Obama Cuts Taxes?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Shit, tax cuts for the rich is nothing more than another entitlement program at this point.[/quote]

I don’t understand that comment. The more people get to keep THERE money the better. It matters not whether they be rich or middle class. Besides the rich pay something like 70% of all taxes.
[/quote]

Their, not there. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

The rich have the most to gain in this country and capitalism in general (at least in this country, anyways) works to their advantage more than it does to any other “class”. So I don’t think that it is unfair at all to expect them to pay a larger % of their earnings back into the system in the form of taxes as long as we have any system of taxation to begin with.

I think the last 8-10 years, and especially the summer/fall of 2008, would pretty much invalidate the theory that lowering taxes for the rich leads to some sort of trickle down effect that is good for the economy as a whole. But the rich keep telling us that this works and that they are essentially “entitled” to take home more of their taxes than other class groups.

In the days of Eisenhower the rich used to pay more like 80% of their income back in taxes. I don’t like this option anymore than I like the Bush-era tax cuts. But the bottom line is that the rich have it better in this country than they ever have before. In dire economic times they still have it better than ever before. Given that we are basically taking in less than we spend, it doesn’t make sense to give the tax cuts to the rich at this particular point in time.

I’d like to see taxes lowered across the board, but this is not the time to do so. The country as a whole has to make some sacrifices, and it is the rich who are best in position to do this. Besides, ending the Bush-era tax cuts isn’t really a raise in taxes as much as it is a return to a previous level. They’ll still be much lower than they have been in general in the last 50 years.

We are slowly turning into a two-class system at the expense of the middle class and at the expense of future generations. It is the lower and middle classes that NEED the tax cuts. The rich will be just fine paying 38% instead of 33% or whatever the figures are. But the lower and middle classes would not be. We are a service-based economy now, and regardless of what tax rates the rich pay, they will continue to use and enjoy these “services” because they can afford to, whereas it is the lower and middle classes who will be forced to curtail their use of these services. Like I said before, I’d like to see taxes cut for everyone, but it is just too unrealistic to expect NOW to be the time to do so. I think Warren Buffett was right in his assessment of these tax cuts/hikes.[/quote]

None, not one single thing that you said makes any sense. The rich virtually created that successful economic climate with their own two hands. Now they should be punished for it? Taxes are already too high on the rich. There should be a flat tax where everyone pays 20% no exceptions no deductions. How many businesses would succeed if they had a workforce that was penalized for selling more widgets?

We will never have a booming economy again until government is removed from the backs of all working people, including the rich![/quote]

Nothing that I’ve said makes sense? Really?

What doesn’t make sense is your claim that the rich have created “that successful economic climate with their own two hands.” We are hardly in great economic times right now, and it is foolhardy to suggest that the rich are the ones responsible for booming economies. It is a collective effort; America as a whole creates economic change. If it is the rich who do so, then isn’t it fair to say that it is them who have caused the economic tailspin we’ve been in for about 10 years now?

I agree that there should be lower taxes across the board for everyone, but there is no reason why the rich should look at a return to previous rates (a return that is still MUCH lower than it generally has been in the last few decades) as a punishment. Our system is designed to benefit the rich more than anyone else, so it should be them who pays at a higher rate IF we have something other than a flat rate. I don’t know of any lower or middle class jobs in which workers take home a huge bonus every year even if they essentially run their company into the ground. But it happens with the rich all the time.

I agree that we need to make changes. We should be taxed less in general, I am not opposed to a flat rate, although I think something like a 5% differential in rates between the poor and the rich would be more equitable, and I firmly believe that govt spending needs to be cut drastically. But these are changes that are best made in better economic times than we are currently experiencing. The REALITY of the situation demands that we pull more money in than we spend. So there are two things that need to be done now: raise taxes and cut expenditures. If we can move past this victim mentality that mandates that we look at taxation as slavery or punishment, then it becomes painfully clear that 800 billion in lost revenue is not going to balance the budget or pull us out of massive debt. If the economy had boomed throughout the lifespan of these tax cuts, I would agree that we should extend them. But it hasn’t.

22

Audit the Fed

23

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Why is government the ONLY entity that never has to do more with less? Businesses, families, just about any organization that operates on a budget is ALWAYS being forced to do more with less.

Why can’t our government?[/quote]

Because they don’t have to. People make false assumptions that high taxes are good and that bleeding the wealthy -the very people who make the economy tick- is a good idea. The problem has always been and will always be with the politicians.

