TAX CUTS ETC

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
I watched and listened to last nights debate.
Many of the promises excited me. Who would not want help with their mortgage including a 5 year freeze on interest rates, lower or free health insurance, cheaper or free drugs,better treatment from more doctors and nurses, streamlined medical records etc? And all this gets paid for by only taxing the wealthy.
Illegals don't depress wages , well except when they do. we won't give drivers licenses to illegals well except when we will. in the meantime these illegals will be in our country, working their jobs( how they get to their jobs without driving they didn't explain) learning English, well or trying to and of course we will give them free lession until these illegals become citizens. OH BUT they have to move to the back of the line behind people who are trying to get in legally. BUT they will be living here " at the back of the line" UH?
They will rescind those EVIL tax cuts which ONLY benefited the evil rich. Wolf tried to ask how rescinding it would help all tax payers since every payer who paid tax got a cut. Neither answered.

I have to say their gravy train sounds good. It is always better for the gov't to take care of us
 
I am sick of the misconception regarding tax cuts.

Hillary's line about what really will happen should clear things up.

We will just go back to the taxes that people paid prior to Bush's tax cuts.

People were doing fine then, and they will do fine after.

The Obama "Warren Buffet" example is also quiet convincing...
 
ryan?
both say that the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich . YET EVERY tax payer got a cut so when you say:
"I am sick of the misconception regarding tax cuts. "
I AGREE. the fact is rescinding the tax cuts will not just affect the Rich. so there is a misconcpetion
funny how neither last night wanted to address that when Wolf tried to ask

Buffet, how silly. he does NOT get income. His assistant does.
If Buffet wants to pay more he can.
] Huckabee even started a fund in Ark for people who felt the taxes weren't high enough. Ark had a fund where people who wanted to could send more moeny VOLUNTARILY . Guess how much was in the fund after 5 years? $1200.00 ( and 1000 of is was from the legislator who whined people weren't paying enough
please don't use Buffet crying he doesn't pay enough as a justification we all should pay more

but hey! as i said I like the idea of the gov't taking care of us at the expense of the rich. who wouldn't?
well I guess the " ruch" wouldn't
or anyone who was working their *** off to be rich
but for all the rest, it is a sWEET plan
 
The Warren Buffet example is that his secretary who makes $40,000 a year pays more taxes percentage wise...this is just not right and should be changed.
 
the Buffett example is total taxes, not INCOME taxes. The math works because SS and FICA are capped
 
the misconception that rescinding Bush's taxs cuts won't hurt the middle calls needs to have factual light shined on it so obama and Hillary and MSM will stop saying his tax cuts only benefited the rich and rescinding the tax cuts will only affect the rich.
I got a tax cut and I will be afffected if these people rescind it/
Buffet's assistant got a tax cut and she will be affected if the tax cut is rescinded. That is the ONLY relevance Buffet has to this issue
 
WB makes his money realizing returns on capital investment. if you think that should be taxed like ordinary salaries then I am here to tell you if you get your way you will face a depression the likes of which we haven't seen in decades upon decades. we face intense global competition for capital and if we aren't competitive we will lose. the US isn't the only game in town anymore, we can and will lose if we don't fundamentally get our head out of our collective *** regarding tax policy.

This is the one thing Rudy G understands. Government can't do much to encourage economic growth (i.e. job growth, company growth, etc.), but tax policy is one thing the government can use. Lowering the corporate tax to 25% which was his plan would be HUGE for job creation and keeping global companies' base of operations in the United States.

It won't happen nor should it happen right now, as we're left with GWB's legacy of overspending. But once that is under control, the corporate tax should be reduced and capital gains should remain low.
 
you misunderstood -- there are very few tools the government has to effect the economy -- thus very little they can do. regulation by its nature is not good for a free market economy. HOWEVER, tax policy is ONE tool that does have a big impact. So, very little the government can do, but one thing they can do can have an impact and Rudy G's proposal would have a huge impact.

The fact that the government has very few tools they can use and the fact that tax cuts can have a big impact is the very reason why everyone in Congress is generally supportive of a tax cut or tax rebate stimulus package. The only issue is where do the cuts need to go.

Dems agree with you, Repubs agree with me, and most money guys agree with the Repubs.
 
What I think is missing from the oversimplified approach to tax cuts is what drives the need for taxes. The lion's share of the nondiscretionary budget items are entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid) but also buried in the budget is financing the national debt, generated by out of whack budgets. Think of the current indebtedness as trying to maintain your budget by just paying the interest on your credit cards without paying down the balances. Even worse, continuing to charge on the credit cards (therefore pumping up the balances on which you are paying more interest). Guiliana was the only candidate really paying much attention to the issue, but it is a major drag on the economy. When the government is borrowing so heavily on credit, it leaves that much less for the private sector to borrow on.

Where Bush is vulnderable to attack on insisting on tax cuts when you are overspending is analogous to reducing your income but continuing to charge up the credit cards. Something has to give. Eventually the balances come due.

