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

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Should 98% of America lose tax cuts because the GOP/Top2%?

Obama To Boehner: Higher Taxes On The Wealthy Or The Bush Tax Cuts Expire

132192

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have each made cursory appeals to cooperation in the wake of Tuesday’s election. But they’re still making incompatible demands about the tax code. And on Friday, President Obama made clear that if Republicans reject the policy goal he campaigned on, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit we have to combine spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes,” Obama said in public remarks at the White House. “Right now if Congress fails to come to an agreement on an overall deficit reduction package by the end of the year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up on January 1.”

In both 2008 and 2012, Obama campaigned on the goal of allowing the Bush tax cuts that exclusively benefit top earners to expire. That would increase the top marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent next year. But Boehner and other Republicans want tax rates off the table and GOP aides suggest higher tax rates can’t pass the Republican House.

In his first post-election press conference, a couple of hours before the President’s statement, Boehner also indicated his willingness to compromise — though he reiterated Republican opposition to raising tax rates. “On Wednesday, I outlined a responsible path forward to avert the fiscal cliff without raising tax rates,” Boehner said.

“There is no mandate for raising tax rates on the American people,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a Wednesday statement. “There is a mandate for avoiding the fiscal cliff and finding real solutions so we can make life work for people again.”

Obama did leave modest room for negotiations. “I’m not going to ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes,” he said.

Boehner could meet Obama’s demand without raising tax rates by limiting tax expenditure benefits for high income people. But for now, Boehner has only suggested that revenues from this sort of base broadening should be used to lower tax rates. Obama, by contrast, is asking the House to pass a Senate bill that would isolate the Bush tax cuts for top earners and allow them to expire.

“The Senate has already passed a bill doing exactly this, so all we need is action from the House,” Obama said. “And I’ve got the pen, ready to sign the bill right away.”

In an official statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, echoed the President. “The Senate passed a bill to cut taxes for Americans making less than $250,000, and the House should pass it immediately.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was even more blunt. “He will veto any bill extending Bush era tax cuts for the top two percent of wage earners in this country.”

That leaves the onus on Boehner to either pass that bill, or find an equivalent way to take the same amount of new revenue from high income earners. So far, he and other GOP leaders seem unwilling.

“”The increased tax rates that would be allowed under the Senate-passed bill are part of the fiscal cliff that economists are warning us to avoid,” Boehner said in response to the Presidents remarks. “Those increased tax rates will destroy jobs in America by hurting small businesses across the country.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was more strident. “[T]here is no consensus on raising tax rates, which would undermine the jobs and growth we all believe are important to our economy,” McConnell said. “While I appreciate and share the President’s desire to put the election behind us, the fact is we still have yet to hear an actual plan from the President for addressing the great economic challenges we face. What’s needed now is a realistic and specific proposal from the President that can actually pass the Congress.”

They’ve left themselves some wiggle room. But if they don’t squeeze themselves through it, Obama said, everyone’s taxes go up at the end of the year.


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Nov. 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Replies (121-130):
mehamil1
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 1:50 AM

I really don't know what to tell you since I'm not an accountant. There's some ladies here who do taxes as a career and who know all that math stuff. Why they picked 250,000 a year is beyond me. 

Quoting Jack_Squat:

I'm curious why they decided $250,000 a year is considered wealthy, especially in more expensive parts of the country like Cali and NYC. We make well over that, but live modestly and even struggle sometimes. A good chunk of what we make goes into investments for retirement, and the rest has made it possible for us to live debt free. But, we don't invest overseas, have multiple homes, a huge house, fancy cars, or get any big deductions. We get a small deduction for paying into our IRAs every year, but that's the only one I'm aware of other than the basics. . We pay out of pocket for health insurance, which is steep. This tax hike will force us to close our doors, and we've already given our employee notice. 4% may not seem like a lot, but it is when you're barely hanging on and your clients are making big changes because of the same tax hikes and other policies that are having a direct impact on your industry.
Quoting mehamil1:

BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR!!!!! 

Is there something you don't understand about that? What is with this animosity at people who get just a little bit (and to them it is a little bit, I have been there where I got more back than I put in because I was off the charts POOR and used that money to pay for college classes and care for my son)? I don't get it. 

