Obama will NOT tax the rich (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

I think we've all learned an important lesson here.

Yes. Don't raise taxes.

Raise taxes before the crap hits the fan.

Are you suggesting that crap hasn't hit the fan yet?

I have already posted that right now is the worst possible time to raise taxes. But the flip side is the best time to raise taxes is when the economy is healthy, It is also the time to balance the budget and start paying off the national debt.The Bush tax cuts are partly to blame for the budget deficits and the finnaical crisis. It wasn't right to cut taxes back then and go into massive debt.

Wrong. There are many contributing factors to the financial crisis but tax cuts are not one of them.

 

[DrJ]

I think we've all learned an important lesson here.

Yes, raising taxes is bad for the economy.

Deficit spending can cover up a sick economy for a while, but not indefinately. So after 8 years, we have huge budget deficits AND a sick economy. Not a good arguement for massive tax cuts.

Can we cut spending?

I'd even settle for just freezing it for a while. If you just keep spending where it's at, eventually it would be a smaller portion of the GDP and tax revenue would catch up to it. We can't even do that though.

 

[DrJ]

To all the tax cut advocates, you can't cut taxes forever and keep raising revenue. Common sense says as some point it will do more damage than good.

Well, you can't raise taxes forever and keep raising revenue either. Common sense says at some point it will do more damage than good. Unless for some reason other than historical example you believe that governments are more capable of running things than private entities.

 

[Die]

Obama has been under pressure to make a statement to calm the markets. Perhaps he thinks declaring no tax hike for the wealthy could do that? Just a guess.

 

[Marvelous]

I think we've all learned an important lesson here.

Yes, raising taxes is bad for the economy.

But raising taxes has surprising positive impacts on reducing the debt...I for one would be happy to pay extra so my 7 month old son doesn't have to...I'm unselfish like that though and not all about me, me, me....

It is kind of hard to pay more taxes if you do not have a job because the economy is in the dumps. What do you think will be better for your 7 month old son... less taxes and a healthy economy which means more revenue or more taxes and a destroyed economy which means less revenue?

No Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2002. Everyone wins. There is no financial crisis. There is no or little budget deficit (unless Bush thougth a surplus is a mandate to start a 3rd war), and Fanatic's 7 month old son isn't paying for our debts.To all the tax cut advocates, you can't cut taxes forever and keep raising revenue. Common sense says as some point it will do more damage than good.

Please provide one instance in the world's history that high taxation was good thing for a country. Meanwhile, history is filled with examples of high taxation ruining economies and countries.

This is a very subjective arguement. I will claim that we are in a very low tax situation right now and even if Obama carried out his campaign promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250k, we would still have very low taxes. I heard rates were 70% and higher in the 1960s. So, high taxes, I will agree bad for the ecomony. Artifically low taxes when you spending is high probalby also does not bode well for the economy.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Obama has been under pressure to make a statement to calm the markets. Perhaps he thinks declaring no tax hike for the wealthy could do that? Just a guess.

link

 

[Marvelous]

I think we've all learned an important lesson here.

Yes. Don't raise taxes.

Raise taxes before the crap hits the fan.

Are you suggesting that crap hasn't hit the fan yet?

I have already posted that right now is the worst possible time to raise taxes. But the flip side is the best time to raise taxes is when the economy is healthy, It is also the time to balance the budget and start paying off the national debt.The Bush tax cuts are partly to blame for the budget deficits and the finnaical crisis. It wasn't right to cut taxes back then and go into massive debt.

Wrong. There are many contributing factors to the financial crisis but tax cuts are not one of them.

I will claim (quite confidently at that) that the budget deficits do play an important role in the financial crisis and created the need for higher interest rates. Instead, we lowered them and while increasing money supply. This imbalance is one of the big reasons behind the housing bubble and the rampant lending. And the Bush tax cuts have a large role in the budget deficit.I agree that there are many contributing factors. But to claim the tax cuts had no role is incorrect.

 

[Marvelous]

To all the tax cut advocates, you can't cut taxes forever and keep raising revenue. Common sense says as some point it will do more damage than good.

Well, you can't raise taxes forever and keep raising revenue either. Common sense says at some point it will do more damage than good. Unless for some reason other than historical example you believe that governments are more capable of running things than private entities.

