Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, estate taxes, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

12796 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:17 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-13 10:20:15 AM  
This country is in the tank, and everyone knows it!
 
2012-11-13 10:20:34 AM  
What a "Physical" Cliff may look like..
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-13 10:21:14 AM  
Got nothing....
 
2012-11-13 10:21:33 AM  
No more than $505k. Got it.
 
2012-11-13 10:25:09 AM  
I'm okay with this.
 
2012-11-13 10:25:45 AM  

Let's get this out of the way right now since Republicans are going to the mat to block higher taxes on the wealthy:

Extending all expiring tax provisions other than the cut in the payroll tax and indexing the AMT for inflation- except for allowing the expiration of lower tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single taxpayers-would boost real GDP by about 1¼ percent by the end of 2013. That effect is nearly as large as the effect of making all of those changes in law and extending the lower tax rates on higher incomes as well (which CBO estimates to be a little less than 1½ percent)

Extending all of Bush's tax cuts = 1.5% growth in GDP
Extending rate cuts on income
 
2012-11-13 10:26:18 AM  
The 47% have no problem with it, I suppose.
 
2012-11-13 10:26:25 AM  
This will save us more money than closing a million planned parenthood's.
 
2012-11-13 10:27:20 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-13 10:28:14 AM  
Huh, some of my post disappeared:

Extending all of Bush's tax cuts = 1.5% growth in GDP
Extending rate cuts on income under $250K= 1.25% growth in GDP
 
2012-11-13 10:28:30 AM  

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


www.richgibson.com


No it isn't.
 
2012-11-13 10:29:23 AM  
FTFA: "Top 1% ($506,210 and above) 120,537

Unless, of course, you're fiddling it so that you're not actually paying the tax rate you're supposed to, or for that matter, any at all.

/I'm looking at you, Mittens
 
2012-11-13 10:30:15 AM  
Make your own tax cut.

Barter.

That is all.
 
2012-11-13 10:31:25 AM  
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
 
2012-11-13 10:31:32 AM  

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


I suppose you are too dumb to realize that the fiscal cliff DOES impact the working poor which pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes than I do.
 
2012-11-13 10:31:37 AM  
Who is this 'Fiscal Cliff' and why does he have so much control of my taxes? Can't we just find him and kick his a$$ or something?
 
2012-11-13 10:32:05 AM  
Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.
 
2012-11-13 10:32:23 AM  
Is Obama still going to lower the corporate tax rate?
 
2012-11-13 10:35:20 AM  
Upper Middle 20%er here. I'm ok with this. If I wanted to live in a third-world hell hole, I would expatriate. Since I don't, I'm willing to pay what we need to pay in order to keep this collective enterprise we call America on sound financial footing and still providing the protections, services, and opportunities that make this a pretty kick ass place to live.

The surreal degree of hypocrisy exhibited by you conservative aholes who constantly want something (a safe and decent country to live in) for nothing (no taxes) just boggles my farking mind.

Where's your farking bootstraps people?
 
2012-11-13 10:35:51 AM  

sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.


Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.
 
2012-11-13 10:36:20 AM  
Let it happen, Captain
 
2012-11-13 10:36:28 AM  
How did you find out exactly what it would cost you subby? I can see what it would cost the average person in my income quintile, but that's quite a bit different than exactly what it would cost me.
 
2012-11-13 10:36:37 AM  
So $110K is the top of "upper middle class"? I'd better go wake up the slaves so they can carry me and my solid-gold Lamborghini to the country club.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:13 AM  
I love the way that they bias the top quintile (108k and up). Having gone through my records in no way did I "gain" 14k of cashflow from the bush tax cuts being implemented. I remember being unimpressed with how much extra money I got in my paycheck each month - about $250 if I am doing my simple math correctly. Let's just say I felt about the same impact from the change in FICA the last two years. What whould have been much more useful is a "range" statement showing how it varies over each quintile. But then I'm interested in understanding, while TFA is interested in generating rage clicks.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:45 AM  

madgonad: I suppose you are too dumb to realize that the fiscal cliff DOES impact the working poor which pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes than I do.


The amount that the "working poor" pay is totally negated by the Earned Income Credit, which only the "working poor" are typically able to take advantage of.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:49 AM  
Higher taxes on income below $250,000=$279,000,000,000
Higher taxes on income above $250,000=$52,000,000,000

Tax on the middle class really adds up.
 