The waste in federal tax dollars is NOT on the poor but on the rich, especially the gas and oil companies and agriculture and huge businesses. Some of these companies who made billions in profits didn't pay any taxes at all. Why not focus on them? Why focus on the poor? These people are already hurting (and I'm surrounded by many of them) and they are working their asses off for very little pay and that chunk that comes in at the beginning of the year helps a great deal. Do you realize that without that more people would be deeper in poverty than they already are? 

The working poor are between a rock and a hard place and there is ZERO reason to make it harder. It would negatively affect us all should they be allowed to further slip into poverty. Want this to change? We need to pressure our government and businesses to bring back more manufacturing jobs and invest more in higher education so people are not debt slaves when they get out of college. There's a lot that needs to be done but this bullshit towards the poor helps no one.

Quoting kailu1835:

No, most of them are not elderly or military.  There is quite a large chunk of people who got back more in their annual tax return than they paid in.

Quoting mehamil1:

Paying a fair share would be great if they even had a share to pay. Are we still harping on the 47% nonsense? How many times does this have to be said: Of those 47% of people who don't pay an INCOME tax (they pay other taxes) most of them are the elderly, veterans, deployed military, disabled, the working poor (as in they make so little money that it would be ridiculous to tax them more when they barely make anything to begin with), and the unemployed. Why would they be taxed when they are the most vulnerable people in this society and need the most help? Especially the elderly and the disabled and veterans? Those in the 2% can afford to be taxed at a higher rate and they'll still be fine. Those at the very bottom would be the ones hurt the most. 


stormcris
by Christy on Nov. 12, 2012 at 1:53 AM

I think it would be better served to fix the loopholes that they ignore.

Would you prefer to be barbecue or teriyaki?
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 1:56 AM

I do not know how they came up with the number. But $250,000 a year is already the top 2% of America.


Quoting Jack_Squat:

I'm curious why they decided $250,000 a year is considered wealthy, especially in more expensive parts of the country like Cali and NYC. We make well over that, but live modestly and even struggle sometimes. A good chunk of what we make goes into investments for retirement, and the rest has made it possible for us to live debt free. But, we don't invest overseas, have multiple homes, a huge house, fancy cars, or get any big deductions. We get a small deduction for paying into our IRAs every year, but that's the only one I'm aware of other than the basics. . We pay out of pocket for health insurance, which is steep. This tax hike will force us to close our doors, and we've already given our employee notice. 4% may not seem like a lot, but it is when you're barely hanging on and your clients are making big changes because of the same tax hikes and other policies that are having a direct impact on your industry.


Quoting mehamil1:

BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR!!!!! 

Is there something you don't understand about that? What is with this animosity at people who get just a little bit (and to them it is a little bit, I have been there where I got more back than I put in because I was off the charts POOR and used that money to pay for college classes and care for my son)? I don't get it. 

The waste in federal tax dollars is NOT on the poor but on the rich, especially the gas and oil companies and agriculture and huge businesses. Some of these companies who made billions in profits didn't pay any taxes at all. Why not focus on them? Why focus on the poor? These people are already hurting (and I'm surrounded by many of them) and they are working their asses off for very little pay and that chunk that comes in at the beginning of the year helps a great deal. Do you realize that without that more people would be deeper in poverty than they already are? 

The working poor are between a rock and a hard place and there is ZERO reason to make it harder. It would negatively affect us all should they be allowed to further slip into poverty. Want this to change? We need to pressure our government and businesses to bring back more manufacturing jobs and invest more in higher education so people are not debt slaves when they get out of college. There's a lot that needs to be done but this bullshit towards the poor helps no one. 


Quoting kailu1835:

No, most of them are not elderly or military.  There is quite a large chunk of people who got back more in their annual tax return than they paid in.

Quoting mehamil1:

Paying a fair share would be great if they even had a share to pay. Are we still harping on the 47% nonsense? How many times does this have to be said: Of those 47% of people who don't pay an INCOME tax (they pay other taxes) most of them are the elderly, veterans, deployed military, disabled, the working poor (as in they make so little money that it would be ridiculous to tax them more when they barely make anything to begin with), and the unemployed. Why would they be taxed when they are the most vulnerable people in this society and need the most help? Especially the elderly and the disabled and veterans? Those in the 2% can afford to be taxed at a higher rate and they'll still be fine. Those at the very bottom would be the ones hurt the most. 


