More Obama likes

[jaredwb]

1. You seem to make no distinction between the nation and lazy welfare crackheads. It is myopic and even unethical of you or anyone else not to accept financial responsibility for paying the nation's debts and paying for items that the US needs, eg. infrastructure, education, health care, job creation assistance, social security, armed forces, energy programs, etc etc. Are you saying you and your parents should not have to pay for those things which your country provides to you, them and the rest of us including future generations?

2. I don't know what tax bracket you are in, but I'd be willing to bet that neither Obama or I support raising YOUR taxes. If you earn less than 240K per year I want you to pay a proportionately SMALLER % of the total tax bill. If you earn more you need to shoulder a larger share. Would you rather that Obama raise the taxes on less wealthy people or that there be no increase in tax revenue so that the country slides into bankruptcy like Argentina did some years back- not a pretty picture.
Unfortunately, I suspect that to follow your demand to allow you and others to CHOOSE how much they want to donate to run the country wouldn't be very effective. You don't really believe we should make taxes optional, do you? Know any country that does?

3. I don't think lazy welfare crackheads contribute very much to the tax base at all. I don't recall urging that we expand welfare payments to crackheads. Let me go back and reread what I wrote...nope, not there so upon what basis do you accuse me of having an entitlement mentality? In fact, I believe welfare programs ought to be carefully constructed to motivate people off welfare. I have some ideas about legalization of drugs, too (ala Vincent Fox), but let's not go there.

4. Contrary to what you insinuate, I do believe everyone should pay taxes. I think the rich should pay proportionately more than the middle class. What do you think about THAT?

1. First, my apologies for my foul language.

I have no issues paying for infrastructure, etc. I have issue with the well-to-do footing the bill for the bottom 50% of those who don't.

2. If you really think that Obama doesn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy and high income bracket that I belong to...then you are living in a fantasy world. HE himself has said a number of times that he wants to redistribute the wealth.

WHY DO I NEED TO PAY MORE IF I MAKE MORE??

I am not against taxes, I am against unfair and unequal taxation.

How about the 50% of the citizens that don't pay Federal Tax. Why don't we enforce the law and collect taxes from them?? That doesn't seem fair that they don't pay ANY, especially when they use more of the Gov programs then the wealthy.

3. Understood and I agree that any programs should be constructed in that way. And I am 100% for legalization of at least pot if nothing else.

4. I believe everyone should pay taxes. And no, the rich should not pay more just because they make more. Why should we??

 

[darmanad]

First off, the income tax is being raised for everyone after the bush tax cuts expire is that not true?

Now is not the time to be raising taxes on ANYBODY, rich or poor. The economy cannot be stimulated by raising taxes - just the opposite. Taxes should be LOWERED in order to stimulate small and medium businesses, which will translate into more jobs. Lower tax rates will equal more tax revenue for the government.

Your comment about the rich paying a larger share.....we all know that no matter what law is passed, the rich will ALWAYS find their loophole and avoid paying their "fair" share of taxes. This is guaranteed. So by raising taxes on the so called "rich", all you are doing is punishing legitimate business owners and those who worked hard and EARNED their money.

If you are going to penalize them and take away their incentive to work hard then they will simply move their businesses to foreign countries and the respective jobs along with them. You cannot rob from Peter to pay Paul. It simply doesn't work that way.

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
- Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

No, the proposed tax changes will increase taxes only for those earning in excess of 240K. For all others, the vast majority of taxpayers, income taxes will decrease. That should be clear from previous posts.
In the long run I agree deficit spending by the US gov is not desirable. I don't agree that deficit spending is bad policy at this time when we do need to stimulate economic growth. The nub of the issue is how the government spends its money. It doesn't do much to stimulate the US economy to finance foreign wars of aggression. The hundreds of billions wasted on military defense spending ought to be redirected to public spending to build roads, railroads, bridges. power grids, e.g., the nation's infrastructure as well as on other domestic programs, e.g., education, energy programs, health care, social security, that will inure to the public benefit and create jobs.

At least one Pulitzer prize winning economist disagrees with you about cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth. See Paul Krugman's recent piece on the tax changes under discussion. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/tax-cuts-and-the-economy/ He, along with a lot of other people, advises to let all the Bush tax cuts expire, and use the improvement in the budget outlook to justify a large, temporary increase in public spending thus creating jobs. That would be the best way to stimulate the economy, not to hope that a tax decrease would somehow result in an increase in tax revenue.
I could never fully comprehend your argument that cutting taxes would create more revenue for the government. Carried to its logical conclusion it becomes clearly absurd. In fact, I'm pretty sure the OMB reported that the Bush tax decreases in 2001/2003 did not result in increased tax revenue. Just the opposite. It exacerbated the deficit.
I understand you have concerns about the ultra-rich/Trilateral Commission/ Bilderberg Group conspiracies to dominate the world economy, but relative to actual domestic tax policy, here and now, the Obama tax law proposal make sense. I agree policy should not undermine entreprenurial spirit or the incentive of small businesses to grow profitably. These tax rate restorations do not rise to that level of counter-productive disincentive. Krugman talks to that issue.
Your allusion to the old bromide about not robbing Peter to pay Paul is inapposite. Few serious people would characterize tax policy in those terms. Invocation of the Rev. Boetcker's sanctimonious platitudes adds nothing to the discussion, though it does makes you appear profound, sort of.

