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.
What program might the Federal government provide that would give you increasing benefits in return for higher taxes? They have to cut SS and Medicare benefits (as well as increase taxes for these) to deal with the demographic problem of only 2 workers supporting 1 retiree in the near future. You won't see better returns there in return for your higher taxes.
Spin-machine hogwash. The "near future" in this case is the year 2070. That's when the SS Trustees project the ratio of workers to retirees will reach 2.0-to-1. They are able to project that by assuming that net immigration will decrease continuously over the next 75 years. Wanna bet? By the way the actual ratio in 1975 was 3.2-to-1. Today, it's 3.1-to-1.
There is a further question of whether the worker-to-retiree ratio is even the right number to be looking at. Retirees are not the only group that depends on current workers for their support. Children do also, as well as the sick, the institutionalized, the disabled, and so forth. In 1950, the worker-to-dependent ratio was 1.05. Today, it is 1.30. The trend suggests that there are offsetting factors that may in fact make it easier going forward to support dependents generally, retirees being just one group among them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
I can't think of any situation where we'd wouldn't be better off just leaving those dollars in the taxpayers' pockets.
You think that's actually an endorsement?
Last edited by saganista; 04-23-2010 at 05:39 AM..
98% of Americans saw their taxes go down this year. We have the lowest income tax rates in 60 years. This is according to the Brookings Institute in a study they released about a week ago.
Obama has provided the largest tax cut in history. Bigger than Reagan's. Bigger than either of Bush's. He did that in the stimulus bill. Right-wingers love tax cuts. Right-wingers hate the stimulus bill. Go figure. They're just one very confused lot, I guess...
1. The article says "Could raise taxes" doesn't say they are. (Don't see a They are in that sentence)
2. The article says that they are allowing to expire, the Bush estate tax cuts, that allowed cuts in large inheritances. (You're going to tell me, you want millionaire kids to keep all of mom and dads money? They didn't earn it, put it back in the system)
So this is whats happening people, read, please.
Bush put in tax cuts, that expire soon. If, President Obama allowed all of the Bush Tax cuts to expire, yes, taxes would go up on about 10% of Americans (30 million, of 307million total).
However, he said he is going to extend the Bush tax cuts for those who make under 250,000 dollars.
See how this works? He didn't lie in the election, and you're reading headlines, and not reading the article.
Now, all that said, I think he should raise taxes, on all Americans who make 100,000 or more a year. But, I'm not President, and its not my decision.
That is moronic. Bush left office in Jan 2009. He has no control over any tax hike Obama wants to give us. None.
Fail. The laws he passed (under reconciliation, by the way) didn't leave town with him. He wrote them. He passed them. They are still in effect. This is all looking like just another Republican attempt to run away as fast as possible from....
1. The article says "Could raise taxes" doesn't say they are. (Don't see a They are in that sentence)
2. The article says that they are allowing to expire, the Bush estate tax cuts, that allowed cuts in large inheritances. (You're going to tell me, you want millionaire kids to keep all of mom and dads money? They didn't earn it, put it back in the system)
So this is whats happening people, read, please.
Bush put in tax cuts, that expire soon. If, President Obama allowed all of the Bush Tax cuts to expire, yes, taxes would go up on about 10% of Americans (30 million, of 307million total).
However, he said he is going to extend the Bush tax cuts for those who make under 250,000 dollars.
See how this works? He didn't lie in the election, and you're reading headlines, and not reading the article.
Now, all that said, I think he should raise taxes, on all Americans who make 100,000 or more a year. But, I'm not President, and its not my decision.
Isnt it that millionaires choice to let their kids keep their money if they work since it is their money and they earned it.. So I guess the kid that got the money from the person that left them say 100k shouldnt get to keep that either since they didnt earn it. Thats nonsense most work hard to be able to provide a better life for their child
He already broke his tax promise so yes he did lie. You cant keep spending like this and think taxes arent going to be raised
Heck democrats have already signed over 670+ Billion in new taxes
See how this works? He didn't lie in the election, and you're reading headlines, and not reading the article.
You can make Obama's campaign speeches into a lie by taking selected words and phrases out of their original context and then attaching your own definitions and context instead. In the end, according to many right-wingers, Obama promised that there would never be any tax increases of any kind ever again.
Take the increase in excise taxes on tobacco. Those impact on some people who make less than $250K, hence Obama was lying. But in many of the same speeches in which he discussed his tax plans and the no increases on those under $250K factor, he also voiced his strong support for the twice vetoed by Bush S-CHIP expansion of health care coverage to millions of uninsured children. All versions of that bill -- the first one vetoed by Bush, the second one vetoed by Bush, and the one Obama promised he would sign -- funded that expanded health care coverage through those increased excise taxes on tobacco. So how can Obama be supporting a tax increase at the same time he is promising that there will be no tax increases?
Right-wing answer: Obama is either too stupid to have known that he was contradicting himself, or he knew he was deliberately lying to the American people, or probably somehow both at the same time.
More rational answer: The no increase on those under $250K promise was with respect to the income tax and related plans that he had for moving forward once he was inaugurated on fixing some of the extreme fiscal imbalances that the Bush era had created. It was never considered or intended as a blanket bar to any and all tax increases ever, as could easily be shown in noting that he was simultaneoulsy promising that there would be an increase in excise taxes on tobacco.
Now, in one speech in Ohio, Obama did seem to get carried away with the moment in saying that people would see no increase in any of their taxes. And that might have been true with respect to his then-current plans, at least with reference to the programs he would seek to roll out after his inauguration. But can even that speech be taken as the no tax increases of any kind ever pledge that right-wingers want to claim it to be? Not realistically, but then realism isn't a right-wing strength to begin with.
In the end of course, Obama had to revamp almost all of his original fiscal plans as the result of the developing severity of the Great Bush Recession. We haven't had any tax increases on people OVER $250K either. That idea was simply scuttled. But now, two tax years on and with the economy at least working back toward the black, there is a need to address some of the problems that had already emerged by 2008 and some that have emerged since. Economic recovery will slowly bring federal receipts back up all by itself, but that won't be enough. We will need -- to use Ronald Reagan's terminology -- some loophole closings and some revenue enhancements. Obama ran on the premise of working to restore fiscal sanity, and as the economy will allow, it's time to get to work on that.
I can't think of any situation where we'd wouldn't be better off just leaving those dollars in the taxpayers' pockets. That might give the economy some reason to recover.
Unbelievable. They made the money, why should they not keep it? What is wrong with people?
I can not think of how the government will spend it better? Solyndra? Electric cars? Paying people to do nothing? Paying people who don't contribute anything to our society except for legally stealing money from others and thinking it is justified.
So I get to pay higher taxes and just how does my quality of life improve? Cause I see this increasing in spending and not one thing that improves my life. I really dont consider working hard to have less quality of life. Not sure why anyone would
What you say makes sense but does not make sense to Ob supporters. I don't get that unless they expect more handouts.
My quality of life will be worse.
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.