2012-11-13 10:37:59 AM  

Prevailing Wind: Upper Middle 20%er here. I'm ok with this. If I wanted to live in a third-world hell hole, I would expatriate. Since I don't, I'm willing to pay what we need to pay in order to keep this collective enterprise we call America on sound financial footing and still providing the protections, services, and opportunities that make this a pretty kick ass place to live.

The surreal degree of hypocrisy exhibited by you conservative aholes who constantly want something (a safe and decent country to live in) for nothing (no taxes) just boggles my farking mind.

Where's your farking bootstraps people?


Successful people already pay almost all the taxes. What you want, is no more successful people. Nothing but envy and dumbassery. How stupid is it of you to imply conservatives don't want to pay any taxes? We just don't want to pay crippling taxes so you and yours get free stuff and sit around.
 
2012-11-13 10:38:37 AM  

sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.


I'm not. Trim the spending. Government will spend more than it taxes in through taxation either way, so limit taxation and limit the amount of bullshiat money spent by the government.
 
2012-11-13 10:38:43 AM  
I also don't think Americans want unemployment to go down.

No, seriously, the country is just fine with unemployment this high. We could drop unemployment to 2-3% if we all collectively decided to actually buy shiat made in this country.
 
2012-11-13 10:39:35 AM  

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



I say we impose a 100% tax on everyone and everything, and then create a caring, compassionate government bureaucracy that will fairly distribute to each according to his need.

It's the only reasonable solution.
 
2012-11-13 10:40:23 AM  

sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.


If the fedgov confiscated every penny made over $250K, by everyone making over $250K, it runs the govt for about 93 days. The problem is spending (bleeding) not taxes (big enough bandaid).
 
2012-11-13 10:40:50 AM  

Thunderpipes: sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.

Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.


You mean 'borrow growth', which is perhaps the dumbest idea ever. Currently, about 7% of our GDP is borrowed, which means if we balanced the budget our GDP would shrink by AT LEAST that much.
 
2012-11-13 10:40:51 AM  
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
 
2012-11-13 10:41:46 AM  

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Top 1% ($506,210 and above) 120,537

Unless, of course, you're fiddling it so that you're not actually paying the tax rate you're supposed to, or for that matter, any at all.

/I'm looking at you, Mittens



Tax laws are written by politicians.

Politicians are wholly owned by rich farks.

Who do you suppose tax laws would favor?
 
2012-11-13 10:43:10 AM  
I'm more concerned about the cuts in Pentagon spending. I mean, we're only spending the GDP of Switzerland every year on defense. If we reduce our spending to the level of the entire GDP of Saudi Arabia or Sweden, then the terrorists have won.
 
2012-11-13 10:43:36 AM  

madgonad: Thunderpipes: sycraft: Ya I'm ok with this. While paying higher taxes isn't fun, it is needed. We need to increase the amount we pay. In fact, as in indicated by the temporary nature, we paid this amount not too long ago. I'm fine with my taxes going up.

Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.

You mean 'borrow growth', which is perhaps the dumbest idea ever. Currently, about 7% of our GDP is borrowed, which means if we balanced the budget our GDP would shrink by AT LEAST that much.



The good news is that most of that is "borrowed" from the Federal Reserve", which means we're just procrastinating hyperinflation.
 
2012-11-13 10:43:38 AM  

Thunderpipes: Take all the bush tax custs away, we are still not even close to tackling the debt, and all we do is stall growth.


So you're saying America was never prosperous until George W. Bush came along?

Or are you saying if we can't fix a problem 100% let's not do anything?

I guess you could just be saying "I'm a whiny partisan hack."
 
2012-11-13 10:43:52 AM  

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Top 1% ($506,210 and above) 120,537

Unless, of course, you're fiddling it so that you're not actually paying the tax rate you're supposed to, or for that matter, any at all.

/I'm looking at you, Mittens


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.
 
2012-11-13 10:44:08 AM  
Middle 20%.

Let's do this.
 
2012-11-13 10:44:13 AM  

TheStag: Who is this 'Fiscal Cliff' and why does he have so much control of my taxes? Can't we just find him and kick his a$$ or something?


img826.imageshack.us

Well, you see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it's the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
 
2012-11-13 10:45:50 AM  

Nightsweat: I'm more concerned about the cuts in Pentagon spending. I mean, we're only spending the GDP of Switzerland every year on defense



The Swiss must be pissed!
 
2012-11-13 10:46:25 AM  
toyotachinook.files.wordpress.com

OH NO!

