Obama's 'Cliff' Proposal: $1.6 Trillion in Tax Increases - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

crockett · 12-01-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madm1k3

Since 2000

Cost of wars: 4 trillion
Cost of tax cuts: 2.8 trillion
Cost of bank bail out: 14 trillion

Just looking at those basic numbers I would say three things are needed to fix your economy:

1. Cut military spending by 600 billion a year, this will keep you about 10 billion above china and still the highest spending nation

2. Everyone should lose thier tax cuts, not just the rich. That way every single citizen will realize that there are consequences for starting illegal wars and rewarding failed banks

3. Stop bankster welfare, I laugh at the food stamp comments. The real welfare in your country are businesses who failed miserabley but received more money than any social program

While I agree with stopping the banker welfare as well as big business welfare and of course the defense budget is ridiculous tax cuts on the other hand for both lower & upper earners actually stimulate the economy and cause people to work.

It's just getting it in the right balance which is the trick.

The other thing is while I do agree that our defense spending is out of control it also does create jobs which are usually higher paying jobs. Meaning just out right cutting of a bunch of spending would likely cause more problem with a ripple effect than it might solve.

Again the trick is getting the right balance and perhaps trickling that spending into other areas that might more benefit the larger amount of the tax payers. Think instead of just cutting that 600 billion outright perhaps it would be better served using it to invest in this country's infrastructure on things like our roads, energy independence, education & health. (yes I look at education & health as a nation's infrastructure because the people are the very core of what makes up a country not the land they live on)

Yea know the things that might actually protect this country's future..

TheSquealer · 12-01-2012, 03:57 PM

All i learn from these threads is that poor people who are barely employable seem to always know more about business, taxes and economics than rich people running multiple companies.

kane · 12-01-2012, 04:12 PM

We do all know this is a proposal correct?

At first Obama suggested around 800 billion in new revenue from taxes. The republicans seemed willing to talk at that level. So when they met Obama kicked it up to 1.6 trillion and the republicans, as expected, balked. Now it is up to the republicans to make a counter offer. In theory both sites will counter and eventually we will find a happy medium. At this point, as far as I know, there has been no republican offer so we wait.

Mutt · 12-01-2012, 04:36 PM

Republicans formula -----> spend more, less taxes

Democrats formula -----> spend more, more taxes

now which seems more reasonable?

the Republicans can talk about cutting spending but they sure didn't under Bush

so their plan is to just keep on racking up the debt and let another generation pay the price - at least Obama is being honest and saying what he's going to spend and he's going to pay for it by increasing taxes

dunno why people get their panties in a bunch, standard of living has never been as high - and the rich have gotten richer at the same time.

flat tax or national sales tax - no more of this bickering between rich and not so rich

rebel23 · 12-01-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Check out this message from the dullest tacks in the box...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sqIgb48iq6w

those "millionaires" are a Democrat front group. Peter Schiff exposed them.

GregE · 12-01-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I still don't understand why only $250k+ income earners should pay higher taxes? raising taxes is a good idea I thought? so shouldn't everyone chip in and help?

Raising taxes on the middle class slows the economy. It's been proven time and again. Therefore, not such a good idea.

Raising taxes on those who spend a proportionality smaller percentage of their income has a proportionality smaller impact on the economy. Therefore, less harm done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

and why is it $250k anyway? why not $200k? or $500k? seems completely arbitrary... across the board 2-3% increase would solve this problem...

Any number chosen will at least seem arbitrary. The numbers mentioned may or may not correspond precisely with the points I just made. The premise remains the same however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

(the truth is, NO ONE would support it if the tax increases effected them too...)

People of all income brackets would do well to support the quickest way out of this fiscal mess.

And that means:

a) Grow the economy (the only real long term solution).
b) Raise additional funds short term in a manner that least hurts the economy.

It's really that simple.

Growing the economy will, of course, be the toughest part . . . but if we can't do that all bets are off in any case.

madm1k3 · 12-01-2012, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

The other thing is while I do agree that our defense spending is out of control it also does create jobs which are usually higher paying jobs.

Dependance on the war machine has gotten America into this mess.

