Why isn't this made law yesterday? the system is broken of course.
Why isn't this made law yesterday? the system is broken of course.
unless that treats capital gains like regular income, i don't think warren buffet or mitt romney or ($millionaire or $billionaire of your choice) would care even if you taxed their income at 99%
Because people thought they were being asked about the buffet rule, not the Buffett rule. :-)
I thought we fixed all this with the AMT?
What a sideshow! That rule would barely be a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the Obama deficits. $4.7 billion more a year when we are running $1.3 trillion dollar deficits?!? Can people really be this stupid not to see what this is really about? Its about diverting our attention away from the fact that our budget problems have to do with excessive spending. They have nothing to do with not taxing wealthy people enough. It kills me that amount of time Obama spends wasting on this $#@!. This is almost all he has talked about for the past 2 months... a matter that would not make any real difference with regard to our budget deficits and, for that matter, will make no difference to 99% of all Americans whether Warren Buffett of Mitt Romney pay more in taxes. When the hell is Obama going to start addressing the serious issues of our day? You know, the issues that must be addressed if we are to keep our economy from running off a cliff: those are the unsustainability of our entitlements in their current form & the bloated federal govt that is wasting resources ?
Last edited by Emoryoid; 04-16-2012 at 10:01 PM.
Yes, yes I know not all things are equal, a teetering economy etc. But those cuts nearly killed the country in 5 years, who knows their long term damage.
If we're going to roll tax rates back to 2001 levels lets take the spending back to those levels as well. Now we're really off and running.
^^ can we get gas prices at 2001 levels too?
Misleading it ignores the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (jun)
Legislations sure have pathetic names.
Looking at Wikipedia I found this
This is the Heritage Foundation's prediction of the 2001 tax cuts
http://origin.heritage.org/research/...ax-relief-planUnder President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.4
Did they bother to apologize for such an embarrassing prediction? no, why would they? economics is just a craps roll.
Last edited by Emoryoid; 04-16-2012 at 11:26 PM.
It gutted revenue, when it should have been growing almost 4-5% anually on the back of population growth and inflation alone.
What you see as "going up" is just recovering lost ground, like we debated before the ONLY year that fiscal revenues MATCHED population growth and inflation was 2007, everything else was LOST revenue, even 2005 that was by then the nominal record.
The Bush Tax cuts cost the country ,BEFORE the 08 recession, 1 trillion dollars in revenue. After the 08 recession add another trillion more lost. projected revenue by the CBO during the Clinton era probably had yearly revenues 600 billion dollars higher, but I am just operating from memory.
Given that history it sure does not seem that the tax cuts had anything to do with revenue loss.
Last edited by Emoryoid; 04-16-2012 at 11:36 PM.
The government getting more money should not be the goal.
No, the goal should be preserving liberty and our freedoms. On the domestic side, the goal should also be that the government gets the $#@! out of the way so that the private sector can grow and flourish. Its role should be primarily that of a referee to prevent people in the private sector from engaging in rip offs. That and providing a safety net for those who truly need it.
Its arguments like these are 50% of the problem.
Well the 2000 recession cut revenue by a modest ~30 billion, it was the tax cuts that just killed it over that period 1 trillion dollars lost in revenue.Interesting theory linux ... but if the Bush tax cuts did that, then why did tax revenues first start falling in March 2000, almost a year before Clinton left office? This was 2 years before the first round of the Bush tax cuts went into effect. And why did that downward slope start in March 2000 and continue all the way to mid-2003? A third of the time we were on that downward slope was under Bill Clinton, and 2/3rds of the time we were on that downward slope was before any of the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Why is that?
That is why 9/11 and the recession excuses don't fly, the dot com bubble barely touched revenue, Reagan's recession? same, GHB's recession NEVER lost revenue year to year, in comes Bush and the biggest drop both percentage wise and gross of Revenue since the great Depression, it was the tax cuts. Its the only thing that makes sense.
Well GWB is now history so that statement can now go out the window, it was a self inflicted gunshot, partly from the religious belief in the Laffer curve.Given that history it sure does not seem that the tax cuts had anything to do with revenue loss.
Someone needs to explain to Mr. Obama the principle of compounding interest and debt. $#@! ... wonder if he even knows how to balance a checkbook?
Last edited by Emoryoid; 04-17-2012 at 12:22 AM.
By the time 2002 rolled around
10000 or less income 15% ->10% Inmediate effect.
2003 doubled down but by 2002 income taxes were lower across the board.
Last edited by linux; 04-17-2012 at 12:33 AM.
I disagree with increasing income taxes. Right now I'm giving about 41% to government at all levels ... state, local, federal. Tax away those tax cuts and that means that I'll be giving all levels of government close to 46% of what I make. That's ridiculous...its like I'm working for the man almost as much as for myself.
Don't you see how that discourages me from working hard? Why should I if all it means is that I am going to give more to the government? If my taxes skyrocket, why should I buy nice things or pay for services that employ people? I'll probably reduce my spending by the extra $10K I'd have to pay to the feds. I'm sure there are millions like me. They will go fine, raise our taxes. We will just reduce our spending to account for those raised taxes. The net effect: instead of that money going to employ people in the private sector who pay taxes themselves, it goes to feed this bottomless pit we call the federal government.
If we were really serious about cutting this debt this is what we would do: have Congress pass a 3% ad valorum tax everyone pays that is set to expire in 5 years. By law, it cannot be extended. That money is designated to be used exclusively to pay down the debt and for nothing else. Exclude food, health care and medicine from the value added tax, but it applies to everything else. At least that tax would be fairly applied across the board. For goodness sake, the way our taxes are set up now we are only encouraging people to sit on their asses. We don't need to exacerbate that situation by increasing tax rates.
