Bush tax cuts vs. Obama tax cuts

[Skjellyfetti]

[AZGrizFan]

It's not about tax CUT. It's about the tax RATE.

Why should someone who makes a $1,000,000 pay a higher percentage of THEIR salary than someone who makes $50,000?

[GannonFan]

Great graph - of course, if we can't tie it into expected deficits and employment numbers, then it's nothing more than a yelling point between partisans of both sides.

[Col Hogan]

Source???

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

I like the use of the circles, is it a graph of how big your asshole will be when the government gets done with you without a cut?

[89Hen]

You have become the KING of spin and deceipt and have pretty much stolen the "partisan hack" title away from Travis.

[Skjellyfetti]

Source???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 0081200375" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OL FU]

Doesn't Obama's tax cuts go away in another year. Can't remember just asking?

The interesting issue is that as tax rates change downward, their impact is less and less significant. Mainly because of the declining participation by the majority of Americans. Even the debate on changing the upper tier upward really is only materially significant because of the economic situation we are in.

The debate on whether tax increases could help the deficit is really a non-starter. Tax revenues from raising taxes 5% on incomes above $250,000 would raise at most $75B against a federal deficit of $1.5T. Estimates are that income tax rates would have to double accross the board to cover the deficit.

We can argue about nickle and dime taxes all we want, but the answer to our problem is on the other side of the equation and that is the amount in checks we write. Until we have the political will to tackle that one, we aren't solving any problems.

[Skjellyfetti]

Doesn't Obama's tax cuts go away in another year. Can't remember just asking?

The interesting issue is that as tax rates change downward, their impact is less and less significant. Mainly because of the declining participation by the majority of Americans. Even the debate on changing the upper tier upward really is only materially significant because of the economic situation we are in.

The debate on whether tax increases could help the deficit is really a non-starter. Tax revenues from raising taxes 5% on incomes above $250,000 would raise at most $75B against a federal deficit of $1.5T. Estimates are that income tax rates would have to double accross the board to cover the deficit.

We can argue about nickle and dime taxes all we want, but the answer to our problem is on the other side of the equation and that is the amount in checks we write. Until we have the political will to tackle that one, we aren't solving any problems.

Thanks for the only serious and thoughtful reply.

I agree that tax increases aren't the answer to all of our problems and won't solve the debt problem alone. We have to cut spending AND raise taxes. But, it seems like one side wants to do only one thing and the other side only wants to do the other... so, we aren't going to see any progress anytime soon. We HAVE to do BOTH.

[AZGrizFan]

Doesn't Obama's tax cuts go away in another year. Can't remember just asking?

The interesting issue is that as tax rates change downward, their impact is less and less significant. Mainly because of the declining participation by the majority of Americans. Even the debate on changing the upper tier upward really is only materially significant because of the economic situation we are in.

The debate on whether tax increases could help the deficit is really a non-starter. Tax revenues from raising taxes 5% on incomes above $250,000 would raise at most $75B against a federal deficit of $1.5T. Estimates are that income tax rates would have to double accross the board to cover the deficit.

We can argue about nickle and dime taxes all we want, but the answer to our problem is on the other side of the equation and that is the amount in checks we write. Until we have the political will to tackle that one, we aren't solving any problems.

Thanks for the only serious and thoughtful reply.

I agree that tax increases aren't the answer to all of our problems and won't solve the debt problem alone. We have to cut spending AND raise taxes. But, it seems like one side wants to do only one thing and the other side only wants to do the other... so, we aren't going to see any progress anytime soon. We HAVE to do BOTH.

You haven't yet provided any answer to my question: WHY should someone have to pay a higher percentage of their income, just because they make MORE money?

If you want to have a flat tax of 20% or 18% or 15% ACROSS THE BOARD, fine. But to actually have 47% of the population paying NO tax, and the other 53% carrying the water for the entire nation, is a recipe for disaster.

[89Hen]

Thanks for the only serious and thoughtful reply.

Amazing considering your chart is not serious or thoughtful.

[Skjellyfetti]

You haven't yet provided any answer to my question: WHY should someone have to pay a higher percentage of their income, just because they make MORE money?

Because their principle expense is vanities and luxuries while the poor's principle expenses are necessities.

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

[AZGrizFan]

You haven't yet provided any answer to my question: WHY should someone have to pay a higher percentage of their income, just because they make MORE money?

Because their principle expense is vanities and luxuries while the poor's principle expenses are necessities.

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

That's not a REASON why....that somebody's OPINION.

In other words, penalize someone for being successful. Now THERE'S a motivational tool, huh? How'd that work for Russia?

[Skjellyfetti]

Great graph - of course, if we can't tie it into expected deficits and employment numbers, then it's nothing more than a yelling point between partisans of both sides.

