Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

 Should they expire?  Make your case here...

by on Oct. 1, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Replies (41-50):
mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The tax hike isn't going to affect their first 200,000 dollars income.  If they make 300,000 the tax increase is only on 100,000. That would be around 3,000 dollars are you telling me if you make 300,000 a yearn that 3,000 is going to affect how you live.  This was the same rate under Clinton and people making 300,000 were still doing OK. If you think that is to low then how about for people making a million.  The democrats were willing to that as a compromise and the republicans said no, not e en for people making a million.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I agree that the middle class and poor definitely need more money in their pockets.  The reality is, though, that $200,000 a year is still considered middle class.  It's upper middle class, sure, but it's still middle class.  And people who make that much *do* spend much of it in the economy.  I think that threshold is too low for raising taxes. 

Just as I don't think that Romney's plan for tax cuts on businesses would have the effect he's claiming, I don't think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $200,000 a year would do anything much to help the deficit.

Quoting mommom2000:

The middle class and poor are the ones who need money in their pocket to pump it back into the community.  Obama want;s to keep their tax cuts in place.  The people he wants to raise taxes aren't pumping that tax break back into the economy that's why they need to expire,it's only adding to the deficit.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I think that letting the tax cuts expire would be a band-aid, and an ineffective one at that.  What will ultimately solve the deficit problem is the economy expanding, and letting the tax cuts expire will not help to expand the economy.  It will likely cause it to contract even more.  At this point, we need to keep as much money in people's pockets as possible so that they will pump it back into the economy and increase demand, which will increase jobs, etc.

 

 


JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM
1 mom liked this

 What I'm saying is that I believe that $3000 would be better put to use being spent in the economy.  I would rather take that $3000 and use it for a weekend getaway...going out to dinner, tipping servers, tipping hotel staff, buying trinkets in the mom-and-pop gift shop...For someone making $300,000, and living a $300,000 lifestyle, sure, one less weekend getway isn't that big of a deal.  But it would be a big deal for the servers and gift shop owners who see business decline.

Quoting mommom2000:

The tax hike isn't going to affect their first 200,000 dollars income.  If they make 300,000 the tax increase is only on 100,000. That would be around 3,000 dollars are you telling me if you make 300,000 a yearn that 3,000 is going to affect how you live.  This was the same rate under Clinton and people making 300,000 were still doing OK. If you think that is to low then how about for people making a million.  The democrats were willing to that as a compromise and the republicans said no, not e en for people making a million.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I agree that the middle class and poor definitely need more money in their pockets.  The reality is, though, that $200,000 a year is still considered middle class.  It's upper middle class, sure, but it's still middle class.  And people who make that much *do* spend much of it in the economy.  I think that threshold is too low for raising taxes. 

Just as I don't think that Romney's plan for tax cuts on businesses would have the effect he's claiming, I don't think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $200,000 a year would do anything much to help the deficit.

Quoting mommom2000:

The middle class and poor are the ones who need money in their pocket to pump it back into the community.  Obama want;s to keep their tax cuts in place.  The people he wants to raise taxes aren't pumping that tax break back into the economy that's why they need to expire,it's only adding to the deficit.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I think that letting the tax cuts expire would be a band-aid, and an ineffective one at that.  What will ultimately solve the deficit problem is the economy expanding, and letting the tax cuts expire will not help to expand the economy.  It will likely cause it to contract even more.  At this point, we need to keep as much money in people's pockets as possible so that they will pump it back into the economy and increase demand, which will increase jobs, etc.

 

 

 

 

mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Most likely a person making that kind of money or even more has a savings account and doesn't use every penny to live,nor for fun money. That would be a poor management  of money. Aren't you concerned about our nations deficit.  What about people making a million dollars, then does it make sense?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 What I'm saying is that I believe that $3000 would be better put to use being spent in the economy.  I would rather take that $3000 and use it for a weekend getaway...going out to dinner, tipping servers, tipping hotel staff, buying trinkets in the mom-and-pop gift shop...For someone making $300,000, and living a $300,000 lifestyle, sure, one less weekend getway isn't that big of a deal.  But it would be a big deal for the servers and gift shop owners who see business decline.

