I thought our taxes were not going up?!?!?!?

[Ockham]

Its not jacking up taxes, its the expiration of something that should never have been. Jacking up taxes means action (voting for a bill) while letting something expire means no action. I see that as different.

They're not as the end result is the same. Adding a new tax or letting a tax break expire is the same ... with the same result... taxes will be raised. Now how does that affect a nation which is embarking on it's 2nd year of a recession, with thousands of foreclosures each day, with unemployment still at 9.5%, and with costs of goods/services still increasing, with a soft banking system, a record national debt, more debt spending planned, insolvency of major welfare entitlements such as welfare, social security (insolvent), fannie/freddie (insolvent), medicare/medicaid (getting insolvent), continued funding of 2 wars, a new healthcare plan and cap/trade (cap/tax) on the way.

The end result will be people will be spending more on taxes that were waived before - therefore they will have LESS money, and will be giving MORE to Uncle Sam. The rest is semantics. A good thing to do given our national economic situation? I don't think it is a good thing, I think it stinks.

However to your larger point, I disagree that removing unnecessary income from those who don't need it reduces any sort of real freedom.

It reduces financial freedoms, it reduces the amount of money spent (back into the economy) it reduces the capabilities of business which buy/re-sell or manufacture as the income is not generated. When these people fire their meger amount of employees and go on extended unemployement while filing bankruptcy because they lost their businesses... I find it hard to realize Nancy Pelosi's words that 2 years of unemployment benefits will increase jobs. It's like saying, spitting out your car window will create an ocean... :shrug:

I disagree. Regulation is necessary for an economy to function better, without it, I believe we would return to conditions similar to the 1930s.

We're already in conditions similar to the 1930's.

 

[Ockham]

The point you're still missing is that this is the Bush admin's tax cuts expiring. If the GOP had wanted them permanent, they should have made them permanent. I suggest you take it up with them, they're the ones "raising" your taxes.

Such logic is cracked... because they didn't make them permenant the Republicans who passed the tax cuts are actually raising taxes. :lamo

 

[Slartibartfast]

They're not as the end result is the same. Adding a new tax or letting a tax break expire is the same ... with the same result... taxes will be raised. Now how does that affect a nation which is embarking on it's 2nd year of a recession, with thousands of foreclosures each day, with unemployment still at 9.5%, and with costs of goods/services still increasing, with a soft banking system, a record national debt, more debt spending planned, insolvency of major welfare entitlements such as welfare, social security (insolvent), fannie/freddie (insolvent), medicare/medicaid (getting insolvent), continued funding of 2 wars, a new healthcare plan and cap/trade (cap/tax) on the way.

]The end result will be people will be spending more on taxes that were waived before - therefore they will have LESS money, and will be giving MORE to Uncle Sam. The rest is semantics. A good thing to do given our national economic situation? I don't think it is a good thing, I think it stinks.

The end result might be the same but because the action required is different than it cannot be accurately called someone raising you taxes. Raising is an action verb and in this case there is no action causing this, but inaction. So lets call it what it actually is, expiring tax cuts.

The effect depends on what the money is used for. If it is given to the poor or people on unemployment, than that money will go back to the economy at a higher multiplier and the net results will be good.

It reduces financial freedoms, it reduces the amount of money spent (back into the economy) it reduces the capabilities of business which buy/re-sell or manufacture as the income is not generated. When these people fire their meger amount of employees and go on extended unemployement while filing bankruptcy because they lost their businesses... I find it hard to realize Nancy Pelosi's words that 2 years of unemployment benefits will increase jobs. It's like saying, spitting out your car window will create an ocean... :shrug:

Again, it depends on what the money is used for.

We're already in conditions similar to the 1930's.

Because often time, people left to their own devices will do stupid things, like the banks. We do need some controls because people are often their own enemy.

 

[Ockham]

The end result might be the same but because the action required is different than it cannot be accurately called someone raising you taxes. Raising is an action verb and in this case there is no action causing this, but inaction. So lets call it what it actually is, expiring tax cuts.

Well, in this case it's inaction --- accurately it's called "allowing taxes to be raised by the expiration of tax deferrment". This in effect will raise (action verb) taxes. There is action by the default expiration and by doing nothing, something happens. Doing nothing is still something...the Democrats are choosing to do nothing which causes an action. In any case, the result is th same and we're quibbling over semantics. The reality is, taxes are going to go up and not just in one area - as the article in the OP identified.

The effect depends on what the money is used for. If it is given to the poor or people on unemployment, than that money will go back to the economy at a higher multiplier and the net results will be good.

