If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Jersey 101.5)   Now that I know exactly what the "fiscal cliff" will cost me personally, I'm suddenly much more interested   (nj1015.com) divider line 170
    More: Interesting, estate taxes, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

12749 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:17 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 11:48:55 AM  

Carousel Beast: JackieRabbit: Snort: Congress cannot not spend money. There is no reward for not spending money.

For the last 30 years, they have been unteathered from the reality of not spending more than you take in.

They put in all these limits and cliffs in an attempt to discipline themselves and then move them when they get there.

And Ryan is just as bad. He pretends to do something that, in reality, is doing nothing.

Too many people listen to the talking heads and don't stop to think about reality. While the government must be responsible in its spending, it simply must spend. Government spending drives every economy. Capitalist would have us believe that they do, but in reality, they are just chasing money put into the economy by governments. If the US Government were to stop spending tomorrow, our economy would collapse within a month.

This is a terrifyingly ignorant post. I genuinely hope you're trolling and are not that ignorant.


You have no idea what drives the real estate prices in the greater DC area. Government contractors are the $600 hammer of the last 20 years. They are supposed to be cheaper than real government employees without that nasty union. Except they cost more.

You hear the cries every time they threaten to cancel some useless military tech. Its the same with the department of Ed. People work for them. They give money as grants. When those go, people get laid off. Do it big enough, and then we are talking real damage to the economy.
 
2012-11-13 11:50:26 AM  

Amos Quito: Prevailing Wind: My point is, even still, I don't mind the increase. Its not crippling. It's payment for services rendered. What part of that don't you get? You cannot fight three wars and think that its not going to cost you. Wake up and pay the potato ok?


So, do you think that these were "just wars", or that they benefited the People of the US at all?


Not that its actually related, but ...meh. I am really uncertain as to the actual quantified benefit of any of our recent desert incursions. I'm not saying there wasn't any, I am saying I cannot quantify them enough to say we received benefit.

What I am certain of is that we spent a shiat ton of money that we borrowed from China on them and now we need to pay up. It doesn't matter they were "good" wars or a "bad" wars. They were expensive wars.
 
2012-11-13 11:50:44 AM  
Dear Liberals: I'm sorry, but we have to cut spending to get our deficit in check. This means that, yes, some of the tax-funded things we enjoy will need to go away for a while.

Dear Conservatives: I'm sorry, but we have to raise revenue to get out deficit in check. This means that, yes, many Americans will have to pay more taxes for a while.

My idea (that congress will never even consider): make all elected positions receive the federal minimum wage. Also, make them receive the same healthcare that they are giving Americans in the Affordable Healthcare Act, instead of getting their own special better-then-you-or-I-will-ever-experience healthcare. I guarantee that would make them actually read the entire bill first, and actually consider the value of what they are voting on.
 
2012-11-13 11:51:16 AM  

Thunderpipes: What is really funny, is people think Clinton's tax rates somehow made the economy boom. I mean, ya, just raise taxes, and all our problems go away.....


Poster before me is the classic idiot, who thinks Clinton raised taxed and that spurred growth. Imagine if something like the Internet and computers came to boom during the Clintion years instead of just tax increases.

Liberals are stupid, always have been, always will be.


Not a stupid as people who only see labels.

Here's your sign.
 
2012-11-13 11:51:21 AM  

mekkab: Prevailing Wind: Wake up and pay the potato ok?

I have never heard that turn-of-phrase before!


Its an unfortunate way of calling someone deficient in cognitive ability.
 
2012-11-13 11:51:29 AM  

ghare: Close ALL the loopholes.


Without loopholes, Congress would not be able to reward their campaign contributors.
 
2012-11-13 11:52:36 AM  

Enthusiast34: Raise retirement to 70, Medicare to 68. Exempt if you're over 55. People live longer. Suck it up.
That solves a lot of spending problems.


In other words, the plebes must sacrifice so the wealthiest can be even wealthier.
 
2012-11-13 11:53:13 AM  

ringersol: sprd: "Why only half a trillion?"

Because the rest of the deficit is caused by war spending, the recession and projected health care costs pre-PPACA . War spending is set to wind down in 2014 anyway as we leave Afghanistan, PPACA is already cutting cost growth, and as we continue to grow the economy added revenue wipes out the rest. Why would we jeopardize the recovery by cutting government spending to solve a non-existent problem? Particularly right after Europe has demonstrated the effects of cutting public spending in depressed economies are, in fact, still depressive?


