luckyme
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 28, 2010 14:05:59 GMT -5
Posts: 826
|
Post by luckyme on Apr 20, 2011 8:20:37 GMT -5
Lot of talk on the radio this morning about the new WP/ ABC poll that came out: The potential solution to the debt crisis that gets the strongest support is raising taxes on Americans who make $250,000 or more annually, Of those surveyed, 72 percent said they support tax increases on people with incomes of more than $250,000, including 54 percent who strongly support them. Twenty-seven percent are opposed, including 17 percent strongly www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53455.html#ixzz1K4IkBgeJI am really surprised at these numbers. I think here the numbers would be the opposite. For those opposed, are you in the income bracket affected? For those in favor, are you in the group who won't be affected? Or is everyone here opposed?
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Apr 20, 2011 8:27:17 GMT -5
As long as it isn't me, TAX them!
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Apr 20, 2011 8:29:52 GMT -5
As long as it isn't me, TAX them! Just wait Blue. Now they are looking at taxing income but what happens when they start looking at taxing wealth?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Apr 20, 2011 8:36:40 GMT -5
Any sort of additional levy, or increase in rates on higher income earners will barely raise $10 billion in marginal revenue. And that guestimate completely ignores the multitude of other variables in the equation.
ETA: the current annual budget deficit is around $1.7 trillion. One trillion is one billion billions. Wrap your heads around that one to really understand the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 8:41:26 GMT -5
As long as it isn't me, TAX them! Just wait Blue. Now they are looking at taxing income but what happens when they start looking at taxing wealth? they do tax wealth via the estate tax, but I think they cycle is too long. I think they should do a wealth tax every 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Apr 20, 2011 8:43:12 GMT -5
they do tax wealth via the estate, but I think they cycle is too long. I think they should do a wealth tax every 10 years.
What about retirement savings(ira, roth, 401k, etc), and other forms of wealth?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 20, 2011 8:44:09 GMT -5
Tax rates on the wealthy are at historic lows. I wouldn't be opposed to raising them to, say pre Bush tax cut levels. I understand the argument that the wealthy saving money stimulates the economy, but so far unemployment remains very high. I think modest and controlled tax increases on the wealthy are in order. I don't support this emotional "soak the rich" attitude as a knee jerk reaction though. I just worry about the deficit and getting more money from the wealthy COULD help solve that problem as long as the government curbs spending. Of course taxing the rich won't solve all the problems, it needs to come with hard and heavy cuts to spending. Even if you outright took all the wealthy of the top 500 wealthiest Americans, you'd still get nothing more than a rounding error compared to our national debt.
But I don't think we'll solve this problem alone by just cutting taxes.
|
|
Jake 48
Senior Member
keeping the faith
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:06:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,337
|
Post by Jake 48 on Apr 20, 2011 8:47:32 GMT -5
Tax codes are too complicated, need to be simplified, I would favor a flat tax
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 8:48:59 GMT -5
they do tax wealth via the estate, but I think they cycle is too long. I think they should do a wealth tax every 10 years. What about retirement savings(ira, roth, 401k, etc), and other forms of wealth? Yes.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Apr 20, 2011 8:50:54 GMT -5
Any sort of additional levy, or increase in rates on higher income earners will barely raise $10 billion in marginal revenue. And that guestimate completely ignores the multitude of other variables in the equation. ETA: the current annual budget deficit is around $1.7 trillion. One trillion is one billion billions. Wrap your heads around that one to really understand the problem. If 10 billion is too little to even worry about then why were they spending all their time trying to cut out HEAP heating assistance to low income seniors and pap smears to women?
|
|
bobosensei
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:32:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by bobosensei on Apr 20, 2011 8:54:15 GMT -5
I don't think taxes should be raised on people making more than 250k a year. DH and I aren't in that income bracket yet, but we will be one day.
I am much more in favor of ending the earned income tax credit as well as doing away with other entitlement programs like food stamps.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Apr 20, 2011 8:54:25 GMT -5
If 10 billion is too little to even worry about then why were they spending all their time trying to cut out HEAP heating assistance to low income seniors and pap smears to women?
Because the issue is not high enough level of taxation is it a too high level of spending. Take 100s of small spending line items such as you note, is what is contributing to the deficit. The largest spending areas are medicaid, medicare, SS and defense. Ryan's budget proposal was labeled as draconian and unacceptable. If it were adopted as written, inspite of all the cuts and spending reductions, the total national debt would still increase from $14 trillion to $25 trillion in 10 years.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Apr 20, 2011 9:04:50 GMT -5
Tax rates on the wealthy are at historic lows. I wouldn't be opposed to raising them to, say pre Bush tax cut levels. I understand the argument that the wealthy saving money stimulates the economy, but so far unemployment remains very high. I think modest and controlled tax increases on the wealthy are in order. I don't support this emotional "soak the rich" attitude as a knee jerk reaction though. I just worry about the deficit and getting more money from the wealthy COULD help solve that problem as long as the government curbs spending. Of course taxing the rich won't solve all the problems, it needs to come with hard and heavy cuts to spending. Even if you outright took all the wealthy of the top 500 wealthiest Americans, you'd still get nothing more than a rounding error compared to our national debt.
I'm with Phoenix. Prior to the Bush tax cuts which disproportionately benefited the rich, the very wealthy did just fine. Those tax cuts, more than anything else, contributed to the current fiscal problems.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Apr 20, 2011 9:09:30 GMT -5
I'm with Phoenix. Prior to the Bush tax cuts which disproportionately benefited the rich, the very wealthy did just fine. Those tax cuts, more than anything else, contributed to the current fiscal problems.