Jaredwb, things are bad, but I don't think unemployment has risen to 50% as you assert. And we are not talking about tax enforcement or collection. Such argument as you raise for better enforcement is irrelevant here. Also, contrary to what you appear to argue, no one denies that Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich. If you are one of the "rich" because you are earning over 240K (and, if true, that's a real testimony to the proposition that one doesn't need lots of smarts to succeed in the US), then the reason you should pay more is ....because it is ethical and fair.
I am glad you now concede that you should pay your fair share of taxes and recant your prior rant about not wanting to pay more than you choose to pay voluntarily. Hopefully, your legal representative will determine just what % of your earnings you should pay with greater insight than you demonstrate and with a greater sense of wise social policy. Ultimately it is about fairness. Take a look at the http://www.faireconomy.org. It may help you see things in a way that could affect your sense of what is fair and right.

 

[LAtoBA]

WHY DO I NEED TO PAY MORE IF I MAKE MORE??

I am not against taxes, I am against unfair and unequal taxation.

4. I believe everyone should pay taxes. And no, the rich should not pay more just because they make more. Why should we??

Oh the burden of being wealthy and rich. I feel for you, I really do.

You do have options. No one is forcing you to be rich. Here's an idea........you could reduce your personal wealthy by giving away half your assets. Not only would it be tax deductible but I'm sure you would drop a tax bracket or two.

If you join the ranks of the lower middle class problem solved!

 

[redrum]

No, the proposed tax changes will increase taxes only for those earning in excess of 240K. For all others, the vast majority of taxpayers, income taxes will decrease.

I understand now that you mean the "proposed" tax changes. I still maintain that NOBODY's taxes should be raised at this time. you cannot rob peter to pay paul. it doesn't work with our system.

At least one Pulitzer prize winning economist disagrees with you about cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth. See Paul Krugman's recent piece on the tax changes under discussion. He, along with a lot of other people, advises to let all the Bush tax cuts expire

So what? There are also a LOT of other people, so called "expert" economists advising to do just the opposite. Krugman is a hack. Who cares about an idiotic Pulitzer prize. Silly awards and accolades handed out by an incompetent/corrupt system hardly qualifies one as being an expert. I'm not an economist either but even I know that Keynesian theory is JUNK economics. You cannot grow an economy through spending.

I suggest you listen to Peter Schiff, a man who predicted the housing crash years before it happened while every other so called "expert" Keynesian economist laughed in his face: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

and use the improvement in the budget outlook to justify a large, temporary increase in public spending thus creating jobs.

Improvement in the budget outlook? And what do you call the trillions of dollars we've been spending up until now? - and we have nothing to show for it. Explain to me who will create these new jobs exactly, the government? Again, you will NOT increase tax revenues by raising income taxes.

That would be the best way to stimulate the economy, not to hope that a tax decrease would somehow result in an increase in tax revenue.

Wrong again. It would be the WORST thing to do to the economy. You will only be putting a stranglehold on it.

I could never fully comprehend your argument that cutting taxes would create more revenue for the government. Carried to its logical conclusion it becomes clearly absurd.

Then you've got some reading to do. Both Kennedy and Reagan did it.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

"The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

 

[darmanad]

Oh the burden of being wealthy and rich. I feel for you, I really do.
You do have options. No one is forcing you to be rich. Here's an idea........you could reduce your personal wealthy by giving away half your assets. Not only would it be tax deductible but I'm sure you would drop a tax bracket or two.
If you join the ranks of the lower middle class problem solved!

Your jest actually touches upon another issue of tax policy fairness. Unlike the tax policy in Argentina, there is no US tax on gross assets. There is a US tax on capital gains, the profits earned from assets, for example, interest on bank accounts and dividends on stocks and bonds. The rates on these capital gains were originally lower that the tax rates on wages/ earned income, but these rates were also significantly reduced by the Bush administration. Now who do you think earns more from more capital gains? Your average cop, teacher, assembly line worker who may be living paycheck to paycheck or the partners at Goldman Sachs who are pulling down multi-million dollar bonuses each and every year including those years when the taxpayers had to bail them out?
It's not fair and it needs to be fixed.

 

[darmanad]

Redrum,
I do not purport to be an expert on the economy. However. I think it is presumptious of you to belittle Pulitzer prize winning economists. It may be true that the reduction of the very highest marginal rates by JFK and Reagan (91% to 70 by JFK and 70 to 50 by Reagan) was either neutral or did increase total tax revenue, but there is really no dispute that subsequent tax cuts have not increased tax revenue and that goes for Bush's 2001 and 2003 reductions. It follows that the economy will not be stimulated by further tax reductions as they will only cause a reduction in total government revenue. By the way, it's really a misnomer to call the Obama proposal a tax increase. The original tax bill passed by Bush had sunset provisions by which the rates would revert to the higher rates in the absence of further Congressional action.

