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 (161-170):
katy_kay08
by on Nov. 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM
1 mom liked this

IMO, I think everyone needs to be paying their share.  It's time we start paying the bills for the two wars we put on credit.  

AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM
1 mom liked this
All those things you listed are almost exclusively jobs for the lower class, not the middle class. Being a servant to the wealthy doesn't make you middle class, you get to act like it because they give you their namebrand hands me downs after they are done with them but unless the wealthy are throwing healthcare or vacation days, that's strictly lower class work until you get into the trades like mechanic, plumber, and so on. Those people used to be middle class, the trained blue collar worker had been pushed lower and lower though. It's no fun being a personal bitch

Quoting silver007:

My goodness, I would never feed the middle class into a wood chipper


Who would mow my lawn, clean the pool and spa, cater my Chris-Hanukkah party, change the oil in my luxury SUV,  teach my kids to play tennis and speak Mandarin, groom my dogs, carry my bags at the airport, and plunge the toilets in my 6 bathrooms ?


Quoting GLWerth:



They know that the President is a decent human being who wouldn't let them shoot the hostage.


Any one of them would gladly feed middle class people into a wood chipper if they thought it would fatten their wallets and those of their extraordinarily wealthy backers.


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".



 



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 12:06 PM
1 mom liked this
And I don't know if it had been brought up, but the all volunteer military we are sporting is made up almost exclusively from people in the lower and middle classes. They might seem like a no brainer but those wealthy families might be awesome with their job creation and the like but they don't protect this country. They aren't represented in the military anywhere near their actual percentage of the population.
They might kick in on bills but I guarantee their children are not dying in the mountains of Afghanistan. While the poor are told that not only do they not add anything to the country they live in and are really just a burden on every decent human alive, those poor send their sons to die to protect the wealth they will never see. I think if it is looked at that way, the richer get off pretty easy with only being asked for an extra three percent.

ETA: always correcting the auto correct
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 12:12 PM
1 mom liked this

Can you post your source?

Because your chart is in complete opposite of this one:


http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf

Oh-wait. I see what happened there.

I don't need a source. I see what you did there. This is ALL income.

So even according to your chart that the Bottom 50% earn 13% of ALL income. The amount of Income that 50% of America makes is less than the income that the 1% make. Which makes sense. A lot of these people in the bottom 50% CANNOT afford to pay Income tax.

Are you really suggest that we should make people starve, lose their houses, lose their electricity, and/or lose their livelihood so their income tax counts more? And you do realize that after they lose their house, electricity, or start starving they will likely lose their job next, right?

Your ideal is not sustainable (The one where you squeeze the middle/lower class for every dime they have). The one where the rich pay 4% more IS sustainable.

I don't know if you remember when Bill Clinton was President but it worked then. We had a surplus. The Rich did not roll over and die. They didn't become poor. They didn't become middle class. Heck they didn't even really become less rich.

I don't know if you know how the flow of money works in a Capitalist economy. But in a Capitalist economy in order for their to be winners (Rich people) there have to be losers (Poor People). That is just the way a Capitalist economy works. And if our society is going to produce poor people so that their can be winners they are responsible for those poor people. And if our society decides that the 1-2% deserves most of the wealth at the expense of the bottom 50% we are responsible for them.


Quoting BoysManDog:


AGAIN, the left today do not want people to pay their "fair share."  If they did, then everyone would be responsible for paying income tax.  They are not, and when you have 50% of the population with no skin in the game, and many of those who actually collect money from the other 50%, that model is not sustainable no matter how much more you think the "rich" should pay.  Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Quoting brookiecookie87:

You must have gotten your signals Crossed (Or listening to News that is too far biased).

No one has said that Bush Tax Cuts are bad for the rich. Or bad for anyone. However the rich in our country are doing exceedingly well.


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

BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM


Quoting AdrianneHill:

And I don't know if it bad been brought up, but the all volunteer military we are sporting is made up almost exclusively from people in the lower and middle classes. They might seen like a no Basinger but those wealthy families might be awesome with their job creation and the like but they don't protect this country. They aren't represented in the military anywhere near their actual percentage of the population. They might kick in on bills but I guarantee their children are not dying in the mountains of Afghanistan. While the poor are told that not only do they not add anything to the country they live in and are really just a burden on every decent human alive, those poor send their sons to die to protect the wealth they will never see. I think if it is looked at that way, the richer get off pretty easy with only being asked for an extra three percent.

And which party is it now that plans on cutting military pay and benefits? Ah. 