You are incorrect on that one. Everyone's level of taxation was reduced, and 10s of millions were removed from the tax rolls. In fact, the amount of taxes collected from the rich soared.
|
|
|
Post by commentator on Apr 20, 2011 9:11:52 GMT -5
Tax codes are too complicated, need to be simplified, I would favor a flat tax In other words, instead of increasing the share of total taxes paid by the wealthy, you want to sharply reduce it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 9:13:06 GMT -5
Raising taxes so that we are again closer to the historic level of 18.5% of GDP (rather than 14.5% of GDP) will definately raise more than 10 billion dollars... it will equate to 1/3-1/2 of the deficit... the rest should be made up with targeted cuts...
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 20, 2011 9:18:11 GMT -5
So even as a conservative, I'd favor rolling back the Bush Tax cuts. No, I'm not part of that income bracket.
Just as with any household or business, the USA needs to cut back on spending and increase revenue. I understand that you can have too much taxes and it can stifle economic growth, but I think the wealthy can pay higher taxes more in line with what was done in years past. Also, for the record, I'd favor getting rid of things like the EIC, child tax credit, among others. There's no reason why close to 50% of Americans don't pay federal income tax.
I think a good first step to simplifying the tax code would be to get rid of all the social engineering BS (mortgage tax credit, child tax credit, home office tax credits) and just reduce the tax rates. So if your income is X you pay X% in federal taxes.
That's my biggest problem with the Ryan proposal. Tax rates are at historic lows and we're in a deficit crisis and he wants to even further reduce taxes as the answer to our budget woes.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 20, 2011 9:28:07 GMT -5
I think the bush tax cuts should be rolled back and spending should be reduced to 2008 levels (before this insanity started). I think that would go a long way to solving the prolbems. It will never happen though, the liberals were throwing themselves on their swords at the mere mention of 38 Billion in cuts, and shrieking on how we’re balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.
I swear, you'd think the poor died in droves bofore 2008 according to the libs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 9:37:39 GMT -5
The problem with the 38 billion is that it could only come from discretionary and only over a few months time.... We need to make targeted cuts across the board, but there is no way to do this if we don't look at military, SS and medi...
And frankly... not all of it was a budget issue they were fighting.... defunding planned parenthood wouldn't have saved a dime...
And the repubs are NOT suggesting just going back to 2008... they are suggesting CUTTING the PROGRAMS that have kept the poor from dying, and allowed the poor to move up... big difference...
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Apr 20, 2011 9:45:47 GMT -5
I'm with Phoenix. Prior to the Bush tax cuts which disproportionately benefited the rich, the very wealthy did just fine. Those tax cuts, more than anything else, contributed to the current fiscal problems. You are incorrect on that one. Everyone's level of taxation was reduced, and 10s of millions were removed from the tax rolls. In fact, the amount of taxes collected from the rich soared. Although everyone's taxes were reduced, the rich and very rich benefited DISPROPORTIONALLY. I stand by my original assertion.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf2019 on Apr 20, 2011 9:49:42 GMT -5
Sure, let's slam the rich, then watch them take their games to another country. Sounds good to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 9:54:44 GMT -5
Can't we agree on - increasing taxes only - if we cut spending
Not likely to happen but hey we can dream.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 10:03:33 GMT -5
Oh, i'm sure it will happen... Who has suggested increasing taxes and not decreasing spending?
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Apr 20, 2011 10:27:59 GMT -5
Sure, let's slam the rich, then watch them take their games to another country. Sounds good to me. Where would they go? I hear this argument a lot and seriously can't imagine. What country is better to live in? Other western countries have higher taxes than us. Countries with lower taxes are not exactly ones I want to live in. It's a hollow threat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 10:31:22 GMT -5
Here's the problem: "There's no reason why close to 50% of Americans don't pay federal income tax." But they don't mind using services that cost! So trying to squeeze more out of 1% of the population makes no numerical sense. We're in the cross hairs this year and next but will substantially drop in income in 2013.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,417
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 20, 2011 10:39:31 GMT -5
I guess 27% think of themselves as at least a little rich, and 17% strongly consider themselves rich.
|
|
lurkyloo
Junior Associate
“Time means nothing now,” said Toad. “It is just the thing that happens between snacks.”
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 11:26:56 GMT -5
Posts: 5,602
|
Post by lurkyloo on Apr 20, 2011 10:43:18 GMT -5
I'm starting to think that it's BS that we have these unlimited tax liabilities in the first place. We all should pay for the privilege of living in the US, but there's never a point where they say "ok, you've paid your fair share, you're done." And the people that get money back from the government never even say thanks. Okay, mostly kidding...but I do think it's fascinating that no one ever thinks in those terms. We're so conditioned that of course the gubmint deserves a slice of EVERY transaction.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 20, 2011 10:46:08 GMT -5
I could get behind repealing the Bush tax cuts completely, for everyone, depending on the package it was part of. Obviously that would affect me too, but no I'm not in the $250k+ group.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 20:09:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2011 10:49:03 GMT -5
"There's no reason why close to 50% of Americans don't pay federal income tax." But they don't mind using services that cost!
So trying to squeeze more out of 1% of the population makes no numerical sense."
Bottom 50% = 13.5% of total US AGI Top 1% = 20% of total US AGI ... Theres some numerical information for you...
|
|
Urban Chicago
Established Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:21:48 GMT -5
Posts: 435
|
Post by Urban Chicago on Apr 20, 2011 10:50:05 GMT -5
Nit-Pick One trillion is one thousand billions, not one billion billions.
|
|