There will be war in the middle east until their oil starts getting harder to harvest. When the recession ends and the magic Obamacare savings start happening then we can reinstate some of the spending. The longer this is put off the worse it is going to get.

Let the tax cuts expire, Cut the government 32% across the board. Pass a balanced budget amendment.
 
2012-11-13 11:53:37 AM  

smitty04: ghare: Close ALL the loopholes.

Without loopholes, Congress would not be able to reward their campaign contributors.


Oh, I dunno, seems like a lot of donors this time around DIDN'T get what they paid for. The problem might not be as big as we thought.
 
2012-11-13 11:54:29 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: Amos Quito: What is a "sane" rate?

The same rate it was when the American economy had its greatest expansion ever, back in the late 1990s. Before some chimp came along and started a two-front war AND cut taxes at the same time, plunging us into an abyss of debt.

Problem?



Ah yes - I remember! Bush-Baby and Gore were debating in '99 over how the government was going to spend the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SURPLUS CASH that were definitely going to be pouring into the government coffers over the coming decade thanks to the dot.com revolution bubble.

I remember laughing. 

Then I remember that "rescue" came in the form of the Real Estate boom bubble, but then I wasn't laughing, but sad at how farking gullible Americans are.
 
2012-11-13 11:54:49 AM  

sprd: ringersol: sprd: "Why only half a trillion?"

Because the rest of the deficit is caused by war spending, the recession and projected health care costs pre-PPACA . War spending is set to wind down in 2014 anyway as we leave Afghanistan, PPACA is already cutting cost growth, and as we continue to grow the economy added revenue wipes out the rest. Why would we jeopardize the recovery by cutting government spending to solve a non-existent problem? Particularly right after Europe has demonstrated the effects of cutting public spending in depressed economies are, in fact, still depressive?

There will be war in the middle east until their oil starts getting harder to harvest. When the recession ends and the magic Obamacare savings start happening then we can reinstate some of the spending. The longer this is put off the worse it is going to get.

Let the tax cuts expire, Cut the government 32% across the board. Pass a balanced budget amendment.


Simple solutions for simple minds. Listen, fitting your answer into 250 characters doesn't mean your answer makes any sense, at all, to anyone with a clue.
 
2012-11-13 11:55:51 AM  
It's weird when I look at income breakdowns like that.

According to this report, I feel like I should be driving a mercedes. I don't even own a car.

I think my family is in the top 7% or so. But in NYC we are very plainly middle class. I know it sounds crude but you forget how much the rest of America has (or doesn't have) until you see breakdowns like these.

I kinda also feel like my income in say, Alabama is totally different than my income in NYC, and we should be taxed as such. $15k is a lot in an area where an 800sf non-luxury 2bd apartment costs $400k in a very middle of the road neighborhood. $15k isn't alot when you spent $400k on a 5,000sf luxury home in the best neighborhood in the state.

Besides NY state gives more in federal income than it recieves. Places like Alabama get more federal income than they give out.

But you know that won't change. Anyway so long as the increase in taxes goes to things like education and infrastructure, I won't complain much.
 
2012-11-13 11:55:57 AM  
So here is what I get out of this thread.

MOST folks are willing to pay higher tax rates
MOST folks also understand that government spending must also be reduced.
MANY of us think that some of those cuts should come from our military.
MOST folks want to remove loopholes and dramatically simplify the tax code.

Interesting.
 
2012-11-13 11:57:11 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: DingleberryMoose: PunGent: fireclown: I suppose it is now time to throw out my challenge. Any meaningful cuts will have to be significant, and painful. Instead of complaints and snark (our stock in trade, I know), what would we suggest as solutions? I'll start:

- Reduce defense spending by 3% across the board.
- Move the social security tax cap from 100K to 250K
- Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire
- Decrease the payback rate of SS by 2% for individuals with net worth of over 5M

Solid start.

Legalize and tax marijuana, and we're golden.

Eliminate all federal funds spent for education. That should be a state issue, not a federal one.

Pell grants?



There probably should be some kind of downward pressure on education, but I don't think this is the place for that particular fight.
 