... But really,
img115.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-13 10:46:36 AM  

Amos Quito: I say we impose a 100% tax on everyone and everything, and then create a caring, compassionate government bureaucracy that will fairly distribute to each according to his need.

It's the only reasonable solution.


Soon you have no one working. What would be the point. Forced labor camps would be the only solution, it worked in the USSR.
 
2012-11-13 10:49:10 AM  
Bullshiat. Here we go with a new media hype-blitz. There's no way my tax is going up $14,173 next year.

This is all just political theater, folks. They're gonna strike a back-room deal, the nasty details of which we will not know until it is too late.
 
2012-11-13 10:49:56 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 10:50:00 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-13 10:52:55 AM  
Some people knew about that before that article made FARK.

Some people knew all of that a long time ago.
 
2012-11-13 10:55:18 AM  

JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. Here we go with a new media hype-blitz. There's no way my tax is going up $14,173 next year.

This is all just political theater, folks. They're gonna strike a back-room deal, the nasty details of which we will not know until it is too late.


The whole point of this information is that it is what happens if they don't strike a deal. They probably will make some kind of deal, but that has exactly zero effect on these numbers.
 
2012-11-13 10:57:35 AM  
Middle 20%, $38 a week. Not much of a cliff, more like an uneven step.
 
2012-11-13 10:57:52 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-13 10:59:09 AM  

smitty04: Amos Quito: I say we impose a 100% tax on everyone and everything, and then create a caring, compassionate government bureaucracy that will fairly distribute to each according to his need.

It's the only reasonable solution.

Soon you have no one working. What would be the point. Forced labor camps would be the only solution, it worked in the USSR.



Well, people need SOME incentive to work.
 
2012-11-13 10:59:20 AM  

Thunderpipes: Prevailing Wind: Upper Middle 20%er here. I'm ok with this. If I wanted to live in a third-world hell hole, I would expatriate. Since I don't, I'm willing to pay what we need to pay in order to keep this collective enterprise we call America on sound financial footing and still providing the protections, services, and opportunities that make this a pretty kick ass place to live.

The surreal degree of hypocrisy exhibited by you conservative aholes who constantly want something (a safe and decent country to live in) for nothing (no taxes) just boggles my farking mind.

Where's your farking bootstraps people?

Successful people already pay almost all the taxes. What you want, is no more successful people. Nothing but envy and dumbassery. How stupid is it of you to imply conservatives don't want to pay any taxes? We just don't want to pay crippling taxes so you and yours get free stuff and sit around.


Did you even READ the article? I just indicated that I am one of the ones who will be experiencing a very significant tax increase., As you apparently define them, I'm a "successful" person. I don't envy anyone...except that young blonde guy from Sons of Anarchy, chick's panties practically dissolve for that guy. Him I envy.

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?
 
2012-11-13 10:59:22 AM  

dennysgod: Middle 20%, $38 a week. Not much of a cliff, more like an uneven step.


$1.00 per hour, that ain't too bad.
 
2012-11-13 10:59:35 AM  
Not really ok with this but oh well its the way things are.
If I read it right it means about 3/4th of my tax return every year will not be coming back to me.
Does that mean they'll spend the money better.
I am hopeful but somehow I doubt it.
 
2012-11-13 10:59:50 AM  
Once it became clear that the games Congress plays to kick the can down the road aren't more than a band-aid on a seppuku wound, I realized that the only real change we can make (at this point) is moving doomsday. That said, if the country is going to "go down in flames", would I rather we spend the remaining days: 1. letting the ultra-well-compensated hoard Croesus levels of wealth while everything around them crumbles and dies or 2. giving food and aid to those in need. We seem to be very adept at 1.
 
2012-11-13 10:59:52 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 11:00:18 AM  
So if anyone tells you this "cliff" is anything more than a "speed bump" they're either lying, misinformed, or a Republican.
 
2012-11-13 11:00:21 AM  
I'm down with Clinton era taxes. I realize that the prospect of paying down the deficit and having an actual productive financially stable Amwrica terrifies the right wing trolls, but it's good, sound, conservative(actual conservative), economics.

I know, I know, you GOP assholes worked really hard in the last 40 years to crank up the deficit so you could jam austerity measures down our throats to forward your fascist, fundamentalist, militarist agenda.
 
2012-11-13 11:01:47 AM  

ausfahrk: So $110K is the top of "upper middle class"? I'd better go wake up the slaves so they can carry me and my solid-gold Lamborghini to the country club.


You got a Lambo WITH slaves? Must have been an option, mine only came with gold inlay and filigree.
 
