PREDICTION:

*Someone will show up in the first five posts and scream "SOCIALISM" as if they were accusing someone of witchcraft.
*The thread will immediately die a flaming, shrieking banshee death.

I'll go with what even his own aides will admit... that taxes in general will increase from Obama's policies. They won't increase in the form of payroll or income tax however. Overall increase/decrease will depend on how much of a "tax credit" is given to the 95%. Those at the upper end of that 95% will more than likely see a tax increase.

Depends on what your definition of 'change' is.

Liberal Fascism!!!

Gosling: PREDICTION:

*Someone will show up in the first five posts and scream "SOCIALISM" as if they were accusing someone of witchcraft.
*The thread will immediately die a flaming, shrieking banshee death.

Hope I've ruined 2 of those 5 posts for you by not screaming socialism.

sloppy shoes: Liberal Fascism!!!

Eh, close enough.

Not surprising. The American tax code is the most complicated, convoluted, labyrinthine piece of legislation on the face of this planet. The amount of deductions, adjustments and loopholes is mind-boggling.

I'm convinced that it was written by lobbyists paid by tax advisers who wanted to make sure that there will never be a shortage of work for them.

FTFA:
"Yes, all Americans would pay more under the president's policies. His own aides concede that."

Move along, nothing to see here.

NYZooMan: Depends on what your definition of 'change' is.

MyRandomName 2009-03-05 03:13:56 PM
I'll go with what even his own aides will admit... that taxes in general will increase from Obama's policies. They won't increase in the form of payroll or income tax however. Overall increase/decrease will depend on how much of a "tax credit" is given to the 95%. Those at the upper end of that 95% will more than likely see a tax increase.


You keep telling yerself that, kid.

You can either accept higher taxes now, or accept them later. But Obama, just like his predecessor, is raising your taxes as we speak.

After 100 years of income taxes, you would think people would learn from the "The "Rich" will be the ones who get taxed" canard.

Is there anyone left in America that does not think their taxes are going to be increased?

How is that a problem here, where most people are so far below average in every respect that they are lucky not to drown in their own spit guards ?

Cat Food Sandwiches: Is there anyone left in America that does not think their taxes are going to be increased?

Well most peoples taxes will not be increased.

"Obama's top budget and economic advisers say those costs will get passed along to consumers. A tax? Indirectly, yes. Felt by most Americans? Yes, again."

Er. No? If it's a tax, it's a tax. If it's something that polluting industries can get away with not paying by... oh I don't know, not polluting, then it's not a tax.

Socialism!
They are using witchcraft too!

Gosling: PREDICTION:

*Someone will show up in the first five posts and scream "SOCIALISM" as if they were accusing someone of witchcraft.
*The thread will immediately die a flaming, shrieking banshee death.


BURN HER!

/I got better....

Let's call a spade a spade.

They're BUSH's tax increases, built into a bill HIS TEAM (staffers, not R's, though they were largely one and the same), set to expire on HIS SCHEDULE in 2011. It's as though Bush knew the sunset would be painted as "zOMG TaACKS INCREES!! SToP STEELIN' MAH MUNNEEZ, GUB'MINT", and that he'd be long gone when that happened. But we all knew this.

It's bullcrap that we're gonna have to foot the bill for what should have been done, effortlessly and painlessly, 30 goddamn years ago. Thanks, Ronnie, for telling us not to bother with alternative energy plans (like a solar panel on the WH roof. That would have been an EXCELLENT symbol to Americans).

So now we all have to suffer for the sins of our fathers (apologies if you were alive when Reagan took office). Bully.

Arguments that the mere expectation of direct or indirect taxes or fees is damaging in a recession are based on a 19th century economic theory that taxpayers will anticipate higher taxes when a government operates at a deficit and will hoard, not spend, their money. The theory, called the Ricardian equivalent, is central to the Republicans' claims.

This can't be reconciled with the Iraq war nor with a population that simply does not pay attention.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Is there anyone left in America that does not think their taxes are going to be increased?

Me.

And it depends on your definition of what a "tax" is.