Quoting kailu1835:

Actually, what many Americans showed the rest of us is that they are happy with not having to pay their fair share and want to keep the status quo of spend spend spend. 

Quoting AdrianneHill:

I'm glad the election showed some people that Americans were tired if having the entire country held hostage so two percent don't have to pay an extra five percent on their income over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

How is that deal considered a positive for the people as a whole in the first place? We know quite well the wealthy don't create jobs or spend that money so why not keep it in the economy instead of shipping it overseas with the jobs they sent?




Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Jack_Squat
by Silver Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 2:02 AM
That number will rise in the future because those hugging the line will join the middle class. IMO, Obama's goal is not to protect the middle class. It's to expand the middle class, both by bringing some down and some up. Any time you add to a group that's already burdened, the burden becomes greater. Those employers become employees.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

I do not know how they came up with the number. But $250,000 a year is already the top 2% of America.



Quoting Jack_Squat:

I'm curious why they decided $250,000 a year is considered wealthy, especially in more expensive parts of the country like Cali and NYC. We make well over that, but live modestly and even struggle sometimes. A good chunk of what we make goes into investments for retirement, and the rest has made it possible for us to live debt free. But, we don't invest overseas, have multiple homes, a huge house, fancy cars, or get any big deductions. We get a small deduction for paying into our IRAs every year, but that's the only one I'm aware of other than the basics. . We pay out of pocket for health insurance, which is steep. This tax hike will force us to close our doors, and we've already given our employee notice. 4% may not seem like a lot, but it is when you're barely hanging on and your clients are making big changes because of the same tax hikes and other policies that are having a direct impact on your industry.





Quoting mehamil1:

BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR!!!!! 

Is there something you don't understand about that? What is with this animosity at people who get just a little bit (and to them it is a little bit, I have been there where I got more back than I put in because I was off the charts POOR and used that money to pay for college classes and care for my son)? I don't get it. 

The waste in federal tax dollars is NOT on the poor but on the rich, especially the gas and oil companies and agriculture and huge businesses. Some of these companies who made billions in profits didn't pay any taxes at all. Why not focus on them? Why focus on the poor? These people are already hurting (and I'm surrounded by many of them) and they are working their asses off for very little pay and that chunk that comes in at the beginning of the year helps a great deal. Do you realize that without that more people would be deeper in poverty than they already are? 

The working poor are between a rock and a hard place and there is ZERO reason to make it harder. It would negatively affect us all should they be allowed to further slip into poverty. Want this to change? We need to pressure our government and businesses to bring back more manufacturing jobs and invest more in higher education so people are not debt slaves when they get out of college. There's a lot that needs to be done but this bullshit towards the poor helps no one. 



Quoting kailu1835:

No, most of them are not elderly or military.  There is quite a large chunk of people who got back more in their annual tax return than they paid in.

Quoting mehamil1:

Paying a fair share would be great if they even had a share to pay. Are we still harping on the 47% nonsense? How many times does this have to be said: Of those 47% of people who don't pay an INCOME tax (they pay other taxes) most of them are the elderly, veterans, deployed military, disabled, the working poor (as in they make so little money that it would be ridiculous to tax them more when they barely make anything to begin with), and the unemployed. Why would they be taxed when they are the most vulnerable people in this society and need the most help? Especially the elderly and the disabled and veterans? Those in the 2% can afford to be taxed at a higher rate and they'll still be fine. Those at the very bottom would be the ones hurt the most. 



Quoting kailu1835:

Actually, what many Americans showed the rest of us is that they are happy with not having to pay their fair share and want to keep the status quo of spend spend spend. 

Quoting AdrianneHill:

I'm glad the election showed some people that Americans were tired if having the entire country held hostage so two percent don't have to pay an extra five percent on their income over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.


How is that deal considered a positive for the people as a whole in the first place? We know quite well the wealthy don't create jobs or spend that money so why not keep it in the economy instead of shipping it overseas with the jobs they sent?






Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Just to make sure we are on the same page.

You believe that the people who make up the 98th percentile are part of the middle class?