I listened to the tape you linked featuring Peter Schiff. He correctly predicted the subprime banking fiasco, but he only touched on taxes once and that was to say the economy would not be helped by tax cuts, but by spending cuts in order to reduce deficit spending. So why do you argue he supports your position that there should be no tax increases? Since Schiff supports reduced deficit spending I have to believe he favors increasing the tax rates on the rich since doing so would indisputably reduce deficit spending by supplementing revenue. Am I missing something? Other than the reference to Schiff, you submit no autorities to support your argument against raising taxes on the rich. Sorry, but I just don't find you convincing.

A combination of increased revenue and savvy government spending appears to be the correct formula to stimulate the economy. I am especially convinced by former Reagan OMB Director Stockton's take on the proposed tax changes set forth below.

Holtz-Eakin: "You are not going to get tax cuts to pay for themselves." As director of the Congressional Budget Office in 2005, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who later became senior policy adviser on McCain's presidential campaign, released a study of a 10-percent federal income tax cut, which concluded that "the budgetary impact of the economic changes was estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss from the tax cut over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years." In other words, during the first five years of a 10-percent tax cut, the resulting economic impact on the budget would offset at most 22 percent of the federal revenues lost and during the second five years would offset at most 32 percent of the revenues lost. Holtz-Eakin also reportedly told Boston Globe columnist Scot Lehigh, "You are not going to get tax cuts to pay for themselves."
..........................................................................
Reagan tax cuts and Bush tax cuts "contributed to record US budget deficits." Harvard economist and former Clinton economic advisor Jeffrey Frankel wrote in 2008 that cuts in federal income tax rates "reduces revenue ... this was the outcome of the two big experiments of recent decades: the Reagan tax cuts of 1981-83 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001-03, both of which contributed to record US budget deficits." Frankel added that this is "the view of almost all professional economists, including the illustrious economic advisers to Presidents Reagan (OMB Stockman, Richard Darman) and Bush "
.................................................
Chair of Bush's Counsel of Economic Advisers Lazear: "We do not say the tax cuts pay for themselves." .. during his September 26, 2006, testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Lazear said: LAZEAR: Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim. Tax revenues in 2006 appear to have recovered to the level seen at this point in previous business cycles, but this does not make up for the lost revenue during 2003, 2004, and 2005.
.....................................................................................

Paulson: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." Marketwatch reported on June 27, 2006, that then Treasury Secretary-nominee Henry Paulson "rejected notions that tax cuts pay for themselves"aulson rejected notions that tax cuts pay for themselves, but argued that they were nonetheless essential to ensuring economic growth. "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves," Paulson said, echoing the opinion of most economists.
..............................................................................
Former Bush economist: "[N]o dispute among economists" that Bush tax cuts reduced revenue. The Washington Post reported on October 17, 2006: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
.............................................................
Bush OMB Director: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
............................................................................
Reagan OMB Director, David Stockton, attacks GOP on economic policy...
"IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html

 

[JoeBlow]

BSame job, different puppet.

Raising taxes on the rich! Sounds like a different puppet to me.

 

[Marisolsita]

I believe what the US Government (not just Obama or Democrats or Republicans) needs to change ASAP is taxing laws for BIG CORPORATIONS. In the US, corporations have so many tax breaks and ways to avoid taxes thru loop-holes that it is more important to fix this problem first than increasing taxes on "rich people" only. If these huge corporations (with revenues of over 40 billion dollars per year) paid their FAIR SHARE on taxes, that would mean lots and lots of money to help the country and its citizens (all citizens, not just the poorest or the wealthiest). Even if it's a cliche, it's still true: most big corporations are evil.

 

[darmanad]

I believe what the US Government (not just Obama or Democrats or Republicans) needs to change ASAP is taxing laws for BIG CORPORATIONS. In the US, corporations have so many tax breaks and ways to avoid taxes thru loop-holes that it is more important to fix this problem first than increasing taxes on "rich people" only. If these huge corporations (with revenues of over 40 billion dollars per year) paid their FAIR SHARE on taxes, that would mean lots and lots of money to help the country and its citizens (all citizens, not just the poorest or the wealthiest). Even if it's a cliche, it's still true: most big corporations are evil.

I share the sentiment that the approach to taxation of corps also needs
reexamination. It has been a while since I checked the stats, but I'm pretty sure that the % of total tax revenue paid by corps has dropped dramatically over the past couple of decades.
As a practical matter, however, raising taxes on corps is tricky business. Unlike individuals, corps can relocate rather easily and many move off shore or to places where corp tax rates are lower than the US (which actually has comparatively high corp tax rates). This is a complex issue.

 

[redrum]

I listened to the tape you linked featuring Peter Schiff. He correctly predicted the subprime banking fiasco, but he only touched on taxes once and that was to say the economy would not be helped by tax cuts, but by spending cuts in order to reduce deficit spending. So why do you argue he supports your position that there should be no tax increases?

watch this video to hear what schiff has to say in general about income taxes. i think it's pretty clear and concise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4KfVM5Ed3c