making a decision to reduce staff more as a result of tax increases, income decreases, and HC costs rolling downhill.

Even the uberliberal KC Star did a well written piece in the business section yesterday on the impact of all this on real businesses. For the guy making his payroll or the guy facing being the next once let go, your fancy little dance around maypole is rather irrelevant. For you its theory and politics. For them its survival.




nice

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 11:36 AM
Except that there is never (seemingly) a good time to raise taxes. I'm honestly pretty ambivalent about whether taxes go up or not, because it is after all just a rollback of the tax cuts from before. Some taxes I definitely want restored, such as the estate tax.

But the deficit won't fix itself, and that's a high concern also, and it has no constituency.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 11:45 AM
Except that there is never (seemingly) a good time to raise taxes. I'm honestly pretty ambivalent about whether taxes go up or not, because it is after all just a rollback of the tax cuts from before. Some taxes I definitely want restored, such as the estate tax.

But the deficit won't fix itself, and that's a high concern also, and it has no constituency.


Fun to take people life's accumulations because they were sappy enough to die.

Dave Lane
09-08-2010, 11:51 AM
So what your all saying is you don't care about balancing the budget, even though you won't be personally footing the bill?

Noted.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 11:53 AM
Fun to take people life's accumulations because they were sappy enough to die.

Taxes often apply when money moves through the economic chain. Given that inheritors didn't actually earn the money, and that it makes little sense to encourage hoarding of wealth, inheritance taxes make as much sense as any other form of tax, and more public policy sense than many.

Or, phrased differently, they won't miss it...

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 11:54 AM
So what your all saying is you don't care about balancing the budget, even though you won't be personally footing the bill?

Noted.


It's a Teeter totter stupid. You cant balance it on one end only. You do understand there are two basic factors at work?

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 11:57 AM
It's a Teeter totter stupid. You cant balance it on one end only. You do understand there are two basic factors at work?


In theory you might be able to balance it at one end only, but in practice it's exceedingly unwise to even try.

But there's never any appetite to attack either end. I'm fine iwth paying higher taxes, but would be much finer if there was some discussion around cuts in spending to match it as well so we can start reining in the deficit.

Pioli Zombie
09-08-2010, 11:59 AM
Oh God no!!!!! We must stand up for the defenseless wealthy!! Obama you bastard!

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 11:59 AM
Taxes often apply when money moves through the economic chain. Given that inheritors didn't actually earn the money, and that it makes little sense to encourage hoarding of wealth, inheritance taxes make as much sense as any other form of tax, and more public policy sense than many.

Or, phrased differently, they won't miss it...


That works well when the business built by dad is dissolved and the employees get a not saying this is a good thing supporting public policy. The wealth that was hoarded by investing in plant and materials, building a customer base is the clearest form of the evils of capitalism and should be confiscated. Best done when the man or woman is dead. Sell the assets on the courthouse steps, auction the livestock and move on. The sons and daughters who work in the business can fend for themselves. They labored but have no claim to have earned anything.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 12:00 PM
In theory you might be able to balance it at one end only, but in practice it's exceedingly unwise to even try.

But there's never any appetite to attack either end. I'm fine iwth paying higher taxes, but would be much finer if there was some discussion around cuts in spending to match it as well so we can start reining in the deficit.


No one stops you from paying more taxes now do they?

Dave Lane
09-08-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm with you. Its a good first step but I'd love to see some spending cuts of equal amounts. Then we will know who is really serious about debt reduction. From the left and the right.

Taco John
09-08-2010, 12:01 PM
So what your all saying is you don't care about balancing the budget, even though you won't be personally footing the bill?

Noted.


Are you talking about cutting spending or raising taxes? Because when it comes to balancing the budget, Democrats seem to think there's only one solution: raise taxes.

I personally refuse to favor any tax increases until spending is sufficiently cut, and cant be cut any further, leaving taxing as the only option forward. If that doesn't make me "serious" then f*** serious.

