Both sides posturing ? Are we at impasse?

[deziloooooo]

I wonder if we are at a impasse now ..no way to go so we do not raise the cealing or is this just more yadda, yadda...for the up coming election in 2012, but they are still trying to work it out.
------------------------------------------------------
news.yahoo.com/obama-ending-tax-breaks-required-cut-deficit-103420710.html
-------------------------------------------------
.....Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

By Jeff Mason | Reuters – 22 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

President Barack Obama pressed his case on Saturday for achieving deficit reduction, in part by ending tax breaks and singling out hedge fund managers, oil companies and billionaires to take the hit.

Obama is locked in a dispute with Republicans over how to bring down the deficit as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling and prevent Washington from default.

Democrats insist that some tax increases be included in a deficit-cutting package.

Republicans say that would be bad for the economy.

"Now, it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can't afford them," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

"Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help - then we'll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else."

Obama listed a range of areas, some of which are considered top Democratic political priorities, that would face the chopping block if such tax breaks were allowed to continue.

"We've got to say to a student, 'You don't get a college scholarship.' We have to say to a medical researcher, 'You can't do that cancer research.' We might have to tell seniors, 'You have to pay more for Medicare,'" he said.

"That isn't right, and it isn't smart. We've got to cut the deficit, but we can do that while making investments in education, research and technology that actually create jobs."

Senator Dan Coats, delivering the weekly Republican address, said reducing spending was the key.

"The president and Democrats in Congress must recognize that their game plan is not working," he said. "It's time to acknowledge that more government and higher taxes is not the answer to our problem. It's time for bold action and a new plan to address our current crisis."

TIT FOR TAT

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned of huge risks if Congress fails to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by August 2, potentially triggering a default that could send shivers through an already-fragile banking system.

Obama said both sides agreed spending cuts were necessary and said he and Vice President Joe Biden had made progress in getting lawmakers to agree on areas to cut.

"Over the last few weeks, the vice president and I have gotten both parties to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts," Obama said.

"But after a decade in which Washington ran up the country's credit card, we've got to find more savings to get out of the red. That means looking at every program and tax break in the budget - every single one - to find places to cut waste and save money."

Fears of a default, which could disrupt everything from debt payments to retirement benefits, rose after Republicans walked out of budget negotiations led Biden last week.

Coats said Obama had to step up to get a deal done.

"Now is the time for decisive leadership from this president," he said. "It's time to cast aside the false safety of political denial and re-election hopes and put the future of our country above all else."

[Deleted]

"Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help - then we'll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else."

Gee if the Pres said it, it must be true. Here I was thinking that we were at the top of our debt limit because President Obama pushed thru a pork barrel stimulus package consisting of all of the pet project the Democrats had gotten rejected in the past. What did it take him to come up with that stimulus package.....Something like 30 days? Can't post more now. I've got a fly in the house & I need to load my shotgun.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> "That isn't right, and it isn't smart. We've got to cut the deficit, but we can do that while making investments in education, research and technology that actually create jobs." <<<

...spin, spin, spin... until he's willing to concede a 99% cut in spending while keeping 1% for 'investment,' he's spinning and not discussing...

[djAdvocate]

i think this deal is going to happen, and with relative ease. the Tea Party will never go for it, of course. but they are about to be shown that they are not in charge.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 3, 2011 13:17:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think this deal is going to happen, and with relative ease. the Tea Party will never go for it, of course. but they are about to be shown that they are not in charge.

...sadly, I think you're right...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 13:19:36 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 3, 2011 13:17:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think this deal is going to happen, and with relative ease. the Tea Party will never go for it, of course. but they are about to be shown that they are not in charge.

...sadly, I think you're right...

well, the alternative would be kindof a disaster. if we go to default, then our credit rating will drop, and money will get a lot more expensive, which will draw funds away from our ability to pay, and make it even HARDER to bridge the gap in the future.

actually, this is starting to look very bad to me, because the government is incapable of collective action right now precisely at the moment it is needed. this brinksmanship stuff is bad for credit all on it's own.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 3, 2011 13:30:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 3, 2011 13:19:36 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...sadly, I think you're right...

well, the alternative would be kindof a disaster. if we go to default, then our credit rating will drop, and money will get a lot more expensive, which will draw funds away from our ability to pay, and make it even HARDER to bridge the gap in the future.

actually, this is starting to look very bad to me, because the government is incapable of collective action right now precisely at the moment it is needed. this brinksmanship stuff is bad for credit all on it's own.

...and as far as I can tell, we've got a disaster either way... one can be on our own terms, one won't be... as far as alternatives go, which would you prefer?

