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 (281-290):
AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Graduated with poli science and a minor in history. Then went to grad school for international relations and public policy. Didn't finish the grad degree because of the thesis and time. So not that smart or educated, but more than most.

Quoting Billiejeens:




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?



I don't know if any single post has been more ridiculously stupid than this post.



Did anybody ever take a logic, economics, political science or Government class?

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Billiejeens
by Gold Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Would that be the study of those horses that rich people like the Romneys ride around on while hiting a ball, while us poor people watch them ship all the money and jobs overseas?

Quoting AdrianneHill:

Graduated with polo science a minor in history. Then went to grad school for international relations and public policy. Didn't finish the grad degree because of the thesis and time. So not that smart or educated, but more than most.

Quoting Billiejeens:

 


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?


I don't know if any single post has been more ridiculously stupid than this post.


Did anybody ever take a logic, economics, political science or Government class?


Simmeringhearts
by on Dec. 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM
1 mom liked this

You seem to think that only multi billionaires take some of these deductions. You could not be more wrong.  Though, it sounds to me as if you are jealous more than anything.

Quoting meriana:


Quoting Simmeringhearts:

It is clear that those who have no clue as to what they speak of, should not.

Quoting meriana:

Well if they don't want a higher tax rate (and really the rate isn't what they pay anyway); how about this: They simply lose all those extra tax deductions instead.

The middle and lower income groups have basically 3 deductions outside of spouses and children; mtg interest; EITC and child credit.  As far as I know the only one the very wealthy don't have is the EITC which is based on income. So how about we give them ONLY those deductions rather than raise the rate and since they don't get EITC, they could be allowed a $4,000.00 credit. So they only get to deduct the mtg interest on the PRIMARY residence...no more mtg interest deduction for their 2nd home, vacation home or yacht. No more deduction for their private jet; no more deductions as business expenses for anything that involves other family members or for personal property used in the conduction of business, ie: no deducting one's personal vehicle as a business expense because you choose to drive it to work; no more deducting as a business expense the party you chose to throw for the holidays and no more deducting a vacation as a business exense because you chose to contact a business associate while in the Bahamas, etc.  The list could be very long...and the very wealthy would certainly lose a lot of tax deductions that currently only they can take advantage of but it appears it could generate a lot more revenue than a simple raise in the rate and put everyone on a more equal footing as far as taxes go since everyone would have the same deductions available to them, no more, no less. Oh and tax Capital Gains at the same rate as other income....personally I don't care how they got it, it's every bit as much income as the paycheck the factory worker receives is and should be taxed at the same rate.

There, I fixed the problem....LOL.



So what's the problem. Everyone says the tax code needs to simplified, you don't think that, as far as personal income taxes go, that getting rid of all the extra deductions and loopholes would simplify it?


Simmeringhearts
by on Dec. 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM
1 mom liked this

I am sure even the simplest explanation would be too hard for you to figure out. It is ok. I really didn't expect much. You have not disappointed.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

Lying sack of crap that you are.



it is unimportant what your circumstances are, you would never give more to the government then they asked of you because you hate all government, your own included


Quoting Simmeringhearts:

Let me put it this way, since it really is simple (for most)..

My husband and I make over $250,000 a year. In fact, this year, we have exceeded that.  We donate about 20 - 25% in cash. I also donate, at least, 100 bars of soap (my product) to the womens' shelter each month. We donate our household items and clothing each year, rather than having a yard sale. We give $100 to the nurse at school to purchase socks, underwear and whatever they decide each year. We purchase $100 in books and other school supplies for our childrens' teachers each year. I also crochet and donate hats, booties, slippers, blankets, etc to the womens' shelter and Childrens' Hospital.

Now, if I was one of these that say I should be paying more in taxes, then I should be willing to simply write a check for the additional amount and donate it.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

It really is.

Whenever someone ask that question I respond with, "Do you believe Tax should be 0% and paid on an honor system of what we feel should be paid?" Because clearly that is not the kind of system we have.


Quoting AdrianneHill:

That is a ridiculous and loaded question. I have come to hate it more than most sanctimonious crap I often hear.



Quoting Simmeringhearts:

Did you keep that money that you think you should be paying more in taxes?



Quoting smalltowngal:

I don't get into specifics when it comes to our finances but DH and I are in the top 10%. We've gotten away with only paying 2% in Federal taxes before. Something seems wrong with that. 






meriana
by Platinum Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Simmeringhearts:

You seem to think that only multi billionaires take some of these deductions. You could not be more wrong.  Though, it sounds to me as if you are jealous more than anything.