Bad_Seed: Not surprising. The American tax code is the most complicated, convoluted, labyrinthine piece of legislation on the face of this planet. The amount of deductions, adjustments and loopholes is mind-boggling.

I'm convinced that it was written by lobbyists paid by tax advisers who wanted to make sure that there will never be a shortage of work for them.

Is that why half of Obama's cabinet paid nothing for years? Its not like they over or underpaid. They just didn't pay.

Whether I personally am concerned with my taxes potentially going up depends principally on how the taxes get used. For example, I can't pay to have a dilapidated street resurfaced, but the city can.

chu2dogg: MyRandomName 2009-03-05 03:13:56 PM
I'll go with what even his own aides will admit... that taxes in general will increase from Obama's policies. They won't increase in the form of payroll or income tax however. Overall increase/decrease will depend on how much of a "tax credit" is given to the 95%. Those at the upper end of that 95% will more than likely see a tax increase.


You keep telling yerself that, kid.

You can either accept higher taxes now, or accept them later. But Obama, just like his predecessor, is raising your taxes as we speak.

After 100 years of income taxes, you would think people would learn from the "The "Rich" will be the ones who get taxed" canard.

the problem is that for almost 30 years, there has been a specific repudiation of that canard by nearly all politicians, with an accompanying chorus of outrage from the rich and misinformed non-rich alike whenever it is raised.

Dr Dreidel: Let's call a spade a spade.

They're BUSH's tax increases, built into a bill HIS TEAM (staffers, not R's, though they were largely one and the same), set to expire on HIS SCHEDULE in 2011. It's as though Bush knew the sunset would be painted as "zOMG TaACKS INCREES!! SToP STEELIN' MAH MUNNEEZ, GUB'MINT", and that he'd be long gone when that happened. But we all knew this.

It's bullcrap that we're gonna have to foot the bill for what should have been done, effortlessly and painlessly, 30 goddamn years ago. Thanks, Ronnie, for telling us not to bother with alternative energy plans (like a solar panel on the WH roof. That would have been an EXCELLENT symbol to Americans).

So now we all have to suffer for the sins of our fathers (apologies if you were alive when Reagan took office). Bully.

Funny, i seem to remember a long debate lasting at least 4 years between Republicans and Democrats about making those tax cuts permanent. Guess who took which side?

Gosling: PREDICTION:

*Someone will show up in the first five posts and scream "SOCIALISM" as if they were accusing someone of witchcraft.
*The thread will immediately die a flaming, shrieking banshee death.

Ok, it took more than 5 posts, but please explain how increasing the tax burden on the highest income earners is not wealth distribution, which is one of the basic tenets of socialism.

I know there's no sympathy for the wealthy, but not everyone in that higher income bracket is an asshat CEO who is screwing people out of money. Most are small business owners that employ many of the people you know. Maybe, just maybe a few of them would reinvest that income into expanding their business, providing more jobs.

You take away a person's incentive to succeed when you redistribute their wealth to those lacking the drive to do the same.

To put it another way, you all think it's great to provide entitlement programs to the poor as long as it's not YOUR money.

Hypocrites.

NYZooMan: Depends on what your definition of 'change' is.

"Change" is what's happening when one isn't debating with Rush Limbaugh.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Is there anyone left in America that does not think their taxes are going to be increased?

I'm pretty darned sure mine aren't (at least on the federal level).

Of course, my wife I live, largely voluntarily, at the low end of the payscale. I did the math... between everything I could easily see (federal, state, property, payroll, sales, utility fees, fuel taxes, etc), we pay under 20% of our income to taxes (a little over 20% if you count employer contributions to SSI/Medicare/UI). I think I get my money's worth.

For those who say, "but what if everyone was a slack-ass like you"?, I say, feel free to give it a try.

Anti_illuminati: And it depends on your definition of what a "tax" is.

Most people understand what a "Tax" is, except if you're a republican.

They also don't understand what an increase is. They are calling the tax that people were always expecting to pay an "increase".

They want it both ways. Not to count in their budgets are "temporary" but call it an "increase" when it is temporary.

If they expect it to be permeation why did they never budget it that way?