I think the problem is you have some people who are in the top 2% who pay lower taxes than some people in the lower tax brackets and some companies/corporations are paying 0-5%. And in trying to fix that they end up hurting people (Perhaps people like you) who are not using/abusing the system and actually are paying a lot in taxes.

Quoting Jack_Squat:

That number will rise in the future because those hugging the line will join the middle class. IMO, Obama's goal is not to protect the middle class. It's to expand the middle class, both by bringing some down and some up. Any time you add to a group that's already burdened, the burden becomes greater. Those employers become employees.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

I do not know how they came up with the number. But $250,000 a year is already the top 2% of America.



Quoting Jack_Squat:

I'm curious why they decided $250,000 a year is considered wealthy, especially in more expensive parts of the country like Cali and NYC. We make well over that, but live modestly and even struggle sometimes. A good chunk of what we make goes into investments for retirement, and the rest has made it possible for us to live debt free. But, we don't invest overseas, have multiple homes, a huge house, fancy cars, or get any big deductions. We get a small deduction for paying into our IRAs every year, but that's the only one I'm aware of other than the basics. . We pay out of pocket for health insurance, which is steep. This tax hike will force us to close our doors, and we've already given our employee notice. 4% may not seem like a lot, but it is when you're barely hanging on and your clients are making big changes because of the same tax hikes and other policies that are having a direct impact on your industry.





Quoting mehamil1:

BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR!!!!! 

Is there something you don't understand about that? What is with this animosity at people who get just a little bit (and to them it is a little bit, I have been there where I got more back than I put in because I was off the charts POOR and used that money to pay for college classes and care for my son)? I don't get it. 

The waste in federal tax dollars is NOT on the poor but on the rich, especially the gas and oil companies and agriculture and huge businesses. Some of these companies who made billions in profits didn't pay any taxes at all. Why not focus on them? Why focus on the poor? These people are already hurting (and I'm surrounded by many of them) and they are working their asses off for very little pay and that chunk that comes in at the beginning of the year helps a great deal. Do you realize that without that more people would be deeper in poverty than they already are? 

The working poor are between a rock and a hard place and there is ZERO reason to make it harder. It would negatively affect us all should they be allowed to further slip into poverty. Want this to change? We need to pressure our government and businesses to bring back more manufacturing jobs and invest more in higher education so people are not debt slaves when they get out of college. There's a lot that needs to be done but this bullshit towards the poor helps no one. 



Quoting kailu1835:

No, most of them are not elderly or military.  There is quite a large chunk of people who got back more in their annual tax return than they paid in.

Quoting mehamil1:

Paying a fair share would be great if they even had a share to pay. Are we still harping on the 47% nonsense? How many times does this have to be said: Of those 47% of people who don't pay an INCOME tax (they pay other taxes) most of them are the elderly, veterans, deployed military, disabled, the working poor (as in they make so little money that it would be ridiculous to tax them more when they barely make anything to begin with), and the unemployed. Why would they be taxed when they are the most vulnerable people in this society and need the most help? Especially the elderly and the disabled and veterans? Those in the 2% can afford to be taxed at a higher rate and they'll still be fine. Those at the very bottom would be the ones hurt the most. 



Quoting kailu1835:

Actually, what many Americans showed the rest of us is that they are happy with not having to pay their fair share and want to keep the status quo of spend spend spend. 

Quoting AdrianneHill:

I'm glad the election showed some people that Americans were tired if having the entire country held hostage so two percent don't have to pay an extra five percent on their income over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.


How is that deal considered a positive for the people as a whole in the first place? We know quite well the wealthy don't create jobs or spend that money so why not keep it in the economy instead of shipping it overseas with the jobs they sent?







Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Carpy
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 7:14 AM

They were lost to regulation costs.

Quoting stacymomof2:

I always want to scream this from the rooftops...IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHERE ARE THE JOBS THAT 10 YEARS OF TAX CUTS HAVE CREATED?!

Quoting stringtheory:

Well, the rich have had eight years of tax cuts to create jobs. Where is the evidence that we should keep those cuts in place?

Quoting kailu1835:

The economy in general has sucked since the bursting of the housing bubble (which started because the government decided minorities needed more loans, regardless of their ability to pay them back), and there haven't been a heck of a lot of jobs created since then.  However, historically and factually speaking, the poor are not job creators.  Never have, never will be.  That honor goes to the rich.