It will be painful at first but the benefits of moving away from a war based economy will quickly take hold of the economy.

There isn't a painless way to correct the problems facing america

GregE · 12-01-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madm1k3

Dependance on the war machine has gotten America into this mess.

It will be painful at first but the benefits of moving away from a war based economy will quickly take hold of the economy.

Now is not the time to add thousands more to the unemployment lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by madm1k3

There isn't a painless way to correct the problems facing america

Painless? No.

Non lethal? Hopefully.

keysync · 12-01-2012, 06:40 PM

I have paid exactly ZERO attention to any of this stuff.
Here's my question.

Supposedly 98% of Americans are not going to be affected at all no matter what.
The catch is the 2% left over.

98% of Americans is THE driving force of the economy.
What is EITHER party saying they are going to do FOR the 98%?

Seriously.
What is any of this taxing of anyone a "little bit more" going to do for our economy?
Remember 98% of americans will see NO Change at all. And they are the driving force of the economy.

Shouldn't we be spending this time trying to figure out how to get the 98% involved?

tony286 · 12-01-2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

Republicans formula -----> spend more, less taxes

Democrats formula -----> spend more, more taxes

well said and when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor. The righties here didnt say a fucking word.
Also if the bush tax cuts were so great,why werent they made law? They controlled it all at the time and John McCain before lost his soul.He said to cut taxes during war time is stupid.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 06:54 PM

Take a cruise down Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia and realize most of those seemingly endless office buildings and towers are full of defense contractors and you will see a big part of our problem.

woj · 12-01-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregE

Raising taxes on the middle class slows the economy. It's been proven time and again. Therefore, not such a good idea.

Raising taxes on those who spend a proportionality smaller percentage of their income has a proportionality smaller impact on the economy. Therefore, less harm done.

raising taxes on anyone slows down the economy... whether it's better to raise taxes on producers or consumers has been debated by economists for decades... there is really no conclusive evidence to support either side... so, raising taxes on higher income brackets is not exactly a "good idea" either, and no one can say with any level of confidence that that plan is any "better" than raising taxes on everyone...

The only reason this idea has traction because it doesn't effect 98% of the people...

(it actually does effect most people, but most people are too short sighted and too blinded by "us vs them" propaganda to see it....)

epitome · 12-01-2012, 07:18 PM

I hate how people forget that the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary and now that decade of tax cuts that couldn't be supported needs to be made up for.

They should have never been. Things have to be put back in place.

If a can of soup has always sold at $1 and it goes on sale for 50 cents for a week nobody says "the price has gone up" afterwards because they realize it was a sale that ended.

The Bush tax cuts were a sale and it's ending.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

I hate how people forget that the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary and now that decade of tax cuts that couldn't be supported needs to be made up for.

They should have never been. Things have to be put back in place.

If a can of soup has always sold at $1 and it goes on sale for 50 cents for a week nobody says "the price has gone up" afterwards because they realize it was a sale that ended.

The Bush tax cuts were a sale and it's ending.

That's not the original way it happened.

What happened was our country was running a SURPLUS.
I remember Bush on t.v. when he announced the tax cuts. He said (correctly), that the money belonged to the American people and he wanted to give it back.

That is the right thing to do. Bush was right 100%.

BUT...he turned around and started spending like a drunken sailor.

And not only on wars. But also on the prescription medication bill and tons of other social spending and foreign aid spending.

He never saw a chance to spend money that he didn't take.

And you're right that once he started spending like crazy we no longer had a surplus and it was time to re-think the whole thing.

But if he had kept govt. spending at the rate it was at...then yes, the tax cuts should have been done and the lower rates preserved.

And also don't forget that every year...until now...Obama said the tax cuts had to be kept because it was a "bad idea to raise taxes during a recession"

He only changed that when he ran for re-election this year and had to appeal to the tax and spend far left wing of his party. For his first 3 years he kept the "Obama tax cuts" firmly in place and lobbied to keep them.