And why do they count it as "spending" for Obama when he makes some of those "non-temporary temporary" tax cuts permanent?

Because they are talking out of both sides of their butt.

Carbon tax? Pffft.

Hardly anything in the universe is made of carbon.

We can totally do without it.

I believe taxes should and need to go up. How else to you think we're going to pay for the last 25 years of ill-fated national "maintenance", healthcare and education? Do what our parents did and put it on the backs of our children? Sure, we can be as selfish and naive as them... why the hell not.

Or we can suck it up, come to the table like grown-ups and fix it.

And if you say tax cuts, god help you...

Obama is ANNOUNCING tax hikes and that's bad enough

That article raised taxes 25 times.

Your facts are all well and good but I think we're ignoring the bigger issue here. And that is, according to this chart, the fact that the US is going to get bukkaked by a giant smurf, who apparently thinks the east coast has a real purty mouth. This is real, people. We're through the looking glass....



So...yeah.

/DRTFA

vernonFL: Carbon tax? Pffft.

Hardly anything in the universe is made of carbon.

We can totally do without it.

I LOL'd!

purple helmet: Ok, it took more than 5 posts, but please explain how increasing the tax burden on the highest income earners is not wealth distribution, which is one of the basic tenets of socialism.

Fine put the tax levels to what they were with Reagan

Doctor Funkenstein: Your facts are all well and good but I think we're ignoring the bigger issue here. And that is, according to this chart, the fact that the US is going to get bukkaked by a giant smurf, who apparently thinks the east coast has a real purty mouth. This is real, people. We're through the looking glass....



So...yeah.

/DRTFA

Thread over. The internets have been conquered.

purple helmet: Ok, it took more than 5 posts, but please explain how increasing the tax burden on the highest income earners is not wealth distribution, which is one of the basic tenets of socialism.

By this standard we have been socialist since the early 20th century era and only barely stopped being socialist for a few years under Bush.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Is there anyone left in America that does not think their taxes are going to be increased?

Those with zero income?

Doctor Funkenstein: Your facts are all well and good but I think we're ignoring the bigger issue here. And that is, according to this chart, the fact that the US is going to get bukkaked by a giant smurf, who apparently thinks the east coast has a real purty mouth. This is real, people. We're through the looking glass....



So...yeah.

/DRTFA

Smurf yeah, she totally smurfed it on the smurf. shiat, is that her on the phone? Don't smurfing tell her I'm here. I kind of gave her smurfpes.

Edsel: purple helmet: Ok, it took more than 5 posts, but please explain how increasing the tax burden on the highest income earners is not wealth distribution, which is one of the basic tenets of socialism.

By this standard we have been socialist since the early 20th century era and only barely stopped being socialist for a few years under Bush.

I like when these people pine away for "the good old days".

Anti_illuminati: Cat Food Sandwiches: Is there anyone left in America that does not think their taxes are going to be increased?

Me.

And it depends on your definition of what a "tax" is.

Maybe not this year.

Oh my god!!! Socialism!!

*rolls eyes*

I'm sorry, I just can't take some people seriously anymore...

Podna: purple helmet: Ok, it took more than 5 posts, but please explain how increasing the tax burden on the highest income earners is not wealth distribution, which is one of the basic tenets of socialism.

Fine put the tax levels to what they were with Reagan

All of them? I'm down with that.

Doctor Funkenstein: Your facts are all well and good but I think we're ignoring the bigger issue here. And that is, according to this chart, the fact that the US is going to get bukkaked by a giant smurf, who apparently thinks the east coast has a real purty mouth. This is real, people. We're through the looking glass....

Whew...I think my part of Rhode Island is just outside of Smurf Semen Alley

chu2dogg: Dr Dreidel: Let's call a spade a spade.

They're BUSH's tax increases, built into a bill HIS TEAM (staffers, not R's, though they were largely one and the same), set to expire on HIS SCHEDULE in 2011. It's as though Bush knew the sunset would be painted as "zOMG TaACKS INCREES!! SToP STEELIN' MAH MUNNEEZ, GUB'MINT", and that he'd be long gone when that happened. But we all knew this.