[deziloooooo]

Jul 3, 2011 13:19:36 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 3, 2011 13:17:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think this deal is going to happen, and with relative ease. the Tea Party will never go for it, of course. but they are about to be shown that they are not in charge.

...sadly, I think you're right...

Don't be sad..to allow us to defalt, even a month or two, or even the perception we may, will bring bad repercussions..vote him out and his party, then the Pubs can promote what they want..



and if that change does not happen, then there will be visits to the entitlements and cuts done, including all departments, military too..

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> Don't be sad..to allow us to defalt, even a month or two, or even the perception we may, will bring bad repercussions.. <<<

...I am sad because we have bad repercussions either way...

[deziloooooo]

Jul 3, 2011 14:18:48 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

>>> Don't be sad..to allow us to defalt, even a month or two, or even the perception we may, will bring bad repercussions.. <<<

...I am sad because we have bad repercussions either way...

So k, try a lolly? Brighten your day maybe? Just trying to help here.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

[morrisr2d2]

Maybe Americans should take the same tactic with their banks, and claim their household will suffer from dire consequences if the line of credit on their maxed out credit cards isn't increased. God forbid they reign in spending.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 3, 2011 14:57:25 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jul 3, 2011 14:18:48 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

>>> Don't be sad..to allow us to defalt, even a month or two, or even the perception we may, will bring bad repercussions.. <<<

...I am sad because we have bad repercussions either way...

So k, try a lolly? Brighten your day maybe? Just trying to help here.

...well, dez... if you were trying for conversation, no dice... if you were trying for condescending, good job...

[deziloooooo]

Jul 3, 2011 17:48:23 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 3, 2011 14:57:25 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

So k, try a lolly? Brighten your day maybe? Just trying to help here.

...well, dez... if you were trying for conversation, no dice... if you were trying for condescending, good job...

I have to stay with my original here..if we don't raise the limits...it is not good at all...no question about it..the repercussions will be terrible..

No one answered me, if we don't, raise the debt limits, SS, federal pensions..can they be stopped, no $ for them..?? Any one knows ?

Heres one idea of what happens , published NY Times.. authored by a reputable sort for openers..there are a whole bunch of links by the way , of possibilities..all from different sorts..all saying, not a bed of clover if cealing is not raiesed..when do we start believing the sky really might be falling here?

economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/what-happens-if-the-debt-ceiling-isnt-raised/
-----------------------------------------------

April 26, 2011, 6:30 pm What Happens if the Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised
By CATHERINE RAMPELL

Still don’t understand what happens if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling?

Below is a letter from Matthew E. Zames, a managing director at JPMorgan Chase and the chairman of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which meets quarterly with the Treasury Department.

The letter gives a step-by-step account of what analysts think might happen to the economy if the debt limit is not raised, and why they fear this might lead to another financial crisis:

April 25, 2011

The Honorable Timothy Geithner
Secretary
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As Chairman of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the urgent need to increase the statutory debt limit. A considerable degree of uncertainty already exists among market participants given the severe and long-lasting impact that even a technical default would have on the U.S. economy.

Any delay in making an interest or principal payment by Treasury even for a very short period of time would put the U.S. Treasury and overall financial markets in uncharted territory, and could trigger another catastrophic financial crisis. It is impossible to know the full impact of such a crisis on overall economic growth and on Treasury’s financing costs. However, the lessons from the recent crisis suggest that several damaging consequences will likely result, ultimately raising Treasury’s long-term funding costs and increasing the burden on the American taxpayer. These consequences stem from five developments that could likely occur if Treasury were to default on its obligations as a result of a failure to raise the debt limit in a timely manner.

First, foreign investors, who hold nearly half of outstanding Treasury debt, could reduce their purchases of Treasuries on a permanent basis, and potentially even sell some of their existing holdings.

A worrisome precedent is the sharp decline in foreign sponsorship of [government-sponsored enterprise, or G.S.E.] debt since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed under conservatorship.

Despite assurances from Treasury officials regarding the U.S. commitment to these institutions, foreign sponsorship has yet to return to pre-conservatorship levels.

If foreigners began curtailing their investment in Treasuries as a result of a default, Treasury rates, and thus Treasury’s borrowing costs, would undoubtedly rise.

A sustained 50 basis point increase in Treasury rates would eventually cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $75 billion each year.

Second, a default by the U.S. Treasury, or even an extended delay in raising the debt ceiling, could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating.

Indeed, Standard and Poor’s decision to change the U.S. ratings outlook from stable to negative this week indicates a one-in-three chance that Standard and Poor’s will downgrade the U.S. rating within the next two years.