Mutt · 12-01-2012, 07:29 PM

Here's the real weirdness that at some point took hold in the US and Canada - people somehow got the idea that IF they went and got a college degree AND/OR worked hard that they should expect to be RICH, not just middle class, RICH. As in a McMansion, two nice cars, vacation/travel, retirement. It's delusional.

And I guess I do know where it comes from, endless exposure to entertainment and advertising where everybody IS rich.

Pipecrew posted a great website in another thread http://www.glassdoor.com - you can see the salaries people are making in different industries/sectors/companies. I'm Canadian so looked at what people are making who work in the public sector, cops, teachers, nurses - jesus christ, teachers making 100K and up, cops the same, firemen the same, university professors 200K, everybody in the 'free' healthcare sector making big incomes - then I looked at good jobs in the private sector for people who have put in the equal amount of college/university and work just as hard and without the great pensions and job security the public sector jobs have. Highly skilled computer programmers making 75K, a manager of a big box store which is no small job 80K, and on and on. It's all those people making 50-75K paying for the big salaries and pensions of the public sector.

Canada is pretty close to full out socialism and that's with a conservative Prime Minister. The US is becoming the same. Maybe it has to be that way whether you agree with it or not.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's not the original way it happened.

What happened was our country was running a SURPLUS.
I remember Bush on t.v. when he announced the tax cuts. He said (correctly), that the money belonged to the American people and he wanted to give it back.

That is the right thing to do. Bush was right 100%.

BUT...he turned around and started spending like a drunken sailor.

And not only on wars. But also on the prescription medication bill and tons of other social spending and foreign aid spending.

He never saw a chance to spend money that he didn't take.

And you're right that once he started spending like crazy we no longer had a surplus and it was time to re-think the whole thing.

But if he had kept govt. spending at the rate it was at...then yes, the tax cuts should have been done and the lower rates preserved.

And also don't forget that every year...until now...Obama said the tax cuts had to be kept because it was a "bad idea to raise taxes during a recession"

He only changed that when he ran for re-election this year and had to appeal to the tax and spend far left wing of his party. For his first 3 years he kept the "Obama tax cuts" firmly in place and lobbied to keep them.

If people save for a rainy day so should the government because it is what fixes shit when it goes wrong (not debating if it should, just that it does).

Bush was just giving lip service.

The Iraq war was sold on a lie and was happening no matter what and he knew that. He wanted to be popular and spend like a drunken sailor.

Plus we had a surplus but we still had debt when Bush advocated for his tax cuts. Why not use the surplus to pay down the debt?

Obama was still dealing with extremely high unemployment until just recently. Now it's high or maybe really high.

We can't keep waiting though. The world is losing faith unless we can show we have a plan.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

If people save for a rainy day so should the government because it is what fixes shit when it goes wrong (not debating if it should, just that it does).

Bush was just giving lip service.

Congress "save"???? I think you know better than that. That money was gonna go in somebodies pockets back in their home states.
That's how Senators and Representatives get rich.

You're thinking like an honest person. But those people in Congress and The Senate are a bunch of scam artists and con artists.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

Here's the real weirdness that at some point took hold in the US and Canada - people somehow got the idea that IF they went and got a college degree AND/OR worked hard that they should expect to be RICH, not just middle class, RICH. As in a McMansion, two nice cars, vacation/travel, retirement. It's delusional.

And I guess I do know where it comes from, endless exposure to entertainment and advertising where everybody IS rich.

Pipecrew posted a great website in another thread http://www.glassdoor.com - you can see the salaries people are making in different industries/sectors/companies. I'm Canadian so looked at what people are making who work in the public sector, cops, teachers, nurses - jesus christ, teachers making 100K and up, cops the same, firemen the same, university professors 200K, everybody in the 'free' healthcare sector making big incomes - then I looked at good jobs in the private sector for people who have put in the equal amount of college/university and work just as hard and without the great pensions and job security the public sector jobs have. Highly skilled computer programmers making 75K, a manager of a big box store which is no small job 80K, and on and on. It's all those people making 50-75K paying for the big salaries and pensions of the public sector.

Canada is pretty close to full out socialism and that's with a conservative Prime Minister. The US is becoming the same. Maybe it has to be that way whether you agree with it or not.