Quoting meriana:

 

Quoting Simmeringhearts:

It is clear that those who have no clue as to what they speak of, should not.

Quoting meriana:

Well if they don't want a higher tax rate (and really the rate isn't what they pay anyway); how about this: They simply lose all those extra tax deductions instead.

The middle and lower income groups have basically 3 deductions outside of spouses and children; mtg interest; EITC and child credit.  As far as I know the only one the very wealthy don't have is the EITC which is based on income. So how about we give them ONLY those deductions rather than raise the rate and since they don't get EITC, they could be allowed a $4,000.00 credit. So they only get to deduct the mtg interest on the PRIMARY residence...no more mtg interest deduction for their 2nd home, vacation home or yacht. No more deduction for their private jet; no more deductions as business expenses for anything that involves other family members or for personal property used in the conduction of business, ie: no deducting one's personal vehicle as a business expense because you choose to drive it to work; no more deducting as a business expense the party you chose to throw for the holidays and no more deducting a vacation as a business exense because you chose to contact a business associate while in the Bahamas, etc.  The list could be very long...and the very wealthy would certainly lose a lot of tax deductions that currently only they can take advantage of but it appears it could generate a lot more revenue than a simple raise in the rate and put everyone on a more equal footing as far as taxes go since everyone would have the same deductions available to them, no more, no less. Oh and tax Capital Gains at the same rate as other income....personally I don't care how they got it, it's every bit as much income as the paycheck the factory worker receives is and should be taxed at the same rate.

There, I fixed the problem....LOL.

 

 

So what's the problem. Everyone says the tax code needs to simplified, you don't think that, as far as personal income taxes go, that getting rid of all the extra deductions and loopholes would simplify it?

 

I really don't care who or who does not use all the extra deductions/credits available. Pretty much everyone agrees the tax code needs to be simplified. Fine, start with Personal Income Tax. Allow everyone regardless of income, the same deductions: If you own a home, fine you have the mtg. interest deduction for a primary residence only. Have children, fine you get the child credit. EITC, fine if you qualify, if you don't due to your income being too high, you get a 4000.00 credit. It simplifies taxes, would more than likely create needed revenue and the tax rate could remain what it currently is.

The current tax rate is the lowest it's pretty much ever been and those at the top, the 2% still complain that it's too high, that it should be lower yet, at least for them. It's totally rediculous. Those 2% seem to like to point out that those in the much lower income brackets need to be "personally responsible" but how personally responsible is it to purchase, for instance, a private jet, then turn around and want/demand a credit (or whatever it is) from the Gov. to offset some of the cost of operating it?  That's a bit like the average person purchasing a car and expecting the Gov. to give them the gas money or pay for any maintenence it needs, you know, to offset the cost of operating it.

Jealous? Of what exactly? We have worked hard for everything we have, therefore we appreciate it unlike some of those who have been handed everything including great wealth. Rather than developing a sense of appreciation some of them develop a sense of superiority which is really rediculous since they are subject to the same frailities that every other human being is and they even have to put their clothing on the same way as everyone else. They are not and should not be considered any more special than anyone else. I find it interesting that if it's suggested that those much lower on the income scale lose a program they depend on to make ends meet, it's looked on as only what is right, personal responsibility an all, but if it's suggested that maybe the ultra wealthy really don't need some of those deductions/loopholes, etc and it wouldn't hurt them not to have them, the first thing that's pretty much always claimed is that those suggesting it are jealous. Nothing like trying to disregard what others might think or suggest as useless or whatever by attempting to equate them with kindergartin children.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM

It's because Taxes are not paid on an honor system. People don't pay more because they want to. No one is asking, "Please Allow us to pay more if we want".

There is a HUGE difference.

Quoting Simmeringhearts:

So, you bitch about how you should pay more in taxes. But, yet, hold on to the very amount. Interesting....

It is not a loaded question.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

That is a ridiculous and loaded question. I have come to hate it more than most sanctimonious crap I often hear.

Quoting Simmeringhearts:

Did you keep that money that you think you should be paying more in taxes?


Quoting smalltowngal:

I don't get into specifics when it comes to our finances but DH and I are in the top 10%. We've gotten away with only paying 2% in Federal taxes before. Something seems wrong with that. 





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

Billiejeens
by Gold Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Why?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It's because Taxes are not paid on an honor system. People don't pay more because they want to. No one is asking, "Please Allow us to pay more if we want".

There is a HUGE difference.