Let's use recent history (say the last 20 years) as a barometer for how extra tax money will be put to use. Given the last 20 years of history- do you believe the extra tax revenue's created will be given back to the poor or unemployed? If so, how much (in a %) do you think? Where do you believe the rest will go?

Again, it depends on what the money is used for.

Taxing some to increase the income of others is wealth distribution. Not a worthy endeavor.

Because often time, people left to their own devices will do stupid things, like the banks. We do need some controls because people are often their own enemy.

Some controls are needed - I agree. When does "some" become "cumbersome" and when does "cumbersome" become "oppressive"? All very subjective terminology - what you think is acceptable I may see as oppressive. Instead of subjectivity, we need concrete quantitative measures. We'll hash out what is and is not acceptable politically and sociologically as well as economically... which is why nothing usually gets done or if something does happen to be passed - it's removed some years later and replaced.

 

[Deuce]

Such logic is cracked... because they didn't make them permenant the Republicans who passed the tax cuts are actually raising taxes. :lamo

Did you happen to notice the quotes around "raising?" I guess you didn't understand what I meant there.

 

[Ockham]

Did you happen to notice the quotes around "raising?" I guess you didn't understand what I meant there.

Maybe I'm extra dense today but I still don't get it... yes "raising" meaning "expiration of tax cuts"... I'm trying to figure out how you claim it's Republican's fault here. Did zero Democrats vote for the tax cuts?

Congress Passes Tax Cut, With Rebates This Summer - NYTimes.com

Democrats voted in favor and helped pass the 2001 tax cuts. So I'm not sure how you can, and perhaps you're being silly and I just don't know it, with a straight face make a comment like that. It seems... obtuse, but maybe you were being funny. :shrug:

 

[Deuce]

Maybe I'm extra dense today but I still don't get it... yes "raising" meaning "expiration of tax cuts"... I'm trying to figure out how you claim it's Republican's fault here. Did zero Democrats vote for the tax cuts?

Congress Passes Tax Cut, With Rebates This Summer - NYTimes.com

Democrats voted in favor and helped pass the 2001 tax cuts. So I'm not sure how you can, and perhaps you're being silly and I just don't know it, with a straight face make a comment like that. It seems... obtuse, but maybe you were being funny. :shrug:

The point is that taxes aren't being "raised." Cuts are expiring because they were temporary. Talk to the people who passed those cuts.

Also, cutting taxes when you're already running a deficit could also be described as "borrowing more money." These cuts added $1.7 trillion to our debt, plus whatever interest we end up paying to the Chinese. It's projected they'll cost a total of $4 trillion if we extend them another decade. Sound good to you?

 

[Ockham]

The point is that taxes aren't being "raised." Cuts are expiring because they were temporary. Talk to the people who passed those cuts.

I should talk to the people who won't extend the cuts. Doesn't the current majority have the power to extend the tax cuts? If they are not being extended, they must not want to do that. I can't talk to those who made it temporary because any cuts have to be temporary. Politically a permenant tax cut like that would never have passed so that's an irrelevant position to take.

Also, cutting taxes when you're already running a deficit could also be described as "borrowing more money." These cuts added $1.7 trillion to our debt, plus whatever interest we end up paying to the Chinese. It's projected they'll cost a total of $4 trillion if we extend them another decade. Sound good to you?

So you saying that these tax increases will go soley to paying down the debt? Somehow I doubt any of that money will be paying down debt.

 

[teamosil]

So you saying that these tax increases will go soley to paying down the debt? Somehow I doubt any of that money will be paying down debt.

It won't go to paying down the debt, it will go to reducing the deficit, and hence slowing the increase of the debt. The deficit is just expenditures minus revenues, so any increase in revenues decreases the deficit. We'd need to raise the capital gains tax up to match the income tax bracket if we wanted to pay down the debt.

 

[Deuce]

I should talk to the people who won't extend the cuts. Doesn't the current majority have the power to extend the tax cuts? If they are not being extended, they must not want to do that. I can't talk to those who made it temporary because any cuts have to be temporary. Politically a permenant tax cut like that would never have passed so that's an irrelevant position to take.

So you saying that these tax increases will go soley to paying down the debt? Somehow I doubt any of that money will be paying down debt.

Spending - Revenue = Effect on Deficit.
Options for solving our debt issue:
1) Raise revenue
2) Lower spending
3) Both

 

[samsmart]

Spending - Revenue = Effect on Deficit.
Options for solving our debt issue:
1) Raise revenue
2) Lower spending
3) Both

I think both is what we need, but any politician who votes for that won't get elected again.

 

[jujuman13]

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this “Hope & Change” great or what?