The other side of the entitlement coin that nobody talks about. They feel so entitled that they don't want to pay their fair share of taxes because they want to spend all of their money on themselves. They want a new $45k SUV but forgets who builds the roads it rides on. They want a McMansion in that new neighborhood but don't realize infrastructure needs to be built to support it but don't want to pay for it.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

good jobs in the private sector for people who have put in the equal amount of college/university and work just as hard and without the great pensions and job security the public sector jobs have.

I just looked up the average salary of ELEMENTARY school teachers. Holy fuck! They make over 50 grand a year! And that's an average of the bottom rung of teaching.
http://www1.salary.com/Teacher-Eleme...ol-Salary.html

Same for cops:
http://www1.salary.com/police-officer-Salary.html

That doesn't count the teachers with tenure and PHD's or the cops who are detectives and lieutenants, etc.

No wonder every city and county and state in the U.S. is going broke.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Congress "save"???? I think you know better than that. That money was gonna go in somebodies pockets back in their home states.
That's how Senators and Representatives get rich.

You're thinking like an honest person. But those people in Congress and The Senate are a bunch of scam artists and con artists.

I am thinking like an honest person. Fatal flaw. Weird how the dishonest people always bubble to the top.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I just looked up the average salary of ELEMENTARY school teachers. Holy fuck! They make over 50 grand a year! And that's an average of the bottom rung of teaching.
http://www1.salary.com/Teacher-Eleme...ol-Salary.html

Same for cops:
http://www1.salary.com/police-officer-Salary.html

That doesn't count the teachers with tenure and PHD's or the cops who are detectives and lieutenants, etc.

No wonder every city and county and state in the U.S. is going broke.

I'm not so sure about teachers. Every teacher I know has a hard time supporting themselves. They don't have tenure yet though so maybe that is where things change.

I do know that in 97 my favorite teacher who had been on the job for 32 years was only making $45k a year salary.

Cops did get a huge bump somewhere it seems. I was shocked to see local ads with $45k starting salary and never mind all the perks like take home cars, overtime up the ass, etc.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

I am thinking like an honest person. Fatal flaw. Weird how the dishonest people always bubble to the top.

I think of it like this...
If you like strippers, you go to the strip club.

If you are a entertaining con man you might go to work at a place where you pay no taxes and there is very little legal or govt. oversight: You would become a preacher.

If you are greedy and crave power...there is no place better than Washington, DC
They have their hands on more money than any big company anywhere in the world. They answer to pretty much nobody. They keep their "job" for life. They get free health care, They call all the shots.
So yeah, con men and thieves just naturally migrate there. It's the "Super Bowl" of stealing.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

I'm not so sure about teachers. Every teacher I know has a hard time supporting themselves. They don't have tenure yet though so maybe that is where things change.

I do know that in 97 my favorite teacher who had been on the job for 32 years was only making $45k a year salary.

Google it up some more and see if you can find any stats that dispute that. I'm starting to think that all this talk of teacher hardship might be a lot of hype. Numbers don't lie.

And in 1997 I would say that 45K a year was DAMN good. Hell I knew doctors who were making 50K in 2000.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think of it like this...
If you like strippers, you go to the strip club.

If you are a entertaining con man you might go to work at a place where you pay no taxes and there is very little legal or govt. oversight: You would become a preacher.

If you are greedy and crave power...there is no place better than Washington, DC
They have their hands on more money than any big company anywhere in the world. They answer to pretty much nobody. They keep their "job" for life. They get free health care, They call all the shots.
So yeah, con men and thieves just naturally migrate there. It's the "Super Bowl" of stealing.

Great analogies.

When did politicians become celebrities? There used to be a time that the President was the only one you ever really saw. Now they are all on TV.

We have nine supreme court justices... They are their own entire wing of government and need no security in their private lives because nobody knows who they are.

In every other branch it seems like everybody thinks they need a security detail.

