Obama announces compromise on extending tax cuts

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AntiTheist said:
And that rich guy is rewarded by the gobs and gobs of money he makes.

If he actually is that much richer than you or I, then he can afford to pay taxes at a higher rate than you or I should be expected to pay. Don’t worry – he’ll still be fantastically richer than you or I after he’s done paying his taxes. He’ll just have to pay a little bit more on the income that his accountant hasn’t helped him hide by using the many loopholes in the tax code.
Click to expand...
Yes, he is considerably richer than I, and directly employs over three hundred people, supports numerous other businesses who are suppliers. Our company actually manufactures product here in the USA.

Many do not understand how a business runs. Much of his wealth is the business, if that is taxed too highly, I don’t get a raise, others might be laid off. Continue to punish the company: the owner is wealthy enough to close it at the expense of 300 employees. Reward the company: jobs are secure, the possibility of raises returns, more production means more employees. Keep my taxes down at the same time and I have more buying power and can actually spend discretionary income on non essential purchases.

Why is it the we as individuals and privately owned business have to keep our finances in tight order; while our government can continue to levy punishing taxes on everyone, (collecting the money), spending it lavishly on pet projects to the point of literal bankruptcy (spending more than one earns, or collects) without so much as a whimper from their financial underwriters - we, the people?
 
Everyone talks about small businesses, etc. (most of which already do not fall into this category)–if that is your reason for supporting the renewal of these tax cuts, how would you feel if the tax bracket were raised to 1 million? 10 million? At that level, there are almost no small businesses and it’s hard to argue that those individuals or even families are rich and will remain rich, even with higher taxes.

We need to reduce the deficit, and eventually someones taxes will have to go up slightly to make this possible. Programs like Medicare, etc. make up a HUGE percentage of the budget and basically cannot be cut–they are overwhelmingly popular, and our society seems to be unwilling to let the elderly, young, and disabled die because they have no money. The reality is that, yes, there is an unacceptably large amount of government waste, but still not large enough that if it were somehow all cut out, we would be able to get rid of the defecit.

I do agree with everyone here who said we need to simplify the tax code, though. We are taxed multiple times for everything we do. Just tax us once. Companies and individuals could see huge administrative savings in this way.
 
new_User1357246 said:
Programs like Medicare, etc. make up a HUGE percentage of the budget and basically cannot be cut–they are overwhelmingly popular, and our society seems to be unwilling to let the elderly, young, and disabled die because they have no money.
Click to expand...
The idea that the elderly would die because they have no money is patently false. Many elderly have equity in their homes and savings in their 401k’s that can be used to pay for medical expenses. They can also work longer and get their insurance through their employer. The whole thing comes down to putting responsibility where it rightfully belongs, on the individual. For those that are truly destitute (and not scamming the system by passing off assets to their kids) the Church can come in and help.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
The idea that the elderly would die because they have no money is patently false. Many elderly have equity in their homes and savings in their 401k’s that can be used to pay for medical expenses. They can also work longer and get their insurance through their employer. The whole thing comes down to putting responsibility where it rightfully belongs, on the individual. For those that are truly destitute (and not scamming the system by passing off assets to their kids) the Church can come in and help.
Click to expand...
Many elderly do, but many, many do not. Everyone talks a lot about charity and the church coming in and helping–but the fact is that this is not happening at a late enough level to provide everyone with the care they need.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
The idea that the elderly would die because they have no money is patently false. Many elderly have equity in their homes and savings in their 401k’s that can be used to pay for medical expenses. They can also work longer and get their insurance through their employer. The whole thing comes down to putting responsibility where it rightfully belongs, on the individual. For those that are truly destitute (and not scamming the system by passing off assets to their kids) the Church can come in and help.
Click to expand...
I kinda understand where you are going with this but my parents over the last 5 years, Dad is 73 and Mom is 67, have gone through Prostate Cancer and Breast Cancer respectively. That I have gone over with them, over the past 5 years, according to what they would have to have paid to doctors and hospitals, then they would be broke right now. I can tell you they saved really good through the years so it wasn’t about themselves spending liberally but the cancers would have wiped them out. By the way before you say well your Dad needs to get a job, He has 2 part time jobs and Mom has a small part time job along with their Social Security and pensions. Drugs has been a killer for them. The Stock Market in 2001 and 2008 has really killed alot of there stocks that they had. Me, my brother and sister are not worried about inheriting stuff, I mean we are all working hard ourselves but we are not worried. We just wish Mom and Dad will be good for the rest of their lives.

