|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 8, 2012 0:28:56 GMT -6
Ann Coulter shocked Sean Hannity on Wednesday when she conceded that she thinks Republicans should let tax rates for the rich go up.
House Republicans are currently battling President Obama over whether or not to hike taxes on the top 2 percent of earners in the negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff."
After Coulter started to say that Republicans should concede on taxes on the very rich, Hannity wondered why the House didn't just pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.
"OK fine, let's do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone's taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it," she said. "It doesn't mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans."
"So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?" Hannity asked.
"Not exactly, I--" Coulter said, before stopping herself and saying, "Well, yeah, I guess I am."
"You're saying capitulate to Obama?" Hannity stammered. "We don't have a revenue problem, Ann."
"We lost the election, Sean!" Coulter replied.
Other right-wing pundits, such as Bill Kristol, have echoed Coulter's argument. Kristol famously said that it wouldn't "kill the country" if taxes on millionaires went up.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 8, 2012 6:34:07 GMT -6
Not hard to beleive at all. The top 2% won't fee it much, as long as it isn't compunded upon in the near future. What MOST don't relise is this is nothing a but a FEEL GOOD issue, as if anyone thinks we are going to get close to paying down our debt with this increase on the top 2% then those people are living in a fantasy world.
Most ALL americans taxes will have to rise in order to pay down the debt. That or alot more revenue generated by the working class to pay more into federal coffers.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 8, 2012 12:15:16 GMT -6
Feel good or not it is a good move to get all of us into the reality of what it will take to lower debt, balance budgets etc. an additional 2-4%from the very few very wealthy is a whole more income tax than even 10% more from 20 fold more average income Americans. You can't get blood out of a turnip. The really huge issue is that those few who feed at the government trough with special credits, subsidies etc. consider their subsidies important, valuable and needed. Unfortunately they look at everyone else's government funds as entitlements, unnecessary and not needed. This is more of an arrogance issue than an economic issue in many ways. If tax incentives to the wealthy were such huge job creators then the changes made since Reagan should have us at a negative UE rate even with 10-20 million undocumented workers in the USA. Individuals stash cash for unseen issues and retirement. Corporations stash cash to control an economy and one that favors them.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 9, 2012 7:41:37 GMT -6
est 44 billion, or about 1/7th our total deficet- and thats just adjusting the tax rate
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 9, 2012 8:02:23 GMT -6
Bryce you have to have a better economy to have job growth, lowering taxes has worked in the past but in this economy No won't have much job growth I agree. The issue is then what will the govt do with this little added amount and yes if using tmans number of 44 billion which is small, will it used to pay down the debt or add more to spending? Or covering Obama care maybe?
It all depends on what the money is used for. Debt payment? Well that isn't going to cover it not close. A feel good procedure to show people they have stuck it to the rich, makes some feel better. The middle class has to wake up and relise to pay down what our debt is and will be many people are going to need to feel the pain come tax time each year for a period of years, now how will that help the economy? That is the bigger question.
Tman I think your math is off, our debt stated by the treasury dept stands at 16 trillion . 44 billion x's 7 doesn't get close to that number ! 44 billion x7 is 308 billion a far cry from 16 trillion dollars. How many years doing this would it taketo pay down 16 trillion if we held firm and added NO more debt?
Again nothing but a feel good measure is all this is.
Again it will take raising taxes on 80% of the people and cutting fed spending 10-12% in order to make real gain on our national debt. Most people would really need to tighten the belt and feel the pain for a period of years to get 16 trillion bought down, we shall see if that happens or not. People talk about paying down the debt until it effects them, then the catch all is well make the rich pay for it all so we don't feel it.
WE need spending under control all depts a 10% across the board cut and anyone making 35,000 and above raise their taxes, now the outcome won't be good for many bit the debt will get paid down.
Who agrees and is willing to do such?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 9, 2012 8:04:07 GMT -6
you are talking 2 different things TC- I was talking about the portion of the budget deficet
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 9, 2012 8:07:53 GMT -6
and add in closing loopholes, changing corporate taxes so they are forced to pay when based in the US, etc- its far more than a drop in the bucket. this includes SS cap raising as well.
but of course its not the end of the answer- but it is a beginning that is going to happen and WHY its going to happen is clear by what Ann said.
2 plans for the future were offered- 1 plan won, 1 plan did not
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 9, 2012 8:08:49 GMT -6
OH ok, but what about the national debt? How will we attack that with the top 2%?
Also if they don't control the budget with spending limits what good will this added 44 billion do? If they raise spending by 2-3% yearly how long will this tax increase be of value?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 9, 2012 8:10:37 GMT -6
I agree the people have spoken and I await 4 more years to see what is accomplished and what happenes then. The grid lock I'm afraid will continue on until we get closer to a new election cycle.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Dec 9, 2012 8:22:34 GMT -6
44 billion is 1/7th of 308 billion. Our annual deficit is over 1 Trillion.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 9, 2012 8:30:02 GMT -6
source of figures from irs/taxstats:
Those people paid about $500 billion in taxes, about 23% of their income ($2.1 trillion) Taking another 2% of that comes to another $44 billion.
That's not enough to close even the nominal national deficit ($270 billion this year), much less the dubious accounting of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds (whereby money that we take in this year is marked as income but the corresponding debt isn't marked in the budget).
