Acting on behalf of the people

[bushwacked]

Fifty-three percent of respondents said Congress should extend the tax cuts only for Americans earning less than $250,000 a year, while just 26% said tax cuts should be extended for everyone. Fourteen percent of respondents said Congress should allow all the tax cuts to expire.

 

[tosberg34]

 

Yay! Class Warfare!

[bpwallace49]

Yay! Class Warfare!

 

Please make an attempt to explain your inane comment.

[gbpfan1231]

So in other words 74% want income redistribution?

[detlef]

So in other words 74% want income redistribution?

Or, in other words still, when the new GOP came in saying they'd hold Congress hostage and not pass anything until the cuts were extended for everyone because that was the will of the people, they were actually referring to less than half of the people.

[Square]

So the midterms were a referendum on government spending? So congress decides they are going to extend temporary tax cuts and then extend unemployment benefits. You guys can complain about what color you like better than the other, but the overall American people are being had. No sane person can say that they should take in less money and spend more to help our long term fiscal health.

[redrumjuice]

For all of you who support raising taxes, I want you to tithe to the beast you bow down and worship.

 

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States."

 

Instead of messy, politicized laws, just do the right thing. Give a little extra to the lazy bassturds who need 2 years of unemployment and the much needed gov't Escalades for congressman's kids to ride around in.

[redrumjuice]

No sane person can say that they should take in less money and spend more to help our long term fiscal health.

 

Stop the waste. DC has plenty of money.

[gbpfan1231]

Or, in other words still, when the new GOP came in saying they'd hold Congress hostage and not pass anything until the cuts were extended for everyone because that was the will of the people, they were actually referring to less than half of the people.

So with what you and Bushy are saying is that the health care bill was a huge mistake - more than 50% did not want that.

 

So do you both agree the health care bill was a huge mistake?

[tosberg34]

Looks like a deal is in place. You lefties finally got that bipartisan support you wanted - what's with the sad faces?

 

Here's the real kicker:

Per Hill sources, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was very direct with the president this afternoon that a significant number of her members do not support this package.

 

She wasn't so vocal when a significant number of the American people were against ObamaCare.

Edited December 7, 2010 by tosberg34

[Ursa Majoris]

The overall cost in lost revenue to the government is at least $450 billion in 2011 (or a tad higher than the yearly cost of the 2009 stimulus) and could climb as high as $600 billion depending on how much the economy grows over the next two years.

 

Rome

[yo mama]

So the midterms were a referendum on government spending? So congress decides they are going to extend temporary tax cuts and then extend unemployment benefits. You guys can complain about what color you like better than the other, but the overall American people are being had. No sane person can say that they should take in less money and spend more to help our long term fiscal health.

I dunno. I think the average American person is getting exactly what they want - either benefits, or tax cuts, or both. Sure, its idiotic long term. But that's to be expected from a nation of idiots.

[gbpfan1231]

Rome

Do you not think there would have been a "cost" to ending these tax cuts with the current state of the economy??? It is not so simple to just say The govt loses this much in tax revenue - this costs XXX.

 

You could argue that the "cost" of ending the tax cuts would be greater than the cost of extending them.

[geeteebee]

This Congress is already showing they can make the tough, unpopular choices.

[PPIchamp]

Tax rates simplified, so even a Lib may get it: CLICK

 

The "rich" are already getting raped, the top 1% of earners pay half of all taxes while the bottom 50% pay 2.8% of them.

The "rich" are Americans too, and they deserve a break as well. The "rich" employ a whole lot of people. They could employ more, expand/improve their present business, advertise, ect - if they had the money to do it. Wouldn't hurt if they knew what the hell's going on in Washington with taxes, regulations, ect. The trillions on the sidelines in the business world, Obama can thank himself and his merry band of economic illiterates for that. Keynesianism doesn't work guys, welcome to the real world.

 

What's the Libs definition of "rich" this week, anyway?

[moneymakers]

Whats up with the 2% break in Social Security?

 

Now your messing with fire!

 

The Obama administration also is proposing a one-year payroll tax reduction that sources say would cut the amount contributed to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent

[Ursa Majoris]

Tax rates simplified, so even a Lib may get it: CLICK

 

The "rich" are already getting raped, the top 1% of earners pay half of all taxes while the bottom 50% pay 2.8% of them.

The "rich" are Americans too, and they deserve a break as well. The "rich" employ a whole lot of people. They could employ more, expand/improve their present business, advertise, ect - if they had the money to do it. Wouldn't hurt if they knew what the hell's going on in Washington with taxes, regulations, ect. The trillions on the sidelines in the business world, Obama can thank himself and his merry band of economic illiterates for that. Keynesianism doesn't work guys, welcome to the real world.

 

What's the Libs definition of "rich" this week, anyway?

This is so full of chit even Perch would be embarrassed. First you say

 

They could employ more, expand/improve their present business, advertise, ect - if they had the money to do it.

 

Then you say:

 

The trillions on the sidelines in the business world

 

It seems they DO have the money then, no?