Paul
 
Obama has lost the last of his Progressive support already many are calling to replace him with a true Progressive and hope he or she isn’t bought out. Still others are now voting Socialist or Green.
 
cyberwolf001 said:
Obama has lost the last of his Progressive support already many are calling to replace him with a true Progressive and hope he or she isn’t bought out. Still others are now voting Socialist or Green.
Click to expand...
Perfect! That makes me look forward to Republican victory come 2012. 👍
 
rlg94086 said:
Perfect! That makes me look forward to Republican victory come 2012. 👍
Click to expand...
Don’t be so sure we could be looking at a rarity. Obama ousted by another MORE LIBERAL Democrat an that Dem winning in 2012 along with a liberal take over of congress. We shall see my friend…

We shall see…
 
cyberwolf001 said:
Don’t be so sure we could be looking at a rarity. Obama ousted by another MORE LIBERAL Democrat an that Dem winning in 2012 along with a liberal take over of congress. We shall see my friend…

We shall see…
Click to expand...
What I see, if you’re accurate, is a no-win situation for Democrats. What are they going to campaign on? “Okay, REAL Change…this time, we mean it…you Hope.” 😛

Scenario 1: Obama wins primary, and loses progressives to third parties

Scenario 2: Obama loses primary to someone further Left, and the Democrats lose the moderate/independent vote.
 
rlg94086 said:
What I see, if you’re accurate, is a no-win situation for Democrats. What are they going to campaign on? “Okay, REAL Change…this time, we mean it…you Hope.” 😛

Scenario 1: Obama wins primary, and loses progressives to third parties

Scenario 2: Obama loses primary to someone further Left, and the Democrats lose the moderate/independent vote.
Click to expand...
We shall see. I do know the only Dems that where up for reelection and kept their seats happen to be Progressives. Obama was elected as a progressive and so forth.

Even if it is a 2012 GOP win if we can put up the more Liberal runner and it costs Obama reelection the Dems may finally get the message we want Progressives and snap to. If not expect to see the rise of a 3rd Party in our life time.
 
cyberwolf001 said:
We shall see. I do know the only Dems that where up for reelection and kept their seats happen to be Progressives. Obama was elected as a progressive and so forth.

Even if it is a 2012 GOP win if we can put up the more Liberal runner and it costs Obama reelection the Dems may finally get the message we want Progressives and snap to. If not expect to see the rise of a 3rd Party in our life time.
Click to expand...
Stop it! You are going to make me downright giddy. 🙂
 
cyberwolf001 said:
Don’t be so sure we could be looking at a rarity. Obama ousted by another MORE LIBERAL Democrat an that Dem winning in 2012 along with a liberal take over of congress. We shall see my friend…

We shall see…
Click to expand...
I certainly hope that’s what happens, Cyber. I’m fed up with him at this point, as of yesterday, after this fiasco, I say don’t even renominate, run a true liberal. I’ll be darned if I sit here one more day and hear him call liberals, progressives, his base “sanctimonious” for demanding that he do what he said he was going to do, I am thoroughly disgusted.
 
cyberwolf001 said:
We shall see. I do know the only Dems that where up for reelection and kept their seats happen to be Progressives. Obama was elected as a progressive and so forth.
Click to expand...
Progressives who were running in progressive districts won. I don’t know any progressives who were running in a moderate or conservative district who won. Many moderate and conservative Dems who ran in moderate and conservative districts lost to Republicans. Mainly because progressive citizens hardly ever vote Republican 😉

I don’t see any evidence that a population that considers itself center-right will elect someone more left leaning than Obama in 2012. The only chance of that is if Obama becomes very, very Right Wing very quickly. And that just ain’t gonna happen.
 
SVP said:
Do the unemployed provide jobs, or the so called “rich”? I am employed by one of those so called “rich” and thankful of that every day.
Click to expand...
The unemployed don’t create jobs but they do spend money. Spending money stimulates the economy. a fact…
I would have preferred that the same money be spent elsewhere.
 
rlg94086 said:
Yep…until we simplify our tax code, I will just be thankful for our new little tax deduction. I think that puts us in negative tax bracket. 🙂

He arrived at 8:54pm. We named him after St Peter Pascual (too many Nicks out there).
Click to expand...
Congrats rlg!!!

I was surprised at the estate tax “compromise.” My tax/estate planning professors thought that Congress would put it back at last year’s rate. 45% (I am not too sure on that rate) on estates over $3.5million, so I was really shocked to see the increase to $5million.
 
congratz!!! 👍
rlg94086 said:
Yep…until we simplify our tax code, I will just be thankful for our new little tax deduction. I think that puts us in negative tax bracket. 🙂

He arrived at 8:54pm. We named him after St Peter Pascual (too many Nicks out there).
Click to expand...
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
I am sorely disappointed that we had to give more to the rich to help the unemployed.
Click to expand...
What exactly did “we” (meaning you) actually give to the rich? What was “given” them?

Isn’t “giving” the act of providing someone something they didn’t already have? Look, we’re just not raising their taxes…not lowering…just keeping them the same. In other words, our government is not going to take additional money from them that they EARNED.

You seem to have the mindset that they really don’t possess their own money, that it really belongs to the government, and if we let them keep more of it, that it comes out of the pockets of the poor.

Now think about in this equation, who is the group that is being “given” something…its not the evil rich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top