GregE · 12-01-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

raising taxes on anyone slows down the economy... whether it's better to raise taxes on producers or consumers has been debated by economists for decades... there is really no conclusive evidence to support either side... so, raising taxes on higher income brackets is not exactly a "good idea" either, and no one can say with any level of confidence that that plan is any "better" than raising taxes on everyone...

The only reason this idea has traction because it doesn't effect 98% of the people...

(it actually does effect most people, but most people are too short sighted and too blinded by "us vs them" propaganda to see it....)

Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck (or not much better). By definition, they put all of their money back into the economy.

Some - not necessarily all - of the 2 percent put a portion of their money into overseas tax shelters and all of them bank the remaining surplus here or abroad.

Now tell me, which group's (domestic) spending habits will be more greatly impacted by higher taxes?

The answer seems self evident to me, but maybe I'm missing something here.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregE

Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck (or not much better). By definition, they put all of their money back into the economy.

Some - not necessarily all - of the 2 percent put a portion of their money into overseas tax shelters and all of them bank the remaining surplus.

Now tell me, which group's (domestic) spending habits will be more greatly impacted by higher taxes?

The answer seems self evident to me, but maybe I'm missing something here.

You're not missing anything.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 08:01 PM

GregE, sounds like you're saying the govt. is spending too damn much money.

epitome · 12-01-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Google it up some more and see if you can find any stats that dispute that. I'm starting to think that all this talk of teacher hardship might be a lot of hype. Numbers don't lie.

And in 1997 I would say that 45K a year was DAMN good. Hell I knew doctors who were making 50K in 2000.

Was it really that good? I was making $9/hr as a senior in high school (she got me that job) and she was making what... Double me after 32 years?

I was 17 so my world was limited to buying gas, paying car insurance and Marlboros (for less than $3/pack) so I don't really know what it got you back then.

tony286 · 12-01-2012, 08:06 PM

A man willing to put his life in front of yours and 50 k is too much. That's too funny.To pay the teachers of the next generation 50 k is too much. That's nuts. You want people making $10 an hour teaching your kids and protecting the community?

tony286 · 12-01-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Was it really that good? I was making $9/hr as a senior in high school (she got me that job) and she was making what... Double me after 32 years?

I was 17 so my world was limited to buying gas, paying car insurance and Marlboros (for less than $3/pack) so I don't really know what it got you back then.

No its not that good if it wasnt for cheap ez credit people would of realized.Wages have been flat for a long long time.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

A man willing to put his life in front of yours and 50 k is too much. That's too funny.To pay the teachers of the next generation 50 k is too much. That's nuts. You want people making $10 an hour teaching your kids and protecting the community?

I don't think it's funny at all Tony. They are public servants. Paid for by tax dollars.

That 50K a year is for elementary school teachers. That's a lot of money for entry level.

Same for cops. That's patrol cops. That ass clown on a motorcycle sitting on his ass handing out speeding tickets to soccer moms.

The teachers with tenure and the police detectives make even more.

You sure seem to be loving you some govt. and authority. I thought you were more liberal than that?

I went to see Alice Cooper last night. "Schools Out" baby! And he quoted Pink Floyd during the song..."We don't need no thought control, HEY! Teachers, leave them kids alone"

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

No its not that good if it wasnt for cheap ez credit people would of realized.Wages have been flat for a long long time.

50 grand a year wasn't "good" in 1997? Okay.

I was living in South Carolina. If you made 50 grand in 1997 you were living like a fucking king.

kane · 12-01-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

No its not that good if it wasnt for cheap ez credit people would of realized.Wages have been flat for a long long time.

The average household income in America has gone up $6,000 per year since 1980. $4,500 of that came during Clinton's presidency. Which means 8 years of Reagan, 12 years of various Bushes and 4 years of Obama combined have only manged to raise household incomes $1,500 per year. That works out to about $62 per year.

So yep, you are dead on when you say wages have been flat for a long time.

Minte · 12-01-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

A man willing to put his life in front of yours and 50 k is too much. That's too funny.To pay the teachers of the next generation 50 k is too much. That's nuts. You want people making $10 an hour teaching your kids and protecting the community?

Are you saying that if we pay all the teachers $100k, free health insurance and pay their entire retirement fund we will have smarter children?

