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.
Let's be honest for a minute. Even if all the Bush II tax cuts were relaxed, we would only be going back the the Clinton era tax levels. This was not the end of the world. I understand the logic of extending the cuts a bit because of the recession and constrained demand. But it is only a defibrillator treatment for the economy, not a sustainable tax policy.
The drive by the GOP to make all the tax cuts permanent, and to call any sensible expiration of these tax cuts to be a massive tax hike, is nothing less than an insurgent strategy straight from Grover Norquist. The only way to balance the budget at such low tax rates is to axe thousands of federal jobs and benefits for the poorest in society in these difficult times, permanently. Taking the axe to the government is a far right wet dream, but undermining basic services and destroying middle class jobs is not going to make our country stronger. It is an aggressive, almost fascist agenda, and considering the dire straights of the middle class, spectacularly foolish.
I know that I, and I suspect most of you, were doing better in the Clinton years. So returning to some fo those fiscal policies sounds much better than what we have now.
lets be honest about it....really.
I wont mind the clinton era taxes, as long as all the rest of the taxes are abolished. no gax tax, not fees on any other services, no taxes either if the only taxes I am paying is on my income, i would gladly go back to the slick willy era of paying taxes. until then lets not raise taxes on the middle class at all.
after all, if democrats can get up there and say that obama has not had a fair 1st term because this was all bushes fault, then we can also say that clintons good 2 terms as president was all due to ronald reagan and what good he did for the economy.
Is there anything stoppping you from writing a nice big check to the IRS? I bet they would be happy to accept your money. In fact, I think we should make it as simple as possible for all people that think taxes should be raised to pay more.
We don't have a revenue problem...we have a spending problem. Brought to you by both parties.
Fixed dollar, per person spending by the feds:
Per person federal tax receipts.
The federal government has taken an ever rising amount of money from each and every American taxpayer (granted, with some dips and peaks depending on recessions). Yet still, spending growth outstrips revenue growth.
I'd support going back to Clinton-era tax rates...if Dems would support going back to Clinton-era spending. Per person federal spending (in fixed $) was flat at about $7k per person during the 90s. Our current revenue is ~$8k per person...if we just trimmed spending a bit to the level of the 90s, we would have a surplus of ~$1000 per person or $300 billion per year. That would start to make a dent in the debt.
It is interesting to note the volatility in income versus spending. Looks to me like the biggest runups in spending were under Reagan and Bush II. Of course income is much more volatile. Now how much of the runup has to do with the wars Bush started? A lot I'd say, and we never were asked to pay for them. That alone should argue for a move to the Clinton levels. I am all for cutting costs. We need to start by bringing the troops home.
Let's say you are a young couple in good health who doesn't really need health insurance at this point in their lives.
The Obamacare government health care plan is going to cost you $12,000 a year.... and if you don't buy it, you will pay a $2000 penalty. The government says it'll subsidize a portion of that which would mean you would still need to come up with $8000 of that $12,000 each year.
It's still cheaper to pay the penalty, but that money goes toward nothing...you get nothing in return.
There is no one who can honestly say that they know for a fact that they will not get sick or injured. At some point, we all need the services of a doctor or hospital. And we never know when we will need those services. Those who don't have insurance or don't pay their bills, for whatever reason, are being subsidized for their healthcare at the expense of those who do. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her opinion, that impacts heavily on our national economy, impacts such as ever higher premiums and medical costs. I would encourage everyone to read the entire text of the Supreme Court decision.
It is interesting to note the volatility in income versus spending. Looks to me like the biggest runups in spending were under Reagan and Bush II. Of course income is much more volatile. Now how much of the runup has to do with the wars Bush started? A lot I'd say, and we never were asked to pay for them. That alone should argue for a move to the Clinton levels. I am all for cutting costs. We need to start by bringing the troops home.
Spinmaster parrot speak is all I read. Like a Charlie Brown cartoon, "whaa whaa whaa" is all I hear. This may have worked in 2008, but people have woken up to the scam. No more spin, the record is scratched beyond belief. The music has died and reality set in. Hello, Hello, is there anybody in there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Those who don't have insurance or don't pay their bills, for whatever reason, are being subsidized for their healthcare at the expense of those who do.
And now those same deadbeats will still be subsidized by the same people (who paid their bills,) through higher costs, and lower service. Maybe even with their lives.
It is interesting to note the volatility in income versus spending. Looks to me like the biggest runups in spending were under Reagan and Bush II. Of course income is much more volatile. Now how much of the runup has to do with the wars Bush started? A lot I'd say, and we never were asked to pay for them. That alone should argue for a move to the Clinton levels. I am all for cutting costs. We need to start by bringing the troops home.
I agree with that. AND slash the extra spending started under Bush for education (no child left behind) and the prescription drug benefit. And every other new program started since 1990.
Spinmaster parrot speak is all I read. Like a Charlie Brown cartoon, "whaa whaa whaa" is all I hear. This may have worked in 2008, but people have woken up to the scam. No more spin, the record is scratched beyond belief. The music has died and reality set in. Hello, Hello, is there anybody in there?
And now those same deadbeats will still be subsidized by the same people (who paid their bills,) through higher costs, and lower service. Maybe even with their lives.
Not true. The individual mandate was passed (and upheld by the SCOTUS). Those deadbeats, as you call then, will have to have insurance, or get help from the government in attaining insurance. If not, they will have to pay the tax penalty. Either way, they will no longer be subsidized by the rest of us through higher premiums and medical costs. So the insurnace companies and hospitals will no longer be able to say that these people are driving up copsts, and will have to explain why costs continue to go up, if, in fact, they do go up.
I suspect that some costs will go down but not in the short term.
Something I did not understand about our tax system until recently is how tax cuts actually work. When we say the "middle class" are getting a tax cut, we actually mean everyone in the middle class AND above get a tax cut. So the rich are getting a tax cut as well as the middle class. For example, if taxes are
0% on everyone making 30k and below
10% on everyone making 100k and below
20% on everyone making above 100k
someone making 150k gets taxes
0 on their first 30k of income
10% on their next 70k of income
20% on their final 50k of income
So, if there is a "middle class" tax cut on the 10% rate to 5%, everyone gets that cut and someone making 150k will pay
0 on their first 30k of income
5% on their next 70k of income
20% on their final 50k of income
I'm part of the Democratic voting base, and I wouldn't mind if all of the Bush tax cuts were eliminated. They were not planned for and poorly thought out. In fact, as a married person with a child and a not-so-high-income, we'll probably be harder hit. I'll pay higher taxes. So what. I'll adjust. There needs to be more revenue. I'd rather things get straightened out now than later.
Then you're incredibly naive to think that's how things are going to get "straightened out". I can no longer pay any attention to anything you have to say about anything.
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.