24

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

What exactly is too big about our government? And, how do you propose to fix it?
[/quote]

Almost everything is too big. The government needs to do what the founding fathers set it up to do. Firstly, it was NOT to create a nanny state. 1 in 5 families are currently receiving some sort of government support. You and I both know this is not sustainable. Extending unemployment for the 3rd time is a mistake.

We now have people who have been on unemployment for 3 years! Common sense will tell you that if you pay someone to not work why would they seek a job making about the same amount they are making for sitting on a beach sipping protein shakes? This is human nature - not many of us will work if we get paid close to the same amount to NOT work.

As I said in an earlier post cut the Department of Education. They have done nothing of importance for our schools. Jimmy Carter promised that this invention of his would help raise students averages, it has not. This needs to be handled at the state level.

I fully understand that not everyone is going to be a “go getter” like you and go back to school for a degree in order to improve his life and for the good of his family. We need social programs but they have to be limited to three categories: 1.elderly, no one retires until they hit the age of 68 and raise it from there gradually.

Social Security cannot be paid out for 20 years. The system was not created to do this. As the length of time we are living has gone up the retirement age should have followed. And 2, the disabled should get government assistance. Any other able bodied human being who has reached the age of 18 should work.

I could easily cut this fat government in half. Will it be done by anyone of any party? No.

25

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the republicans in Congress made him do it and I LOVE IT. [/quote]

Then please do not ever complain about the deficit again.

[/quote]

Simple concept, STOP SPENDING. Spending cuts MUST be accompanied with any tax cut. But here is where all politicians especially the democrats lose the fight.

By the way they can begin with Jimmy Carters Department of Education. [/quote]

Yeah… simple. We will just stop spending… on what exactly?

BTW - public education is one of the best investments we can make in the future of our county’s economic competitiveness.
[/quote]

I absolutely agree with you. So let’s do it intelligently by turning it over to the states who are close to their specific problems. Have you noticed that the more Washington does the more of a mess that we have?

26

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What doesn’t make sense is your claim that the rich have created “that successful economic climate with their own two hands.” We are hardly in great economic times right now, and it is foolhardy to suggest that the rich are the ones responsible for booming economies. It is a collective effort; America as a whole creates economic change. If it is the rich who do so, then isn’t it fair to say that it is them who have caused the economic tailspin we’ve been in for about 10 years now?[/quote]

If government would get out of the way then the economy would begin to revive. Neither Bush nor Obama helped our recovery. Where did the stimulus money go can you tell me? Unemployment was about 10% before they began and it has not changed.

And the rich do in fact create jobs - If not them then tell me who does? How many poor people have you seen offer someone a job? As small business expands so does employment. Fully 65% of all new job growth comes from small business. And most small businesses are either an “S” or “LLC” corporations. That means that the money which flows through to the bottom line is taxed to the individual owner of that small business. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the “rich” would have been catastrophic. In fact, we need more incentives for people to start their own businesses. But in reality the best incentive would be to allow them to actually keep more of what they have earned. This would expand the tax base so that more people would be paying into the system.

Good man!

Not all the time, just some of the time. And it rarely happen with private companies and almost never in small business - And remember 65% of all new hires are with small business. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water on this one.

Why should someone making 1 million per year pay a higher rate than someone making 50-k per year? Why do you want to reward failure and discourage success. Keep in mind that 20% of 1 million is already more than 20% of 50-k. Why the extra punitive measure? Remember when rich people get to keep more of their money there is more investment in business, which means that more people are employed. I think the worst form of politics is class warfare. It makes good people like yourself start thinking that the government actually got it right with their punitive progressive tax system.

Take a look at this I think you will find it quite an eye opener:

27

The idea that this is a tax cut is pure bullshit.

This has been the tax rate for the past 9 years, so changing it would be a tax increase. So in theory, Obama is not raising taxes.

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, as a country I mean. The more we can keep money out of the hands of the spenders (the government), the better. If I keep my money and spend it foolishly, at least I can be pissed at myself.

28

your taxes should be inversely proportional to the number of working children you have.

29

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

Well, what do you all think?[/quote]

Must have broken his heart.

This poor fucker…the Left thinks he’s a traitor and the Right thinks he’s the Anti-Christ. I’m beginning to feel sorry for the guy. He might leave office loved only by black people and then only because he’s black. He’s pretty hated now.

Sorry if that’s not PC. Just stating the facts here.