 

As Detlef has pointed out numerous times, employment is a function of demand. It makes no difference what tax rates are if there is no demand.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[evil_gop_liars]

Tax rates simplified, so even a Lib may get it: CLICK

 

The "rich" are already getting raped, the top 1% of earners pay half of all taxes while the bottom 50% pay 2.8% of them.

The "rich" are Americans too, and they deserve a break as well. The "rich" employ a whole lot of people. They could employ more, expand/improve their present business, advertise, ect - if they had the money to do it. Wouldn't hurt if they knew what the hell's going on in Washington with taxes, regulations, ect. The trillions on the sidelines in the business world, Obama can thank himself and his merry band of economic illiterates for that. Keynesianism doesn't work guys, welcome to the real world.

 

What's the Libs definition of "rich" this week, anyway?

 

This is what happens when your kids grow up listening to Rush.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The rich have it SO bad in this country that the gap is shrinking between the rich and the poor.

 

 

Oh, wait, you mean it isn't?

[caddyman]

So with what you and Bushy are saying is that the health care bill was a huge mistake - more than 50% did not want that.

 

So do you both agree the health care bill was a huge mistake?

DING DING DING!

[Clubfoothead]

So global warming isn't real but I'm supposed to believe a federal deficit that has existed and been unpayable my entire life is a threat? Don't see it.

[detlef]

So with what you and Bushy are saying is that the health care bill was a huge mistake - more than 50% did not want that.

 

So do you both agree the health care bill was a huge mistake?

Are you saying that more than 50% did not want health care reform? Or didn't want the specific bill that was passed. I don't think that more than 50% were happy with the state of health care and just wanted it left alone. Now, if you're saying that more than half are not on board with the abortion that passed as a result of Washington doing what Washington does? That's another story and both sides can take some guilt on that.

 

Speaking of another story. Is, or is it not "the will of the people" to extend tax breaks on the highest bracket as the new GOP asserts in their justification of holding up any new legislation until they get it. From this article, that would not seem to be the case. Now, the fact that more people want to expire the cuts on the top bracket, in and of itself, doesn't mean we should do it. But it damned well means nobody should use, "the people have spoken and they want this" as a justification for extending them.

 

As far as the class warfare, shtick. Since the vast majority of people in the country are below that tax bracket, then using your logic, we should have passed, some time ago, an insanely high tax rate on them. Right? I mean, what has stopped all the rich-hating masses from demanding an 80% rate?

 

The reality is, the rates across the board have been about low as they've been in 100 years, even before the breaks of 2002.

 

The reality also is, the rich are doing fine. The income gap is widening, so they're figuring out how to still make money. Now, this doesn't mean the rich are bad. This doesn't mean we need to take them down. But what it does mean is that they can afford to have the tax break expire more than anyone else. And unless you believe the whole trickle-down pap, this is the one bracket that will not slow down the economy.

 

Hell, even your own side can't get their story straight. Some cry that the wealthiest will not have enough money to continue creating jobs. Others claim they have tons of it stacked up on the sidelines waiting to spend it until they know how they're going to be taxed. Which is it? I can say this. If someone owns a business that he feels needs to be expanded because of demand, has the capital to do so, but isn't going to do so because he's going to give away another 3% of the profits(not revenue, mind you, but profits) generated by that expansion. Then I wonder how he got to where he is, because he's certainly not a smart businessman. Because here's the thing. Regardless of how high the top tax rate is, the system (for all it's faults) will never actually penalize you for making more money. If you make more money this year than last, even if you jump into a higher rate, you will take home more (all deductions being equal, of course, but that's another matter entirely).

[gbpfan1231]

Are you saying that more than 50% did not want health care reform? Or didn't want the specific bill that was passed. I don't think that more than 50% were happy with the state of health care and just wanted it left alone. Now, if you're saying that more than half are not on board with the abortion that passed as a result of Washington doing what Washington does? That's another story and both sides can take some guilt on that.

 

Speaking of another story. Is, or is it not "the will of the people" to extend tax breaks on the highest bracket as the new GOP asserts in their justification of holding up any new legislation until they get it. From this article, that would not seem to be the case. Now, the fact that more people want to expire the cuts on the top bracket, in and of itself, doesn't mean we should do it. But it damned well means nobody should use, "the people have spoken and they want this" as a justification for extending them.

 

As far as the class warfare, shtick. Since the vast majority of people in the country are below that tax bracket, then using your logic, we should have passed, some time ago, an insanely high tax rate on them. Right? I mean, what has stopped all the rich-hating masses from demanding an 80% rate?

 

The reality is, the rates across the board have been about low as they've been in 100 years, even before the breaks of 2002.

 

The reality also is, the rich are doing fine. The income gap is widening, so they're figuring out how to still make money. Now, this doesn't mean the rich are bad. This doesn't mean we need to take them down. But what it does mean is that they can afford to have the tax break expire more than anyone else. And unless you believe the whole trickle-down pap, this is the one bracket that will not slow down the economy.