I know ... you will say tax rates way back when were higher and the economy did fine. Just remember thought that there were a hell of a lot more things you could deduct years ago than now. For example, I recall before '86 when you could deduct all interest.
It's because this country is full of $#@!ing retards, 50% of which don't pay a $#@!ing dime in income taxes, that have no $#@!ing idea how much the 'rich' already pay. The Beffet tax wouldn't matter one $#@!ing iota in the grand scheme of things in any event, but nice job hiding the ball Obama as you spend us into Greece. So glad you were able to make a deal with your buddy Warren to use his name in your bull$#@! propaganda in exchange for protecting his interest any chance you get (Keystone Pipeline, holla) you piece of dog $#@!. (end rant)
does anybody remember where he strong-armed the treasury/fed into backing his ill-conceived idea to cover a prominent wall street iBank?
then why has there been a massive increase in wealth redistribution to 1% of Americans the past 3 decades?That's right. The goal should not be wealth redistribution either.
isn't any change to federal tax policy a redistribution of wealth? yeah?
So you think the goal should be to never change goverment tax policy? Or is it that you think there should not be taxes at all? or is it that you are for abolishing a progressive tax system?
lower taxes rates is a redistribution of wealth, just as much as raising tax rates are.
Last edited by YoLaDu; 04-17-2012 at 01:32 AM.
There should not be an income tax at all. There was not an income tax in the early 1900's. It was added to, get this, tax the RICH. Every time we allow the government to tax the rich, that line of what is "rich" gets moved lower and lower. Hell, just look at the AMT. That is now hitting more and more middle class folks. I'm glad some of you trust the government to take more and more money from people.
With one exception. I think Congress should raise taxes on Warren Buffet.
I would support that.
There will always be disparities between income earners due to this talent and due to factors such as luck.
Here is the thing: we have a constitution that is designed to protect personal property rights. It is set up so that what you earn is supposed to be yours. That is why they had to amend the constitution in order to impose income taxes. So lower taxes is never redistribution of wealth. That is illogical. That is saying that allowing a person to keep what he already owns is a redistribution. That position makes no sense.
Last edited by Emoryoid; 04-17-2012 at 08:06 AM.
Cut spending to 2006 levels and we'd have a $300B surplus this year.
1)You want more money for the government.
2) the government has had more money
3) they piss it away and $#@! it up so people disagree that they need more
4) you and Obama talk about fairness
5) people that actually work for a living want to strangle the living $#@! out of people that want more from them.
Actually according to the Washington Post, the Bush Tax cuts cost $105 billion in 2012.
So $105 billion from the Bush Tax Cuts and another $125 for Afghanistan and we're still $1 trillion short of closing our annual deficit.First, although the JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation) has not gone back and rescored the 2001 tax cuts, the committee recently estimated the revenue impact of virtually the same tax cut — the two-year extension negotiated by President Obama and the Congress. For simplicity, and because some elements were changed in other parts of the tax cut, we will focus just on the reductions in individual taxes.
In 2001, the JCT estimated that the tax-rate package would reduce revenues by $115 billion in 2010. In December, the extension of those tax rates in 2012 was estimated to cost $105 billion. (We have to skip 2011 for complicated, technical reasons not worth explaining.)
Revisiting the Cost of the Bush Tax Cuts
“We have placed them in a quagmire from which they can never emerge except dead”
Think about all the areas in the US alone that we chose not to drill...oil production in the stable US vs uncertain world makes it unattractive for speculators to speculate. If we were getting 85% of our oil from the US and Canada do you think oil would be cheaper or more expensive today?
Fine. you want the buffet rule, pass it. You get 47 Billion over 10 years in additional revnue (projected by the same group who claimed obamacare would not add "one dime to the deficit") meanwhile, Skid Mark In Chiefs budget adds over 6 TRILLION in debt over the same period. So, your "Buffet Rule" won't even cover ONE FVCKING PERCENT of the spending. That is about as simple as a math equation can get. Yet, this is Skid Mark's calling card, and the lynchpin in his deficit reduction policy. There are actually people who support this $#@! for brains. Fvck him, and everyone else who supports this kind of idiocy. But sure, by all means, go ahead and pass the Buffet Rule so you can feel better about taking more $#@! from someone else, and also so you can just STFU about it and stop the class warfare. Then again, it is always nice to have the class warfare as a calling card when your policies have failed in an epic manner. So fvcking exhausting and stupid is this argument. Pass it, and see what happens. I will tell you, not a GD thing will happen other than the deficit will still go up, and we will still outspend cash flow by over ONE TRILLION every single year.
Oil is fungibleThink about all the areas in the US alone that we chose not to drill...oil production in the stable US vs uncertain world makes it unattractive for speculators to speculate. If we were getting 85% of our oil from the US and Canada do you think oil would be cheaper or more expensive today?
Last edited by linux; 04-17-2012 at 10:37 AM.
We are already drilling more and producing more oil domestically and prices are UP.Just get the Gov out of the way and it won't be a problem. The ONLY thing keeping oil prices up is our lack of desire to drill and produce more oil.
The US exported more oil than it imported in 2011 and prices are UP. All that available oil and sold to other countries.
Pretty sure you are not saying that we should give the government power to demand companies that domestically drill for petroleum to sell that petroleum only to the US and not be made available to the global market, but isn't that what it would take?
Oil companies are in the business of making money; not ensuring cheap, inexpensive gasoline to Americans.
Last edited by YoLaDu; 04-17-2012 at 10:50 AM.
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont