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.
.......on the right it's the influence of people that want to pay no or almost no taxes and any raise or even just not lowering them is enough to get you not elected.
Nice post, in its entirety. So any objective observer would classify me on the right, and let me clarify this tax thing as I see it. I'm in the 10% of the people that now pay 70% of all federal income tax dollars collected--after all the supposed breaks and deductions and exclusions. And this 70% is a bigger share of the group's income than any other group--our current tax system is sharply progressive. When a national politician says he wants me to pay my fair share, and lumps me in with 'millionaires and billionaires,' what the hell have I been doing? I'm paying my share and the share of seven other people riding on my back. I want to puke every time he says 'fair share.' I'm already sending in one-fourth of every dollar I make.
The Simpson Bowles Commission, the Gang of Six, and before those the Rivlin-Domenici group all came down to the same essential points: you cannot raise rates enough at the top end to cure the problem, you have to take the garbage out of the tax code, and lower top marginal rates in a reformed system would have the top group paying more actual tax.
Why should you subsidize the mortgage on my second home? Or the rich guy's yacht? Both of these fall under the mortgage interest deduction. Why are the importers of rum or the owners of NASCAR tracks playing by a more favorable set of rules than a widget-maker? Here's my deal: level the playing field, take away the power of the lobbyists and ultra-rich by making the top rates reasonable so avoiding them isn't such a priority, STOP with all the special provisions, get our corporate tax structure competitive with the rest of the world, and get ALL the breaks out--every business ought to have the same rules, whether they are drilling oil wells, building windmills, making widgets, or selling insurance.
Tax reform is a threat to politicians of both parties, because both parties raise cash by selling off pieces of the tax code as favors or extort money by threatening tax punishment. But that is the opposite of what the country is supposed to be about: equal treatment under the law.
Nice post, in its entirety. So any objective observer would classify me on the right, and let me clarify this tax thing as I see it. I'm in the 10% of the people that now pay 70% of all federal income tax dollars collected--after all the supposed breaks and deductions and exclusions. And this 70% is a bigger share of the group's income than any other group--our current tax system is sharply progressive. When a national politician says he wants me to pay my fair share, and lumps me in with 'millionaires and billionaires,' what the hell have I been doing? I'm paying my share and the share of seven other people riding on my back. I want to puke every time he says 'fair share.' I'm already sending in one-fourth of every dollar I make.
The Simpson Bowles Commission, the Gang of Six, and before those the Rivlin-Domenici group all came down to the same essential points: you cannot raise rates enough at the top end to cure the problem, you have to take the garbage out of the tax code, and lower top marginal rates in a reformed system would have the top group paying more actual tax.
Why should you subsidize the mortgage on my second home? Or the rich guy's yacht? Both of these fall under the mortgage interest deduction. Why are the importers of rum or the owners of NASCAR tracks playing by a more favorable set of rules than a widget-maker? Here's my deal: level the playing field, take away the power of the lobbyists and ultra-rich by making the top rates reasonable so avoiding them isn't such a priority, STOP with all the special provisions, get our corporate tax structure competitive with the rest of the world, and get ALL the breaks out--every business ought to have the same rules, whether they are drilling oil wells, building windmills, making widgets, or selling insurance.
Tax reform is a threat to politicians of both parties, because both parties raise cash by selling off pieces of the tax code as favors or extort money by threatening tax punishment. But that is the opposite of what the country is supposed to be about: equal treatment under the law.
If the Presidents intention to repeal the Bush tax cuts mean that you will pay more in taxes, that means your taxable income is more than 200K a year..you're not in the top 10%, more like the top 5%. I can tell you that him repealing the Bush cuts will not make me reneg on my or my wifes next raise that will push us over that 200K mark (we're very close). Income tax rates are GRADUATED.
The whole basis for this argument about taxes is not about good public policy or fairness, it's based on anti-tax, anti-government ideology, pushed by the right, that by some miracle has become the mantra of millions of white middle class people who have no hope of ever benefitting from this position. It's perhaps the biggest sucker play of the last 40 years..that you have people who have to go to work everyday carrying water for people who live off capital gains from million dollar bank accounts. And god forbid you talk about raising taxes on capital gains. The whole economy would collapse if you don't give Mitt Romney's Private Equity buddies what they want..how can they afford their Hamptons sex parties?
Or course the loopholes should be cut..and maybe then consider lowering the rates...but how about cutting the loopholes out first?
Nice post, in its entirety. So any objective observer would classify me on the right, and let me clarify this tax thing as I see it. I'm in the 10% of the people that now pay 70% of all federal income tax dollars collected--after all the supposed breaks and deductions and exclusions. And this 70% is a bigger share of the group's income than any other group--our current tax system is sharply progressive. When a national politician says he wants me to pay my fair share, and lumps me in with 'millionaires and billionaires,' what the hell have I been doing? I'm paying my share and the share of seven other people riding on my back. I want to puke every time he says 'fair share.' I'm already sending in one-fourth of every dollar I make.
The Simpson Bowles Commission, the Gang of Six, and before those the Rivlin-Domenici group all came down to the same essential points: you cannot raise rates enough at the top end to cure the problem, you have to take the garbage out of the tax code, and lower top marginal rates in a reformed system would have the top group paying more actual tax.
Why should you subsidize the mortgage on my second home? Or the rich guy's yacht? Both of these fall under the mortgage interest deduction. Why are the importers of rum or the owners of NASCAR tracks playing by a more favorable set of rules than a widget-maker? Here's my deal: level the playing field, take away the power of the lobbyists and ultra-rich by making the top rates reasonable so avoiding them isn't such a priority, STOP with all the special provisions, get our corporate tax structure competitive with the rest of the world, and get ALL the breaks out--every business ought to have the same rules, whether they are drilling oil wells, building windmills, making widgets, or selling insurance.