Dave Lane
09-08-2010, 12:02 PM
No one stops you from paying more taxes now do they?

Obviously. Much as civilization has surprisingly allowed you to continue to post. Its a slippery slope this freedom thing.

Dave Lane
09-08-2010, 12:08 PM
Are you talking about cutting spending or raising taxes? Because when it comes to balancing the budget, Democrats seem to think there's only one solution: raise taxes.

I personally refuse to favor any tax increases until spending is sufficiently cut, and cant be cut any further, leaving taxing as the only option forward. If that doesn't make me "serious" then f*** serious.

Yes you get to sit in the I'm not serious corner. I prefer hitting both lightly. Let the Bush tax CUTS expire and start trimming defense and entitlement spending.

The only NEW spending I would advocate would be a Federal guarantee of small and medium business loans ala the SBA. The real logjam right now with jobs and getting the economy going is the lack of financing for small and medium sized businesses. It as bad as I can ever remember out there right now.

Taco John
09-08-2010, 12:15 PM
Yes you get to sit in the I'm not serious corner. I prefer hitting both lightly. Let the Bush tax CUTS expire and start trimming defense and entitlement spending.

The only NEW spending I would advocate would be a Federal guarantee of small and medium business loans ala the SBA. The real logjam right now with jobs and getting the economy going is the lack of financing for small and medium sized businesses. It as bad as I can ever remember out there right now.


I don't know what makes you think your proposal is any more serious. You continue to perpetuate the problem, call it the solution, and then point fingers at everyone else for not being serious about the solution.

The real logjam right now is that half of our economy has been sucked up by government, and simply borrowing and printing more money isn't easing anybody's concerns. Sucking up more of our economy through raised taxes isn't going to solve any problems. Releasing the government's stranglehold on it will.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 12:15 PM
Obviously. Much as civilization has surprisingly allowed you to continue to post. Its a slippery slope this freedom thing.

Primary difference is I take advantage of the opportunity to dialog while you dont volunteer more taxes.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:20 PM
That works well when the business built by dad is dissolved and the employees get a not saying this is a good thing supporting public policy. The wealth that was hoarded by investing in plant and materials, building a customer base is the clearest form of the evils of capitalism and should be confiscated. Best done when the man or woman is dead. Sell the assets on the courthouse steps, auction the livestock and move on. The sons and daughters who work in the business can fend for themselves. They labored but have no claim to have earned anything.

Yeah, this happens REALLY rarely. And only if the owner of the business was a moron and didn't do any generational planning.

patteeu
09-08-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't view it as that big of a deal really.

Let me guess... it's not going to effect you? How would you feel about it if the parts of the Bush tax cuts that effect you were allowed to expire but those that effect people who aren't in the same tax position as you were made permanent?

I'm sick and tired of both democrats and Republicans constantly pandering to the voting masses with low incomes by constantly making the tax code more progressive. We're already at a tipping point where almost half of the population doesn't pay any income tax. That's a recipe for ever worsening tax policy.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Yeah, this happens REALLY rarely. And only if the owner of the business was a moron and didn't do any generational planning.

But that is exactly what you oppose is it not?

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:22 PM
No one stops you from paying more taxes now do they?

True, though completely irrelevant.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:24 PM
Are you talking about cutting spending or raising taxes? Because when it comes to balancing the budget, Democrats seem to think there's only one solution: raise taxes.

And Republicans think there is only one solution: cut spending, but not on their pet programs, or the military, or anything that their constituents want. You'd think this would make for some obvious compromise, but it never does.

I personally refuse to favor any tax increases until spending is sufficiently cut, and cant be cut any further, leaving taxing as the only option forward. If that doesn't make me "serious" then f*** serious.

To be "sufficiently cut" in your mind, I'm thinking a federal budget that is 1/10th what it is now. That probably about right, generally?

patteeu
09-08-2010, 12:24 PM
I'll go the Donger route and ask a question. Where do you think uncertainty over the highest marginal tax bracket rates as an impediment to hiring, as opposed to the massive loss in investment values (stocks and real estate) of business owners, concerns over a double dip recession, and the troubling implications for consumer spending caused by 10% unemployment.