Quoting Simmeringhearts:

So, you bitch about how you should pay more in taxes. But, yet, hold on to the very amount. Interesting....

It is not a loaded question.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

That is a ridiculous and loaded question. I have come to hate it more than most sanctimonious crap I often hear.

Quoting Simmeringhearts:

Did you keep that money that you think you should be paying more in taxes?


Quoting smalltowngal:

I don't get into specifics when it comes to our finances but DH and I are in the top 10%. We've gotten away with only paying 2% in Federal taxes before. Something seems wrong with that. 

 

 

 

 


Carpy
by Ruby Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Yes and we all know the amount of wealth to be gained is finite.eye rolling

Quoting AdrianneHill:

Not if they keep more than eighty five percent of the wealth.

Quoting happy2bmom25:

PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

IN 2009 THE TOP 10% PAID MORE THAN 70% OF THE TAXES!!!!!

WHAT AMOUNT MORE DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAYING?????

ISN'T THAT ALREADY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE?


Carpy
by Ruby Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM

He did not write the law that way, he had to accept it that way to get the stupid democrats to agree with it.

Quoting stacymomof2:

Right, they have to agree or the law providing for the lower tax rates expires.  When Bush wrote that law he set them to expire 10 years later.  So it shouldn't be news to us but people forget quickly, and have now changed it to "Obama is raising taxes!"  After the economy crashed there was no problem extending the tax cut.  Now that some recovery has happened, Obama is getting tough.  He will veto any law that doesn't raise taxes for the quarter million plus club, thereby forcing the Republican's hands.  They will have to agree with him or watch all the tax cuts go away.

Quoting turtle68:

 ahhhh dont know how I missed that word expire...should have LOL  So neither parties can control what is essentially something that has an expiry date.  Its either all or compromise.

Quoting stacymomof2:

The tax cuts are set to expire.  They were extended last time, now it is getting close to the end of the extension.  So Obama is saying pass a new extension that doesn't include the top 2% or he will veto the extension, thereby allowing the tax cuts to expire and revert back to Clinton era tax rates.  Obama's proposal continues the tax cuts to the lower income earners, and raises the tax rates on higher income earners by 3%.  Yep, 3%.  All this hysteria so people who make over a quarter of a million dollars a year do not have to pay 3% more of taxes on any income earned over $250 thousand dollars.  Sounds ridiculous when it's spelled out, doesn't it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/05/democrats-dont-want-to-go-back-to-clinton-era-rates/

Quoting turtle68:

 I asked the same question in the other post.  What I would like to understand is how either can go through congress?

If the 2% cant be taxed because the Republicans wont pass it....then how can the 98% be taxed?

Do they come to a stalemate and move on to other issues or do they keep negotiating until 4 more years have passed?


 



stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Dec. 4, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Sorry, should have said "SIGNED that law."

Quoting Carpy:

He did not write the law that way, he had to accept it that way to get the stupid democrats to agree with it.

Quoting stacymomof2:

Right, they have to agree or the law providing for the lower tax rates expires.  When Bush wrote that law he set them to expire 10 years later.  So it shouldn't be news to us but people forget quickly, and have now changed it to "Obama is raising taxes!"  After the economy crashed there was no problem extending the tax cut.  Now that some recovery has happened, Obama is getting tough.  He will veto any law that doesn't raise taxes for the quarter million plus club, thereby forcing the Republican's hands.  They will have to agree with him or watch all the tax cuts go away.

Quoting turtle68:

 ahhhh dont know how I missed that word expire...should have LOL  So neither parties can control what is essentially something that has an expiry date.  Its either all or compromise.

Quoting stacymomof2:

The tax cuts are set to expire.  They were extended last time, now it is getting close to the end of the extension.  So Obama is saying pass a new extension that doesn't include the top 2% or he will veto the extension, thereby allowing the tax cuts to expire and revert back to Clinton era tax rates.  Obama's proposal continues the tax cuts to the lower income earners, and raises the tax rates on higher income earners by 3%.  Yep, 3%.  All this hysteria so people who make over a quarter of a million dollars a year do not have to pay 3% more of taxes on any income earned over $250 thousand dollars.  Sounds ridiculous when it's spelled out, doesn't it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/05/democrats-dont-want-to-go-back-to-clinton-era-rates/

Quoting turtle68:

 I asked the same question in the other post.  What I would like to understand is how either can go through congress?

If the 2% cant be taxed because the Republicans wont pass it....then how can the 98% be taxed?

Do they come to a stalemate and move on to other issues or do they keep negotiating until 4 more years have passed?


 




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)