And if we pay police $100k ,pay their health insurance and all their retirement funds we will have less crime?

kane · 12-01-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

Are you saying that if we pay all the teachers $100k, free health insurance and pay their entire retirement fund we will have smarter children?

And if we pay police $100k ,pay their health insurance and all their retirement funds we will have less crime?

I could make the argument that if paid teachers more the quality of education would go up. The main problem is that there are many other outside factors that contribute to this including standardized testing, curriculum and others and the ability of some teachers just to coast along and never having to worry about getting fired.

When I was in high school I remember several teachers that clearly just didn't give a shit. Once of them each week would just stand in front of the class and read the chapter in the book and we would follow along and take notes then on Friday we took a test and could use our notes. It only took a few weeks before you figured out what stuff to write in your notes and you would get an A every time. Teachers like that are doing the students no good.

That said, in theory, if teaching jobs paid more you would have more people wanting to go into that field and you would be able to select higher quality candidates. It is similar to sports. If you are going to build a good team you need good players (teachers), but you also need to have good coaches (administration) and good ownership (school board/government).

Minte · 12-01-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I could make the argument that if paid teachers more the quality of education would go up. The main problem is that there are many other outside factors that contribute to this including standardized testing, curriculum and others and the ability of some teachers just to coast along and never having to worry about getting fired.

When I was in high school I remember several teachers that clearly just didn't give a shit. Once of them each week would just stand in front of the class and read the chapter in the book and we would follow along and take notes then on Friday we took a test and could use our notes. It only took a few weeks before you figured out what stuff to write in your notes and you would get an A every time. Teachers like that are doing the students no good.

That said, in theory, if teaching jobs paid more you would have more people wanting to go into that field and you would be able to select higher quality candidates. It is similar to sports. If you are going to build a good team you need good players (teachers), but you also need to have good coaches (administration) and good ownership (school board/government).

I know you could make the argument. But the real question is would you believe it?

I am still interested in what Tony thinks is a reasonable salary and benefit package for public employees. He was fairly clear about what he thinks is lowballing.

tony286 · 12-01-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

I know you could make the argument. But the real question is would you believe it?

I am still interested in what Tony thinks is a reasonable salary and benefit package for public employees. He was fairly clear about what he thinks is lowballing.

No I said to think 50 k is too much is nuts.

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

The average household income in America has gone up $6,000 per year since 1980.

That number obviously doesn't count the last 4 years. Household income has went DOWN.

woj · 12-01-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregE

Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck (or not much better). By definition, they put all of their money back into the economy.

Some - not necessarily all - of the 2 percent put a portion of their money into overseas tax shelters and all of them bank the remaining surplus here or abroad.

Now tell me, which group's (domestic) spending habits will be more greatly impacted by higher taxes?

The answer seems self evident to me, but maybe I'm missing something here.

The objective is to create jobs, improve the economy, etc... not change tax laws in such a way that will effect least number of people... and it's far from clear that raising taxes on producers is less harmful to the economy than raising taxes on everyone...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregE

Some - not necessarily all - of the 2 percent put a portion of their money into overseas tax shelters and all of them bank the remaining surplus here or abroad.

what does this have to do with anything? how many is "some"? what portion of their money?

One could argue that "some" lower income earners spend "portion" of their earnings on drugs or overseas gambling websites, and that $$ gets filtered to the same overseas banks? no?

... and "some", or perhaps even "many", certainly buy foreign products, go on vacations to foreign countries, etc... so clearly, not all of their income gets put back in the US economy? or am I missing something?

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

$4,500 of that came during Clinton's presidency. Which means 8 years of Reagan, 12 years of various Bushes and 4 years of Obama combined have only manged to raise household incomes $1,500 per year. That works out to about $62 per year.

The tech and internet explosion can only happen once. It happened during the 1990's while Clinton was president.

Minte · 12-01-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

No I said to think 50 k is too much is nuts.

My post was a question...it has these - ? - after each one.
How much should we pay and what kind of benefit package should public employees receive?

Robbie · 12-01-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

or am I missing something?

