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.
Non-partisan manner always means the democrats way. Good call.
Or it could refer to the Tea Party holding everyone hostage in the face of mounting deficits by refusing tax reforms or spending cuts. Their way or the highway!
Or you could say that the people who used tax payer funded loans to achieve success and profit off people's misfortune (illness) will be forced to pay their fair share, thus giving something back. Depends on what kind on emotional BS you might be trying to peddle!
lol@ profit off misfortune
technically you're right but i hardly think of doctors helping patients get better profiting off of their misfortune
those tax funded loans are also a big reason colleges are so expensive (and available to tons of idiots who don't use them to better themselves)
if the loans werent so easy to come by school wouldnt be so expensive
and extremely intelligent students who get accepted into med school would be able to get loans from banks bc the banks know they would get paid back
idiots who want to spend 100k a year to major in art history and then complain that theyre under so much stress from debt though their own **** poor choices that end up working at starbucks wouldnt be
at least people who borrow tons of money to go to med school are making an intelligent decision and paying the loans back as opposed to people who major in nonsense and party for 4 years at the extent of the tax payers
I don't like republicans because all they want is tax cuts for the rich and to weaken Social Security and Medicare. They are harsh on the middle class and poor, so I voted all democrat on my ballot.
Unfortunately demagoguery does not make for good fiscal policy.
Do you really think that by narrowing the tax base, the US will get a handle on its fiscal problems? That is what the Obama administration is proposing, but the real purpose is to pander for votes, and they succeeded.
It does take a little math and technical vocabularly to understand this, but marginal tax rates do not matter as much as effective tax rates.
The Obama administration is proposing to raise marginal tax rates on a very narrow base of taxpayers, and it sounds good because "tax the rich" is a popular slogan.
US government revenue as a ratio to GDP is around 18%, and, indeed, the effective tax rate for many taxpayers, after all deductions, exemptions and credits, is around, guess how much, 18%. Mr Romney's effective tax rate is no different than many other taxpayers, including those who generate only a fraction of his income. I am not even a groove on Mr Romney's pinky fingernail and my effective tax rate is, guess how much, around 18%, maybe even a little less.
Raising marginal tax rates on a very narrow portion of taxpayers will not make a dent in the deficit/debt going forward, especially if not accompanied by drastic spending cuts, mostly, guess what, social security and medicare, though probably through stealth inflation and not through reductions in nominal pay-outs.
A more sustainable approach would be to broaden the tax base: 1) close loopholes, tighten or eliminate deductions, exemptions and credits, in other words, drastically simplify the tax code, thus raising the effective tax rate for everybody, with or without touching marginal rates which only make headlines, not fiscal policy; 2) get the basic economy moving again, such that even the unskilled have a chance at a living wage and contribute instead of only take; 3) cut some of the fat out of social security and health care - and increase contributions to them through private-sector employment -, and out of military spending.
Of course drastically simplifying the tax code will never happen because it is against the interests of the very people who write the tax code. Do you think that they will legislate themselves a cut in pay or even out of existence?
So what we are left with is demagoguery and, in terms of actual policy, the usual mishmash.
In the current environment, I don't see how potentially productive capital - and there is a lot of cash sitting around doing nothing - will be allocated to the best possible productive investment. On the contrary, I perceive outright hostility to such good intentions. Why?
The result, obviously, is that we are all looking to dodge each other's demagoguery-induced excesses. Guess what, I am confident that I can more successfully dodge your excesses than you can dodge mine, and so do the very people that you voted for, believe me, just watch.
It's your choice, you made it, now live with the consequences.
lol@ profit off misfortune
technically you're right but i hardly think of doctors helping patients get better profiting off of their misfortune
those tax funded loans are also a big reason colleges are so expensive (and available to tons of idiots who don't use them to better themselves)
if the loans werent so easy to come by school wouldnt be so expensive
and extremely intelligent students who get accepted into med school would be able to get loans from banks bc the banks know they would get paid back
idiots who want to spend 100k a year to major in art history and then complain that theyre under so much stress from debt though their own **** poor choices that end up working at starbucks wouldnt be
at least people who borrow tons of money to go to med school are making an intelligent decision and paying the loans back as opposed to people who major in nonsense and party for 4 years at the extent of the tax payers
Technically, I am right, but mainly I am pointing out there are many ways to view things. Not black and white.