2012-11-13 11:57:49 AM  

HAMMERTOE: The 47% have no problem with it, I suppose.


you're a farking idiot

people who don't pay income tax still pay payroll tax, sales tax, property tax (either directly, or as part of their rent), gas tax, vehicle tax, taxes on data services, so on and so forth

and they pay a higher percentage of their income on payroll taxes than i do. my income is kissing the limit on social security taxes. if the tax cuts for under 250k expire my wife and i will pay around 4-5k more combined. obviously that will, on a personal level, suck - that is $330 to $420 per month less than i can spend on awesome ness.
 
2012-11-13 12:01:17 PM  

ghare: Enthusiast34: Raise retirement to 70, Medicare to 68. Exempt if you're over 55. People live longer. Suck it up.
That solves a lot of spending problems.

In other words, the plebes must sacrifice so the wealthiest can be even wealthier.


I actually think we do need to increase retirement age. That actually would help quite a bit.

Then again, I am ok with completely forgoing my SS benefits. I sure as hell don't plan on counting on them for my retirement. Damn boomers.
 
2012-11-13 12:04:52 PM  

fireclown: I suppose it is now time to throw out my challenge. Any meaningful cuts will have to be significant, and painful. Instead of complaints and snark (our stock in trade, I know), what would we suggest as solutions? I'll start:

- Reduce defense spending by 3% across the board.
- Move the social security tax cap from 100K to 250K
- Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire
- Decrease the payback rate of SS by 2% for individuals with net worth of over 5M


I would also suggest that we could taper the expiration of Bush tax cuts over a specified time table.

So, for example, we would immediately kill the cuts for incomes in the top 1-2%. Over the next four years, we would let the remaining expire with those earning the very least to maintain theirs the longest.

I also think we should create a new tax cut for small and large business that trigger when businesses expand their staff and meaningfully increase staff wages. This would only apply to domestic facilities and the staff compensation would totally exclude upper management.
 
2012-11-13 12:06:19 PM  

Kazan: and they pay a higher percentage of their income on payroll taxes than i do. my income is kissing the limit on social security taxes. if the tax cuts for under 250k expire my wife and i will pay around 4-5k more combined. obviously that will, on a personal level, suck - that is $330 to $420 per month less than i can spend on awesome ness.


That would put one automotive worker out of a job.
 
2012-11-13 12:06:57 PM  

Prevailing Wind: Amos Quito: Prevailing Wind: My point is, even still, I don't mind the increase. Its not crippling. It's payment for services rendered. What part of that don't you get? You cannot fight three wars and think that its not going to cost you. Wake up and pay the potato ok?


So, do you think that these were "just wars", or that they benefited the People of the US at all?

Not that its actually related, but ...meh. I am really uncertain as to the actual quantified benefit of any of our recent desert incursions. I'm not saying there wasn't any, I am saying I cannot quantify them enough to say we received benefit.

What I am certain of is that we spent a shiat ton of money that we borrowed from China the Federal Reserve on them and now we need to pay up. It doesn't matter they were "good" wars or a "bad" wars. They were expensive wars.



upload.wikimedia.org

FTFY.

China?

LOL!
 
2012-11-13 12:11:36 PM  
Okay Farkers, here comes the economics:

No person pays taxes if he can pass along the costs, so if you tax the producer, he increases his prices and you have to pay.

That means everything you buy is more expensive, and unless you have a way to increase your own income, you are up shirt creek. Klar?

You cannot overrule the laws of economics any more than you can declare gravity to be a hoax and jump off a tall building without expectation of disaster.
 
2012-11-13 12:13:58 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: That's a big 4.6% FARK YOU and everybody who supports this. I had to file bankruptcy last year (bullshiat reasons stemming from an ex-wife's debt). I don't have an extra 4.6% income anywhere.


You're a whiny little biatch, ain't you? If you're that bad off you can probably weasel out an exception or two.
 
2012-11-13 12:15:22 PM  

olddinosaur: That means everything you buy is more expensive, and unless you have a way to increase your own income, you are up shirt creek.


Liberals are never able to understand that, that assume "Wall Street" will make less money.
 
