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.
You guys have screamed that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. Why should a tax increase make a difference?
If the bush tax cuts expire, The senate can write a bill to cut taxes for the middle class and make the republican house vote not to pass the law or bring it to the floor. They will make the voters kind of angry in 14. Go ahead. Two years of higher taxes for two years to get rid of the republican majority in the house. That sounds like a fair trade off.
If the bush tax cuts expire, The senate can write a bill to cut taxes for the middle class and make the republican house vote not to pass the law or bring it to the floor. They will make the voters kind of angry in 14. Go ahead. Two years of higher taxes for two years to get rid of the republican majority in the house. That sounds like a fair trade off.
We get hit with AMT and don't gripe. Last year AMT, you know ..that tax on the rich, hit people making only $30K per year.
We get hit with AMT and don't gripe. Last year AMT, you know ..that tax on the rich, hit people making only $30K per year.
Well there is a simple way to avoid that. If the House will approve of making middle class tax reductions permanent and let the high income tax breaks expire. It is in the house's court. The people have spoken, that is what they want. The house can go against those wishes and start looking for new jobs in 14.
I think it is clear from the election and polls that Americans favor increasing taxes on the very wealthy. All that needs to happen is push the rates for taxes...all taxes (capital gains, inheritance, and tax brackets) to what they were during the Clinton term.
Republicans should just concede this point and begin negotiations on where to cut expenditures. Certainly there needs to be cuts with Defense, but other things need to be on the table.
We should raise taxes just as you say, because no one but the bureaucrats in government know better how to spend our money.
Take 0bama for example, his crony capitalist spending in green energy was a real winner.
Raise taxes on the top 10% of wage earners by 50%, and keep the lower 50% where they are, so they pay zero income taxes.
If the bush tax cuts expire, The senate can write a bill to cut taxes for the middle class and make the republican house vote not to pass the law or bring it to the floor. They will make the voters kind of angry in 14. Go ahead. Two years of higher taxes for two years to get rid of the republican majority in the house. That sounds like a fair trade off.
All fine - except spending bills originate in the House.
I think it is clear from the election and polls that Americans favor increasing taxes on the very wealthy. All that needs to happen is push the rates for taxes...all taxes (capital gains, inheritance, and tax brackets) to what they were during the Clinton term.
Republicans should just concede this point and begin negotiations on where to cut expenditures. Certainly there needs to be cuts with Defense, but other things need to be on the table.
Yes we can cut defense spending.
AND
CUT the Department of education, since it's a states issue, no more welfare, no more section 8, no more food stamps, that the reason we have charity, it's not a government issue.
While we are at it, all the people working in those departments need to be moved to something the Federal government SHOULD be doing.
A good starting point would be to look at what programs we now have in place as a result of the national debt being doubled and start cutting those. We lived without them before, we can live without them now.
What we really need to do is get America back to work. The real unemployment rate is somewhere around 17% when you include people who have given up on finding work, have run out of benefits or never found a job in the first place and are living in their parents basements. How much tax revenue could you generate if you get everyone who wants to work working? Ans: A LOT more than you'll get by taxing the top 3% at a higher rate which seems to be the only answer obama has.
Another issue with our tax system is that 50% of the people working pay no taxes. That's a problem. Only 50% of our workers are supporting the government when all of them should be even if it's just $10 a week. That's the equivalent of increasing the taxes on the top 3% by $9000 a year and that's not considering that we just eliminated people getting money back they never paid into the system in the first place.
So you want $10 a week from the poor but nothing extra from the rich? So you want poor kids to go hungry and go without proper medical care and you want their mothers and fathers to pay more taxes perhaps cutting into child care funds, thus prohibiting having a job, thus prohibiting paying taxes???
I could ask a lot more questions, but that's enough for now.
The jobs problem is LARGELY due to outsourcing by the wealthy who became successful in America- but there is never enough for them, is there? There is no group "poorer" in fact, than the rich. I pity them having to deal with insatiable greed- it is a curse.
Those jobs are not going to be brought back here until Americans will work for pauper's wages- period. And you thank and support the rich. The rich cannot afford to pay Clinton era tax rates, they did so badly in that period of time.(<sarcasm for the challenged.) Poor babies. They wouldn't consider leaving the dance with the gal that brought them.
I think the "drop in the bucket" billions that raising taxes on the rich would bring WITHOUT THEM SUFFERING FOR ONE WANT OR NEED OR LUXURY would help this country a He!!uva lot more that 10 bucks a week from the poor who need that money for food and shelter. It isn't even a tax raise, technically, it is simply the expiration of a TEMPORARY tax cut.
Oh, one last question. Do some of you people have no shame?
CUT the Department of education, since it's a states issue, no more welfare, no more section 8, no more food stamps, that the reason we have charity, it's not a government issue.
While we are at it, all the people working in those departments need to be moved to something the Federal government SHOULD be doing.
I agree in part. I don't agree that charity is the answer, but I do believe many programs at the federal level are or should be state programs, but boy those Red states are going to be a disaster without federal funding. I am ok with that.
pbo could have disbanded the epa as well, would have saved alot more than 800 million.
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.