One reason cited for the change in the outlook is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges.

It is possible that a default, or even a delay in acting on the debt ceiling, will be perceived as an increased indication of the political inability to forge a compromise on essential long-term fiscal reforms.

The consequences of a ratings downgrade would be significant, with the potential for Treasury rates to rise by a full percentage point for each one-notch downgrade.

Third, the financial crisis you warned of in your April 4th Letter to Congress could trigger a run on money market funds, as was the case in September 2008 after the Lehman failure.

In the event of a Treasury default, I think it is likely that at least one fund would be forced to halt redemptions or conceivably “break the buck.”

Since money fund investors are primarily focused on overnight liquidity, even a single fund halting redemptions would likely cause a broader run on money funds.

Such a run would spark a severe crisis, disrupting markets and ultimately necessitating the same kind of backstops that Treasury and the Federal Reserve initiated in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis.

Such further increases in Treasury’s off-balance-sheet commitments are likely to be viewed negatively by investors and ratings agencies, which will potentially put further downgrade pressure on U.S. sovereign ratings.

Fourth, a Treasury default could severely disrupt the $4 trillion Treasury financing market, which could sharply raise borrowing rates for some market participants and possibly lead to another acute deleveraging event.

Because Treasuries have historically been viewed as the world’s safest asset, they are the most widely-used collateral in the world and underpin large parts of the financing markets.

A default could trigger a wave of margin calls and a widening of haircuts on collateral, which in turn could lead to deleveraging and a sharp drop in lending.

Fifth, the rise in borrowing costs and contraction of credit that would occur as a result of this deleveraging event would have damaging consequences for the still-fragile recovery of our economy.

In 2008, placing the GSEs in conservatorship combined with a tightening of credit standards caused mortgage spreads to widen by 1.5 percent, ultimately raising mortgage rates for consumers.

A similar rise in mortgage and Treasury rates would adversely impact economic growth, potentially pushing the U.S. economy back into recession.

Finally, I would emphasize that because the long-term risks from a default are so large, a prolonged delay in raising the debt ceiling may negatively impact markets well before a default actually occurs.

This is because investors will likely undertake risk-management actions in preparation for a potential default. For example, borrowers who rely on short-term funding markets, including the GSEs, may attempt to pre-fund themselves or hold excess liquidity through July, distorting money market rates.

Additional effects could include large auction concessions, especially if Treasury were forced to delay auctions for cash management purposes.

I would also expect to see weaker demand for Treasury securities as uncertainty increases on whether the debt limit will be raised. Both of these effects would negatively impact Treasury’s borrowing costs.

Given the magnitude of the adverse consequences a default would have on Treasury borrowing costs and the health of the broader economy, action is urgently needed to increase the statutory debt limit.

Swift action would also help ease the existing uncertainty in financial markets that could begin translating into real market impacts well before Treasury exhausts extraordinary actions at its disposal to postpone a default. Notwithstanding your significant efforts to date, your continued attention to this important issue is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Matthew E. Zames
Chairman
Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee

.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> all saying, not a bed of clover if cealing is not raiesed..when do we start believing the sky really might be falling here? <<<

...and the argument can also be made that we're not rolling in clover if we do raise it... so, what part of the sky do we want to fall?

[Phoenix84]

I'm sure they'll raise the debt cealing, though I wouldn't be surprised if they do it at 11:55 p.m. before the deadline. They did it with the government shutdown a few months ago.

Wall Street, among others, have warned congress that not raising the debt ceailing is bad, and I'd hardly call them liberals. It's not the time to try and score political points.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 20:32:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I'm sure they'll raise the debt cealing, though I wouldn't be surprised if they do it at 11:55 p.m. before the deadline. They did it with the government shutdown a few months ago.

this same thing happened in 1996. we had two short shudowns following that crisis. i see no reason to believe that is impossible at this time. but i still contend that they WILL work together. they are not as idealogically apart as the press, in their desire to make things seem melodramatic, would have us believe.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 15:15:24 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

nobody is claiming that. however, to claim that revenues are not part of a solution is to engage in an equally silly debate.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 13:42:00 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 3, 2011 13:30:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

well, the alternative would be kindof a disaster. if we go to default, then our credit rating will drop, and money will get a lot more expensive, which will draw funds away from our ability to pay, and make it even HARDER to bridge the gap in the future.

actually, this is starting to look very bad to me, because the government is incapable of collective action right now precisely at the moment it is needed. this brinksmanship stuff is bad for credit all on it's own.