Tax reform is a threat to politicians of both parties, because both parties raise cash by selling off pieces of the tax code as favors or extort money by threatening tax punishment. But that is the opposite of what the country is supposed to be about: equal treatment under the law.
I don't see a centrist out there and if one did arise, there's no way they could appeal to the far right or left elements, as polarized and bitter as the country seems to be these days.
Does anyone come to mind?
Ron Paul.
I don't know about "centrist", but he is a person whose views are respected from both sides of the isle, and he is a person who leaves partisan politics out of his language.
I love how lying liberals rewrite history to serve their interests.
Ronald Reagan was VILLIFIED by the left when he was President and he would still be villified today as a knuckle-dragging reactionary conservative if he were alive.
Since it's convenient for you to try and lie more by claiming Romney is more extreme than Reagan (LOL - I wish that were true), we have to listen to this faux nostalgia over the "centrist" Ronald Reagan.
I really wish I could find a single liberal with intellectual honesty. There aren't any on this site.
read my posts and tell me how things like being pro-life and being pro welfare reform including increasing the amount of time they have to work per week to get benefits, and you'll love this the first "leftist" who just in the past 24 hours if you'll look at my posts by clicking on my name said we needed to cut spending, oh and i voted for dole when he was running for prez. not to mention quillen and other republicans. I would have voted for Reagan if I'd been old enough and I'm not a fan of O'bama I think he's bad for the country so how in the hell am i a leftist. I love Gov. Christie oh yeah lefties really love him
I don't see a centrist out there and if one did arise, there's no way they could appeal to the far right or left elements, as polarized and bitter as the country seems to be these days.
Does anyone come to mind?
His name was Barack Obama. As a moderate, paleocon-tinged republican myself, I honestly think Obama wanted to do this, but he was torn apart by the fringe of his very own party as well as the fringe of the opposition party. Add in the fact that he's presided over a bad economy and little progress because of this grid-lock, he now has no choice than to run a negative campaign to get re-elected.
Nice post, in its entirety. So any objective observer would classify me on the right, and let me clarify this tax thing as I see it. I'm in the 10% of the people that now pay 70% of all federal income tax dollars collected--after all the supposed breaks and deductions and exclusions. And this 70% is a bigger share of the group's income than any other group--our current tax system is sharply progressive. When a national politician says he wants me to pay my fair share, and lumps me in with 'millionaires and billionaires,' what the hell have I been doing? I'm paying my share and the share of seven other people riding on my back. I want to puke every time he says 'fair share.' I'm already sending in one-fourth of every dollar I make.
The Simpson Bowles Commission, the Gang of Six, and before those the Rivlin-Domenici group all came down to the same essential points: you cannot raise rates enough at the top end to cure the problem, you have to take the garbage out of the tax code, and lower top marginal rates in a reformed system would have the top group paying more actual tax.
Why should you subsidize the mortgage on my second home? Or the rich guy's yacht? Both of these fall under the mortgage interest deduction. Why are the importers of rum or the owners of NASCAR tracks playing by a more favorable set of rules than a widget-maker? Here's my deal: level the playing field, take away the power of the lobbyists and ultra-rich by making the top rates reasonable so avoiding them isn't such a priority, STOP with all the special provisions, get our corporate tax structure competitive with the rest of the world, and get ALL the breaks out--every business ought to have the same rules, whether they are drilling oil wells, building windmills, making widgets, or selling insurance.
Tax reform is a threat to politicians of both parties, because both parties raise cash by selling off pieces of the tax code as favors or extort money by threatening tax punishment. But that is the opposite of what the country is supposed to be about: equal treatment under the law.
I totally agree with you. But it's been my experience on both sides that an inch is never enough for example if i had an idea to make your taxes down to 40% automatically there's many on the right that would not think that enough...just like if you talk about lowering benefits to welfare people on the left even if you fund programs that help them be less of a burden the left don't like it and the right doesn't always want to fund it even if it's been shown that it would lower the city or state budget by a lot.
One quick example I've seen a lot of programs that actually helped people and costed less money that Republicans didn't want to fun but they didn't want to give to it if it was a charity either, one involved rides for blind people to work, what are blind people supposed to drive themselves to work, if they ever make that an ordinance here i'm moving, it was other people too like people like me with brain damage and weakness on one side of my body and such that also shouldn't be driving, i was able to work full-time instead of being a burden on society i would think a couple of thousand a year in gas and for drivers (ok i think it was in the $10,000-$20,000 range) since we weren't on ssi or any of the other programs but going to work wouldn't that be a good thing? Yes I know ssi is funded by the federal gov't but I know that the medicaid is halfsies and i have a lot of health problems so they easily saved a few thousand a month in just me being able to function.
And I've gotten from a lot of Democrats this you poor baby why don't you go on ssi and sleep on the couch all day attitude. Neither attitude is good for the country.
They don't even have their own party's support. Lugar was dumped and Thompson survived by the skin of his teeth because the crazy far right split the vote. The TEA party conquest of the GOP is reaching fruition and that is going to ensure a Democratic senate just like it did in 2010.
I don't see a centrist out there and if one did arise, there's no way they could appeal to the far right or left elements, as polarized and bitter as the country seems to be these days.
Does anyone come to mind?
To the rest of the developed world, Obama is 'centrist' or even a little to the right.
To Teaparty types he's a 'socialist, marxist, communist' etc. What does that say about them to the rest of the world?
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.