Loans are not the reason for the high cost of education, they are the result. Banks do not give unsecured loans to people, no matter how intelligent they may be perceived to be! Hence the reason for government loan guarantees. You have any stats showing that those who default are less intelligent? You think if we pump out nothing but engineers, economists and chemists by the millions, they will all find jobs and pay their bills in full? Really? Starbucks will be full of engineers and chemists - behind the counter.
My son started college this year. We were offered loans at 6.9%, hardly a rate that would encourage "majoring in nonsense and partying for four years".
Last edited by shaker281; 11-09-2012 at 04:16 AM..
The Obama administration is proposing to raise marginal tax rates on a very narrow base of taxpayers, and it sounds good because "tax the rich" is a popular slogan.
US government revenue as a ratio to GDP is around 18%, and, indeed, the effective tax rate for many taxpayers, after all deductions, exemptions and credits, is around, guess how much, 18%. Mr Romney's effective tax rate is no different than many other taxpayers, including those who generate only a fraction of his income. I am not even a groove on Mr Romney's pinky fingernail and my effective tax rate is, guess how much, around 18%, maybe even a little less.
Raising marginal tax rates on a very narrow portion of taxpayers will not make a dent in the deficit/debt going forward, especially if not accompanied by drastic spending cuts, mostly, guess what, social security and medicare, though probably through stealth inflation and not through reductions in nominal pay-outs.
A more sustainable approach would be to broaden the tax base: 1) close loopholes, tighten or eliminate deductions, exemptions and credits, in other words, drastically simplify the tax code, thus raising the effective tax rate for everybody, with or without touching marginal rates which only make headlines, not fiscal policy; 2) get the basic economy moving again, such that even the unskilled have a chance at a living wage and contribute instead of only take; 3) cut some of the fat out of social security and health care - and increase contributions to them through private-sector employment -, and out of military spending.
While I agree with much of the latter part of the above quoted text, the first part is not accurate. Along with other potential tax increases, there are tax increase targeted to folks making over $250,000 and mainly on unearned income. The Obama plan is to close some loopholes and broaden the tax base. Unfortunately, the GOP has stood in the way of any legislation that includes any tax increases and will not budge on defense spending. Look up Grover Norquist and his pledge. We aren't going anywhere with that sort of obstructionist movement. I support across the board increases along with spending cuts to get a handle on the deficit. We will see cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and education for certain. If nothing is done to extend the payroll tax cut (likely) and Bush era tax cuts, there will be a de facto tax increase in 2012. It is well documented that the Bush tax cuts disproportionately favored the wealthiest among us. The real question is whether this economy can handle a huge cut in government spending and a tax increase, all rhetoric aside.
I don't like Republicans because all they want is tax cuts for the rich and to weaken Social Security and Medicare. They are harsh on the Middle class and poor, so I voted all democrat on my ballot.
The only Republican I liked was Ronald Reagan.
Ok, this is like saying I don't like democrats because all they want is handouts given to minorities. Sounds pretty moronic doesn't it?
While I agree with much of the latter part of the above quoted text, the first part is not accurate. Along with other potential tax increases, there are tax increase targeted to folks making over $250,000 and mainly on unearned income. The Obama plan is to close some loopholes and broaden the tax base. Unfortunately, the GOP has stood in the way of any legislation that includes any tax increases and will not budge on defense spending. Look up Grover Norquist and his pledge. We aren't going anywhere with that sort of obstructionist movement. I support across the board increases along with spending cuts to get a handle on the deficit. We will see cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and education for certain. If nothing is done to extend the payroll tax cut (likely) and Bush era tax cuts, there will be a de facto tax increase in 2012. It is well documented that the Bush tax cuts disproportionately favored the wealthiest among us. The real question is whether this economy can handle a huge cut in government spending and a tax increase, all rhetoric aside.
Personally I am NOT willing to support any increase in headline marginal tax rates at the current degree of complexity, it is meaningless demagogic rhetoric, and it simply hurts the upper middle class, not the upper class for sure, and under those conditions, which are current conditions, I support Grover Norquist and his pledge and those in Congress who have signed it.
I would be willing to support an increase in effective tax rates, even by up to 3-5 percentage points, which sounds pretty generous to me, but only in exchange for drastic simplification of the tax code.