2012-11-13 12:17:11 PM  

Amos Quito: Prevailing Wind: My point is, even still, I don't mind the increase. Its not crippling. It's payment for services rendered. What part of that don't you get? You cannot fight three wars and think that its not going to cost you. Wake up and pay the potato ok?


So, do you think that these were "just wars", or that they benefited the People of the US at all?


Doesn't matter. They still need to be paid for.
 
2012-11-13 12:21:54 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Znuh: Do it. The Bush tax-cut programs have been proven not to work. I'm very OK with going back to Clinton-era tax rates. The Repubs are again blowing their own weird brand of unreality:

The tax rate under Nixon was 70% for the highest bracket; you did not come under 39% until you made less than $28,000 as a couple or $14,000 individually. Here's some history:

Eisenhower 91%
Kennedy 91%
Johnson 70%
Nixon 70%
Ford 70%
Carter 70%
Reagan 28%
Bush, G.H.W. 31%
Clinton 39.6%
Bush, G.W. 35%

A whopping 4.6% raise. Fark the House for its fear and doom.

/do_it.jpg

That's a big 4.6% FARK YOU and everybody who supports this. I had to file bankruptcy last year (bullshiat reasons stemming from an ex-wife's debt). I don't have an extra 4.6% income anywhere. So to satisfy your own sense of whatever the hell you call your justification of theft I'm going from merely broke to poor. So fark you and my kids who will have to go without would give you a trio of fark you if I'd let them cuss.


fark your kids and the idiots who think I am supposed to care what happens to them. We all have problems, champ. You want to hear about mine???
 
2012-11-13 12:22:41 PM  
Will they take a check?
 
2012-11-13 12:25:32 PM  

Amos Quito: Prevailing Wind: Amos Quito: Prevailing Wind: My point is, even still, I don't mind the increase. Its not crippling. It's payment for services rendered. What part of that don't you get? You cannot fight three wars and think that its not going to cost you. Wake up and pay the potato ok?


So, do you think that these were "just wars", or that they benefited the People of the US at all?

Not that its actually related, but ...meh. I am really uncertain as to the actual quantified benefit of any of our recent desert incursions. I'm not saying there wasn't any, I am saying I cannot quantify them enough to say we received benefit.

What I am certain of is that we spent a shiat ton of money that we borrowed from China the Federal Reserve on them and now we need to pay up. It doesn't matter they were "good" wars or a "bad" wars. They were expensive wars.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 735x409]

FTFY.

China?

LOL!


A few things.

1) Our reserve allocation doesn't negate Chinese investment.
2)Your numbers...they are out of date. I would be very curious to see how those numbers trend since 2008.
3) They also indicate a steady decline in Reserve holdings and an equally steady increase in Foreign Investment which...kinda supports my claim rather than your assertion that its incorrect.

Anyway, I would be very curious what the percentage of change is since 2008 actually. If you want to do more digging, that might be enlightening. I'm going to speculate that foreign investment has increased at a greater rate than Fed buyback just because of the paucity of alternatives for state buyers.
 
2012-11-13 12:27:18 PM  

ghare: sprd: ringersol: sprd: "Why only half a trillion?"

Because the rest of the deficit is caused by war spending, the recession and projected health care costs pre-PPACA . War spending is set to wind down in 2014 anyway as we leave Afghanistan, PPACA is already cutting cost growth, and as we continue to grow the economy added revenue wipes out the rest. Why would we jeopardize the recovery by cutting government spending to solve a non-existent problem? Particularly right after Europe has demonstrated the effects of cutting public spending in depressed economies are, in fact, still depressive?

There will be war in the middle east until their oil starts getting harder to harvest. When the recession ends and the magic Obamacare savings start happening then we can reinstate some of the spending. The longer this is put off the worse it is going to get.

Let the tax cuts expire, Cut the government 32% across the board. Pass a balanced budget amendment.

Simple solutions for simple minds. Listen, fitting your answer into 250 characters doesn't mean your answer makes any sense, at all, to anyone with a clue.


Ad Hominem much?
 
2012-11-13 12:29:17 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Don't like the tax laws? Then vote people in that will change them.
While Romney may have payed around a 15% tax rate, it was not illegal.

Get over it. He lost.


Sure. Give me a candidate who will change the tax laws to a single flat-rate tax on *all* earnings, no matter the source, and I'll vote for them.