Who proposed raising taxes forever? You can't equate repealing some the Bush tax cuts for the weathier people to the Clinton levels as raising taxes forever. It is much easier to look at the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts and the proposed McCain tax cuts as an attempt to cut taxes forever. The current tax rates are the lowest they have been since I have followed this stuff and probably goes back to WWII. However, spending keeps hitting new highs. No one will tell me the massive deficits are a good thing, yet that is where we are at.

 

[Chadstroma]

I think we've all learned an important lesson here.

Yes, raising taxes is bad for the economy.

But raising taxes has surprising positive impacts on reducing the debt...I for one would be happy to pay extra so my 7 month old son doesn't have to...I'm unselfish like that though and not all about me, me, me....

It is kind of hard to pay more taxes if you do not have a job because the economy is in the dumps. What do you think will be better for your 7 month old son... less taxes and a healthy economy which means more revenue or more taxes and a destroyed economy which means less revenue?

No Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2002. Everyone wins. There is no financial crisis. There is no or little budget deficit (unless Bush thougth a surplus is a mandate to start a 3rd war), and Fanatic's 7 month old son isn't paying for our debts.To all the tax cut advocates, you can't cut taxes forever and keep raising revenue. Common sense says as some point it will do more damage than good.

Please provide one instance in the world's history that high taxation was good thing for a country. Meanwhile, history is filled with examples of high taxation ruining economies and countries.

This is a very subjective arguement. I will claim that we are in a very low tax situation right now and even if Obama carried out his campaign promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250k, we would still have very low taxes. I heard rates were 70% and higher in the 1960s. So, high taxes, I will agree bad for the ecomony. Artifically low taxes when you spending is high probalby also does not bode well for the economy.

Low taxes are never bad. It is spending that is bad. But what is even worst is high taxes. The entire EU's economy still falls short of the U.S. and there is no doubt that one of the reasons for this is their various degrees of socialism which means higher taxes and more government spending.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Ayn Rand Fan

 

[Chadstroma]

I think we've all learned an important lesson here.

Yes. Don't raise taxes.

Raise taxes before the crap hits the fan.

Are you suggesting that crap hasn't hit the fan yet?

I have already posted that right now is the worst possible time to raise taxes. But the flip side is the best time to raise taxes is when the economy is healthy, It is also the time to balance the budget and start paying off the national debt.The Bush tax cuts are partly to blame for the budget deficits and the finnaical crisis. It wasn't right to cut taxes back then and go into massive debt.

Wrong. There are many contributing factors to the financial crisis but tax cuts are not one of them.

I will claim (quite confidently at that) that the budget deficits do play an important role in the financial crisis and created the need for higher interest rates. Instead, we lowered them and while increasing money supply. This imbalance is one of the big reasons behind the housing bubble and the rampant lending. And the Bush tax cuts have a large role in the budget deficit.I agree that there are many contributing factors. But to claim the tax cuts had no role is incorrect.

You are trying to connect two things that are not connected.

 

[DrJ]

To all the tax cut advocates, you can't cut taxes forever and keep raising revenue. Common sense says as some point it will do more damage than good.

Well, you can't raise taxes forever and keep raising revenue either. Common sense says at some point it will do more damage than good. Unless for some reason other than historical example you believe that governments are more capable of running things than private entities.

Who proposed raising taxes forever? You can't equate repealing some the Bush tax cuts for the weathier people to the Clinton levels as raising taxes forever. It is much easier to look at the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts and the proposed McCain tax cuts as an attempt to cut taxes forever. The current tax rates are the lowest they have been since I have followed this stuff and probably goes back to WWII. However, spending keeps hitting new highs. No one will tell me the massive deficits are a good thing, yet that is where we are at.

Who proposed lowering taxes forever either? It's your sensationalist rhetoric, not mine.

 

[DrJ]

Here's a chart that shows how things have changed in our tax structure since the 1960's.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07tax.htm

The 1%ers are a little lower than their historical average, but it's not dramatic. The guys that are paying a whole lot less are the .1%ers and the .01%ers. When you see stuff like "the top tax bracket in 1960 was 70%", it doesn't mean that all of the guys paying 35% today were paying 70% back then. It meant that the ultra wealthy were paying 70%.