Forgot to add, there is no Minimum value below which this tax would not apply.
Simply put if you own real estate and sell you will pay a 3.8% tax on your sale price.

 

[Thorgasm]

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this “Hope & Change” great or what?

Forgot to add, there is no Minimum value below which this tax would not apply.
Simply put if you own real estate and sell you will pay a 3.8% tax on your sale price.

Set your asking price higher to cover this then.

 

[Redress]

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this “Hope & Change” great or what?

Forgot to add, there is no Minimum value below which this tax would not apply.
Simply put if you own real estate and sell you will pay a 3.8% tax on your sale price.

Hey look, a simple tax system like conservatives have been crying for!

 

[cpwill]

I think that we could put the tax rate at pre-Reagan rate of 70% and clear up some of this debt/deficit whatever it is and not miss a beat. :rock

yeah..... how's that working for the states?

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates...

Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

 

[Deuce]

Hey look, a simple tax system like conservatives have been crying for!

They'll support a 31% sales tax on everything but 3.8% on homes? BLASPHEMY!

 

[TurtleDude]

yeah..... how's that working for the states?

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates...

Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

the parasites and the puke who pander to them politically seemed to forget that golden geese have wings and fly away when they tire of being plucked over by the greedy politicians

 

[TurtleDude]

That's just semantics. I make no assumption about what belongs to who or whatever. I'm a pragmatist. I typically just look at the tangible impacts something has in the world.

It's not about who the wealth belongs to. Everybody has to pay taxes. Why tax people more heavily for working than you tax people for investing? We have created this artificial exemption for investors so they don't have to pay taxes as high as other people do. There isn't a real justification for it. Those are just the people with the most power, so they get what they want.



All of us. Those tax breaks cost us something like a trillion dollars a year to offer. We have to borrow the money to cover that. Whether you see it on your bank statement or not, you had to take out $30,000 in loans during the Bush administration to cover the cost of all those tax breaks. They just hid it from you by doing it as national debt instead of a personal loan, but it's pretty much the same thing in the end.



Actually, no, but close. Capital would not be forced out. You are taxed based on where you live, not where your money is invested. So, the same investors would still invest here. However, you could argue that the investors would move away. I guess that is probably sort of true to an extent, but most countries already charge higher capital gains taxes than we do and nothing like a mass exodus happened in those countries.

And, really, it wouldn't make such a big impact on the people who make their income by investing really. Not enough that somebody would want to move. The difference between $10 million and $8 million isn't really something that would effect your quality of life, so I doubt people would move just over that.

They don't cost anyone anything. You assume that all money belongs to the government to spew this nonsense

Tell me why one person should pay more taxes than another given the former does not receive any de jure additional benefits from the government.

We can talk about fairness but one concept of fairness is paying for what you use

that certainly is more fair than saying you should pay more since you earn more which often is despite the government

Two kids go to the same public school. One busts his butt and makes top grades and wins a full scholarship to MIT. The other guy spends his time screwing smoking, drinking and cutting classes and barely graduates and ends up in a McDonald's cleaning the toilets.

Now tell me why the first kid should owe the government more than the second kid

because he can pay more is not an argument based on concepts of fairness--he was given absolutely nothing more than the slacker.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, sometimes when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much they give each other a... special kind of hug... and then 9 months later they have a family

Are you seriously arguing that low skilled workers should not have children? A voluntary eugenics program based on income? Seriously?

skilled workers are on minimum wage? WTF are you smoking.

 

[teamosil]

skilled workers are on minimum wage? WTF are you smoking.

I said "low skilled workers"

 

[TurtleDude]

The point you're still missing is that this is the Bush admin's tax cuts expiring. If the GOP had wanted them permanent, they should have made them permanent. I suggest you take it up with them, they're the ones "raising" your taxes.

The GOP will push to extend them

what do you think the dems will do

preventing a vote on that is the same as supporting a tax hike

voting against extension is s upporting a tax hike

play word games all you want-it is the dems who are the fans of buying the votes of losers with the wealth of productive and industrious people

 

[teamosil]

Tell me why one person should pay more taxes than another given the former does not receive any de jure additional benefits from the government.