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 12:17 PM


Quoting BoysManDog:


Quoting AdrianneHill:

And I don't know if it bad been brought up, but the all volunteer military we are sporting is made up almost exclusively from people in the lower and middle classes. They might seen like a no Basinger but those wealthy families might be awesome with their job creation and the like but they don't protect this country. They aren't represented in the military anywhere near their actual percentage of the population. They might kick in on bills but I guarantee their children are not dying in the mountains of Afghanistan. While the poor are told that not only do they not add anything to the country they live in and are really just a burden on every decent human alive, those poor send their sons to die to protect the wealth they will never see. I think if it is looked at that way, the richer get off pretty easy with only being asked for an extra three percent.

And which party is it now that plans on cutting military pay and benefits? Ah. 

Could you link your source where Democrats/Liberals say they are going to cut military pay and benefits? I haven't read that.

I have read they plan on trimming the budget. And considering we are still making/order tanks (When we don't need more) and they plan to reduce the number of Ships the navy was projected to have and things of that nature.


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

BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners 

(Defense link) 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/11/military-think-tank-recommends-big-benefit-cuts-110112w/

I keep repeating myself.  The model wherein the top pays for an expanding bottom is not sustainable. 

And if you recall, I asked at the start, if Clinton's rates were so great, why not do away with ALL of the so-called cuts.  Meaning, why NOT increase taxes on all?  The left will not do this for myriad reasons. 

Our tax code is NOT fair.  And taking more and more from the top will not make it so.

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Can you post your source?

Because your chart is in complete opposite of this one:

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I answered that already. But I will answer it again.

I don't know if you missed it. But we went through a major recession that almost turned to a depression. The middle/lower class is still hurt from it. A lot of those people are in areas where they can afford an increase in Taxes.

However the top few %'s of our country are doing exceedingly well. In which case it DOES make sense to raise taxes on them.

Like I said earlier if people across the board were doing well and the majority of our wealth was not stuck in the top few %'s it would make sense to tax everyone more. But right now the only people enjoying that type of life are the people in the top few %'s.

Quoting BoysManDog:

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners 

(Defense link) 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/11/military-think-tank-recommends-big-benefit-cuts-110112w/

I keep repeating myself.  The model wherein the top pays for an expanding bottom is not sustainable. 

And if you recall, I asked at the start, if Clinton's rates were so great, why not do away with ALL of the so-called cuts.  Meaning, why NOT increase taxes on all?  The left will not do this for myriad reasons. 

Our tax code is NOT fair.  And taking more and more from the top will not make it so.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

Can you post your source?

Because your chart is in complete opposite of this one:


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

BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM

 

And increasing INCOME taxes on those who make $250,000 or more is not going to help anything.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

I answered that already. But I will answer it again.

I don't know if you missed it. But we went through a major recession that almost turned to a depression. The middle/lower class is still hurt from it. A lot of those people are in areas where they can afford an increase in Taxes.

However the top few %'s of our country are doing exceedingly well. In which case it DOES make sense to raise taxes on them.

Like I said earlier if people across the board were doing well and the majority of our wealth was not stuck in the top few %'s it would make sense to tax everyone more. But right now the only people enjoying that type of life are the people in the top few %'s.

AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Nov. 14, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Both of them?

I say that because although Romney wanted to add a bunch of military spending on hardware but he was taking money out of veteran's benefits as well as barely maintaining the pitiful health care we give our veterans. I didn't see Romney running on a platform that was going to make life better or easier for the average US soldier because most of his actions would wind up making their lives harder day to day but they still get to protect the oil companies that have made record profits since 02.


Just as an aside, I think you should lose all tax breaks if you make double digit profits for thirteen years but I'm sure that makes me a communist in this America.



Quoting BoysManDog:



Quoting AdrianneHill:

And I don't know if it bad been brought up, but the all volunteer military we are sporting is made up almost exclusively from people in the lower and middle classes. They might seen like a no Basinger but those wealthy families might be awesome with their job creation and the like but they don't protect this country. They aren't represented in the military anywhere near their actual percentage of the population. They might kick in on bills but I guarantee their children are not dying in the mountains of Afghanistan. While the poor are told that not only do they not add anything to the country they live in and are really just a burden on every decent human alive, those poor send their sons to die to protect the wealth they will never see. I think if it is looked at that way, the richer get off pretty easy with only being asked for an extra three percent.

And which party is it now that plans on cutting military pay and benefits? Ah. 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
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)