Donger's questions are usually shorter and easier to understand. I have no idea what you're asking. He also uses question marks.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:25 PM
But that is exactly what you oppose is it not?


?

No clue what you're saying here.

vailpass
09-08-2010, 12:26 PM
Keep making it worse obama you crybaby piece of shit.

patteeu
09-08-2010, 12:28 PM
First, the most likely outcome is for Obama to cave and keep the top bracket as is to prevent being accused of raising taxes on the middle class. Probably the right thing to do, but it still doesn't stop me from considering him spineless.

Second, asking you to rank factors isn't the same as calling them mutually exclusive. But you knew that.

Third, essentially, your position is that a sig. percentage of top bracket small business owners will take their ball and go home over a 3% marginal tax increase. I don't see it, especially in light of the fact that the alternatives to invest their capital (again, stocks and real estate) aren't returning like they were in 2002-2008.

Where are we at on the Laffer curve?

We're higher on the Laffer curve for the wealthy than we are for the poor.

Chief Faithful
09-08-2010, 12:30 PM
Are you talking about cutting spending or raising taxes? Because when it comes to balancing the budget, Democrats seem to think there's only one solution: raise taxes.



Democrats don't even bother to have a budget they just deem one to be.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 12:30 PM
?

No clue what you're saying here.

You stated your desire to impose confiscatory taxation on wealth that remains when someone dies. That would imply you oppose generational planning that avoids paying such tax. Then in the next breath you seem to support the planning to avoid the tax you advocate. Its as if you want both.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:32 PM
I'm sick and tired of both democrats and Republicans constantly pandering to the voting masses with low incomes by constantly making the tax code more progressive. We're already at a tipping point where almost half of the population doesn't pay any income tax. That's a recipe for ever worsening tax policy.


Taxes tend to follow the dollars. As the top income earners in America earn an increasingly larger percentage of all income earned in America, it will bear an increasing tax burden.

That isn't necessarily increased progressivity either.

The last decade has been much, MUCH kinder to the top brackets of earners than to the middle or lower end.

Which is why I'm not too worried about a relatively light hit at the top end of the tax bracket. But again, I'd like to see related spending cuts, though there's no chance of that, seemingly.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 12:34 PM
Donger's questions are usually shorter and easier to understand. I have no idea what you're asking. He also uses question marks.

My wife is a retired English Teacher. I may have her diagram that bugger.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 12:35 PM
Taxes tend to follow the dollars. As the top income earners in America earn an increasingly larger percentage of all income earned in America, it will bear an increasing tax burden.

That isn't necessarily increased progressivity either.

The last decade has been much, MUCH kinder to the top brackets of earners than to the middle or lower end.

Which is why I'm not too worried about a relatively light hit at the top end of the tax bracket. But again, I'd like to see related spending cuts, though there's no chance of that, seemingly.


60% pay zero and get tax rebates....interesting idea that. How much kinder must we be?

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 12:40 PM
We're higher on the Laffer curve for the wealthy than we are for the poor.

There's more than one curve?

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:40 PM
You stated your desire to impose confiscatory taxation on wealth that remains when someone dies. That would imply you oppose generational planning that avoids paying such tax. Then in the next breath you seem to support the planning to avoid the tax you advocate. Its as if you want both.


errr...no.

The government should (in theory anyway) come up with sane, well-structured tax policies, and taxpayers are entitled to engage in legal tax-avoidance or tax-mitigation planning. Merely because a given tax exists doesn't mean you stand there like a sucker waiting to pay full freight.

So long as your planning techniques are legal, of course.

bevischief
09-08-2010, 12:41 PM
We are doomed...

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 12:41 PM
My wife is a retired English Teacher. I may have her diagram that bugger.

