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?

If only there was somewhere to cut spending to alleviate these tax increases.

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

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.

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.




FTFY.

China?

LOL!

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.

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?

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

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

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.)

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.

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

[TaxBracketsDoNotWorkThatWay.jpg]

/Morbo

Hey Barack, we need to talk about the "fiscal cliff".


Will these "talks" be like the extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?


I hope not, but more than likely yes.


Ok, hold on a minute...


(Nov 22, 2012)

Uhh, Barack, we need to talk.


I know, but I'm on the phone...

(Dec 31, 2012)

BARACK RICH PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES!!!!

(Jan 1, 2013)

I know.



/Don't mind paying my taxes, regardless of how much they are.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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