2012-11-13 11:01:54 AM  
Time for your bath Grover. And thanks for getting us to this point.

i773.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-13 11:02:56 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 11:02:56 AM  

JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. Here we go with a new media hype-blitz. There's no way my tax is going up $14,173 next year.

This is all just political theater, folks. They're gonna strike a back-room deal, the nasty details of which we will not know until it is too late.


It's "and above". So people making $10M+ a year pay an extra $1.4M a year and people making $100K might pay three grand more.

It's pretty easy to know what you're going to pay. Look at what your taxes would have been under the Clinton Administration. That's what you'd pay.
 
2012-11-13 11:03:05 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 11:03:28 AM  
I've said this in a couple of other threads, and it fits here:

If you look at the Beame administration negotiating for assistance for NYC in the 70s, I think you're going to see a similar thread here.

Beame tried negotiating and his opponents found they could screw with him. He tried appeasing them, and knowing he could be messed with, NYC slid into stagnation.

When Ed Koch came along, he knew that this process had to be outright broken in order to escape its clutches - no negotiation, no settling for bad financial tactics. Everything came to a halt. Koch did this to end the city being held hostage.

Now, I don't have to tell you how ugly NYC was in the mid 70s and how everything fell into disrepair. The subways covered in graffiti, all infrastructure decaying; the West Side Highway could have been used in Fallout 3. However, Koch's tactic worked. It destroyed his opponents.

I predict that if the House does not come back with anything but the desire to work, we're going to see this tactic repeated. I can easily see Obama spending his political capital and ceasing any and all negotiations. He's got the support from the Country; all he has to do is point out to how obstructionist the House is being. The Republicans will wear the final red letter of being the bad guys, and while the country goes off the fiscal cliff, be painted firmly as those who have brought this about.

Once this cycle is broken, things will radically improve. NYC jumped back to life. I should know, I lived it.

We don't negotiate with Terrorists. Dangling our futures in front of us is our own fault; we put them in your hands erroneously thinking all the bluster and puff could help us. You've proved that wrong. We voted.

The hardest medicine to take is the one that causes pain while it works. The House has a choice, work with the Country, or face the election in 2014.

/Very OK with going back to Clinton-level taxes
//Your Uber-God Nixon had them up at 70%. Think about that. A Republican with them at 70.
 
2012-11-13 11:05:07 AM  
www.frugal-cafe.com

We are! This is so much fun!

3.bp.blogspot.com

America, 2016

dakiniland.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-13 11:05:15 AM  
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.

You do realize that's an increase for the Rich, and not the middle class, yes?
 
2012-11-13 11:05:52 AM  
richardbrenneman.files.wordpress.com

If only there was somewhere to cut spending to alleviate these tax increases.
 
2012-11-13 11:06:43 AM  
Fark filter dropped Smeggy Smurf's Italicized comments and handle.
 
2012-11-13 11:08:18 AM  

thurstonxhowell: JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. Here we go with a new media hype-blitz. There's no way my tax is going up $14,173 next year.

This is all just political theater, folks. They're gonna strike a back-room deal, the nasty details of which we will not know until it is too late.

The whole point of this information is that it is what happens if they don't strike a deal. They probably will make some kind of deal, but that has exactly zero effect on these numbers.


The media is hyping this for their own profits. They cherry-pick the numbers they want and then misrepresent them in order to sensationalize the issue. Were you to see the CBO's and OMB's projections on the effect of not rolling this idiot law back side-by-side, the numbers would be completely different due to political spins. And in both reports, some of the numbers would be pulled out of their asses with no justification.

Congress and the President are going to cut a deal. In the meantime, I'm ignoring the press' doom-and-gloom prognostications.
 
2012-11-13 11:09:09 AM  
Fark all of you who are so quick to raise taxes.

If you would focus some of your energy towards your elected officials and put the heat on them to reduce Government waste and duplication, beef up program oversight and God for bid, simplify the tax code, you would be awash in money for all your pet programs. That requires work, hard work nobody is willing to do, much easier to raise taxes and continue racing into the night.

As a conservative, I have no problem helping those who need help, I DO have problem when I see my money wasted and misused only to have program administrators come back and say we need more money.That goes for everything from the Military to headstart programs,
NO sacred cows, can't afford them anymore.
 
2012-11-13 11:09:26 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 11:10:42 AM  

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


What's that in Big Birds?
 
2012-11-13 11:11:22 AM  
The more I read about it, the more I like it.

We shouldn't be dictating peoples behavior through tax policy.
 