Quoting mommom2000:

The tax hike isn't going to affect their first 200,000 dollars income.  If they make 300,000 the tax increase is only on 100,000. That would be around 3,000 dollars are you telling me if you make 300,000 a yearn that 3,000 is going to affect how you live.  This was the same rate under Clinton and people making 300,000 were still doing OK. If you think that is to low then how about for people making a million.  The democrats were willing to that as a compromise and the republicans said no, not e en for people making a million.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I agree that the middle class and poor definitely need more money in their pockets.  The reality is, though, that $200,000 a year is still considered middle class.  It's upper middle class, sure, but it's still middle class.  And people who make that much *do* spend much of it in the economy.  I think that threshold is too low for raising taxes. 

Just as I don't think that Romney's plan for tax cuts on businesses would have the effect he's claiming, I don't think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $200,000 a year would do anything much to help the deficit.

Quoting mommom2000:

The middle class and poor are the ones who need money in their pocket to pump it back into the community.  Obama want;s to keep their tax cuts in place.  The people he wants to raise taxes aren't pumping that tax break back into the economy that's why they need to expire,it's only adding to the deficit.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I think that letting the tax cuts expire would be a band-aid, and an ineffective one at that.  What will ultimately solve the deficit problem is the economy expanding, and letting the tax cuts expire will not help to expand the economy.  It will likely cause it to contract even more.  At this point, we need to keep as much money in people's pockets as possible so that they will pump it back into the economy and increase demand, which will increase jobs, etc.

 

 

 

 


JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM

 Of course I am.  Do you honestly think that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire (even just on millionaires) will be the magic bullet to pay down the several trillion dollar deficit?  Of course it isn't.  And with the current state of the economy, it would likely make things worse, not better.  We need to focus on ways to increase demand so that the economy can expand.  Ultimately, that is what will take care of the deficit. 

Quoting mommom2000:

Most likely a person making that kind of money or even more has a savings account and doesn't use every penny to live,nor for fun money. That would be a poor management  of money. Aren't you concerned about our nations deficit.  What about people making a million dollars, then does it make sense?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 What I'm saying is that I believe that $3000 would be better put to use being spent in the economy.  I would rather take that $3000 and use it for a weekend getaway...going out to dinner, tipping servers, tipping hotel staff, buying trinkets in the mom-and-pop gift shop...For someone making $300,000, and living a $300,000 lifestyle, sure, one less weekend getway isn't that big of a deal.  But it would be a big deal for the servers and gift shop owners who see business decline.

Quoting mommom2000:

The tax hike isn't going to affect their first 200,000 dollars income.  If they make 300,000 the tax increase is only on 100,000. That would be around 3,000 dollars are you telling me if you make 300,000 a yearn that 3,000 is going to affect how you live.  This was the same rate under Clinton and people making 300,000 were still doing OK. If you think that is to low then how about for people making a million.  The democrats were willing to that as a compromise and the republicans said no, not e en for people making a million.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I agree that the middle class and poor definitely need more money in their pockets.  The reality is, though, that $200,000 a year is still considered middle class.  It's upper middle class, sure, but it's still middle class.  And people who make that much *do* spend much of it in the economy.  I think that threshold is too low for raising taxes. 

Just as I don't think that Romney's plan for tax cuts on businesses would have the effect he's claiming, I don't think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $200,000 a year would do anything much to help the deficit.

Quoting mommom2000:

The middle class and poor are the ones who need money in their pocket to pump it back into the community.  Obama want;s to keep their tax cuts in place.  The people he wants to raise taxes aren't pumping that tax break back into the economy that's why they need to expire,it's only adding to the deficit.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I think that letting the tax cuts expire would be a band-aid, and an ineffective one at that.  What will ultimately solve the deficit problem is the economy expanding, and letting the tax cuts expire will not help to expand the economy.  It will likely cause it to contract even more.  At this point, we need to keep as much money in people's pockets as possible so that they will pump it back into the economy and increase demand, which will increase jobs, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

mommom2000
by Bronze Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

You don't want to do it because it's not enough,well it's a lot of money. Obama was willing to put spending cuts on the table, but the other side refused to put revenue on the table, we need both.  The private sector isn't going to magically start creating jobs with the already existing tax cut they have. If we spent that money to invest in our own country like the jobs bill would do, this would also bring in jobs which in turn will bring in revenue, which helps with the deficit..  We tried it your way it didn't work. I don't know why you think it could make it worse.  Businesses hire because of demand, putting middle class people back to work would raise that demand.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Of course I am.  Do you honestly think that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire (even just on millionaires) will be the magic bullet to pay down the several trillion dollar deficit?  Of course it isn't.  And with the current state of the economy, it would likely make things worse, not better.  We need to focus on ways to increase demand so that the economy can expand.  Ultimately, that is what will take care of the deficit. 