I left off the word ranks. Sue me.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:42 PM
60% pay zero and get tax rebates....interesting idea that. How much kinder must we be?

First I'm not a fan of using the tax code to grant welfare (or rebates, in your phrasing).

Second, I didn't advocate being kinder to anyone.

What I stated, clearly I thought, is that you can't get blood from a stone, and as the top end of earners in America earn an increasing proportion of income, they will pay an increasing tax share. And that isn't necessarily "increased progressivity", as Pat described it.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:48 PM
Let me see if I can post this. If so, I'll refer back to it in a subseuqent post.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 12:50 PM
errr...no.

The government should (in theory anyway) come up with sane, well-structured tax policies, and taxpayers are entitled to engage in legal tax-avoidance or tax-mitigation planning. Merely because a given tax exists doesn't mean you stand there like a sucker waiting to pay full freight.

So long as your planning techniques are legal, of course.


We have that now.

Dave Lane
09-08-2010, 12:55 PM
Let me see if I can post this. If so, I'll refer back to it in a subseuqent post.

No one seems to ever understand this. Income inequity is what causes banana republics to become just that. The importance of a healthy middle class is imperative.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:58 PM
eh, ok. It's not embedded, but that's fine.

So as you can see, the last 30 or so years have been -- according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- far kinder to the upper end of the income scale than the lower end. There are a number of reasons for this, but it's fair to say that the tax code doesn't appear to have done much, if anything, to mitigate this.

Sliced into quintiles, the bottom 20% of household earnings in America earned 6.8% of income in 1979, versus just 4.7% in 2006. A significant reduction as a percentage (decrease of nearly a third). The next two brackets also saw significant decreases. The 2nd to bottom lost 3%, or again nearly 1/3rd, while the middle lost 2%, which wasn't that significant as they only went from 16% of all income, to 14%. The second highest ALSO lost a proportionate share of income, from 22% to 20%. As a percentage decline, however, it's only a 10% decline, so they didn't suffer all that much really.

Where did it all go? To the TOP earners. The top 20% of households in America accounted for 42.4% of all income in America in 1979, but 52.1% in 2006.

And as you can see from the breakdown on the right, as you go higher up the wealth chain, the better off they were, with the top 1% MORE THAN DOUBLING their proportionate share of income from 7.5% in 1979 to 16.3% in 2006.

Look at it another way -- the top 1% of households in America earned MORE than the bottom 40% COMBINED.

AND THIS IS ALL AFTER TAXES!!!!!!

So spare me the whining. It's clear that the last 30 years, which includes the economic booms under Reagan and Clinton, have greatly and disproportionately favored the wealthy.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 12:59 PM
We have that now.

Well, not for estate taxes, which (at least for now) dont' even exist for those who conveniently die this year. They are scheduled to come bakc next year, and I for one applaud their return.

Taco John
09-08-2010, 12:59 PM
No one seems to ever understand this. Income inequity is what causes banana republics to become just that. The importance of a healthy middle class is imperative.

Everyone agrees with having a healthy middle class. We just don't agree with you making them poor in your quest to "help" them out.

Taco John
09-08-2010, 01:01 PM
First I'm not a fan of using the tax code to grant welfare (or rebates, in your phrasing).

Rebates aren't welfare. That's backwards thinking.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:01 PM
No one seems to ever understand this. Income inequity is what causes banana republics to become just that. The importance of a healthy middle class is imperative.

Many here support utter economic darwinism, which is amazing to me unless one wishes to encourage mass social unrest. Anything else is "unfair". :shake:

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:02 PM
Everyone agrees with having a healthy middle class. We just don't agree with you making them poor in your quest to "help" them out.

I find it funny that you think that complete economic darwinism will help out the middle class, or the lower classes. Darwinsim is all about the strong surviving.

And the weak DYING.