This is where the disconnect is when comparing the Obama increases to the top tax rate in 1960. Those rates didn't apply to the type of people making 250K today. It applied to the rich CEO guy making millions. But when you go after the guy making 250K you're hitting closer to the middle class than the ultra wealthy. Make a new bracket at the 500K or 1 million mark, and I bet you get a lot less resistance.

 

[Marvelous]

I think we've all learned an important lesson here.

Yes. Don't raise taxes.

Raise taxes before the crap hits the fan.

Are you suggesting that crap hasn't hit the fan yet?

I have already posted that right now is the worst possible time to raise taxes. But the flip side is the best time to raise taxes is when the economy is healthy, It is also the time to balance the budget and start paying off the national debt.The Bush tax cuts are partly to blame for the budget deficits and the finnaical crisis. It wasn't right to cut taxes back then and go into massive debt.

Wrong. There are many contributing factors to the financial crisis but tax cuts are not one of them.

I will claim (quite confidently at that) that the budget deficits do play an important role in the financial crisis and created the need for higher interest rates. Instead, we lowered them and while increasing money supply. This imbalance is one of the big reasons behind the housing bubble and the rampant lending. And the Bush tax cuts have a large role in the budget deficit.I agree that there are many contributing factors. But to claim the tax cuts had no role is incorrect.

You are trying to connect two things that are not connected.

Please explain what is not connected. The economy needs equilibrium between all the variable and they are seriously out of balance right now.

 

[jamny]

Here's a chart that shows how things have changed in our tax structure since the 1960's.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07tax.htm

The 1%ers are a little lower than their historical average, but it's not dramatic. The guys that are paying a whole lot less are the .1%ers and the .01%ers. When you see stuff like "the top tax bracket in 1960 was 70%", it doesn't mean that all of the guys paying 35% today were paying 70% back then. It meant that the ultra wealthy were paying 70%.

This is where the disconnect is when comparing the Obama increases to the top tax rate in 1960. Those rates didn't apply to the type of people making 250K today. It applied to the rich CEO guy making millions. But when you go after the guy making 250K you're hitting closer to the middle class than the ultra wealthy. Make a new bracket at the 500K or 1 million mark, and I bet you get a lot less resistance.

No one should have to pay 70%.That's obscene.

 

[Ray Stevens]

No one should have to pay 70%.

That's obscene.

I can think of a lot worse stuff than being so rich it put me into a 70% marginal tax bracket.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Wow.

Did you really just start a thread with your alias, then log back in as yourself to say "wow"?

Timschochet is pledged not to start any more threads until January.But forget my nonsense, Ray. What do you think of the news?

Your nonsense is way more interesting to me. 1) You pledge not to start any more threads;2) But you are so desperate to start threads you create an alias for the purpose, apparently, of circumventing your pledge;3) You freely acknowledge that you are breaking your pledge in this way, yet continue to go through the motions;4) You log back in as yourself to comment on the threads started by your alias, exclaiming "wow."No tax policy thread can possibly top this level of insanity.

 

[Joe T]

I'm amazed there's not more people coming in here to praise Obama, as I am doing, and taking back what we wrote about him before. During the campaign, when there were threads about Obama raising taxes, they would go on for pages and pages. Words like "socialism" were thrown around.

I admit I was wrong about Obama. Where are all the other critics who were shouting how left wing he is?

this is just sad.

 

[timschochet]

You know that alias actually started as "Ayn Rand", and then it was changed to "Ayn Rand fan". Perhaps the mods thought that I was the real Ayn Rand?

 

[Joe T]

OK, so I actually read the article. It is all about another bailout plan that the Dems in Congress and Obama are working on to implement very soon after Obama is inaugurated in order to send a jolt through the economy. They want Bush and the Repubs to do something now but they are balking so this is plan B.

This is a quick hit, shot in the arm package. This is not the augmentation to the tax code he has promised throughout his campaign. He was simply asked if tax increases for the rich would be in this bill and he said it would not. That does not preclude it from being in any other legislation.

Trollschochet needs a hobby other than cherry picking lines from articles (and conveniently not linking the original)...This guy is a joke....

This is now one of my favorite threads of all time.

 

[Politician Spock]

But forget my nonsense