Who Said it?

[Cruella]

Well, their aides are probably lawyers too. I think I heard of cases where lobbyists wrote legislation as a helpful favor, to legislators, but my paranoia may be setting in.

If truth be told, most legislation is written by lobbyists and their lawyers.

We need to lower the debt too. If the taxes were 10% would Repubs still want to lower them to 7%? 3%? Just where do repubs think it should end?

I

The Republicans are fine with the current income tax rates. I've never heard one word about lowering them from where they are, other than corporate tax rates. Those are too high.

 

[dogtowner]

Well, their aides are probably lawyers too. I think I heard of cases where lobbyists wrote legislation as a helpful favor, to legislators, but my paranoia may be setting in.

We need to lower the debt too. If the taxes were 10% would Repubs still want to lower them to 7%? 3%? Just where do repubs think it should end?

yes lobbyists write the legislation as well. not a helpful favor though, they bought that privilege.

yes we need to lower the debt but you start with not adding to it. if you balance in 7 years then you start lowering in 8. but first things first. raising taxes so that we dont increase adding debt so fast is what got us into this mess in the first place.

and spreading the adjustment over several years eases the economic ramifications.

we dont have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

f libs were spending 20% of GDP they would want more 25% 30% where do libs think it should end ? two can play the strawman hyperbole game Lag. if we can do what the government needs to do on 1% because we're booming the gdp that much then 1% it is.

 

[Gipper]

1. I'm not saying that. I may have been unclear. I'm making a case that there is no evidence that lower taxes will lower the debt.
2. I'm also making a case that there is no evidence that higher taxes will raise the debt. The phenomenological evidence indicates we would probably have no problem raising the taxes of the top 2%.
3. I agree W and BO are the worst. But Reagan and papa Bush are a close second.
4. Right, my poor wording. As everyone knows, the D's want the rate higher for the top 2% and the R's don't, and I don't see why they're so adamant, except for selfish political reasons.
5. That's fine with me. I'll go with Clinton's 40% top rate, and the 21% to 29% capital gains tax.
6. I'm fine with easing regulations for small businesses, but as I said before it's the local regulations that are really hurting them. Yes, Wall Street is where I want the regulations the strongest, and I'm disappointed that BO is not focusing on that more.
Also large businesses are playing the loopholes and getting away with it. For example, GE paid 5.3% tax on 10 billion income, ExxonMobil paid no US taxes but did pay $17B overseas, Ford Motor: 2.3%; the list goes on.
7. Yes, Obamacare is messy. I'm on Medicare, and it is literally a lifesaver for me. Obamacare at 2,700 pages is an easy read. The IRS tax code is in 20 volumes with 16,845 pages. (About $1000 including shipping and handling.)

I think the intent of Dodd-Frank serves a very useful purpose, and if it is inadequate, it should be redone. The problem is that most members of the government are lawyers and like to write long complex documents.

What will raising taxes on working Americans accomplish? If you think the Ds are going to lower spending, you need to see BO's plan which includes MORE SPENDING. The government is broken. It has no intention of getting it's fiscal house in order.

BO's wants to raise rates on the top earners for what purpose? It will not generate much revenue. It will not reduce the deficit. It is solely for political purposes, which you accept, while condemning the Rs for not going along with this deception.

We are a nation where the number of working people are nearly equal to the number of people receiving some form of government benefit. It can't continue. This socialist collectivist scheme run by a corrupt government will fail. It is only a matter of time.

If we had a GDP of 7-8% and full employment, as we did during Reagan's term, and fewer Americans on the dole, we would be in much better shape....making the big assumption that the aholes in DC would control spending. Instead we have meager GDP growth and high unemployment...and out of control spending....all of which will continue under BO no matter the tax rates.

 

[Gipper]

I think this spells it out rather well...