KC Dan
09-08-2010, 01:04 PM
And the weak DYING.
Less health care costs then...:)

Taco John
09-08-2010, 01:04 PM
Many here support utter social darwinism, which is amazing to me unless one wishes to encourage mass social unrest. Anything else is "unfair". :shake:


Local people are local problems. We don't need federal programs to solve local problems. Let the states dictate their social policies and take care of their own interests. Let the federal government get back to it's constitutional role, which ISN'T solving every social problem known to humanity.

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 01:05 PM
No one seems to ever understand this. Income inequity is what causes banana republics to become just that. The importance of a healthy middle class is imperative.

The problem is that the perception that you'll become "rich" someday is widespread and pervasive. Probably less so now if the polling was updated, but I'm sure the sentiment is still there.

Though only 2% of Americans described themselves in the Gallup poll as currently “rich,” 31% thought it very likely or somewhat likely that they would “ever be rich.” An astonishing 51% of Americans between the age of 18-29 (including 58% of males in this age range) thought that it was very or somewhat likely that they “will ever be rich,” as did 51% of those whose income was $75,000 per year or higher. Conservative columnist David Brooks argued on the New York Times Op-Ed page that “people vote their aspirations.” Americans admire the rich and see themselves as “pre-rich,” he argued.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:LVv9kPudxbAJ:www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/diprete/riches112805.pdf+poll+chance+of+becoming+rich&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg4tiM-ICjFG9zY-opdLmCzKj8jgo7zlPyMHCusv_bpYP-IMEwbNRZfKGFUnMhGIJ2oGcGElgFxedBTIyCSxEXglOiIDKcQieDIFpuPlcPoE67QL8N_HvF8C2GVsRRvcVaW9oPX&sig=AHIEtbTOyuc1CyXKh8n8OhC2pEjleuVfgw

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:06 PM
Look at it another way -- the top 1% of households in America earned MORE than the bottom 40% COMBINED.

AND THIS IS ALL AFTER TAXES!!!!!!



Oh, and this is why the bottom 40 or whatever percent of households pay no taxes, while the top X percent (whatever it is, 1 or 5 or 20) pays some massive percentage. When you earn nearly all of the money, you pay nearly all of the taxes.

Especially when you have a sane system that understands that increased income is increasingly disposable.

ROYC75
09-08-2010, 01:07 PM
Care to explain that in English?

I'm poor, but I own my own business. I can hire when the money is good, but I can't when it's not, I go as the economy does since my company is geared towards more of the construction industry. But their are a lot of people far worse off than myself.



So you and Mrs. Fair and Balanced make more than $250K/year after the myriad ways small businesses can expense personal expenses? Congrats. Keep doing what you're doing.

No, I do not , never have and probably never will. The Mrs. Fair & Balanced is terminally ill so you can leave her out of this conversation.But to tax the people who have money and can invest their money to help create more jobs is just plain stupid. We already have one of the highest corporate taxes int he world, but yet we want to bitch about how much business's make and tax them more ? No thanks Mr. Educated in Finance, we have NAFTA to thank for the lack of jobs in America.



Degree in Finance and honors micro, but thanks for playing.

Please re-read previous comment.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:07 PM
Less health care costs then...:)

No worries, the death panels will knock 'em off for us! Yeah, yeah, we've got a plan now boy....


:D

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:08 PM
Local people are local problems. We don't need federal programs to solve local problems. Let the states dictate their social policies and take care of their own interests. Let the federal government get back to it's constitutional role, which ISN'T solving every social problem known to humanity.

I misspoke, and edited it but you had already quoted it. I meant to say economic darwinism, not social.

Taco John
09-08-2010, 01:11 PM
I find it funny that you think that complete economic darwinism will help out the middle class, or the lower classes. Darwinsim is all about the strong surviving.

And the weak DYING.


I think that if you have a leech on you, you should take it off of you. That's not believing in economic darwinism. It's just common sense.

Darwinism happens whether you try to prevent it or not. Trying to invent laws to stop the strong from thriving and the weak from dying is like trying to invent laws to stop the earth from revolving around the sun. Pass all the laws you want, you're not going to stop it from happening.

