Reply With Quote
Not in a recession tbh.
I agree
Not in a recession tbh.
And since the Criminal Banksters' Great Depression is now looking like a (long) L-curve and not a short V-curve, this no-raise-taxes (for the Repugs it's never-raise-taxes) logic says we won't raise taxes for 10 years (aka, "Lost Decade" a la Japan)
Raising taxes on the lower 95%, agree. UCA needs Human-Americans to buy , which they won't/can't do now.
But raising taxes and closing loopholes on corporations and the top 5% won't prevent/delay a recovery.
There's not enough money in just raising taxes on those nasty rich to make a significant difference. They are gonna have to bite the middle class to get any significant deficit reduction.
shared sacrifice..
Because they share the same amount of work?
Taxes need to go up across the board. Not just on the top 5%. Of course neither party is interested in that.
lol "shared sacrifice" with half the country not paying a dime in income taxes.
imo since america loves to print money out of thin air, where it holds no value...why not continue to print more out and raise income while lowering interest on deposits only...ppl would have more money to spend, whether the power of the dollar holes up, but nothing beats injecting more fake money into the economy to get it rolling...
doubt the govt cares how much money printed is going around anyway....
"raising taxes on those nasty rich"
The estate tax cut on a couple 1000 families has cost about $1T so far. Every little bit helps.
fund mgrs paying 15% on their fee incomes as if it were capital gains instead of the earned income it is cost many $10Bs. Every little bit helps.
sales tax on all stock trades, derivatives trades, financial instrument buy/sell
etc, etc.
It would be interesting if the Republicans took Obama up on his 4 trillion reduction proposal (including cutting SS and Medicare). I suspect it was pure posturing trying to appeal to independents and moderates and he would have all over himself if the Republicans had actually said yes....
You think he proposed it and had no intention of actually applying it? Um, if he used that as a starting point it would only get worse - not better. Thats some odd logic to say the least, CC.
I don't see how anyone can say that.
Yeah, I think he proposed it knowing it was a non-starter with the Republicans since it included tax increases. Now he can look like he was trying to be "moderate" and the Republicans were obstructionists. Do you REALLY think he wanted his name on a plan that cut SS and Medicare?
He's going to get his name on a plan that does just that so I'm not sure how you can use that argument.
Tactically shrewd. Obama fired up his fellow Democrats (got them mad/scared) and made the GOP look unserious at the same time.
Whatever Obama's "real" intentions, it was deft politically. Republicans running for reelection will have to explain why they voted for a plan that cuts the deficit far less than was offered and passed on the opportunity to reform en lements.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-11-2011 at 01:09 PM. Reason: removed scare quotes
I think we know their answer...those liberals insisted on tax hikes so I couldn't vote for the larger deal even though it offered an opportunity to reform en lements. And their cons uents will likely be fine with that answer unless the democratic opponents are able to effectively paint them into a corner with some good ol' fashion class warfare. More of the same.
I agree but I disagree.
I say we need to go back to a maximum 28% marginal rate for top earners, but at the same time, eliminate nearly all deductions on gross income.
If we are to actually raise taxes, then go back to the 15%/28% min/max marginal rates.
You talk like a communist here when you say it "costs." Who are you to imply this money belongs to the state and it costs the state money to let people keep it?
OK Comrade, what's your solution?
Capital gains isn't enough for you Comrade?
[QUOTE=boutons_deux]
OK Comrade, what's your solution?
Tax all 'income' the same way. Why should it matter if I live off of $100k a year salary or $100k from capital gains?
He sure doesn't want his name on a U.S. default. No doubt Obama picks up some political "gotcha's" against republicans here by having them back away from the biggest package of cuts, but I don't think he offered this up completely devoid of any intentions of following through.
The hammer doesn't have a rivalry with the nail. The nail gets hammered every time. Such is class war.
Fund managers' fee income is earned, should be taxed as earned.
WC and ilk are all for the every single poor person paying some income tax, but want to let the corps and super wealthy slide right by paying their share.
Because that 50% never pays regressive taxes... like sales tax...
Just because they are not paying income tax doesn't mean they are not paying taxes... And based on percentage of their income, you could argue they are paying their fair share, but just limited to the state and local regions... I would think that would be a big plus for conservatives promoting local/states rights...
How does that work?
President proposes something that still has to get past a democrat senate?
Fat chance.
It's all posturing. Besides. Like I said. I'll bet that $4T is only $4T after the 10% growth annual democrats count on. What is it, $4T over 5 years? 10% compounded annually for 5 years is 61%. With the way I have seen congress say anything less that 10% increase annually is a cut, it takes a 4.21% increase to spend $4T less.
I'm pretty sure this is Obama's idea. I'll bet combined growth and population is still under 4.21%. It's still a relative spending increase.
Maybe this would be relevant if the other 50% weren't paying those taxes on top of the income taxes they're paying.Because that 50% never pays regressive taxes... like sales tax...
If you're above the poverty line, your fair share of income tax is greater than $0. Whatever other state & local taxes you're paying are irrelevant.Just because they are not paying income tax doesn't mean they are not paying taxes... And based on percentage of their income, you could argue they are paying their fair share, but just limited to the state and local regions... I would think that would be a big plus for conservatives promoting local/states rights...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