Well, I don't think you're considering the full extent of the benefits a person gets from society. Had Bill Gates been born in Somalia instead of Seattle, instead of being the world's richest man, he would have died in abject poverty 20 years ago. Why is that? It is because that the US offers enormous benefits. We have a massive supply of highly educated employees, we have a massive and wealthy base of consumers, we have a patent department and trade organization that protect intellectual property, we have law enforcement and a military that protect it all, etc, etc. If I were born in Somalia instead of here, I would be something like $130k a year worse off than I am now. If Bill Gates had been born in Somalia he would be $50 billion worse off than he is today. I just benefitted from my own education because it helped me get a job, Gates benefitted from having a pool of tens of millions of educated people that he could pick and choose 100,000 of to be his employees. If the cops stopped protecting property, I'd be out like $100k. Gates would be out $50 billion. If the patent office and trade departments just stopped working at all, I would lose pretty much nothing, Gates would lose billions. If the US economy and education system and police protection and whatnot all fell apart, he would lose 100 million customers, I would lose a job. Etc. The benefit he got from all those things is hundreds of thousands of times larger than I did. Now, admittedly, Gates put in a lot more innovation and hard work than I have. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve what he has. He does. But, he is also drawing radically more benefit from society, so it just makes sense that he'd be asked to chip more in to keep it going. It's like re-investing a portion of your profits in keeping the foundation of your business strong. Really, in making something like a Microsoft, the hard part is creating a society full of people that can work there and buy the products and protecting the economic system in which it operates and whatnot. Having to chip a bit back in to keep all that running is not just fair, it's also good business. It's a self interest calculation. If people that manage to make the most out of the opportunities here don't reinvest in keeping those opportunities alive and well, then the whole house comes crashing down.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, I don't think you're considering the full extent of the benefits a person gets from society. Had Bill Gates been born in Somalia instead of Seattle, instead of being the world's richest man, he would have died in abject poverty 20 years ago. Why is that? It is because that the US offers enormous benefits. We have a massive supply of highly educated employees, we have a massive and wealthy base of consumers, we have a patent department and trade organization that protect intellectual property, we have law enforcement and a military that protect it all, etc, etc. If I were born in Somalia instead of here, I would be something like $130k a year worse off than I am now. If Bill Gates had been born in Somalia he would be $50 billion worse off than he is today. I just benefitted from my own education because it helped me get a job, Gates benefitted from having a pool of tens of millions of educated people that he could pick and choose 100,000 of to be his employees. If the cops stopped protecting property, I'd be out like $100k. Gates would be out $50 billion. If the patent office and trade departments just stopped working at all, I would lose pretty much nothing, Gates would lose billions. If the US economy and education system and police protection and whatnot all fell apart, he would lose 100 million customers, I would lose a job. Etc. The benefit he got from all those things is hundreds of thousands of times larger than I did. Now, admittedly, Gates put in a lot more innovation and hard work than I have. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve what he has. He does. But, he is also drawing radically more benefit from society, so it just makes sense that he'd be asked to chip more in to keep it going. It's like re-investing a portion of your profits in keeping the foundation of your business strong. Really, in making something like a Microsoft, the hard part is creating a society full of people that can work there and buy the products and protecting the economic system in which it operates and whatnot. Having to chip a bit back in to keep all that running is not just fair, it's also good business. It's a self interest calculation. If people that manage to make the most out of the opportunities here don't reinvest in keeping those opportunities alive and well, then the whole house comes crashing down.

complete BS. Gates is wealthy because he engages in activity that other people find useful and are willing to pay him for

as I noted in a different thread, I can go out and rent a stadium and sell tickets. I doubt more than two people would pay me to listen to me sing, play tennis, peform with a guitar etc.

Now if Jimmy Page were to do the same thing, thousands upon thousands of people would pay lots of money to see him play guitar.

He is being given NOTHING by those people--he is engaging in a trade-if Ten thousand people believe it is worth 100 dollars per person to hear Jimmy Page play stairway to heaven and he does so he has given a million dollars in value to those ten thousand. The government gives him no more than it gives me

I also note the school example. SOmeone who works hard and wins scholarships after graduating first in a public HS was given nothing above that which was given to a slacker

Is Rafal Nadal given more by the ATP tour than say Don Young (a journeyman player at best)

 

[TurtleDude]

I said "low skilled workers"

minimum wage is for Unskilled workers-its something you do to gain skills so you don't have to work for miminum wage. ie most of us did that when we were 16-17 years old.

but if you are a low skilled worker should you be having children you cannot pay for?

 

[apdst]

...you're aware that these are the Bush administration's tax cuts expiring, right?
(this belongs in the partisan forum)

Bush's tax cuts were temporary. They're expiring. Saying this is the Obama administration "raising taxes" is incredibly disingenuous. Those tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to our debt, because they're funded entirely by borrowing money.

Also, you guys have been (incorrectly) calling Cap and Trade the "largest tax increase in history." Which is it?

Obama said that taxes wouldn't go up. Call it what you want, but this qualifies as, "taxes going up".