Sadly, they won't, because politicians by and large are rich, and like the status quo of rich people getting to fiddle the system in their favor.

/I just like reminding you that Mittens lost. Boo hoo.
 
2012-11-13 12:38:58 PM  

Amos Quito: Prevailing Wind: Amos Quito: Prevailing Wind: My point is, even still, I don't mind the increase. Its not crippling. It's payment for services rendered. What part of that don't you get? You cannot fight three wars and think that its not going to cost you. Wake up and pay the potato ok?


So, do you think that these were "just wars", or that they benefited the People of the US at all?

Not that its actually related, but ...meh. I am really uncertain as to the actual quantified benefit of any of our recent desert incursions. I'm not saying there wasn't any, I am saying I cannot quantify them enough to say we received benefit.

What I am certain of is that we spent a shiat ton of money that we borrowed from China the Federal Reserve on them and now we need to pay up. It doesn't matter they were "good" wars or a "bad" wars. They were expensive wars.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 735x409]

FTFY.

China?

LOL!


China has reduced it's holdings since your graph ends in 2008
 
2012-11-13 01:16:45 PM  
sprd: "There will be war in the middle east until their oil starts getting harder to harvest ... Pass a balanced budget amendment."

1. Ongoing war in the middle east has been already built into our military budgets long before 2001. It's wholly distinct from the costs of deployment, basing and perpetual destruction and (re)construction of the various countries we've occupied since then. Even if we leave the special forces, CIA and drone support in the region there is a difference of *several hundred billion dollars* between our presence in Afghanistan/Iraq and our protecting regional interests.

2. A balanced budget amendment is a horrible, horrible idea. For precisely the reasons illustrated by this recession. What part of "cutting public spending has depressive effects on a depressed economy" do you not understand? Forced austerity in the pursuit of a closing the deficit won't work any better here than it has in Spain and Greece. You'll send the country into an unnecessary tailspin in the name of closing a budget hole that, in our case, no-one who buys US debt even cares about. (At least in Spain and Greece, investors are *actually* concerned. By contrast, the US is borrowing at historically low rates.)

The right way to do things is to maintain (or *gasp* increase!) public spending when the private economy is depressed. (e.g. Build bridges when construction capacity is idle anyway). And then when the economy recovers you pull back that public spending and use budget surpluses to pay down the difference. It's essentially economic war spending. You don't try to anticipate and save for wars - because they're impossible to predict in scope and the moral hazard is staggering. And you don't close down half the government to pay for them, because then you'll be ill-equipped to handle the problem at hand and create more problems at home. Instead, you borrow to finance them as they happen and then use taxes (ideally special purpose taxes with goals and end-dates) to pay off the borrowing. Dealing with economic shocks should be no different.
 
2012-11-13 01:21:14 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay Farkers, here comes the economics:

No person pays taxes if he can pass along the costs, so if you tax the producer, he increases his prices and you have to pay.

That means everything you buy is more expensive, and unless you have a way to increase your own income, you are up shirt creek. Klar?

You cannot overrule the laws of economics any more than you can declare gravity to be a hoax and jump off a tall building without expectation of disaster.


Simple as that! Why can't everyone see that the whole thing can be resolved by a fool with a 4th grade education???
 
2012-11-13 01:23:57 PM  

smitty04: olddinosaur: That means everything you buy is more expensive, and unless you have a way to increase your own income, you are up shirt creek.

Liberals are never able to understand that, that assume "Wall Street" will make less money.


Stupid Libruls! Why aren't they smart like you? It hurts my poor little brain to ponder these difficult questions...
 
2012-11-13 01:37:02 PM  

spentmiles: From my perspective, we need to let the fiscal cliff play out. Then again, I do bio-hazard clean up after suicides, so I might be biased.


seriously? I just watched Sunshine Cleaning recently LOL
 
2012-11-13 01:38:09 PM  

MindStalker: This will save us more money than closing a million planned parenthood's.


There's a million Planned Parenthoods? Holy Shiat! That's like the number of bars in Milwaukee!!

/This sucks
 
2012-11-13 01:40:55 PM  
wwwimage.cbsnews.com
Hey Barack, we need to talk about the "fiscal cliff".

harlemcondolife.files.wordpress.com
Will these "talks" be like the extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?

blogs-images.forbes.com
I hope not, but more than likely yes.

scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com
Ok, hold on a minute...


