Snowbamacare and taxes

[PaulS]

Letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as putting in a tax increase.

The 2 parties need to face reality and compromise. Reality is that there needs to be some tax increases and some spending cuts.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as putting in a tax increase.

.

Really? in both cases you will be paying higher taxes... do you "feel" better telling yourself that you aren't paying higher taxes...you are just paying less tax cuts

mindboggling

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

Really? in both cases you will be paying higher taxes... do you "feel" better telling yourself that you aren't paying higher taxes...you are just paying less tax cuts

mindboggling

so Obama proposed some legislation raising taxes?

Mindboggling

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so Obama proposed some legislation raising taxes?

Mindboggling

barely any at all...............

ABC News
Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011


Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years


wake the bleep up!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as putting in a tax increase.

The 2 parties need to face reality and compromise. Reality is that there needs to be some tax increases and some spending cuts.

Just tax increases in general? What's the point of a tax increase? More money into Government coffers? What's the money for? So the Government can spend more? To pay(huh?) for spending cuts? And we're talking Federal Government here. How about if the Federal Government got out of the business of being an economic stimulator, stuck to its Constitutionally limited duties, let the people and their local governments handle their economies in a healthy competitive way?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Just tax increases in general? What's the point of a tax increase? More money into Government coffers? What's the money for? So the Government can spend more? To pay(huh?) for spending cuts?

To pay down/cut the deficit, balance the books. There is no way we can cut enough to balance the budget.

And frankly, I don't want to live in a country that has no safety net.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And frankly, I don't want to live in a country that has no safety net.

it's not a "safety net"...it's a freekin' trampoline

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And frankly, I don't want to live in a country that has no safety net.

That's the problem, government is so big and local, county, state and federal taxes so high you can't save and make your own safety net to take care of yourself.
Nanny state, SAD.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

To pay down/cut the deficit, balance the books. There is no way we can cut enough to balance the budget.

Yes we can. Just don't spend more than is being taken in. That would "balance the budget." Perhaps you are confusing the deficit with the debt. You don't pay down the deficit. You create a deficit by overspending. That creates a debt, which every administration does and passes on to its successor. It is the debt that is difficult to "pay down" since it continues to grow--because more is spent than is taken in.

The idea that, surely, we must raise taxes as well as cut spending to balance a budget means that there is some free money floating around out there in the private market that we can confiscate at will to provide for all the goodies needed to get us elected. And the more goodies we provide, the more and more we (politicians/government) must provide to justify our re-election since the old goodies become a staple to be expected and we must satisfy the what are you doing for me lately psychosis. The more the Gov. does, the more we expect it to do. The Federal Government has bloated massively beyond what it was originally allowed, but it doesn't seem to want to halt the trend.

Unfortunately, the money is not free. The private sector can balance its books by spending less and/or raising prices. Raising prices in a competitive market can lead to shrinking sales which leads to either higher prices or deeper cutbacks (or both). The Federal Gov., not having competition, operates under the assumption that it can raise its price at will. The problem is that its source of revenue is from the private sector which cannot so easily do so. When that source is taxed at higher rates, the private sector must either cut back or raise its prices to pay those rates. Which not only leads to the private market's aforementioned problem, but leads to problems with its source of income--the consumer, who must now pay more for the goods, because of the goodies promised to him by those he elected. And some of his consumer buddies will have lost jobs due to cutbacks, so the Government will have to hand out more goodies . . . and on . . . and on.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How about if the Federal Government got out of the business of being an economic stimulator, stuck to its Constitutionally limited duties, let the people and their local governments handle their economies in a healthy competitive way?

Yes, because the States are so much more fiscally responsible

-spence

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because the States are so much more fiscally responsible

-spence

yes, MA certainly is.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because the States are so much more fiscally responsible

-spence

Because the Federal Gov. has gone far beyond its original responsibility. It has gathered power from the States and the people to the point of being and becoming more and more a dagerously over-centralized power over us rather than a defender of our rights against itself. And, yes, some States are more fiscally responsible than the Federal Government. Certainly, none are less so. The Federal Government has not only sucked the the power from the States, but has sucked their wealth through massively higher taxes and unfunded mandates. And, yes, having all the states compete in diverse ways of regulating, taxing, attracting businesses, hospitals, promoting conditions for producing wealth, attracting foreign professionals and investment, creating different methods of public safety, etc., would result in more options and better options simply because of the evolutionary symbiosis. Competitive diversity leads to suiccessful evolutionary models and outcomes. Central, unilateral dictation of power and method ultimately leads to evolutionary stagnation and failure.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Because the Federal Gov. has gone far beyond its original responsibility. It has gathered power from the States and the people to the point of being and becoming more and more a dagerously over-centralized power over us rather than a defender of our rights against itself. And, yes, some States are more fiscally responsible than the Federal Government. Certainly, none are less so. The Federal Government has not only sucked the the power from the States, but has sucked their wealth through massively higher taxes and unfunded mandates. And, yes, having all the states compete in diverse ways of regulating, taxing, attracting businesses, hospitals, promoting conditions for producing wealth, attracting foreign professionals and investment, creating different methods of public safety, etc., would result in more options and better options simply because of the evolutionary symbiosis. Competitive diversity leads to suiccessful evolutionary models and outcomes. Central, unilateral dictation of power and method ultimately leads to evolutionary stagnation and failure.

Sounds more and more like the fall of the Roman Empire