I don't support the idea of social darwinism any more than I support the idea of the earth revolving around the sun. I merely accept them as facts of life that require no "support".

If you're looking for solutions to the problem that people face, then I would say I support local solutions over federal solutions. This also is not tantamount to "supporting social darwinism." Our states are more than capable of handling the problems that exist within their own borders. Further, their individual actions as they grapple with these issues on a state to state basis provide a much broader "petri dish" for which sustainable solutions to arise.

Frankly, I see it exactly the opposite as you say: I think the best thing that can happen to poor people are local solutions. My position doesn't support social darwinism. It supports closer knit communities that look to eachother for solutions instead of Washington D.C.

Iowanian
09-08-2010, 01:14 PM
I swear, every day that Obama is President, it looks more and more like the board hired the road runner to be the CEO of ACME when Wile E Coyote is the only client.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:15 PM
No, I do not , never have and probably never will. The Mrs. Fair & Balanced is terminally ill so you can leave her out of this conversation.But to tax the people who have money and can invest their money to help create more jobs is just plain stupid. We already have one of the highest corporate taxes int he world, but yet we want to bitch about how much business's make and tax them more ? No thanks Mr. Educated in Finance, we have NAFTA to thank for the lack of jobs in America.


I'd like to see some quality analysis around the "highest corporate taxes" int he world stuff. I've seen that before, but am nto sure it's true comparing apples to apples. I'm also not sure how that adjusts for differences in personal taxes, as there are all kinds of business entities in America, some with pass-through taxation and others that are not, and have no idea how other countries compare.

Frankly, its' a very complicated thing to try to compare.

HonestChieffan
09-08-2010, 01:19 PM
Well, not for estate taxes, which (at least for now) dont' even exist for those who conveniently die this year. They are scheduled to come bakc next year, and I for one applaud their return.


OK so now you return to applauding confiscatory taxation on estates. You seem very confused if you want the tax and you want planning to avoid the tax, would we not be more efficient to not do the tax to that extent and not force people to do the planning

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:20 PM
I think that if you have a leech on you, you should take it off of you. That's not believing in economic darwinism. It's just common sense.

Darwinism happens whether you try to prevent it or not. Trying to invent laws to stop the strong from thriving and the weak from dying is like trying to invent laws to stop the earth from revolving around the sun. Pass all the laws you want, you're not going to stop it from happening.

You may be surprised, but I agree iwth you to a very large degree. That's why I said "complete" economic darwinism. The strong survive, the weak perish. That's good for businesses and business models, by and large, and to allow the strong to survive and the weak to suffer is a necessary adjunct to capitalism, which is in my mind proven to be the most effective and successful economic system known to man.

And yet, complete economic darwinism means that people die. That isn't really sensible. So we have policies designed to mitigate the effects of the economic darwinism that we must allow to exist.

Frankly, I see it exactly the opposite as you say: I think the best thing that can happen to poor people are local solutions. My position doesn't support social darwinism. It supports closer knit communities that look to eachother for solutions instead of Washington D.C.

You support a system that is long gone, never to return.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that COMPLETE economic darwinism isn't very sensible governance, in my view.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:22 PM
OK so now you return to applauding confiscatory taxation on estates. You seem very confused if you want the tax and you want planning to avoid the tax, would we not be more efficient to not do the tax to that extent and not force people to do the planning

:rolleyes:

I like the "confiscatory taxation" phrasing. Great phrasing. Except all taxes are inherently confiscatory. Spare me the histrionics.

The point is that planning can generally only mitigate, not eliminate tax, unless you give the whole thing to charity. I'm nto sure how big a fan I am of the charitable exception anyway.

I'm not confused at all. Tax planning goes hand in hand with taxes. You can't get rid of taxes, so you need to have a sane tax policy. Estate taxes are as sane as most, and saner than many for a number of reasons that I have discussed only eleventy billion times before (though not lately).

vailpass
09-08-2010, 01:24 PM
Many here support utter economic darwinism, which is amazing to me unless one wishes to encourage mass social unrest. Anything else is "unfair". :shake:

Economic Darwinism is EXACTLY what we support. If a person has no money in their pocket they don't just get to stick their hands in someone else's pocket. WTF?