(Nov 22, 2012)
blogs-images.forbes.com
Uhh, Barack, we need to talk.

scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com
I know, but I'm on the phone...

(Dec 31, 2012)
talkingpointsmemo.com
BARACK RICH PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES!!!!

(Jan 1, 2013)
5.mshcdn.com
I know.

assets.rollingstone.com

/Don't mind paying my taxes, regardless of how much they are.
 
2012-11-13 01:56:51 PM  
So if liberals keep saying they don't mind paying taxes, why does a gigantic portion of their base not pay any, and vote to keep it that way?

Shouldn't you want your constituents to pay taxes? Oh, by keeping them reliant on government, you have a guaranteed voter base? Nice.

Going to get worse and worse as time goes on. Think about this, in 2050 or so, white devils will be in the minority. You will run unopposed and can spend as much as you want with no thought to the future. Kudos!
 
2012-11-13 02:07:05 PM  
Upper-middle 20% ($64,485 - $108,266) 3,540
Highest 20% ($108,267 and above) 14,173

"Boss, we need to talk about my salary. I'd like to negotiate a pay cut."
 
2012-11-13 02:09:34 PM  

ISubmittedThisYesterdayWithAMuchFunnierHeadline:
Upper-middle 20% ($64,485 - $108,266) 3,540
Highest 20% ($108,267 and above) 14,173

"Boss, we need to talk about my salary. I'd like to negotiate a pay cut."


I'm curious if those figures are per household, or individual.
The article did not specify.
 
2012-11-13 02:14:21 PM  

meat0918: I'd love if they said If you fall in this tax bracket this is how you'll be affected instead of saying "The average increase in your taxes is $3,500+, but the majority of people will pay much less than that."

It's bullshiat designed to do one thing, make Joe Schmo think his tax bill is gonna go up that full $3,500.


yeah but on the other end of the equation someone like Larry Ellison is going to be paying over $100K in additional taxes when he thought he was just going to pay only an additional $3500.

would you rather make Joe Schmoe upset or someone like Larry Ellison?
 
2012-11-13 02:37:42 PM  
ISubmittedThisYesterdayWIthAMuchFunnierHeadline: ""Boss, we need to talk about my salary. I'd like to negotiate a pay cut.""

[TaxBracketsDoNotWorkThatWay.jpg]

/Morbo
 
2012-11-13 02:42:11 PM  

smitty04: Kazan: and they pay a higher percentage of their income on payroll taxes than i do. my income is kissing the limit on social security taxes. if the tax cuts for under 250k expire my wife and i will pay around 4-5k more combined. obviously that will, on a personal level, suck - that is $330 to $420 per month less than i can spend on awesome ness.

That would put one automotive worker out of a job.


wha?
 
2012-11-13 02:54:16 PM  

Matthew Keene: This country is in the tank, and everyone knows it!


I'm willing to write that check, if it means actually dealing with the back-and-forth budgetary bullshiat that's been going on since Dubya decided to give the rich a gift on the way out.
 
2012-11-13 02:57:43 PM  
olddinosaur: "No person pays taxes if he can pass along the costs, so if you tax the producer, he increases his prices and you have to pay."

"if he can pass along the costs" being the key bit.
Because almost no-one can.
In general: commodities, yes; everything else, no.
 
2012-11-13 03:22:47 PM  

FormlessOne: Matthew Keene: This country is in the tank, and everyone knows it!

I'm willing to write that check, if it means actually dealing with the back-and-forth budgetary bullshiat that's been going on since Dubya decided to give the rich a gift on the way out.


And Obama had the both houses in the first 2 years of his presidency.
He could have rolled back those tax cuts then.

So what happened?
 
2012-11-13 03:44:08 PM  

ringersol: olddinosaur: "No person pays taxes if he can pass along the costs, so if you tax the producer, he increases his prices and you have to pay."

"if he can pass along the costs" being the key bit.
Because almost no-one can.
In general: commodities, yes; everything else, no.


Airlines have a hard time passing along their increased costs in fuel due to intense competition so they cut services, when you pay for that extra bag, you are paying costs that the airlines chose to pass on to the customer.
 