...and as far as I can tell, we've got a disaster either way... one can be on our own terms, one won't be... as far as alternatives go, which would you prefer?

i don't think we control our destiny AT ALL in the event of a default.

so, using the self same logic, i would vote for forestalling that possibility as long as possible.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 3, 2011 20:47:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 3, 2011 13:42:00 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...and as far as I can tell, we've got a disaster either way... one can be on our own terms, one won't be... as far as alternatives go, which would you prefer?

i don't think we control our destiny AT ALL in the event of a default.

so, using the self same logic, i would vote for forestalling that possibility as long as possible.

and the reality is, any of these legislatures OR the POTUS who would consider irrational spending now would lose all credability. The average man on the street is convinced that work on cutting expendatures has to be done, the mood of the country, even the none sophisticated one is the debt has to come down..so I would expect that to happen..

The argument between the two sides would be more on as to how fast it has to happen, from the extreme on one side, immediatly, 110% effort to pay it all off, never happen , to the extreme on the other side, pay it down as slow as one can go, also wouldn't be the case..the big argument would be still hurt the people as little as possible but a steady pay off has to be done..and theyb can argue and fight which entitlements should be cut the most and don't forget defense too..

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 20:54:22 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jul 3, 2011 20:47:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't think we control our destiny AT ALL in the event of a default.

so, using the self same logic, i would vote for forestalling that possibility as long as possible.

and the reality is, any of these legislatures OR the POTUS who would consider irrational spending now would lose all credability. The average man on the street is convinced that work on cutting expendatures has to be done, the mood of the country, even the none sophisticated one is the debt has to come down..so I would expect that to happen..

The argument between the two sides would be more on as to how fast it has to happen, from the extreme on one side, immediatly, 110% effort to pay it all off, never happen , to the extreme on the other side, pay it down as slow as one can go, also wouldn't be the case..the big argument would be still hurt the people as little as possible but a steady pay off has to be done..and theyb can argue and fight which entitlements should be cut the most and don't forget defense too..

Obama's argument is that those who have benefitted MOST from the policies of the last 10 years should PAY the most, and that is very good logic. unfortunately for him, thanks to Citizens' united, they are also the people with the deep pockets in the next election cycle.

i don't envy him.

[formerexpat]

Obama's argument is that those who have benefitted MOST from the policies of the last 10 years should PAY the most, and that is very good logic.

sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Let's look at this statement, shall we.

Wealth as a percent of the total wealth held for the top 1%, by year:

1995: 38.5%
1998: 38.1%
2007: 34.6% - at the height; it is less now.

Wealth as a percent of the total wealth held for the next 19%, by year:

1995: 45.4%
1998: 45.3%
2007: 50.5% - at the height; it is less now

The top 1% hold 3.5% less wealth [of the pie] than they did in 1998 and 3.9% less than 1995. Why was this not a problem under Clinton? And how is this an issue of the past 10 years?

So, it sounds like, what you are saying is the middle class is who needs to be paying more, as the next 19% has benefited greatly in the past 10-15 years; with wealth increases of 5% of the total pie in the last 15 years that has almost entirely been taken away from the top 1% - as a total of the pie.

And no amount of BS from Obama can take away from that fact; the middle class is about to get the shaft.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 22:31:46 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Obama's argument is that those who have benefitted MOST from the policies of the last 10 years should PAY the most, and that is very good logic.

sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Let's look at this statement, shall we.

Wealth as a percent of the total wealth held for the top 1%, by year:

1995: 38.5%
1998: 38.1%
2007: 34.6% - at the height; it is less now.

Wealth as a percent of the total wealth held for the next 19%, by year:

1995: 45.4%
1998: 45.3%
2007: 50.5% - at the height; it is less now

The top 1% hold 3.5% less wealth [of the pie] than they did in 1998 and 3.9% less than 1995. Why was this not a problem under Clinton? And how is this an issue of the past 10 years?

So, it sounds like, what you are saying is the middle class is who needs to be paying more, as the next 19% has benefited greatly in the past 10-15 years; with wealth increases of 5% of the total pie in the last 15 years that has almost entirely been taken away from the top 1% - as a total of the pie.

And no amount of BS from Obama can take away from that fact; the middle class is about to get the shaft.

that is all very interesting, except for one small detail.

we are not taxed on wealth in this country, but income. i don't think Obama is talking about wealth either.

here is what INCOMES have done in the period which we are discussing.