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 01:27 PM
I'd like to see some quality analysis around the "highest corporate taxes" int he world stuff. I've seen that before, but am nto sure it's true comparing apples to apples. I'm also not sure how that adjusts for differences in personal taxes, as there are all kinds of business entities in America, some with pass-through taxation and others that are not, and have no idea how other countries compare.

Frankly, its' a very complicated thing to try to compare.

It's been posted here before. The nominal corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world, but the effective tax rate is relatively low (due to loopholes, tax avoidance strategies, etc.).

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:29 PM
Economic Darwinism is EXACTLY what we support. If a person has no money in their pocket they don't just get to stick their hands in someone else's pocket. WTF?

France tried that once upon a time. It didn't work out too well for the rich in the long run.


http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2662649/2/istockphoto_2662649-guillotine.jpg

vailpass
09-08-2010, 01:31 PM
France tried that once upon a time. It didn't work out too well for the rich in the long run.


[

Please.

patteeu
09-08-2010, 01:34 PM
There's more than one curve?

Of course there are. The curve is supposed to tell the story of how a group of people will choose between work and leisure if all else is equal but the tax rate. But all else isn't equal. Different groups will make different choices. If you divide people into groups in some non-random way (for example, people with kids versus people without kids), the Laffer curve is likely to be different for each group.

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 01:51 PM
Please.

Hypothetically, if economic darwinism led to 1% of the population earning 99% of the income, you'd be ok with that?

I realize that you may not admit that that is likely, or perhpas even possible, but as a hypothetical are you fine with that outcome?

HerculesRockefell
09-08-2010, 02:01 PM
Well, not for estate taxes, which (at least for now) dont' even exist for those who conveniently die this year. They are scheduled to come bakc next year, and I for one applaud their return.

Yeah, I'm sure the families of the people who die immediately think how convenient it is that their loved one has died because the estate tax doesn't exist this year. What a terrible adjective to use to describe someone's death.

So how many times have you voted for a Kennedy? You've made the same point over the years in your defense of the estate tax that we should have it simply to break up the wealth of large families and force the later generations to become productive individuals, but at the same time I'm sure you've voted for the epitome of an unproductive family every time you've seen them on the ballot.

But then again, that estate tax really hasn't done much to break up the generational wealth of the Kennedys, and most of the old wealth in this country, which is why your initial premise has, and always will be, off base.

Whatever I leave behind for my heirs (and who I leave it to), is my business and the government isn't entitled to a penny of it simply because you feel they should engage in social engineering.

Iowanian
09-08-2010, 02:01 PM
Grasshopper and the Ant.....Greenism! Greeeeenism!!

Cave Johnson
09-08-2010, 02:15 PM
Yeah, I'm sure the families of the people who die immediately think how convenient it is that their loved one has died because the estate tax doesn't exist this year. What a terrible adjective to use to describe someone's death.

Scoff if you must, but there is some evidence to suggest there may be some plug-pulling at the end of the year.

"Indeed, two Australian scholars found that when their nation abolished its inheritance tax in 1979, a disproportionately high number of people died in the week after the abolition as compared with the week before."

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/death-and-taxes-slightly-less-certain/

Amnorix
09-08-2010, 02:16 PM
Yeah, I'm sure the families of the people who die immediately think how convenient it is that their loved one has died because the estate tax doesn't exist this year. What a terrible adjective to use to describe someone's death.

:rolleyes: It was tongue in cheek.

So how many times have you voted for a Kennedy?

42. I illegally voted for Patrick Kennedy down in Rhode Island. I voted for Ted even after he died. I'll vote for him in every election for senate for the rest of my life. I'll write him in for President in 2012. I built a time machine and went back in time to vote for JFK in Chicago, and voted for some dead relatives too to help him out, which is the only reason he was elected.