2012-11-13 11:11:32 AM  
Because increasing taxes back to a sane rate ls horrible. Perhaps if there had been 12 years to show your tactic not working...
 
2012-11-13 11:12:58 AM  

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?
 
2012-11-13 11:13:10 AM  
A total revenue increase of 617 billion dollars which is still less than the overspending of more than a trillion dollars. Just sayin'.
 
2012-11-13 11:13:48 AM  

Prevailing Wind: Wake up and pay the potato ok?


I have never heard that turn-of-phrase before!
 
2012-11-13 11:14:01 AM  

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?
 
2012-11-13 11:14:38 AM  

Znuh: Because increasing taxes back to a sane rate ls horrible. Perhaps if there had been 12 years to show your tactic not working...



What is a "sane" rate?

No matter how much the INSANE government takes, it will spend more, and in VERY unproductive ways.
 
2012-11-13 11:14:57 AM  
Well, for me, I estimate diving off the cliff would cost my family about $5,700. That's counting 3 things: payroll tax up by 2%, IT bracket up by 3% and reduction of child tax credit from $1,000 to $500 for my two kids.

I would prefer they kept the breaks in place for the people earning less than 250k per year - especially during a recession. I think those increases would really hurt the poor and middle class at a time when they are already struggling.

However, I would rather see them all expire than continue it for the rich. I am willing to sacrifice to begin the long hard road of paying down our debt. I don't want my children to inherit this huge bill. Besides, if I can tighten my belt, I somehow imagine the rich will survive.
 
2012-11-13 11:15:56 AM  
"Fiscal Cliff" is such a poor choice of words... unless you're a politician. We can thank Ben Bernanke for the sound bite.

It's just an expiration of temporary tax cuts and spending increases that were used to stimulate the economy in 2001-2003. Mental images of a deadly cliff simply don't apply.

Ermagahd - we'll be back to the rules we had in 2000.
 
2012-11-13 11:16:05 AM  

Amos Quito: Znuh: Because increasing taxes back to a sane rate ls horrible. Perhaps if there had been 12 years to show your tactic not working...


What is a "sane" rate?

No matter how much the INSANE government takes, it will spend more, and in VERY unproductive ways.


Well, so much for rational discussion. Call back when you're not nuts. Or still living under a reality-distortion field.
 
2012-11-13 11:17:29 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Pell grants?


Hmmm, maybe. They aren't really money spent on education, they're welfare couched in more comfortable terms. Yep, kill them, too.

Know what group of Americans receives the most welfare? Farmers. We need to change import regulations and cut farm welfare. That would save tons of money as well.
 
2012-11-13 11:17:48 AM  

Private_Citizen: Well, for me, I estimate diving off the cliff would cost my family about $5,700. That's counting 3 things: payroll tax up by 2%, IT bracket up by 3% and reduction of child tax credit from $1,000 to $500 for my two kids.

I would prefer they kept the breaks in place for the people earning less than 250k per year - especially during a recession. I think those increases would really hurt the poor and middle class at a time when they are already struggling.

However, I would rather see them all expire than continue it for the rich. I am willing to sacrifice to begin the long hard road of paying down our debt. I don't want my children to inherit this huge bill. Besides, if I can tighten my belt, I somehow imagine the rich will survive.


^^^ This
 
2012-11-13 11:18:00 AM  
It's not a cliff, it's a bluff.
 
2012-11-13 11:24:38 AM  
Yeeeah. I'm so looking forward to saying this...

Let 'em expire - head for the cliff and jump. I looked at my place in this pecking order, am ready to pay the additional share, and would love to see the parasites that have been sucking off the public teat get off their entitled asses and start pitching in their fair share. No tax breaks for Anybody. Close ALL the loopholes. Everybody pays the full share of what they rightfully owe. I'll take a bite - if only to hear the wailing of the entitled who loose all of their precious tax dodges.
 
2012-11-13 11:26:15 AM  

kyrg: Fark all of you who are so quick to raise taxes.

If you would focus some of your energy towards your elected officials and put the heat on them to reduce Government waste and duplication, beef up program oversight and God for bid, simplify the tax code, you would be awash in money for all your pet programs.


Bullshiat.

I know that Conservatives believe all the money they send to the Government mysteriously goes away in a wash of waste and duplication, but it's complete crap. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Ag subsidies have an amazingly small overhead. We could cut the military in half and still be able to protect ourselves without difficulty, but it's the "Conservatives" who won't do that. We could cut out the entire rest of the budget (except interest on the debt, of course) and we'd still be in a hole.

Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Ag Subsidies, the Military, and Debt Interest. Either cut those by half a trillion dollars, raise half a trillion in revenues, or some mix of the two. Otherwise, our debt continues to get larger every year.
 
2012-11-13 11:27:27 AM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 11:28:06 AM  

Private_Citizen: I would rather see them all expire than continue it for the rich. I am willing to sacrifice to begin the long hard road of paying down our debt. I don't want my children to inherit this huge bill.


You're trusting the government will use that increase in tax revenue to pay down the dept?

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-13 11:30:51 AM  

Znuh: Amos Quito: Znuh: Because increasing taxes back to a sane rate ls horrible. Perhaps if there had been 12 years to show your tactic not working...


What is a "sane" rate?

No matter how much the INSANE government takes, it will spend more, and in VERY unproductive ways.

Well, so much for rational discussion. Call back when you're not nuts. Or still living under a reality-distortion field.



^Derp^


What is a "sane" rate?

What will be enough to satisfy the ravenous bureaucracy?
 
2012-11-13 11:34:35 AM  
Modest cuts to a several-front war-bloated defense budget and going back to the tax rates that gave us a surplus is a "fiscal cliff"?
It's a farking wonder we ever made it through that long national nightmare of peace and prosperity under Clinton.

Seriously: I know we don't really want less spending and higher taxes while the economy's depressed. But by the same token we ought to have had more spending over the last 4 years and no-one phrased *that* state of affairs as a goddamm 'cliff' as if sudden fatal things were going to happen. To the contrary, even suggestions that we hold spending *steady* was routinely vilified (despite negative real interest rates) and tax cuts were a non-starter unless they included permanence for the Bush cuts for millionaires. So to now see the right contort itself around to make a vaguely Keynesian argument after four years of calls for savage austerity and deficit panic is farking hilarious.

If the Republicans want to blow up the recovery and drag things out a few more years by going on the record as defending the tax cuts of rent-seeking millionaires against literally *everyone else*, so be it. I'd rather suck it up and see our country paid for than let our infrastructure to continue to rot in the name of voodoo farking economics.
 
2012-11-13 11:34:38 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: kyrg: Fark all of you who are so quick to raise taxes.

If you would focus some of your energy towards your elected officials and put the heat on them to reduce Government waste and duplication, beef up program oversight and God for bid, simplify the tax code, you would be awash in money for all your pet programs.

Bullshiat.

I know that Conservatives believe all the money they send to the Government mysteriously goes away in a wash of waste and duplication, but it's complete crap. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Ag subsidies have an amazingly small overhead. We could cut the military in half and still be able to protect ourselves without difficulty, but it's the "Conservatives" who won't do that. We could cut out the entire rest of the budget (except interest on the debt, of course) and we'd still be in a hole.

Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Ag Subsidies, the Military, and Debt Interest. Either cut those by half a trillion dollars, raise half a trillion in revenues, or some mix of the two. Otherwise, our debt continues to get larger every year.


Why only half a trillion? We have a 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit, that is 1300 Billion dollars. We can let the tax cuts expire and bring in an estimated 80 Billion a year extra. Only 1220 Billion left to cut. What do you cut? I say we cut everything 32% across the board. That will save 1220 Billion dollars a year and get us to even.
 
2012-11-13 11:37:48 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Private_Citizen: I would rather see them all expire than continue it for the rich. I am willing to sacrifice to begin the long hard road of paying down our debt. I don't want my children to inherit this huge bill.

You're trusting the government will use that increase in tax revenue to pay down the dept?


Well, the last President to pay down the -debt- was a Democrat, then the GOP decided a better use of the surplus was tax breaks for all (which were somehow going to magically raise revenue).

I would hope the GOP will be happy when Obama balances the budget, but I think they will do the same thing they did last time and claim taxes are too high and argue for more tax breaks.
 
2012-11-13 11:40:52 AM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: TheStag: Who is this 'Fiscal Cliff' and why does he have so much control of my taxes? Can't we just find him and kick his a$$ or something?

[img826.imageshack.us image 199x267]

Well, you see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it's the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.


The Indians would just chase all the Buffalo over a cliff. TaDa.
 
2012-11-13 11:41:37 AM  
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?
 
2012-11-13 11:41:53 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-13 11:43:37 AM  

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?
 
2012-11-13 11:44:59 AM  

gweilo8888: FTFA: "Top 1% ($506,210 and above) 120,537

Unless, of course, you're fiddling it so that you're not actually paying the tax rate you're supposed to, or for that matter, any at all.