Read more: www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal-15#ixzz1R73L3ZJA

here is the data, broken down specifically by income:

afferentinput.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-america-had-100-and-100-people.html

if that chart does not show up, it indicates that the top 1% basically doubled their inflation adjusted income in the last (15) years while the rest of us pounded sand. the suggested 4% tax increase would still leave incomes in this group over 90% higher on an (after tax) inflation adjusted basis than they were in 1995.

furthermore, the top 1% group was unique. even the 1-5% group did not have a net gain in that (15) year period (see final chart in second link).

finally, the problem has gotten progressively worse for the last (10) years. it was not all that bad from 1979-1989, nor was it that bad from 1989-1999. but since then, it (it being income) has been a disaster for 99% of us.

i wonder, if everything that the supply sider's say is true, why we are not seeing Nirvana at this point, given the fact that the national tax burden is the lowest it has been during any point discussed.

[formerexpat]

finally, the problem has gotten progressively worse for the last (10) years. it was not all that bad from 1979-1989, nor was it that bad from 1989-1999. but since then, it (it being income) has been a disaster for 99% of us.

If you read further into the paper that I provided, incomes of the top 1% tripled under Clinton and doubled under Bush.

It's ridiculous to suggest that income has been a disaster for the other 99%. Some have done well, others have not.

Let's also acknowledge that the top 1% in income changes each year; the population changes, and sometimes quite drastically, year in and year out.

i wonder, if everything that the supply sider's say is true, why we are not seeing Nirvana at this point, given the fact that the national tax burden is the lowest it has been during any point discussed.

1) government has intervened in each recession for the past few decades, not allowing one to work it's way through the system
2) government has made promises that it is unable to keep [in way of public pensions]. Pain will be felt while adjustments are made to avoid a Greece situation.
3) government continues to intervene in this economy, creating further uncertainty and hesitation by companies to invest for the future

Without government intervention and manipulation, we'd be a lot closer to nirvana.

[robbase]

And also increase taxes on the high income people as discussed, not going to kill them at all. Once you get to a certain level of income the rest is gravy.

interesting, so almost half of all the people in the US pay no tax, and we should raise the tax on the people that already pay the bulk of the tax?

and after you reach a certain income level, the rest is "gravy"? really? It's not "earned"?

and since it is "gravy", if you tax it more, do you think people will be so motivated to work as hard for their "gravy" if they are getting less of it? wouldn't they be inclined to slow down and enjoy their free time instead of work more for less?

and by the way that "gravy" is probably being used to emply others (landscapers, nannies, and whatever) and if they are less inclined to earn their "gravy", they probably will be less inclined to employ these people and will now be more inclined to use their extra time (since they are not earning their "gravy') to do thier lawns themselves, watch their kids themselves, whatever else....

[billisonboard]

Jul 4, 2011 10:32:24 GMT -5 @robbase said:

... will now be more inclined to use their extra time (since they are not earning their "gravy') to do thier lawns themselves, watch their kids themselves, whatever else....

which is a good thing.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 4, 2011 9:02:02 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

finally, the problem has gotten progressively worse for the last (10) years. it was not all that bad from 1979-1989, nor was it that bad from 1989-1999. but since then, it (it being income) has been a disaster for 99% of us.

If you read further into the paper that I provided, incomes of the top 1% tripled under Clinton and doubled under Bush..

even though Clinton raised taxes?

what are we waiting for?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 4, 2011 9:02:02 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

finally, the problem has gotten progressively worse for the last (10) years. it was not all that bad from 1979-1989, nor was it that bad from 1989-1999. but since then, it (it being income) has been a disaster for 99% of us.

Without government intervention and manipulation, we'd be a lot closer to nirvana.

and your evidence for this is........................?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 4, 2011 9:47:37 GMT -5 @patstab said:

I think we need to do both, cut spending in certain areas. Get out of these wars we have no business in. Start bringing troops home that are policing the world, that might amount to real money. I would not touch SS and medicare or medicaid until the above are done and all the other wasteful areas.

And also increase taxes on the high income people as discussed, not going to kill them at all. Once you get to a certain level of income the rest is gravy.

no less than (19) polls indicate that 60-80% of Americans believe that we should raise taxes as well as cut spending. so the only real question is, do we have leaders? or are they staking out their own agenda?

[djAdvocate]

and since it is "gravy", if you tax it more, do you think people will be so motivated to work as hard for their "gravy" if they are getting less of it wouldn't they be inclined to slow down and enjoy their free time instead of work more for less??

this is my absolute favourite anti-tax canard.

so, let's see, if my income taxes go up, by your logic, i would work less so that i didn't have to pay them?

that makes no sense whatsoever, from my standpoint. i would probably just give myself a 4% raise to offset the increased taxes. but for those that are not in the position to simply give themselves a raise, i would imagine they would work MORE to compensate for the difference, not less.

anyone who thinks that someone will stop working to not have to pay a 4% tax is not reasoning it out.