2012-11-13 03:44:44 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: FormlessOne: Matthew Keene: This country is in the tank, and everyone knows it!

I'm willing to write that check, if it means actually dealing with the back-and-forth budgetary bullshiat that's been going on since Dubya decided to give the rich a gift on the way out.

And Obama had the both houses in the first 2 years of his presidency.
He could have rolled back those tax cuts then.

So what happened?


I'll bite, but rather than reiterate the obvious, I'll let Wikipedia explain it. I think this is my favorite quote:

The issue came to a head in late 2010, during a lame-duck session of the 111th Congress.

At the "Slurpee Summit" of November 30, President Barack Obama appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew to help Republicans and Democrats hammer out an agreement on extending the Bush tax cuts. All 42 Republican Senators pledged to block all legislation in the lame-duck session until the tax matter was settled.


See, "control" is a lovely word, there, but it's not just inaccurate, but disingenous. For years, the Republicans have stymied, stopped, and stonewalled progress to push an ideology that simply didn't work. The implication of your question is that, somehow, Obama didn't do his job - he did, or at least attempted to, and was greeted with rank partisan rancor in response. The Republicans closed ranks and defended the rich.

The fun part is that we're, once again, in similar straits - a lame-duck session of the 112th Congress, with the same damned issue on the table. The story's changed a bit, though. The American people have figured out that the Republicans held this country's domestic economy hostage to protect people with deep pockets and shallow ethics, and so responded in kind during the election. There's a reason Boehner is making conciliatory noises (sure, he's posturing a bit, too, but the sound isn't anything like what happened during the "Slurpee Summit" nonsense.)
 
2012-11-13 03:47:14 PM  
I don't mind paying taxes as long as they're not going to an 8th generation welfare recipient.
 
2012-11-13 03:52:36 PM  
Actually, I think Obama said it best when, during 2010, he agreed to a two-year extension with the understanding that the Bush tax cuts would end at that time:

"I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession. ... So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. ... As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for jobs. It's the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it's the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize."

It's time for them to end, and I'm quite happy to run off the so-called "fiscal cliff" to do so. Our government, for the last three-plus terms, has pushed onerous legislation by using "sunset provisions" or "expiration dates" to make it more palatable - only to then turn around and either extend such legislation or make it permanent. In that respect, I'm still not happy with Obama's continued acceptance of such activity, but compromise is sometimes needed to ensure progress.

I just wish Obama would let the USA PATRIOT Act ride off into the sunset. It was onerous when enacted, it remains onerous upon extension, and it's harmful to the ideals of this country.
 
2012-11-13 04:40:57 PM  

fireclown: PunGent: fireclown: I suppose it is now time to throw out my challenge. Any meaningful cuts will have to be significant, and painful. Instead of complaints and snark (our stock in trade, I know), what would we suggest as solutions? I'll start:

- Reduce defense spending by 3% across the board.
- Move the social security tax cap from 100K to 250K
- Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire
- Decrease the payback rate of SS by 2% for individuals with net worth of over 5M

Solid start.

Legalize and tax marijuana, and we're golden.


I'm not sure how to estimate how much a marijuana tax would bring in, but per the RJR site, federal excise taxes for cigarettes were 15B in 2010 and 2012. I'm going to estimate a quarter of that for weed, for 3.75B.


Even if the tax doesn't bring in a dime, I'd be happy just to axe the enforcement costs.
 
2012-11-13 04:49:48 PM  

PunGent: fireclown: PunGent: fireclown: I suppose it is now time to throw out my challenge. Any meaningful cuts will have to be significant, and painful. Instead of complaints and snark (our stock in trade, I know), what would we suggest as solutions? I'll start:

- Reduce defense spending by 3% across the board.
- Move the social security tax cap from 100K to 250K
- Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire
- Decrease the payback rate of SS by 2% for individuals with net worth of over 5M

Solid start.

Legalize and tax marijuana, and we're golden.


I'm not sure how to estimate how much a marijuana tax would bring in, but per the RJR site, federal excise taxes for cigarettes were 15B in 2010 and 2012. I'm going to estimate a quarter of that for weed, for 3.75B.

Even if the tax doesn't bring in a dime, I'd be happy just to axe the enforcement costs.


If it was legalized and taxed, there would still be enforcement costs.
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report