Quoting mommom2000:

Most likely a person making that kind of money or even more has a savings account and doesn't use every penny to live,nor for fun money. That would be a poor management  of money. Aren't you concerned about our nations deficit.  What about people making a million dollars, then does it make sense?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 What I'm saying is that I believe that $3000 would be better put to use being spent in the economy.  I would rather take that $3000 and use it for a weekend getaway...going out to dinner, tipping servers, tipping hotel staff, buying trinkets in the mom-and-pop gift shop...For someone making $300,000, and living a $300,000 lifestyle, sure, one less weekend getway isn't that big of a deal.  But it would be a big deal for the servers and gift shop owners who see business decline.

Quoting mommom2000:

The tax hike isn't going to affect their first 200,000 dollars income.  If they make 300,000 the tax increase is only on 100,000. That would be around 3,000 dollars are you telling me if you make 300,000 a yearn that 3,000 is going to affect how you live.  This was the same rate under Clinton and people making 300,000 were still doing OK. If you think that is to low then how about for people making a million.  The democrats were willing to that as a compromise and the republicans said no, not e en for people making a million.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I agree that the middle class and poor definitely need more money in their pockets.  The reality is, though, that $200,000 a year is still considered middle class.  It's upper middle class, sure, but it's still middle class.  And people who make that much *do* spend much of it in the economy.  I think that threshold is too low for raising taxes. 

Just as I don't think that Romney's plan for tax cuts on businesses would have the effect he's claiming, I don't think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $200,000 a year would do anything much to help the deficit.

Quoting mommom2000:

The middle class and poor are the ones who need money in their pocket to pump it back into the community.  Obama want;s to keep their tax cuts in place.  The people he wants to raise taxes aren't pumping that tax break back into the economy that's why they need to expire,it's only adding to the deficit.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I think that letting the tax cuts expire would be a band-aid, and an ineffective one at that.  What will ultimately solve the deficit problem is the economy expanding, and letting the tax cuts expire will not help to expand the economy.  It will likely cause it to contract even more.  At this point, we need to keep as much money in people's pockets as possible so that they will pump it back into the economy and increase demand, which will increase jobs, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 


JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

 I agree with the red 200%.  Maybe we just have different definitions of middle class. ;-)

Quoting mommom2000:

You don't want to do it because it's not enough,well it's a lot of money. Obama was willing to put spending cuts on the table, but the other side refused to put revenue on the table, we need both.  The private sector isn't going to magically start creating jobs with the already existing tax cut they have. If we spent that money to invest in our own country like the jobs bill would do, this would also bring in jobs which in turn will bring in revenue, which helps with the deficit..  We tried it your way it didn't work. I don't know why you think it could make it worse.  Businesses hire because of demand, putting middle class people back to work would raise that demand.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Of course I am.  Do you honestly think that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire (even just on millionaires) will be the magic bullet to pay down the several trillion dollar deficit?  Of course it isn't.  And with the current state of the economy, it would likely make things worse, not better.  We need to focus on ways to increase demand so that the economy can expand.  Ultimately, that is what will take care of the deficit. 

Quoting mommom2000:

Most likely a person making that kind of money or even more has a savings account and doesn't use every penny to live,nor for fun money. That would be a poor management  of money. Aren't you concerned about our nations deficit.  What about people making a million dollars, then does it make sense?

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 What I'm saying is that I believe that $3000 would be better put to use being spent in the economy.  I would rather take that $3000 and use it for a weekend getaway...going out to dinner, tipping servers, tipping hotel staff, buying trinkets in the mom-and-pop gift shop...For someone making $300,000, and living a $300,000 lifestyle, sure, one less weekend getway isn't that big of a deal.  But it would be a big deal for the servers and gift shop owners who see business decline.