I will bet that over half of this board will feel the impact of not having any reduction in their taxes, and, in fact, paying more and more of their paycheck in taxes as the retired population on social security swells in proportion to the working population and there is a huge proportion of the budget dedicated to financing the national debt.

It is very much of a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition. What makes this incredulous for me is that it is a Republican administration that is promoting this state of affairs unchecked in large part by a Republican controlled Congress. I think at heart this is what truly astonishes the "old school" Republicans about this admininstration. Historically, you intuitively feel that the Democrats, through their social program funding, would be guilty of this type of financial mismanagement, but the Republicans have somehow outdone this, and then scream when the opposition starts talking about fiscal responsibility.

The counterpoint to this, in my view, is that while the Democrats are talking about restoring a balance by eliminating the tax reductions for mainly upper income groups, I'm not seeing any proposals put forth by them to treat the underlying budget swell.
 
There is no amount of revenue and no tax increase that will ever be enough to cover completely unchecked spending. None.

The absolute only way ever to get the budget under control is to cut spending. The thing about federal outlays is that every dollar spent or in consideration for spending has a recipient who will be unhappy to "lose" "his" money should the expenditure be cancelled. Even trying to cap the federal budget at more than we spend now would anger those who don't get everything they want in the future; the day would come when even $10 trillion would not be enough to fund everyone's "rights" and the things the government "has" to do.

Corollary: just make the cuts now necessary to restore fiscal sanity. Delaying and wishing will not alter the reality that the choices are the poverty of a reckless debtor and the pain of paying one's obligations.

A large part of the problem stems from confusion regarding two issues. The first is the difference between something worth doing were it not unaffordably expensive and something worth doing regardless. Even assuming building a stable polity in Iraq is worthwhile, is it so crucial that it must be done now at all costs? There is a difference, and it can be exacerbated by the presence of other expensive, worthwhile ideas. The second confusion is the meaning of a helping hand. Enormous social expenditures are incurred because persons spend their income without first funding necessities (e.g., retirement, health care) then turn to others (parents, the government) expecting help with things so important/necessary that they ought to be considered rights. One does not need a closet full of clothes, nor even one designer/name-brand item for most occupations. One does not need a "nice" or second pair of shoes. One does not need a television, let alone cable. One does not need video games, let alone the latest. One does not need pizza, dessert, or ready-to-eat foods; one needs staples, a pot, and a heat source. One DOES need some way to pay for food and shelter after no longer working. It may be kind, but it is not fiscally prudent to convert people's needs to rights and to offer to pay for them, and it is not infinitely sustainable.

An overriding issue which makes an ultimate solution even more difficult (and perhaps impossible) is the presence of demagogues who thwart real progress. Money is power, power corrupts, and a very large number of those in politics (in whatever form) begin or become corrupted. They often don't even know, believing or convincing themselves that they are really just accumulating and wielding influence for the betterment of others. People in government like the money and power the government has. The system is set up to select such persons from those who would participate in our republic (as much as it still really is a republic).
 
The way I see it is that you can tax more and put the money in the hands of the government and hope they know how to spend it wisely. Or tax less and allow the capital markets to determine where money should be allocated to generate growth and in turn increase tax receipts.
 
Why is it that so many people who espouse an economically conservative ideology only seem to understand half of the laffer curve?
 
the fundamental spending issue is social security. it isn't what it was designed to be, an insurance program for the downtrodden at the time they can no longer work -- last few years of life. If you save or if you can work you should receive nothing. If you lost it all, become disabled or otherwise are too old to work, it is cheaper for all of us for the gov't to provide basic needs so you aren't on the street. return SS to that and the budget needs will plummet. Then, over time, SS can become solvent, reducing a significant portion of the national debt. Then, SS tax can be significantly reduced.

Until I hear politicians speak like this, nothing will get done.
 
You said in your first post that cutting taxes would increase tax receipts. That seems pretty cut and dry.

It's not pork that's responsible for our current situation. Pork doesn't even account for 1% of our annual federal budget. Unsustainable spending towards medicare, social security, and the war are all much much much larger pieces of the pie.
 
Fair enough. It's just the way I read it, it seemed to me you were trying to say that tax cuts automatically increased revenues, which is something I hear lots of conservatives who don't know better claim. We can certainly agree that the market is much better at allocating capital than government could ever hope to be.
 
Franco -- sheez, didn't realize that. I guess I see SS as easier to fix. Given the clamoring for universal health care coverage, I am expecting Medicare Part E. Then let the dust settle and reform the crap out of that too.
 
If the Bush tax cut is allowed to lapse, a family of four with only W-2 earnings with $60,000 taxable after exemption and deductions would see a tax increase of $2000 per year, or 166.67 per month.
 
pevo
are you sure about that? Both obama and Hillary said the bush tax cuts ONLY helped the rich and allowing the tax cuts to expire will only affect the rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top