You've made the same point over the years in your defense of the estate tax that we should have it simply to break up the wealth of large families and force the later generations to become productive individuals, but at the same time I'm sure you've voted for the epitome of an unproductive family every time you've seen them on the ballot.

I'm glad you were paying attention. It doesn't seem to have sunk in too well for ya, but sooner or later maybe I'll get through your thick skull.

But then again, that estate tax really hasn't done much to break up the generational wealth of the Kennedys, and most of the old wealth in this country, which is why your initial premise has, and always will be, off base.

It's not a 100% tax, or even an 80% tax, and shouldn't be. The point isn't to leave your heirs destitute. It's to ensure that the Vanderbilt's aren't the richest family in America after 6 generations or whatever. And they aren't. Nor are the Rockefellers. Nor, 200 years from now, will the Gates family be the richest in America. Partly because of inheritance taxes

Whatever I leave behind for my heirs (and who I leave it to), is my business and the government isn't entitled to a penny of it simply because you feel they should engage in social engineering.

Then don't die. Otherwise, just as when wealth moves around the economy in other ways, it may be subjected to taxation. Or, of course, vote in someone who supports your position on the matter.

But either way you'll be gone so I wouldn't sweat it.

Guru
09-08-2010, 03:20 PM
Let me guess... it's not going to effect you? How would you feel about it if the parts of the Bush tax cuts that effect you were allowed to expire but those that effect people who aren't in the same tax position as you were made permanent?

I'm sick and tired of both democrats and Republicans constantly pandering to the voting masses with low incomes by constantly making the tax code more progressive. We're already at a tipping point where almost half of the population doesn't pay any income tax. That's a recipe for ever worsening tax policy.

No. I just don't think it is that big of a deal.

I don't think it will ultimately happen.

Guru
09-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I'm sure the families of the people who die immediately think how convenient it is that their loved one has died because the estate tax doesn't exist this year. What a terrible adjective to use to describe someone's death.

So how many times have you voted for a Kennedy? You've made the same point over the years in your defense of the estate tax that we should have it simply to break up the wealth of large families and force the later generations to become productive individuals, but at the same time I'm sure you've voted for the epitome of an unproductive family every time you've seen them on the ballot.

But then again, that estate tax really hasn't done much to break up the generational wealth of the Kennedys, and most of the old wealth in this country, which is why your initial premise has, and always will be, off base.

Whatever I leave behind for my heirs (and who I leave it to), is my business and the government isn't entitled to a penny of it simply because you feel they should engage in social engineering.
If you have business savvy you will have no problem getting everything where it needs to go with minimal tax.

Wyndex
09-08-2010, 03:33 PM
I noticed that Federal Income taxes went up for me...this paycheck (paid weekly) was $62.47 less, comparing 2 identical stubs (both were 48 hours about a month apart) the Federal Income tax had $62.47 more to it.

vailpass
09-08-2010, 03:43 PM
I noticed that Federal Income taxes went up for me...this paycheck (paid weekly) was $62.47 less, comparing 2 identical stubs (both were 48 hours about a month apart) the Federal Income tax had $62.47 more to it.

You are fortunate to be allowed to contribute comrade. It appears you were left with too much. Dear Leader will rectify this soon. You will be re-educated for failing to report yourself.

FD
09-08-2010, 05:10 PM
The estate tax is almost the perfect example of a bad tax. It raises very little revenue and creates a huge inefficiency (deadweight loss) to the economy. This is because the vast majority of people wealthy enough to be subject to it are also wealthy enough to avoid it. The tax has created literally an entire industry devoted to not paying it. All those smart lawyers and accountants could be more productive doing something else if we would just abolish the tax, and the loss in revenue would be very modest.

I think the estate tax is an example of where political ideology should be trumped by the clear inefficiency of the policy.

The Mad Crapper
09-08-2010, 06:37 PM
Finally. Backbone.

LMAO