Quoting mommom2000:

The tax hike isn't going to affect their first 200,000 dollars income.  If they make 300,000 the tax increase is only on 100,000. That would be around 3,000 dollars are you telling me if you make 300,000 a yearn that 3,000 is going to affect how you live.  This was the same rate under Clinton and people making 300,000 were still doing OK. If you think that is to low then how about for people making a million.  The democrats were willing to that as a compromise and the republicans said no, not e en for people making a million.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I agree that the middle class and poor definitely need more money in their pockets.  The reality is, though, that $200,000 a year is still considered middle class.  It's upper middle class, sure, but it's still middle class.  And people who make that much *do* spend much of it in the economy.  I think that threshold is too low for raising taxes. 

Just as I don't think that Romney's plan for tax cuts on businesses would have the effect he's claiming, I don't think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $200,000 a year would do anything much to help the deficit.

Quoting mommom2000:

The middle class and poor are the ones who need money in their pocket to pump it back into the community.  Obama want;s to keep their tax cuts in place.  The people he wants to raise taxes aren't pumping that tax break back into the economy that's why they need to expire,it's only adding to the deficit.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I think that letting the tax cuts expire would be a band-aid, and an ineffective one at that.  What will ultimately solve the deficit problem is the economy expanding, and letting the tax cuts expire will not help to expand the economy.  It will likely cause it to contract even more.  At this point, we need to keep as much money in people's pockets as possible so that they will pump it back into the economy and increase demand, which will increase jobs, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sisteract
by Socialist Hippie on Oct. 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Indeed

Quoting dilateyourmind:

I always laugh because the same people complaing about the deficit, don't want to pay  taxes in the first place. So which is it folks? Rolls eyes. I just LOVE those that speculate that Obama will  let them expire this time. Despite the fact that Romney himself said Obama HAS NOT RAISED TAXES.

   We were prosperous under Clinton, until Bush allowed tax cuts for the rich.  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2009/12/22/7092/let-the-bush-tax-cuts-on-the-wealthy-expire/

  BUT..I get why people in that tax bracket wouldn't want it. I call them the legit Republicans. Not the lower middle class, that vote repub for pro-life and other fantasy platforms. They do it cause they THINK it makes them a better person internally.


Separation of church and state is for the protection of BOTH church and state.
Leading with hate and intolerance only leads to MORE hate and intolerance.
_Kissy_
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Get rid of all taxes, go back to horse and buggy, tear down the government, torch the banks, get rid of it all.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Sisteract
by Socialist Hippie on Oct. 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The 200,000 crowd is the shield used to protect the mega millionaires and billionaires.

The 200,000 to mil/yr crowd will feel the most pain of a Romney win- Yes, there are small businesses in that group. The "rich" must protect the wealthy-

Let those cuts expire-

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I agree that the middle class and poor definitely need more money in their pockets.  The reality is, though, that $200,000 a year is still considered middle class.  It's upper middle class, sure, but it's still middle class.  And people who make that much *do* spend much of it in the economy.  I think that threshold is too low for raising taxes. 

Just as I don't think that Romney's plan for tax cuts on businesses would have the effect he's claiming, I don't think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $200,000 a year would do anything much to help the deficit.

Quoting mommom2000:

The middle class and poor are the ones who need money in their pocket to pump it back into the community.  Obama want;s to keep their tax cuts in place.  The people he wants to raise taxes aren't pumping that tax break back into the economy that's why they need to expire,it's only adding to the deficit.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I think that letting the tax cuts expire would be a band-aid, and an ineffective one at that.  What will ultimately solve the deficit problem is the economy expanding, and letting the tax cuts expire will not help to expand the economy.  It will likely cause it to contract even more.  At this point, we need to keep as much money in people's pockets as possible so that they will pump it back into the economy and increase demand, which will increase jobs, etc.


 


Separation of church and state is for the protection of BOTH church and state.
Leading with hate and intolerance only leads to MORE hate and intolerance.
MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM
2 moms liked this

Because I do not believe that there will be any real progress in getting our long-term debt and entitlement spending in order without having additional revenues from somewhere, I'm saying yes.

Further, weren't these meant to be temporary?  I mean, really.

Right now, in this moment in time, raising taxes is necessary.  And it should be done on those who are best able to shoulder the burden, because that is the right thing to do.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN