U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-01-2012, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,233,775 times
Reputation: 5555

Advertisements

I have been receiving e-mails from Obama saying I should defend the middle class tax cut, but support a tax hike for the rich. While I strongly support a return to 39.6% for the wealthy (the richest seen spectacular rises in income as the rest of us have treaded water), I think we should have a graded tax hike, starting at current rates at about $50k and grading upward to a 3.6% hike at $250k and up. We earn very low six figures an a 1-2% hike would not hurt us much and would allow us to do things like rebuild aging infrastructure,etc. I suspect those earning 200k could deal with 3%. I don't get why the middle class should be spared and the rich taxed. That is pure politics. Tax us all at an appropriate rate to pay down the damn deficit. I don't want to pay those taxes, but I want to return to fiscal solvency, and that is more important than getting my Bush/Obama bucks. I also want to see cutting, but I know we just cannot run our country on 15% of GDP without axing the safety net and laying off many thousands of federal employees, which would not help UE or the housing market. We are all in this together, and I don't like the middle class vs. the upper class division. We should all pay a fair share, and in most cases, that is 1-4% higher than current rates, except for the poorest working folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2012, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Yakima WA
3,856 posts, read 4,277,751 times
Reputation: 3155
Even if I'm a conservative I agree. I would at this particular time like to see tax increases for everyone (along with cuts in spending) to help cut our deficit...which I consider the most dire issue facing our country.

Falling off fiscal cliff gives us the best opportunity to really make progress cutting the deficit. The worst scenario (and sadly the most likely) is a "grand compromise" which would consist of minor tax increases for rich, no tax increases for middle class (many who pay NO income tax currently) and non-meaningful spending cuts that are suppossed to take place in the future but never will. That will do nothing whatsoever to help solve our debt crisis and in fact will make it even worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 10:22 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,438,494 times
Reputation: 7274
Truthfully, long-term the Bush/Obama temporary cuts should stay temporary, and the sanest way to avoid people acting like the rates of just 15 years ago being unheard of is to ease all the cuts away 25% per year.

There is a looming danger in anyone not treating the word "temporary" seriously, and in 2001, it was passed as a temporary measure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 10:39 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,478 posts, read 5,865,968 times
Reputation: 2189
If we can do more with 4% more in taxes why not 20% more. We could really do a lot then. What a bunch of idiots democrats are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,233,775 times
Reputation: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
If we can do more with 4% more in taxes why not 20% more. We could really do a lot then. What a bunch of idiots democrats are.
Since when is returning to Clinton Era rates a call to push taxes to 30% of GDP? The idiots are the folks who whine about the deficit, and act like axing the government is going to help a housing and jobs recovery. We need to do small things to reverse unsustainable tax rates, end wars, and reform entitlements. It is also idiotic (and boring), to make hysterical socialist claims when we are really just trying to move back to a fiscally sound, centrist tax policy of about 18%-20% of GDP. And the sad part is the the dittoheads doing the most whining about taxes are probably going to be the first ones riding around in their medicare scooters on our dime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,589,732 times
Reputation: 3399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
I have been receiving e-mails from Obama saying I should defend the middle class tax cut, but support a tax hike for the rich. While I strongly support a return to 39.6% for the wealthy (the richest seen spectacular rises in income as the rest of us have treaded water), I think we should have a graded tax hike, starting at current rates at about $50k and grading upward to a 3.6% hike at $250k and up. We earn very low six figures an a 1-2% hike would not hurt us much and would allow us to do things like rebuild aging infrastructure,etc. I suspect those earning 200k could deal with 3%. I don't get why the middle class should be spared and the rich taxed. That is pure politics. Tax us all at an appropriate rate to pay down the damn deficit. I don't want to pay those taxes, but I want to return to fiscal solvency, and that is more important than getting my Bush/Obama bucks. I also want to see cutting, but I know we just cannot run our country on 15% of GDP without axing the safety net and laying off many thousands of federal employees, which would not help UE or the housing market. We are all in this together, and I don't like the middle class vs. the upper class division. We should all pay a fair share, and in most cases, that is 1-4% higher than current rates, except for the poorest working folks.
So why shouldn't the poor have skin in the game too? After all, we are all in this together.. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,233,775 times
Reputation: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
So why shouldn't the poor have skin in the game too? After all, we are all in this together.. Right?
Sure, I am for that in principle. But if a working person is below the poverty line and getting food stamps, etc., they likely have little to pay. I don't like the notion that a lot of people pay little income tax, but at our current low rates, that seems to be the case.

But I do agree that we should all ethical Americans should be concerned with having a solvent government, not getting a free lunch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,589,732 times
Reputation: 3399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Sure, I am for that in principle. But if a working person is below the poverty line and getting food stamps, etc., they likely have little to pay. I don't like the notion that a lot of people pay little income tax, but at our current low rates, that seems to be the case.

But I do agree that we should all ethical Americans should be concerned with having a solvent government, not getting a free lunch.
It's not a question of how much one pays, but that they pay something. Aren't we ALL Americans and isn't our nation in trouble? Shouldn't all of us be willing to make a sacrifice in order to hopefully save us all from financial armegedon?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:26 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,438,494 times
Reputation: 7274
What I would want in return for higher rates is more skin by all in the game:

This would help: (1) Concurrent to new rates in same legislation is a firm cap on gov't budget %/GDP. Also, we limit EUC to X weeks and than you are on your own. We limit welfare years. In the same vein, EITC should be capped in both years and dollars received. It should be a means to enable one a small amount of additional time to increase their earning potential, instead of an open-ended "Do nada to get past a Mcjob for life" system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Yakima WA
3,856 posts, read 4,277,751 times
Reputation: 3155
The poor can do their part by at least contributing something in income tax and getting some of their handouts cut.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top