President Obama, who twice has earned voters’ support based on the notion that he is a sensible and trustworthy adult, has perhaps the worst individual record of them all.
When he opened his absurdly named Fiscal Responsibility Summit shortly after taking office in 2009, he reiterated his promise to cut the massive deficit.
“Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office,” he said, explaining how wrong it would be to leave such calamitous debt to our children.
“I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control,” he said.
When Mr. Obama took office, the debt was $10.6 trillion. Today, after he dismissed his Fiscal Responsibility Summit findings with barely a grunt and apparently hosted nightly cash bonfires in the Rose Garden, our debt surpasses $16 trillion.
Neither party should be spared our scorn. As Mr. Obama has railed so righteously for years, President George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress devised two expensive wars without insisting they be paid for with spending cuts that everyone would feel.
The stunning hypocrisy is that now Mr. Obama is doing precisely the same thing by creating a massive new health care entitlement program that is paid for by assumed savings and efficiencies never before seen in the history of this federal government. What makes this even worse than Mr. Bush’s wars is that wars end eventually. Government entitlement programs live forever.
If all this financial carnage had been committed by anyone else or by any other entity, such as a corporation, the whole lot would have been rounded up and thrown into jail. A bankruptcy judge would sift through the wreckage to see how the dupes, creditors and shareholders might recoup some of their massive losses. And if any of the collaborators in the Ponzi scheme ever saw the light of day again, they would spend the rest of their lives in debtors prison.

Remember when Bush I lost to BJ Bubba because he reneged on his "...read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. The media hung that around his neck so as to hurt his re-election in 1992.
BO has said many things he has reneged on like the statements in the column above. But, the media refused to point out his persistent hypocrisy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/4/hurt-washingtons-financial-miscreants-sucker-us/

 

[Gipper]

Peter Schiff lays it out very well....in today's WSJ....but do not expect the lib MSM to tell the American people the truth about taxes.

Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.
True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.


In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

​

In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.​

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

 

[Lagboltz]

The Republicans are fine with the current income tax rates. I've never heard one word about lowering them from where they are, other than corporate tax rates. Those are too high.

Right. They will accept that rate since the top 2% can still get away with paying as low as 14 or 15%. If the loopholes were closed and there was no cap on FICA then I would be willing to consider the current top marginal tax rates as fair.

 

[Lagboltz]

yes lobbyists write the legislation as well. not a helpful favor though, they bought that privilege.

yes we need to lower the debt but you start with not adding to it. if you balance in 7 years then you start lowering in 8. but first things first. raising taxes so that we dont increase adding debt so fast is what got us into this mess in the first place.

and spreading the adjustment over several years eases the economic ramifications.

we dont have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

f libs were spending 20% of GDP they would want more 25% 30% where do libs think it should end ? two can play the strawman hyperbole game Lag. if we can do what the government needs to do on 1% because we're booming the gdp that much then 1% it is.

I agree with everything you said, but as far as strawman hyperbole, I would think that gradually raising rates closer to those of Clinton's time is as far as we should go. Or if we can close loopholes that is fine too. I know Boehner is willing to do that, and it a great way for him to save face, but his details aren't out yet.

 

[Lagboltz]

What will raising taxes on working Americans accomplish? If you think the Ds are going to lower spending, you need to see BO's plan which includes MORE SPENDING. The government is broken. It has no intention of getting it's fiscal house in order.

BO's wants to raise rates on the top earners for what purpose? It will not generate much revenue. It will not reduce the deficit. It is solely for political purposes, which you accept, while condemning the Rs for not going along with this deception.

We are a nation where the number of working people are nearly equal to the number of people receiving some form of government benefit. It can't continue. This socialist collectivist scheme run by a corrupt government will fail. It is only a matter of time.

If we had a GDP of 7-8% and full employment, as we did during Reagan's term, and fewer Americans on the dole, we would be in much better shape....making the big assumption that the aholes in DC would control spending. Instead we have meager GDP growth and high unemployment...and out of control spending....all of which will continue under BO no matter the tax rates.

Yes, I have said several times that BO should cut spending. Raising taxes for political purposes? The R's are just as guilty of playing politics. They seem to want to stay in favor with their wealthy campaign donors just as BO wants to stay in favor with the 98%.

Yes, there is a serious problem with an aging population. Medicaid and Medicare are a moral dilemma. These programs along with new expensive medical science are increasing the longevity of people who are not productive. Do we pull the plug on them?

Finally, yes I would love to see all the current problems solved with an increased GDP, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen when there are global fiscal disasters that are outside our control.

 

[Lagboltz]

I think this spells it out rather well...


