Obama announces compromise on extending tax cuts

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A_Fortiori_33 said:
It sounds more like capitulation rather than compromise to me. I am sorely disappointed that we had to give more to the rich to help the unemployed. Let’s see how many jobs are created because of this action.
One thing I don’t understand in the current debate is that this tax cut was a way of giving back because of the Clinton surplus. When Bush was president there was a budget surplus and he wanted to give it back. . Now we are in deficit. Why are we still giving back and going into hock to do it?
Click to expand...
A Fortiori, please explain to me: how is keeping the tax rate the same as its been in years, “giving more to the rich” ? You speak as though the government is going to write out a check to every rich person when the reality is they’ll be paying the same tax as they’ve been paying. Again, how is that, “giving to the rich” ?

Ishii
 
Brendan said:
The so called ‘rich’ also include a lot of small businesses.
Click to expand...
Well, depends on what you mean by “a lot.” I understand that not many small businesses fall into the upper tax bracket.
That includes my neighbors auto body shop. I can tell you first hand that he is not ‘rich’ by any standard.
Click to expand...
Since it’s a sole proprietorship, all the shop’s profits are listed as direct income to him, even though a lot of that goes into the business. So his W2 states well over 250K, but I’d be surprised if his ‘take home’ was more than 50.
Click to expand...
Well, he needs to see an accountant for details, but I’m almost certain that he can write off business costs and save a bundle.

SVP:
Much of [the owner’s] wealth is the business, if that is taxed too highly, I don’t get a raise, others might be laid off
Click to expand...
Really? He has to pay a little bit more, so he’s going to take it out of your pay rather than make a teensy bit less himself? That’s some nerve he’s got, especially for someone who is, in your own words, “considerably richer than I.”
Continue to punish the company: the owner is wealthy enough to close it at the expense of 300 employees.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t see someone who is “considerably richer” than you paying a little bit more money any kind of “punishment.” Thanks to the system, he’s made tons of money. He should contribute a little bit more back into that system.

If his response to being asked to pay a little bit more is – “Bah! The heck with this! I’m closing down my business and opening a sweat shop in a third-world country!” – then I’m frankly disgusted by his insane selfishness.
 
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.

The Democrats that were re-elected were from safe, liberal states and districts. The Democrats who had to deal with moderates, independents and conservatives lost. The liberal/left Democrats will continue to win because there are people who would vote for the devil if he had a ‘D’ next to his name. But the reality is, a party needs moderates and independents to win and maintain a majority and the Democrats just lost their “moderates” - the blue dog Democrats. The Democrats can’t maintain their majority with only liberal/left candidates - not every state is like California and Washington.

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...
You may want a progressive, but that “true believer” progressive candidate will probably do as well as Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich did in the recent past (they lost). I admire people who stick to their guns and don’t compromise on their principles, but America is not a leftist country and no true progressive will win a lasting national majority. You can trick some of the people, some of the time, but you can’t trick them all of the time. But run that progressive - they just might siphon off enough votes from the Democrat candidate so as to contribute to their defeat and help a Republican get elected - we need a Republican to get more pro-life justices on the supreme court.

Ishii
 
ProVobis said:
We better hope China is okay with this.
Click to expand...
I know. what idiotic sense! I hate it! but I am moderate not a far lefty, so I am going to trust that our President’s advisers have got more brains than we have. Peace, Carlan
 
AntiTheist said:
Again, I don’t see someone who is “considerably richer” than you paying a little bit more money any kind of “punishment.” Thanks to the system, he’s made tons of money. He should contribute a little bit more back into that system.

If his response to being asked to pay a little bit more is – “Bah! The heck with this! I’m closing down my business and opening a sweat shop in a third-world country!” – then I’m frankly disgusted by his insane selfishness.
Click to expand...
  1. “Thanks to the system”??? Don’t you think their hard work had more to do with their success than “the system”? After all, everybody has access to the system, but not all put in the work / risk / sacrifice it takes to be successful in “the system”.
  2. I would also challenge your idea that the “rich” should be willing to pay a little bit more. Doesn’t that depend on the person? Warren Buffett say he is willing to pay more, but how do you know someone making $750K per year isn’t extended to their limit financially, and this increase could push them to lose their business, or their house, or sacrifice more than just “paying a little bit more”?
 
Carlan said:
I know. what idiotic sense! I hate it! but I am moderate not a far lefty, so I am going to trust that our President’s advisers have got more brains than we have. Peace, Carlan
Click to expand...
I certainly am not going to sell you or myself short, so I’m not going to agree with that statement. How many of the president’s advisors had tax issues? (several) Didn’t the president hire Van Jones, a self admitted communist? (yes) How many of the president’s advisors have actually run a business or worked outside of academia? (smallest percentage when compared to other recent administrations). I’m sure there are many other examples, but I hope you get my point.
 
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...
What he can afford doesn’t make something fair.

Hell, I can AFFORD to have my salary cut in half, since I do fine. I can AFFORD to to have one eye gouged out on the way to work, because I have two. Doesn’t make it right.

Who are you to decide what anyone else can afford?
 
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 hope you are an old guy now. I would hate to be one of your parents.
 
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...
If they provided jobs, my guess is that they would not be unemployed. They do, however, stimulate the economy when they spend the unemployment compensation on food, car repairs, and generally all the things we all spend money on. I doubt they stash the money in Bermuda.
 