BTW: Our next prez (see pic) is probably happy with Obama’s fall though.

30

[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I’m glad Obama is caving to the GOP’s manifesto of ‘tax cuts or we ain’t doing shit’. It appears we might get something done in the next two years.[/quote]

Why must compromise = caving? If the GOP agrees to something that Obama wants in return, are they suddenly caving as well? Or is this, heaven forbid, compromise for the betterment of the country?

I do not understand the attitude (I am not applying this to PB Andy but to the political climate) that if we do not get everything thing we want or we will take our ball and go home, a kill or be killed mentality. It is childish and, lets face it, it has not worked.

There have been points of compromise, Clinton was able to accomplish stuff with a Republican Congress and that was the last time the country was prospering. Even Bush II was good at compromising and that helped him to be a good Governor (- unlike Perry, but that is a different topic). But the climate in D.C. under Bush was anti-Clinton, therefore, anti-compromise.

31

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Shit, tax cuts for the rich is nothing more than another entitlement program at this point.[/quote]

I don’t understand that comment. The more people get to keep THERE money the better. It matters not whether they be rich or middle class. Besides the rich pay something like 70% of all taxes.
[/quote]

Their, not there. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

The rich have the most to gain in this country and capitalism in general (at least in this country, anyways) works to their advantage more than it does to any other “class”. So I don’t think that it is unfair at all to expect them to pay a larger % of their earnings back into the system in the form of taxes as long as we have any system of taxation to begin with.

I think the last 8-10 years, and especially the summer/fall of 2008, would pretty much invalidate the theory that lowering taxes for the rich leads to some sort of trickle down effect that is good for the economy as a whole. But the rich keep telling us that this works and that they are essentially “entitled” to take home more of their taxes than other class groups.

In the days of Eisenhower the rich used to pay more like 80% of their income back in taxes. I don’t like this option anymore than I like the Bush-era tax cuts. But the bottom line is that the rich have it better in this country than they ever have before. In dire economic times they still have it better than ever before. Given that we are basically taking in less than we spend, it doesn’t make sense to give the tax cuts to the rich at this particular point in time.

I’d like to see taxes lowered across the board, but this is not the time to do so. The country as a whole has to make some sacrifices, and it is the rich who are best in position to do this. Besides, ending the Bush-era tax cuts isn’t really a raise in taxes as much as it is a return to a previous level. They’ll still be much lower than they have been in general in the last 50 years.

We are slowly turning into a two-class system at the expense of the middle class and at the expense of future generations. It is the lower and middle classes that NEED the tax cuts. The rich will be just fine paying 38% instead of 33% or whatever the figures are. But the lower and middle classes would not be. We are a service-based economy now, and regardless of what tax rates the rich pay, they will continue to use and enjoy these “services” because they can afford to, whereas it is the lower and middle classes who will be forced to curtail their use of these services. Like I said before, I’d like to see taxes cut for everyone, but it is just too unrealistic to expect NOW to be the time to do so. I think Warren Buffett was right in his assessment of these tax cuts/hikes.[/quote]

Good point

32

Can someone explain to me why if we move/return responsibilities to the States, like education, our taxes will go down? The States will need to either replenish the revenues they were receiving from the Feds. or every school is going to take a major financial cut. So, raise local taxes, either sales or property.

33

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Shit, tax cuts for the rich is nothing more than another entitlement program at this point.[/quote]

I don’t understand that comment. The more people get to keep THERE money the better. It matters not whether they be rich or middle class. Besides the rich pay something like 70% of all taxes.
[/quote]

I’d like to see taxes lowered across the board, but this is not the time to do so. The country as a whole has to make some sacrifices, and it is the rich who are best in position to do this. Besides, ending the Bush-era tax cuts isn’t really a raise in taxes as much as it is a return to a previous level. They’ll still be much lower than they have been in general in the last 50 years.
…
We are slowly turning into a two-class system at the expense of the middle class and at the expense of future generations. It is the lower and middle classes that NEED the tax cuts. The rich will be just fine paying 38% instead of 33% or whatever the figures are. But the lower and middle classes would not be. We are a service-based economy now, and regardless of what tax rates the rich pay, they will continue to use and enjoy these “services” because they can afford to, whereas it is the lower and middle classes who will be forced to curtail their use of these services. Like I said before, I’d like to see taxes cut for everyone, but it is just too unrealistic to expect NOW to be the time to do so. I think Warren Buffett was right in his assessment of these tax cuts/hikes.[/quote]

Well, see, the Bush tax cuts didn’t just cut taxes for the “rich”. They also cut taxes for everyone else. So an expiration of the Bush cuts hurts EVERYONE, not just the people who can afford it. I think you will agree that the very last thing we need in a frail economy is to hurt the “little guy” who’s already taking the brunt of the downturn anyways.