The article the graph comes from gets into deficit of both. The Republican plan adds $36 billion more to the deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05864.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

You haven't yet provided any answer to my question: WHY should someone have to pay a higher percentage of their income, just because they make MORE money?

Because their principle expense is vanities and luxuries while the poor's principle expenses are necessities.

Fuking socialist.

[Skjellyfetti]

Thanks for the only serious and thoughtful reply.

Amazing considering your chart is not serious or thoughtful.

How so?

[OL FU]

Doesn't Obama's tax cuts go away in another year. Can't remember just asking?

The interesting issue is that as tax rates change downward, their impact is less and less significant. Mainly because of the declining participation by the majority of Americans. Even the debate on changing the upper tier upward really is only materially significant because of the economic situation we are in.

The debate on whether tax increases could help the deficit is really a non-starter. Tax revenues from raising taxes 5% on incomes above $250,000 would raise at most $75B against a federal deficit of $1.5T. Estimates are that income tax rates would have to double accross the board to cover the deficit.

We can argue about nickle and dime taxes all we want, but the answer to our problem is on the other side of the equation and that is the amount in checks we write. Until we have the political will to tackle that one, we aren't solving any problems.

Thanks for the only serious and thoughtful reply.

I agree that tax increases aren't the answer to all of our problems and won't solve the debt problem alone. We have to cut spending AND raise taxes. But, it seems like one side wants to do only one thing and the other side only wants to do the other... so, we aren't going to see any progress anytime soon. We HAVE to do BOTH.

I would be willing to consider voting for someone who was in favor of raising taxes, if and only if, we have made a serious attempt at cutting all potential spending excesses.

BTW, I don't mean we have cut $trillion out of the budget overnight, but there has to be a plan and I simply don't see that as possible. Call me very pessimistic.

[89Hen]

Amazing considering your chart is not serious or thoughtful.

How so?

It's a chart meant to deceive.

[AZGrizFan]

Great graph - of course, if we can't tie it into expected deficits and employment numbers, then it's nothing more than a yelling point between partisans of both sides.

The article the graph comes from gets into deficit of both. The Republican plan adds $36 billion more to the deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05864.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tax cuts don't "add" to the deficit. SPENDING adds to the deficit.

Have your hero put away his fucking checkbook for the next 2 years and we MIGHT (and that's a BIG might) survive this drunken spending spree he's been on.

whoops. Wait a minute....another $3 billion just went out the door for "unemployeed homeowner assistance".

[Skjellyfetti]

In other words, penalize someone for being successful. Now THERE'S a motivational tool, huh? How'd that work for Russia?

And how has your idea of a flat tax worked out for Russia, Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Mongolia, Montenegro, etc. ?

[Skjellyfetti]

I would be willing to consider voting for someone who was in favor of raising taxes, if and only if, we have made a serious attempt at cutting all potential spending excesses.

BTW, I don't mean we have cut $trillion out of the budget overnight, but there has to be a plan and I simply don't see that as possible. Call me very pessimistic.

I agree. And I don't see it happening any time soon either. Though, the recent gashes to the Defense Department are a good start, imo.

[89Hen]

And how has your idea of a flat tax worked out for Russia, Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Mongolia, Montenegro, etc. ?

From the little I've heard, it's done pretty darn well for them. Maybe you should check it out.

[TheDancinMonarch]

Because their principle expense is vanities and luxuries while the poor's principle expenses are necessities.

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Perhaps Adam should be updated to the realities of the 21st century. There are multiple food programs for the poor which allow them "vanities and luxuries" like cell phones, piercings and tatoos. Just stand in line on Moocher Day (the 1st of the month) at the grocery store. It's like a talking museum with EBT cards.

[Skjellyfetti]

Perhaps Adam should be updated to the realities of the 21st century. There are multiple food programs for the poor which allow them "vanities and luxuries" like cell phones, piercings and tatoos. Just stand in line on Moocher Day (the 1st of the month) at the grocery store. It's like a talking museum with EBT cards.

You can't buy things like cell phones, piercing, and tatoos (sic) with food stamps or EBT cards.

A friend of mine has MS and gets a debit card for his social security disability payments. He can only buy food.

[AZGrizFan]

Perhaps Adam should be updated to the realities of the 21st century. There are multiple food programs for the poor which allow them "vanities and luxuries" like cell phones, piercings and tatoos. Just stand in line on Moocher Day (the 1st of the month) at the grocery store. It's like a talking museum with EBT cards.

You can't buy things like cell phones, piercing, and tatoos (sic) with food stamps or EBT cards.

A friend of mine has MS and gets a debit card for his social security disability payments. He can only buy food.

That's his point. They've got MONEY. They chose to spend it on cell phones, piercings and tattoos because they CAN...the good ol' gov't is putting food in their mouths...