/I'm looking at you, Mittens


But congress will never close those loopholes, because they use them too.
 
2012-11-13 11:46:54 AM  
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.
 
2012-11-13 11:48:36 AM  

perigee: Yeeeah. I'm so looking forward to saying this...

Let 'em expire - head for the cliff and jump. I looked at my place in this pecking order, am ready to pay the additional share, and would love to see the parasites that have been sucking off the public teat get off their entitled asses and start pitching in their fair share. No tax breaks for Anybody. Close ALL the loopholes. Everybody pays the full share of what they rightfully owe. I'll take a bite - if only to hear the wailing of the entitled who loose all of their precious tax dodges.


Ditto.
 
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.
 
2012-11-13 05:14:35 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 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.


what would there be to enforce? I could see government regulations, etc. but it would be nothing like what we have currently in terms of costs.
 
2012-11-13 05:15:55 PM  

Prevailing Wind: Upper Middle 20%er here. I'm ok with this. If I wanted to live in a third-world hell hole, I would expatriate. Since I don't, I'm willing to pay what we need to pay in order to keep this collective enterprise we call America on sound financial footing and still providing the protections, services, and opportunities that make this a pretty kick ass place to live.

The surreal degree of hypocrisy exhibited by you conservative aholes who constantly want something (a safe and decent country to live in) for nothing (no taxes) just boggles my farking mind.

Where's your farking bootstraps people?


We quit pulling on them when we found out last week Santa Clause is going to fix everything.
 
2012-11-13 05:22:16 PM  

smitty04: dennysgod: Middle 20%, $38 a week. Not much of a cliff, more like an uneven step.

$1.00 per hour, that ain't too bad.


Add that to the 1.90 an hour for your Obamacare in 2014, and now we're starting to talk poor people n****r rich cash.
 
2012-11-13 05:25:29 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.


To quote another Farklibtard on here:

"If you don't have enough money, you should have found a better job."
 
2012-11-13 05:59:00 PM  

versgeek: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 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.

what would there be to enforce? I could see government regulations, etc. but it would be nothing like what we have currently in terms of costs.


The taxing part. When there is money involved, especially money owed the government, then they make sure that the taxation is enforced.
 
2012-11-13 07:54:46 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: 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?


For a moment I thought you were asking if I'd rather pay Larry's tax bill.

If I made that much money, yes, yes, farking yes I'd pay 100K more in taxes if I made as much money as that man. I wouldn't even farking miss it.

But then my reading comprehension started to kick in a bit, and to answer your question, I'd stand by my statement I want to see it broken down by tax bracket. Upset both of them.
 
2012-11-13 08:20:09 PM  

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.


Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US. And why is the answer never cutting Government spending in general? Why not just do across the board percentage decrease in spending so that our spending is less than our income?
 
2012-11-13 08:30:26 PM  
As the owner/CEO/janitor of a small S-corp and subsidiary LLC*, this will not result in me paying more taxes.

In years where tax rates are low and I have some extra cash, I pay down debt. When rates are high, I make sure the company spends more before it gets to me. That means more new equipment, more contracted services, more real-estate (and associated debt), more business trips, trade shows, and business lunches. Either way, I receive a benefit (directly or indirectly) and pay a consistent level of taxes from year to year.

* S-corps, LLCs, & LLPs do not pay federal income tax. The tax liability "passes through" to the shareholder(s), in this case, me
 
2012-11-13 09:37:02 PM  
Let's sum this up.

Bush and a Republican Congress pushed through a "temporary" tax cut.

The last time it was due to expire, both parties worked together to extend it. The excuse was that letting it expire would prevent the "job creators" from creating jobs.

We all know how that worked out.

This time it is due to expire again and both parties are using the excuse of the "fiscal cliff" to extend it again.

TFA is of course still hyping the ooga booga tax cuts for the rich extended or unemployment is going back up to ten percent!!!!11!
 
2012-11-13 09:40:57 PM  

The Muthaship: Is Obama still going to lower the corporate tax rate?


Yes. The plan put forth by the President's bipartisan debt commission kills the major tax breaks important to the middle class (mortgage deduction, health insurance deduction), increases the retirement age, and uses the money saved to lower corporate taxes.
 
2012-11-13 09:54:20 PM  

Tumunga: 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.

To quote another Farklibtard on here:

"If you don't have enough money, you should have found a better job."