It took Obama a long-ass time to come to grips with this, and admit it, but he finally did (“[this solution] is not perfect but… it will stop middle-class taxes from going up.” NY Times today). What is funny is that if he had let the tax cuts expire he would be in direct violation of one of his campaign promises–not to “raise taxes” on middle-income ppl/families. (not that campaign promise violations are anything new). This of his shows 1 of 2 things: either a) he knew it would raise taxes on middle income families and he was still advocating it anyways–thus purposely breaking his campaign promise, or b) he didn’t know and had sense knocked into him about breaking his campaign promises.

I personally think it was option a. The man may be inexperienced, but I don’t think he’s stupid–he had to know the tax cut affected all brackets.

Also, this is a good political move for him at the moment. He may spin this as him being a man willing to reach across the aisle. If his party rebels and still fights it, they’ll pay further in seats because they will be seen as the villains even more than they already were.

34

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Can someone explain to me why if we move/return responsibilities to the States, like education, our taxes will go down? The States will need to either replenish the revenues they were receiving from the Feds. or every school is going to take a major financial cut. So, raise local taxes, either sales or property.[/quote]

Because the Department of Education is a huge, bloated beast that would not have to be replicated on the state level.

In 2010, the average salary at the Department of Education reached $103,000. By comparison, in 2009, the average public school teacher salary was $53,000.

35

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the republicans in Congress made him do it and I LOVE IT. [/quote]

Then please do not ever complain about the deficit again.

[/quote]

Simple concept, STOP SPENDING. Spending cuts MUST be accompanied with any tax cut. But here is where all politicians especially the democrats lose the fight.

By the way they can begin with Jimmy Carters Department of Education. [/quote]

Yeah… simple. We will just stop spending… on what exactly?

BTW - public education is one of the best investments we can make in the future of our county’s economic competitiveness.
[/quote]

Other people have responded already with ideas on what to cut, and ratchet has a number of great points.

The bottom line is that everybody wants their cake and wants to eat it too. You can’t fucking do it. The cuts have to come from somewhere, and they have to hit people. The medicine is stiff but it will cure the disease if we just take it. The problem is nobody wants to give part of their slice away, least of all gov’t.

This is analogous to a person having trouble making ends meet and complaining about how bad his bills are. When I ask him “what’s your budget like?” He gives me the numbers. Then I say, “you’re paying 150/month–drop your premium cable tv plan” and he goes “but I have to have my cable! I can’t miss my shows!!” I’ve known a number of people personally like this.

Or like the fatass housewife who wants to lose 40 lbs. You tell her to get rid of the cake, donuts, junk food, and soda in her house and she squeals “but I love my soda! I can’t live without it!” “Then stay fat, bitch.” You give her an exercise regimen with deadlifts in it, offer to personally coach her " But I don’t want to hurt my back!" “Then stay fat bitch.”

If you don’t do the hard stuff because it’s “too hard”, then you’ll never make any fucking progress will you? The hard stuff is what works dammit. But nobody wants to because it’s uncomfortable or might take some sacrifice.

Cut pieces of spending off everything. That way nobody can bitch that they’re being discriminated against.

36

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Shit, tax cuts for the rich is nothing more than another entitlement program at this point.[/quote]

I don’t understand that comment. The more people get to keep THERE money the better. It matters not whether they be rich or middle class. Besides the rich pay something like 70% of all taxes.
[/quote]

I’d like to see taxes lowered across the board, but this is not the time to do so. The country as a whole has to make some sacrifices, and it is the rich who are best in position to do this. Besides, ending the Bush-era tax cuts isn’t really a raise in taxes as much as it is a return to a previous level. They’ll still be much lower than they have been in general in the last 50 years.
…
We are slowly turning into a two-class system at the expense of the middle class and at the expense of future generations. It is the lower and middle classes that NEED the tax cuts. The rich will be just fine paying 38% instead of 33% or whatever the figures are. But the lower and middle classes would not be. We are a service-based economy now, and regardless of what tax rates the rich pay, they will continue to use and enjoy these “services” because they can afford to, whereas it is the lower and middle classes who will be forced to curtail their use of these services. Like I said before, I’d like to see taxes cut for everyone, but it is just too unrealistic to expect NOW to be the time to do so. I think Warren Buffett was right in his assessment of these tax cuts/hikes.[/quote]

Well, see, the Bush tax cuts didn’t just cut taxes for the “rich”. They also cut taxes for everyone else. So an expiration of the Bush cuts hurts EVERYONE, not just the people who can afford it. I think you will agree that the very last thing we need in a frail economy is to hurt the “little guy” who’s already taking the brunt of the downturn anyways.