 

Hell, even your own side can't get their story straight. Some cry that the wealthiest will not have enough money to continue creating jobs. Others claim they have tons of it stacked up on the sidelines waiting to spend it until they know how they're going to be taxed. Which is it? I can say this. If someone owns a business that he feels needs to be expanded because of demand, has the capital to do so, but isn't going to do so because he's going to give away another 3% of the profits(not revenue, mind you, but profits) generated by that expansion. Then I wonder how he got to where he is, because he's certainly not a smart businessman. Because here's the thing. Regardless of how high the top tax rate is, the system (for all it's faults) will never actually penalize you for making more money. If you make more money this year than last, even if you jump into a higher rate, you will take home more (all deductions being equal, of course, but that's another matter entirely).

A couple of things....

 

What is it like 95% of the people make less than $250k - of course you will get 26% of the people saying tax them higher - I am surprised it is not higher. You say the income gap is widening - is that the rich's fault. I am not so sure of that - This world is becoming dumber and dumber and idiots on welfare are popping out 5-6 kids and those kids are growing up with no family life and making very little money - do you think this has anythign to do with the gap - blame the rich.

 

More than 50% of the people did want that specific health care bill but the libs did not care what the people said but now they do? You are talking about the right not getting the story straight?

 

I also hate the point you make that no matter what the rate is you still take home more money if you make more. Technically it is not true but that is a stupid statement. Did you ever hear of a term called Payback? Businesses analyze if it is smart to buy a certain piece of equipment and I have worked at places that require a 2 year payback. You don't think that the tax rate changes that calculation??? You don't think risk comes into play? Would you risk buying a new oven if it would make you an extra $1,000 maybe but would you risk that purchase if it only made you an extra $250? Taxes come into play don't ya think? Would you take a promotion to work twice as hard to make a little extra money after taxes? You don't think the tax rate may change that decision? Quit with the if you make more you get more.

 

I have said many times that I am fine with ending the tax cuts for everyone. I am just not a fan of the income redistribution crap.

[detlef]

A couple of things....

 

What is it like 95% of the people make less than $250k - of course you will get 26% of the people saying tax them higher - I am surprised it is not higher. You say the income gap is widening - is that the rich's fault. I am not so sure of that - This world is becoming dumber and dumber and idiots on welfare are popping out 5-6 kids and those kids are growing up with no family life and making very little money - do you think this has anythign to do with the gap - blame the rich.

 

More than 50% of the people did want that specific health care bill but the libs did not care what the people said but now they do? You are talking about the right not getting the story straight?

 

I also hate the point you make that no matter what the rate is you still take home more money if you make more. Technically it is not true but that is a stupid statement. Did you ever hear of a term called Payback? Businesses analyze if it is smart to buy a certain piece of equipment and I have worked at places that require a 2 year payback. You don't think that the tax rate changes that calculation??? You don't think risk comes into play? Would you risk buying a new oven if it would make you an extra $1,000 maybe but would you risk that purchase if it only made you an extra $250? Taxes come into play don't ya think? Would you take a promotion to work twice as hard to make a little extra money after taxes? You don't think the tax rate may change that decision? Quit with the if you make more you get more.

 

I have said many times that I am fine with ending the tax cuts for everyone. I am just not a fan of the income redistribution crap.

For starters, according to this article, I believe it is 26% who don't want to tax them higher, so you've got that backwards.

 

As for the Health Care bill. Again, I think you're morphing numbers. I do believe over half wanted them to do something. Then, in an effort to please everyone, including the insurance companies, we ended up with this Frankenmess that everyone hates. That's just Washington being Washington, and it's happened through the ages. The tax thing is more cut and dry.

 

As for your last bit (which, btw, was a bit confusing because, based on missing "n't"s, I'm not sure what you thought was stupid and what you didn't). Regardless. Let's look at Payback. So, let's assume that the business in question is operating at a profit level so that every penny of additional profit would be taxed at 38% rather than 35%. So, you're saying this stove I buy is going to put an extra $1000 into my pocket come year's end if taxes remain what they are. That means the stove generates $1538 in pre-tax profits. Well, guess what, that means the stove is going to put about $954 in my pocket if the taxes go up. That's $46. Not enough to sway the equation either way and a much, much smaller spread than your $1000 to $250. Though I must admit, yours does help your point more.

 

As for your promotion. Let's say you're making $240K. Living safely in below the "rich line" with all of us hateful poor folks. Then you get a fat raise of $50K. Oh no! You just got shot up into the next tax bracket! There goes all your money, right? Wrong. All the money you used to make, plus the 10K that pushes you up to the next level still gets taxed at the exact same rate you've been paying. Then, the next 40 gets taxed at a higher rate. I'm not going to bother actually doing the calculation. However, I can assure you that you will be better off for having gotten that raise.

 

Also, you keep bringing up, "blame the rich". Where have I implied any ill-will towards them?

Edited December 7, 2010 by detlef

[Ursa Majoris]

Some cry that the wealthiest will not have enough money to continue creating jobs. Others claim they have tons of it stacked up on the sidelines waiting to spend it until they know how they're going to be taxed. Which is it?

PPLChamp said both these things in the same post.