Yeah, you're missing that a lot of people are engaging in class warfare and want to raise taxes on those mean old rich people.

No, I think you are seeing it very clearly. People are cool with taxing OTHER people. As long as it doesn't come out of their pockets. And everybody seems to be happy with getting "free" stuff from the govt. (paid for by other people of course)

tony286 · 12-01-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I could make the argument that if paid teachers more the quality of education would go up. The main problem is that there are many other outside factors that contribute to this including standardized testing, curriculum and others and the ability of some teachers just to coast along and never having to worry about getting fired.

When I was in high school I remember several teachers that clearly just didn't give a shit. Once of them each week would just stand in front of the class and read the chapter in the book and we would follow along and take notes then on Friday we took a test and could use our notes. It only took a few weeks before you figured out what stuff to write in your notes and you would get an A every time. Teachers like that are doing the students no good.

That said, in theory, if teaching jobs paid more you would have more people wanting to go into that field and you would be able to select higher quality candidates. It is similar to sports. If you are going to build a good team you need good players (teachers), but you also need to have good coaches (administration) and good ownership (school board/government).

Also a big part of the teaching problem that no one wants to talk about is a serious lack of parent involvement. Both parents work to pay the bills, they are latch key kids. It makes a big different. I read a study if a parent is very active in a child's education, they could go to the shittiest school on the planet and will still do well.

tony286 · 12-01-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

My post was a question...it has these - ? - after each one.
How much should we pay and what kind of benefit package should public employees receive?

Depends on what they do. sorry its not a simple cookie cutter answer. But you seem to be fine paying them slave wages when they protect you,

tony286 · 12-01-2012, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Yeah, you're missing that a lot of people are engaging in class warfare and want to raise taxes on those mean old rich people.

No, I think you are seeing it very clearly. People are cool with taxing OTHER people. As long as it doesn't come out of their pockets. And everybody seems to be happy with getting "free" stuff from the govt. (paid for by other people of course)

Actually the rich are the takers, the big welfare queens but they got a great sound machine. Really think about and shut the pundits off. Jamie Diamond got how much bail out money? Welfare is a couple of hundred dollars a month.

GregE · 12-01-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

GregE, sounds like you're saying the govt. is spending too damn much money.

Even a perfectly run government will never have enough money during economic downturns. That's a given.

The question is how do we make up the shortfall?

Traditional austerity measures have been shown to compound the problem by taking more money out of circulation and thus further slowing the economy. Not a good idea.

And most of us aren't especially keen on the idea of throwing our parents and grandparents to the wolves either. So that means Paul Ryan's entitlement "reforms" aren't the answer.

Which leaves us with the question: Where do we get the money?

Do we take it from those who are already spending what they have, or do we take it from those who are effectively sitting on their money?

Both ideas suck . . . but, which one sucks more?

Minte · 12-01-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Depends on what they do. sorry its not a simple cookie cutter answer. But you seem to be fine paying them slave wages when they protect you,

Where did I say that I want them to work for slave wages?
Answer - I didn't say anything even close to that.

Now I asked you a civilized question in a respectful manner. And rather than answer the question you get snippy and again put words in my mouth. You seem to do that on a regular basis Tony.

Let me be very clear. I graduated from a quality university and have mastered the ability to formulate my own answers and opinions.

DTK · 12-01-2012, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

tax cuts on the other hand for both lower & upper earners actually stimulate the economy and cause people to work.

Studies have shown that there is absolutely no evidence of this.

It also ignores actual history. During America's most prosperous time, the 50's & 60's, the top marginal tax rate was between 71%-91%. Look it up.

The 'Trickle Down Theory' has been proven to be a lemon that continues to be sold by the ultra-rich, thanks their inordinate ability to manipulate the media to keep selling said lemon.

BFT3K · 12-01-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

50 grand a year wasn't "good" in 1997? Okay.

I was living in South Carolina. If you made 50 grand in 1997 you were living like a fucking king.

How much is the 2012 equivalent of 1997's $50K?

keysync · 12-01-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

How much is the 2012 equivalent of 1997's $50K?