Quoting Aslen:

LMAO @ socialism class.

Thing is, the wealthy have had these tax cuts for many years. Jobs were NOT created, were they?










NWP
by guerrilla girl on Nov. 12, 2012 at 7:39 AM

My big issue at this moment is:

How can I trust anything conservatives say now?

These folks have been lied to and fed false information, quote sites that run false numbers and fake "news contributors" and they have no idea what the facts really are. And they are STILL defending their sources.

Example: Fox choosing Dick Morris as an expert to listen to instead of Nate Silver, saying that Silver is part of the "liberal media" just because they didn't like his numbers.

So, how can I trust any of their "facts"?

New World Peace

yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:19 AM

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:

I don't think you understand the difference in Income between the people in the Top 1% and 97% of America.

In a lot of cases the 3% increase would be more than lots of people giving away 100% of their income. That and our taxes or not based off a honor system.

Quoting Tanyaishere:

I never understand why so many people just don't send more money to the government at tax time.    If it is no big to pay more, then pay more.

 

 I don't think you understand.....we owe more than the entire wealth of the nation.  Raising a few billion in taxes off the 1% is like using couch change to buy a house.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't do anything to help the situation unless it completely removes the debt we owe?

Or do you agree that doing things like this AND cutting spending/programs is the way to go?

Because I do believe doing both is the way to go. Doing only one or the other is silly.

As I SAID......there should be no increase in taxes WITHOUT a balanced budget amendment.  If there is the money will merely find its way to another turtle tunnel, tinky winky cleaning lessons or marsh mice....they cannot help themselves.  So I am completely against any new taxes that will just go to more wasteful spending....and you should be too.

Make them live within their means.....businesses operate on budgets, households operate on budgets and the states that are doing well are doing it on a balanced budget.  This should not be a D or R issue....when it is a common sense one.

Get the balanced budget amendment and then apply the new taxes to the DEBT.  They could do it all in one fell swoop. 

I am not sure if this will be enough...probably not...it will probably take tax increases where no one wants to go and it will take steep budget cuts....to bring our DEBT in line.

We cannot just continue to ignore it....not unless we are okay with the country going bankrupt.

smalltowngal
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:32 AM


Quoting yourspecialkid:

 


Are you suggesting we shouldn't do anything to help the situation unless it completely removes the debt we owe?

Or do you agree that doing things like this AND cutting spending/programs is the way to go?

Because I do believe doing both is the way to go. Doing only one or the other is silly.

As I SAID......there should be no increase in taxes WITHOUT a balanced budget amendment.  If there is the money will merely find its way to another turtle tunnel, tinky winky cleaning lessons or marsh mice....they cannot help themselves.  So I am completely against any new taxes that will just go to more wasteful spending....and you should be too.

Make them live within their means.....businesses operate on budgets, households operate on budgets and the states that are doing well are doing it on a balanced budget.  This should not be a D or R issue....when it is a common sense one.

Get the balanced budget amendment and then apply the new taxes to the DEBT.  They could do it all in one fell swoop. 

I am not sure if this will be enough...probably not...it will probably take tax increases where no one wants to go and it will take steep budget cuts....to bring our DEBT in line.

We cannot just continue to ignore it....not unless we are okay with the country going bankrupt.

I don't even want to think about what needs to be done with medicare and social security to bring them in line. :(

emeraldangel2.0
by on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:34 AM

i agree. it's like they're trying to make him fail. most don't see that congress is mainly to blame for these past four years because they will not budge

i've written every congressman i can think of for my state and asked them to please vote in favor of Obama's plan. it's not fair 98% of the country has to suffer because congress is too stubborn to listen to reason

Quoting brookiecookie87:

I keep hearing Conservatives/Republicans saying that Democrats/President Obama are trying to destroy the Middle Class.

But President Obama is trying to extend the Tax Cuts for 98% of America. But the GOP/Republicans are refusing to let them get the extension unless the top 2% gets the extension too.

I just don't understand how a Political Party can claim they are for the Middle Class and then turn around and hold them hostage by saying, "Give us Tax Extensions or else we won't pass the extention for the middle class".




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