Sorry, but that's the objectivist screed. I'm surprised you aren't actually quoting yourself
 
2012-11-13 10:01:10 PM  

Director_Mr: 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.

Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US. And why is the answer never cutting Government spending in general? Why not just do across the board percentage decrease in spending so that our spending is less than our income?


Actually, during the debt crisis Obama offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but for some reason, Republicans rejected his offer.

Hell, all the Republican candidates said they would reject $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases

Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.
 
2012-11-13 10:06:53 PM  

Director_Mr: Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US.


Because locking people up in prison is much cheaper than having them pay taxes on marijuana?
 
2012-11-13 10:08:50 PM  

meat0918: Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.


Obama once claimed that the Bush tax cuts offended his conscious and that they all had to go.

Remember when we came very close to balancing the budget before the Bush tax cuts went into effect?
 
2012-11-13 11:45:12 PM  

neongoats: Tumunga: 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.

To quote another Farklibtard on here:

"If you don't have enough money, you should have found a better job."

Sorry, but that's the objectivist screed. I'm surprised you aren't actually quoting yourself


I wish I were. I'd take my own advice, because I'm a broke sumbiatch.
 
2012-11-14 12:34:44 AM  

Amos Quito: Tax laws are written by politicians.

Politicians are wholly owned by rich farks.

Who do you suppose tax laws would favor?


When I got to the point in my life where I could start investing, I discovered that tax laws were written by people who own stocks. When I bought a house, I found that tax laws were also written by homeowners.

If all I have to pay is $14K extra per year (to get to ground zero and then pay even more when we really start paying to resume maintenance of our country's infrastructure), I'm okay with it. Taxes are the cost of living in a civilization, and they've been unfair since the beginning of time. Additionally, tax money has been used inefficiently since the beginning of time. I'd rather give everyone opportunities in an actual civilization and separately try to address the indolent than to deny opportunities to all. I've certainly benefited from tax-subsidized education and infrastructure.
 
2012-11-14 08:04:45 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 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.


Far less. Basically the same as regulating any other product.

You're not seriously claiming the regs would cost as much as the current War on Drugs, are you?
 
2012-11-14 08:11:46 AM  

Director_Mr: 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.

Legalizing marijuana will most likely have close to a net zero effect on tax income in the US. And why is the answer never cutting Government spending in general? Why not just do across the board percentage decrease in spending so that our spending is less than our income?


$9.5 billion dollars is REAL money, even in the federal budget.

http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf

And before you quote contrary stats, beware of anything with the grimy pawprints of the private prison industry on it. Those corporations have a direct incentive to incarcerate young, healthy prisoners...which your casual marijuana user often is.

Ergo, their bottom line depends on massaging their data, gutless politicianns, and scared voters.
 
2012-11-14 01:26:55 PM  

BullBearMS: meat0918: Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.

Obama once claimed that the Bush tax cuts offended his conscious and that they all had to go.

Remember when we came very close to balancing the budget before the Bush tax cuts went into effect?


Yes, and right now, the reality is we will slow growth just a bit if we allow them to lapse on the middle and lower classes.

After the economy is in a more robust recovery mode, I'm all for phasing resetting all the tax rates save the lowest rate. I still want to keep that lower bracket at 10%

When it was all said and done we'd have a marginal tax structure that resembled the following
10% 0-16K
15% 16K-68K
28% 68K-137K
31% 137K-210K
36% 210K-373K
39.6% over 373K
 
2012-11-14 04:09:38 PM  

meat0918: BullBearMS: meat0918: Obama has consistently offered a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases, but keeps getting blocked by Republicans.

Obama once claimed that the Bush tax cuts offended his conscious and that they all had to go.

Remember when we came very close to balancing the budget before the Bush tax cuts went into effect?

Yes, and right now, the reality is we will slow growth just a bit if we allow them to lapse on the middle and lower classes.

After the economy is in a more robust recovery mode, I'm all for phasing resetting all the tax rates save the lowest rate. I still want to keep that lower bracket at 10%

When it was all said and done we'd have a marginal tax structure that resembled the following
10% 0-16K
15% 16K-68K
28% 68K-137K
31% 137K-210K
36% 210K-373K
39.6% over 373K


I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that isn't what's on the menu.

The bipartisan consensus is that we need to raise the retirement age, fark over medicaid, and then kill the major deductions important to the working class. Meanwhile, we simultaneously lower the tax rate for the rich and for corporations.

It's almost as if the rich own both parties. Oh, wait. They do.
 
Displayed 170 of 170 comments

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