Remember that income tax income is only about half of the total receipts, though. The next biggest category is Social Security, which takes in just less than $1 trillion, and which the top 2% pay essentially nothing (as a percentage of income) because there's a cap at $90,000.
The third largest category is corporate taxes, whose burden is hard to analyze but probably falls predominantly on the wealthiest since they tend to own the most stock.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Dec 9, 2012 8:32:42 GMT -6
That figure is just for this new fiscal year Steve, which began Oct 1
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 9, 2012 8:44:26 GMT -6
yes, I know- aren't we talking about balancing the current budget AND getting the long term deficet down?
we cannot do either, without increased revenues (and less spending, of course)
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 9, 2012 8:51:11 GMT -6
Less spending is KEY!!! Without it increased revenues will have little effect on the goal!
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Dec 9, 2012 8:53:02 GMT -6
Absolutely. At least we are.... I cant say the same about anyone in Washington! lol
My point is that the proposed increase in taxes on a few very wealthy is a insignificant drop in the ocean (maybe even less than that) to what is needed. We can not tax our way out of this mess, Spending must be addressed..starting with entitlements.
Unfortunately there seems to be little political will to do that.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 9, 2012 9:27:25 GMT -6
Easy to understand for most, don't spend what you don't have.
If I have a credit card and have trouble making the payment each month, thne why would I continue to keep charging on that card.
I could tell myself well I just received a .25 hr raise so therefore I can now add more debt to my card because of said raise. Who thinks that is a WISE decision? Exactly what has been and I'm afraid will take place in the future.
I would cut my psending an pay down my debt faster rather than longer, my lifestyle would change but in the end I'm more free from doing so. Short term pain for long term gain. Spending needs to drop all across the Fed govt that is the bottom line or our hole will get deeper and wider.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 9, 2012 10:01:18 GMT -6
guys- you CANNOT cut our way out of this exclusively- revenue increases are needed as well
this was all hashed out in the election process-
we have had to major and very expensive wars- wars unpaid for because they were pretty much first wars WITHOUT raising taxes to pay for them- we NEED revenue increases- and the proposed rates are STILL 2% under what they were last time we lowered deficit and balanced the budget
pretty much all economists agree
but again- this debate was what the election was about
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 9, 2012 16:02:11 GMT -6
We are addicted to subsidies to force us to change now. you can't sell a car anymore unless it is a rebate or 0% interest etc. When 10 million men left the military in 1945-46 we had money for training and no tax rates were lowered and we found ways to hire everyone of the men and women that wanted and needed work and the economy grew even with what are called today astronomical tax rates. The return from Nam was not much different as well. We found ways to employee a few million that were no longer needed in the military. It is in our recent history where we have come to believe or in fact demand a favor to even invest in our future. You may be correct about needing low tax rates to stimulate our economy but we will pay dearly long term in the lack of infrastructure repair and improvement. We need to remember that the developing nations don't need most of the infrastructure we will need to upgrade, change or re due. We will continue to put productive workers into uncompetitive factories etc. and wonder why things don't work and we ship our production else where. The other huge issue is our tax code has made income a very subjective source of revenue and thus we have huge variation in what is income, how it is taxed etc. etc. Wage earners have the least flexibility while those with other sources of income have more lobbyist working for them than there are politicians that make the decisions.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 9, 2012 19:50:57 GMT -6
More revenue is needed as well as cuts but you can't add more revenue without making cuts when you have a budget defict. The added revenue in question will never get close in this type of economy. If you raise revenue by 200 billion annually if you don't curtail spending or increased spending what good does the added revenue do? Nothing but add more entitlement.
Car loans used to be 2-3 years MAX Now 6 and even 7 year loans are given out and cost are much higher figure out a 40,000 vehicle on 6 years and 5.5% interest and see what that cost? The maker down the road offers 1.9% or even 0% guess where the majority of sales will go these days? That isn't a subsidie that is doing business in a tough market.
How many homes would be sold if the going interest rates where 8% or higher?
Sure home loans used to be 10-12% but the avg cost was not a 100,000 + either.
WE need both. CUT spending and add revenue and make both work. One or the other and where back to robbing peter to pay Paul =statis quo stuff.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 9, 2012 20:15:05 GMT -6
Low interest rates seem nice but they really indicate a very poor or low rate of earnings on money and that means that trillions need to be out there in wealth to get any income. The massive amounts of monies tied up in banks for collateral purposes to get the needed interest revenues make our economy less liquid. So does lower wages as wages are typically spent and with low returns on capital assets and most firms striving to lower wages instead of increasing wages we can not stimulate an economy. The government can and tried but many felt that borrowing money while in a hole is wrong. Tell that to the millions of Americans who have taken out loans and were technically insolvent before their net worth turn around. There is a way to fix the very complex issues we have but the discussion and action that needs to happen is probably too much reality for the US citizen today. I can qualify for a 2.7 % mortgage if I want to buy a different home. I am contemplating doing so as I have monies that are earning 3.86 in a fixed guaranteed account. It is crazy that we can get money that cheap to buy assets that produce no private sector income other than lawn mower blades. The only real income coming off a residential home here in WI is public monies though taxation. All of our local units of government pray for high RE values so they can keep their budgets up without raising the mill rates.
Bryce
|
|