Remember when Bush I lost to BJ Bubba because he reneged on his "...read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. The media hung that around his neck so as to hurt his re-election in 1992.
BO has said many things he has reneged on like the statements in the column above. But, the media refused to point out his persistent hypocrisy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/4/hurt-washingtons-financial-miscreants-sucker-us/

I disagree. There is liberal media that critique BO, even Jon Stewart. Politifacts has a check list of the 506 things that Obama promised. Many say Politifacts is liberal.

Promise Kept 215 (42%)
Compromise 105 (21%)
Promise Broken 110 (22%)
Stalled 16 (3%)
In the Works 62 (12%)

When BO said he was going to cut the deficit in half, I was like, yeah, right. Political Pollyanna. There are lots of campaign promises made by left and right that intelligent people know are impossible to keep, and they eventually become fodder for the right or left wing press.

But still, BO has failed to do many things that he should have that were not political Pollyanna, and I hold that against him.

 

[BigRob]

Right. They will accept that rate since the top 2% can still get away with paying as low as 14 or 15%. If the loopholes were closed and there was no cap on FICA then I would be willing to consider the current top marginal tax rates as fair.

Close loopholes for everyone.

 

[BigRob]

I disagree. There is liberal media that critique BO, even Jon Stewart. Politifacts has a check list of the 506 things that Obama promised. Many say Politifacts is liberal.


When BO said he was going to cut the deficit in half, I was like, yeah, right. Political Pollyanna. There are lots of campaign promises made by left and right that intelligent people know are impossible to keep, and they eventually become fodder for the right or left wing press.

But still, BO has failed to do many things that he should have that were not political Pollyanna, and I hold that against him.

To zone in on the budget issue -- Obama could have easily cut the budget in half his first term. He was banking on winding down war spending and then winding down stimulus as well.

Instead, we got pretty much a continuation of the war (which is winding down now) and CBO raised the baseline to include stimulus as a yearly event basically. Take those things away, and the budget deficit would appear much smaller. Even now, many in DC are already talking about "war savings" and using that "extra money" (even though it is all borrowed money) to partially pay down the debt, and partially to spend elsewhere -- ie more deficit spending, under the guise of savings.

 

[Dr.Who]

Right. They will accept that rate since the top 2% can still get away with paying as low as 14 or 15%. If the loopholes were closed and there was no cap on FICA then I would be willing to consider the current top marginal tax rates as fair.

A loophole would be an unintended means of getting around the laws regarding taxes. When the rich pay 15% on investment income that is not a loophole that is exactly how the system was planned to operate. That 15% is still higher than more than half the country pays. In fact the only ones paying more are those who earn a whole lot of money through work and not through investment. Kind of like I said in the other thread; the goal is to stop people from getting rich not to get money out of the rich people.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree with everything you said, but as far as strawman hyperbole, I would think that gradually raising rates closer to those of Clinton's time is as far as we should go. Or if we can close loopholes that is fine too. I know Boehner is willing to do that, and it a great way for him to save face, but his details aren't out yet.

Didnt you say that raising the rates would not result in increased revenue? So why raise rates to the clinton era?

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, there is a serious problem with an aging population. Medicaid and Medicare are a moral dilemma. These programs along with new expensive medical science are increasing the longevity of people who are not productive. Do we pull the plug on them?
.

yes there is an aging population. And after years of working and saving and getting raises the elderly tend to hve the most money. And yes they are living longer while being sicker. Mostly of diseases that could have been prevented if they had taken care of themselves better. Now, if we had not taken fica from them all their lives and they had invested that money and they had known that they were responsible for their own futures so they had taken care of themselves then they would be healthier and far richer and could easily afford the insurance and care that would cost less.

 

[Gipper]

I disagree. There is liberal media that critique BO, even Jon Stewart. Politifacts has a check list of the 506 things that Obama promised. Many say Politifacts is liberal.


When BO said he was going to cut the deficit in half, I was like, yeah, right. Political Pollyanna. There are lots of campaign promises made by left and right that intelligent people know are impossible to keep, and they eventually become fodder for the right or left wing press.

But still, BO has failed to do many things that he should have that were not political Pollyanna, and I hold that against him.

Come on...we both know that most of the media is in the tank for BO. The broadcast network news programs are COMPLETELY in the tank.

And as Big Rob stated, BO could have eliminated much of the deficit had he stopped the wars and discontinued the stimulus. He chose to keep spending and warring.