In other words, the government revenue/GDP ratio should be something like 20%-22%, but part of that could be, for example, import tariffs, and screw the WTO where necessary for comparative advantage in, say, low-tech manufacturing.
Now let's come back from la-la land, because none of that ain't never gonna happen, and please tell me what you think - your best guess or gut feeling - is actually going to happen in the real world over the next two months, six months and two years regarding fiscal policy?
non-partisan manner? Do you mean the democrats way? People at $200 k are small business and going to get punished I don't care what Obama says they are not the millionaires and billionaires. Doesn't everyone dream for the American dream. This is the income level that people who are middle class can start a small business and have a chance at realizing the American dream. Find a good idea it is possible. So basically Obama killed the American dream, forget it, don't even dream it. You will be taxed to death and won't be able to get there.
There will have to be "cuts" in entitlements too. Stop worrying about green energy because so far Obama spent billions on it and how many jobs are there to show for it. Obama should have worried about jobs first and invested in green later.
By the way, there is a girl that collects welfare. She says that the bush tax cuts should expire on everyone. Imagine that, no skin in the game and has the nerve to say, increase taxes on "everyone" (except her of course).
You have to come to grips with the fact that income for the average American family is now what it was in 1980. The only class that has seen any wealth increase is the top 1%. There has been a tremendous redistribution of wealth to the top 1%. The way this has been accomplished is through laws that the top 1% has been able to pass, e.g Romney's/Bains' law that carry-interest is considered long-term capital gains. Someone has to pay for all of these loop-holes and it has been the 99% who have been getting poorer.
The top 1% has plenty of power on Capitol Hill and using it to their benefit. The reason we are in debt is because the top 1% have successfully passed tons of laws that have put us in debt, i.e. passed income tax savings for themselves that were not properly paid for in spending cuts. Both Republicans and Democrats have participated in this charade in approximately equal amounts.
1) The fiscal cliff. Even as we speak, people are dumping out their commercial real estate holdings before the end of the year. The activity out there is unreal.
2) The anticipation of the bottom line hit that Obamacare is going to inflict. The corporate budgeting that I know of has CFOs DOUBLING their anticipated employee health insurance expenses, chiefly because of this godawful regulation. Nobody knows what's going to happen, not even the authors of this abomination.
Personally I am NOT willing to support any increase in headline marginal tax rates at the current degree of complexity, it is meaningless demagogic rhetoric, and it simply hurts the upper middle class, not the upper class for sure, and under those conditions, which are current conditions, I support Grover Norquist and his pledge and those in Congress who have signed it.
I would be willing to support an increase in effective tax rates, even by up to 3-5 percentage points, which sounds pretty generous to me, but only in exchange for drastic simplification of the tax code.
In other words, the government revenue/GDP ratio should be something like 20%-22%, but part of that could be, for example, import tariffs, and screw the WTO where necessary for comparative advantage in, say, low-tech manufacturing.
Now let's come back from la-la land, because none of that ain't never gonna happen, and please tell me what you think - your best guess or gut feeling - is actually going to happen in the real world over the next two months, six months and two years regarding fiscal policy?
Thanks.
Probably something will happen because now there are CEO of large and medium size companies that are putting pressure on Congress to both raise revenue and cut expenses. The best idea that I have heard that is supported by both Republicans and Democrats is to limit the amount of deductions.
The reason the business community is finally acting and putting pressure on both sides of Congress is that the economy is tanking. Without the huge deficits (which now amount to about 6% of annual GDP and in total are greater than GDP), we would have negative growth (in a massive recession). Everyone knows this.
The problem with an economy built upon debt, is that someone has to pay to service the debt. The Federal Reserve is doing this by printing money. Printing money robs people of interest on savings and devalues all savings (removes spending power and demand for goods and services). This results in overall demand contraction (worldwide) which puts us deeper and deeper in real recession, thus ever increasing demand for debt. In other words, the U.S. is slowly sliding into bankruptcy a la Greece and Spain. Anyone who understands the full economics knows this (a handful in Congress may understand this).
The U.S. economic infrastructure is crumbling. We have theoretically been in an ongoing Great Recession since the Bush administration right through the current Administration. Without some change we will see a continued collapse of the American economy. This is why the stock market is beginning to crumble. It needs much more money printing, but it may not get it if the debt is reversed and the Feds stop printing money. The market fears what is best for the economy - some sort of resolution and an end to the printing press manufactured money.
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.
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.