75k today is much more than average around here

Average here is 35k
50k is the job you aspire to getting someday.

12-01-2012, 03:57 PM	#102
TheSquealer Mayor of Thneedville Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 25,233	All i learn from these threads is that poor people who are barely employable seem to always know more about business, taxes and economics than rich people running multiple companies. __________________ . Yes, fewer illegal immigrants working equates to more job opportunities for American citizens. Rochard

12-01-2012, 04:36 PM	#104
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Republicans formula -----> spend more, less taxes Democrats formula -----> spend more, more taxes now which seems more reasonable? the Republicans can talk about cutting spending but they sure didn't under Bush so their plan is to just keep on racking up the debt and let another generation pay the price - at least Obama is being honest and saying what he's going to spend and he's going to pay for it by increasing taxes dunno why people get their panties in a bunch, standard of living has never been as high - and the rich have gotten richer at the same time. flat tax or national sales tax - no more of this bickering between rich and not so rich __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

12-01-2012, 06:40 PM	#109
keysync Living the Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Murica Posts: 2,375	I have paid exactly ZERO attention to any of this stuff. Here's my question. Supposedly 98% of Americans are not going to be affected at all no matter what. The catch is the 2% left over. 98% of Americans is THE driving force of the economy. What is EITHER party saying they are going to do FOR the 98%? Seriously. What is any of this taxing of anyone a "little bit more" going to do for our economy? Remember 98% of americans will see NO Change at all. And they are the driving force of the economy. Shouldn't we be spending this time trying to figure out how to get the 98% involved? __________________

12-01-2012, 07:29 PM	#115
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Here's the real weirdness that at some point took hold in the US and Canada - people somehow got the idea that IF they went and got a college degree AND/OR worked hard that they should expect to be RICH, not just middle class, RICH. As in a McMansion, two nice cars, vacation/travel, retirement. It's delusional. And I guess I do know where it comes from, endless exposure to entertainment and advertising where everybody IS rich. Pipecrew posted a great website in another thread http://www.glassdoor.com - you can see the salaries people are making in different industries/sectors/companies. I'm Canadian so looked at what people are making who work in the public sector, cops, teachers, nurses - jesus christ, teachers making 100K and up, cops the same, firemen the same, university professors 200K, everybody in the 'free' healthcare sector making big incomes - then I looked at good jobs in the private sector for people who have put in the equal amount of college/university and work just as hard and without the great pensions and job security the public sector jobs have. Highly skilled computer programmers making 75K, a manager of a big box store which is no small job 80K, and on and on. It's all those people making 50-75K paying for the big salaries and pensions of the public sector. Canada is pretty close to full out socialism and that's with a conservative Prime Minister. The US is becoming the same. Maybe it has to be that way whether you agree with it or not. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

12-01-2012, 08:01 PM	#127
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	GregE, sounds like you're saying the govt. is spending too damn much money. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

12-01-2012, 04:12 PM	#103
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	We do all know this is a proposal correct? At first Obama suggested around 800 billion in new revenue from taxes. The republicans seemed willing to talk at that level. So when they met Obama kicked it up to 1.6 trillion and the republicans, as expected, balked. Now it is up to the republicans to make a counter offer. In theory both sites will counter and eventually we will find a happy medium. At this point, as far as I know, there has been no republican offer so we wait.

12-01-2012, 06:54 PM	#111
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	Take a cruise down Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia and realize most of those seemingly endless office buildings and towers are full of defense contractors and you will see a big part of our problem.

12-01-2012, 07:18 PM	#113
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	I hate how people forget that the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary and now that decade of tax cuts that couldn't be supported needs to be made up for. They should have never been. Things have to be put back in place. If a can of soup has always sold at $1 and it goes on sale for 50 cents for a week nobody says "the price has gone up" afterwards because they realize it was a sale that ended. The Bush tax cuts were a sale and it's ending.

12-01-2012, 08:06 PM	#129
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	A man willing to put his life in front of yours and 50 k is too much. That's too funny.To pay the teachers of the next generation 50 k is too much. That's nuts. You want people making $10 an hour teaching your kids and protecting the community?