It took Obama a long-ass time to come to grips with this, and admit it, but he finally did (“[this solution] is not perfect but… it will stop middle-class taxes from going up.” NY Times today). What is funny is that if he had let the tax cuts expire he would be in direct violation of one of his campaign promises–not to “raise taxes” on middle-income ppl/families. (not that campaign promise violations are anything new). This of his shows 1 of 2 things: either a) he knew it would raise taxes on middle income families and he was still advocating it anyways–thus purposely breaking his campaign promise, or b) he didn’t know and had sense knocked into him about breaking his campaign promises.

I personally think it was option a. The man may be inexperienced, but I don’t think he’s stupid–he had to know the tax cut affected all brackets.

Also, this is a good political move for him at the moment. He may spin this as him being a man willing to reach across the aisle. If his party rebels and still fights it, they’ll pay further in seats because they will be seen as the villains even more than they already were.[/quote]

I understand that the tax cuts were for everyone and not just the rich. But that top 5% getting a tax cut means a loss of 800 billion in revenue a year. This is going to represent a larger and larger loss of revenue each year. Essentially extending the tax cuts to the rich is an expenditure. It’s spending on an entitlement program, to stretch things a bit.

And to ZEB: why do you look at people who have earned 50K as a failure whereas someone who earns a million as a success? Perhaps that person making 50K is a teacher (a good one) who feels that teaching is the gift he/she has and has decided that this is the best way for them to use their gift. What about someone who earns millions through trust funds or inheritance or something like that? Is that really a success vs failure example? No. And I already explained why I feel that the rich should pay a higher tax rate than the middle class or the poor, several times. But I’ll do so again: capitalism within a democratic system benefits the rich more than it does any other “class”. It is only fair that the rich should pay a little more in order to keep that system intact.

37

Another point I think Ratchet brought up–cut staffing.

Companies pay attention to efficiency. They may be evil, unjust and oppressive (Ryan McCarter), but with the exception of venture capital firms and various hedge fund/investment banking companies they a) work to be as efficient as possible and b) manage risk. The vast, vast majority of successful service and industrial companies do this. If the gov’t were run more along a company’s financial lines you’d have a helluva lot less waste. Problem is, that’s “hard”. And it requires stepping on toes of people who think they’re entitled, not the least of which are the politicians.

38

Ok so I’m confused, somehow allowing people to keep money they have earned is an entitlement, and giving people someone elses money to sit on their ass is good policy.

Wow.

39

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Another point I think Ratchet brought up–cut staffing.

Companies pay attention to efficiency. They may be evil, unjust and oppressive (Ryan McCarter), but with the exception of venture capital firms and various hedge fund/investment banking companies they a) work to be as efficient as possible and b) manage risk. The vast, vast majority of successful service and industrial companies do this. If the gov’t were run more along a company’s financial lines you’d have a helluva lot less waste. Problem is, that’s “hard”. And it requires stepping on toes of people who think they’re entitled, not the least of which are the politicians.[/quote]

Yay sensibility and intelligence.

40

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Can someone explain to me why if we move/return responsibilities to the States, like education, our taxes will go down? The States will need to either replenish the revenues they were receiving from the Feds. or every school is going to take a major financial cut. So, raise local taxes, either sales or property.[/quote]

Because the Department of Education is a huge, bloated beast that would not have to be replicated on the state level.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/29/your-education-dollars-at-work/

In 2010, the average salary at the Department of Education reached $103,000. By comparison, in 2009, the average public school teacher salary was $53,000.

[/quote]
Not everything would have to be replicated but it most likely would. And some thing are better handled by a few at the federal level rather than having that job replicated 50 times at the state level. Now what where is a different discussion. But that is my point in general. Essential an economy of scale example.

Your numbers compare administrative vs teachers, the same disparity you would see at the district level as well.

I agree that govt in general is bloated.