I have a lot of trouble understanding why it should be appealing to people to tax anybody in a recession, particularly when all that will happen is that the government will spend that and more. We have a government now that has spent unbelievable amounts of money to no obvious good effect and it wants you and me to fill the hole (in small part) by indulging in envy of our neighbors. For the record, I am in no danger of having my taxes raised by this proposal (insofar as it is disclosed) but for the life of me I can’t understand why these “let’s soak the rich” motivations are attractive to people. Do they really think they’ll get that money, or do they simply want to harm those who are more fortunate than they are out of sheer malicious glee? Either way, I think it is reprehensible for this government to feed such unworthy motivations.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I have a lot of trouble understanding why it should be appealing to people to tax anybody in a recession, particularly when all that will happen is that the government will spend that and more. We have a government now that has spent unbelievable amounts of money to no obvious good effect and it wants you and me to fill the hole (in small part) by indulging in envy of our neighbors. For the record, I am in no danger of having my taxes raised by this proposal (insofar as it is disclosed) but for the life of me I can’t understand why these “let’s soak the rich” motivations are attractive to people. Do they really think they’ll get that money, or do they simply want to harm those who are more fortunate than they are out of sheer malicious glee? Either way, I think it is reprehensible for this government to feed such unworthy motivations.
Click to expand...
We can start to address this problem when people know where their money is going. The wikileaks, as bad as they appear to be, show where so much of our tax dollars are being spent. Graft is everywhere. We are paying for it. How much are we going to support these two wars. We have private contractors supplying “dancing boys” in Afghanistan. We pick up the bill. We have private contractors charging us $100 dolars per laundry load in Iraq ( see Iraq for sale). We pick up the bill. We are paying $400 dollars a gallon for gas to support our troups Iraq. Isn’t that something?
I could go on and on…until we know where our money is going, this kind of nonsense can continue.
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
We can start to address this problem when people know where their money is going. The wikileaks, as bad as they appear to be, show where so much of our tax dollars are being spent. Graft is everywhere. We are paying for it. How much are we going to support these two wars. We have private contractors supplying “dancing boys” in Afghanistan. We pick up the bill. We have private contractors charging us $100 dolars per laundry load in Iraq ( see Iraq for sale). We pick up the bill. We are paying $400 dollars a gallon for gas to support our troups Iraq. Isn’t that something?
I could go on and on…until we know where our money is going, this kind of nonsense can continue.
Click to expand...
A Fortiori, I can understand and really appreciate what you are saying here. As taxpayers (customers) we have that God given right to know what our money is being spent on.

However, I can’t understand why we are focusing on the rich citizens (People). If I sell hamburgers at a restaurant and I charge more money for people who are richer for the same item that poorer people pay for, is that not discriminatory?

Some people are so focused on the morality or immorality of how much money people make. For the most part there is nothing immoral about it. There are exceptions. Its what people do with the money that it becomes a matter of morality.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
If I sell hamburgers at a restaurant and I charge more money for people who are richer for the same item that poorer people pay for, is that not discriminatory?
Click to expand...
It very well would be discriminatory and it happens all the time in the marketplace, there is a whole literature on price discrimination. It is very profitable when firms can get away with it.
 
canadianguy1143 said:
A Fortiori, I can understand and really appreciate what you are saying here. As taxpayers (customers) we have that God given right to know what our money is being spent on.

However, I can’t understand why we are focusing on the rich citizens (People). If I sell hamburgers at a restaurant and I charge more money for people who are richer for the same item that poorer people pay for, is that not discriminatory?

Some people are so focused on the morality or immorality of how much money people make. For the most part there is nothing immoral about it. There are exceptions. Its what people do with the money that it becomes a matter of morality.
Click to expand...
Come on, Greed permeates this world, It is one big sin of morality.
Peace, Carlan
 
Carlan said:
Come on, Greed permeates this world, It is one big sin of morality.
Peace, Carlan
Click to expand...
I agree. Right now the government is being greedy with people they think should pay more. The poor can be just as greedy as the rich.

I really detest the villification of the “rich.” Are people not entitled to make money? We want to punish people who earn money?

The “rich” people in my town contribute to the symphony, the zoo, the art museum, and other worthy causes. When AB got bought out by InBEV (truly greedy), donations to public charities went way down. Grant’s Farm, the estate of the Busch’s, had free tours (and one free beer) of Grant’s Farm. The brewery had free tours (and one free beer). There were beautiful Clydesdales, horse drawn wagons, and other historical items to see. Grant’s Farm has buffalo, long-horned cattle, and other animals roaming on the range-like farm. That’s all going away now. Well, they’re thinking of making Grant’s Farm a national park. So our tax dollars will pay for it instead of private money.

Without money, none of these cultural attractions would be in existence. Sure the government could pay for it. How easy do you think it is to get grants, etc.? Wouldn’t you rather have “rich” people supporting these than government money?
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
We can start to address this problem when people know where their money is going. The wikileaks, as bad as they appear to be, show where so much of our tax dollars are being spent. Graft is everywhere. We are paying for it. How much are we going to support these two wars. We have private contractors supplying “dancing boys” in Afghanistan. We pick up the bill. We have private contractors charging us $100 dolars per laundry load in Iraq ( see Iraq for sale). We pick up the bill. We are paying $400 dollars a gallon for gas to support our troups Iraq. Isn’t that something?
I could go on and on…until we know where our money is going, this kind of nonsense can continue.
Click to expand...
We can all agree on the horrors of wasting our tax money, and defrauding the government. I doubt any of us would disagree, although you cited only the DoD, and left out other arguably worthless and undebatably wasteful groups like the Dept. of Energy and Education.

But what does that have to do woth taking more tax money or levying higher taxes on the wealthy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top