Funny, i seem to remember a long debate lasting at least 4 years between Republicans and Democrats about making those tax cuts permanent. Guess who took which side?

The Heritage Foundation (new window) wanted to make the Bush cuts permanent. Surprise, surprise, so did Brookings (new window). And here's Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman (new window) arguing against McCain's proposal to make the cuts permanent. Think Progress (new window) argues against permanence, too. NCPA* (new window) also wants the tax cuts to be made permanent.

If you're keeping score, that's 3 conservative organization arguing in favor of keeping the cuts, 2 liberal/progressives arguing against. That's from 15 minutes of teh googles.

* From wiki: The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is [a...] conservative think tank. NCPA states that its goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

Bah. Krugman didn't link. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1

Dr Dreidel: Let's call a spade a spade.
They're BUSH's tax increases, built into a bill HIS TEAM (staffers, not R's, though they were largely one and the same), set to expire on HIS SCHEDULE in 2011. It's as though Bush knew the sunset would be painted as "zOMG TaACKS INCREES!! SToP STEELIN' MAH MUNNEEZ, GUB'MINT", and that he'd be long gone when that happened. But we all knew this.


As stated in the article - it is the new energy and industry taxes that hit the middle and lower class. These are new taxes and tariffs from the Obama administration, completely separate from the expiration of the Bush tax break for the highest bracket.

/not sure why I'm bothering to respond to someone who says "ZOMG GUB'MINT", etc

Cat Food Sandwiches: Is there anyone left in America that does not think their taxes are going to be increased?

Americans think lots of stuff.

Since that was one of the most horribly written articles I've ever read, lets break it down a little.

- Everyone is getting a stimulus check
- The bottom tax brackets are getting a tax cut
- The top tax brackets will pay more in taxes when the Bush tax cuts expire in two years
- Carbon pricing will make energy more expensive for utilities who don't adjust and the consumers they serve
- More than half of the revenue from the carbon pricing will be returned to consumers in tax cuts (under current proposals, but this may change as the bill is drafted)

Was that so freaking hard? It's like that article was written in a way to get people angry.

purple helmet: Gosling: PREDICTION:

*Someone will show up in the first five posts and scream "SOCIALISM" as if they were accusing someone of witchcraft.
*The thread will immediately die a flaming, shrieking banshee death.

Ok, it took more than 5 posts, but please explain how increasing the tax burden on the highest income earners is not wealth distribution, which is one of the basic tenets of socialism.

I know there's no sympathy for the wealthy, but not everyone in that higher income bracket is an asshat CEO who is screwing people out of money. Most are small business owners that employ many of the people you know. Maybe, just maybe a few of them would reinvest that income into expanding their business, providing more jobs.

You take away a person's incentive to succeed when you redistribute their wealth to those lacking the drive to do the same.

To put it another way, you all think it's great to provide entitlement programs to the poor as long as it's not YOUR money.

Hypocrites.

A lot of standard wharrgarbl in there, but I can summarize the tax thing pretty well:

There is nothing inherently "socialist" about a progressive income tax structure, nor is there anything within said structure that would constitute "wealth redistribution." It is the system in which we have engaged since 1913 and the very creation of the income tax. In fact, through Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, the income tax has been fundamentally progressive, and for all of that time, the curve was much sharper than it is now.

It is not a question of "should we," it is a question of "how much." Obama's proposal, even though it raises taxes in the top bracket, doesn't put them anywhere near the top marginal rates when Reagan was in office, to say nothing of the extremely high (70-90%) rates from the 1940's through the 1970's.

What I'm trying to say is, this isn't new, and through your rhetoric you're calling Ronald Wilson Reagan a socialist.

purple helmet: please explain how increasing the tax burden on the highest income earners is not wealth distribution, which is one of the basic tenets of socialism.

Please explain how a marginal tax rate system of any kind is not "wealth distribution" by your own metric.

Bloody William:

Smurf yeah, she totally smurfed it on the smurf. shiat, is that her on the phone? Don't smurfing tell her I'm here. I kind of gave her smurfpes.

Smurfpes... That's my new favorite word of the day.

Thank you, kind Sir.