Romney tax plan would increase taxes on the middle class by $2k

#26
#26
volinbham said:
I'm in favor of cutting everything including defense - not sure the sequestration approach is the right way to do it; probably will tank the economy but if you are asking if I'm advocating cutting defense spending then the answer is an unequivocal yes.

I'm also only for a temp extension of the tax cuts until major reform can be accomplished along the lines of the Debt Commission.
Click to expand...


You and I aren't that far apart.

The problem is the GOP will never go along with the Debt Commission plans on taxes. Just never, ever, ever.
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
You and I aren't that far apart.

The problem is the GOP will never go along with the Debt Commission plans on taxes. Just never, ever, ever.
Click to expand...

Can't see how you would think Dems would when the very guy who put the commission together has ignored pretty much every recommendation they made.
 
#32
#32
LG, why do you even try any more. I pictured this thread in my mind with about 90% accuracy before even opening it.
 
#34
#34
rjd970 said:
If things keep up, the next president might eclipse that, regardless of party.
Click to expand...

If we don't get decent economic growth it's almost a guarantee. What could work against it is a wind down of some war expenditures and no new stimulus plan.

The best short term solution is economic growth.
 
#35
#35
Obama and the Dems can hold firm on this issue. The polling is on their side.
If the House GOP does not go along with this they will be responsible for raising taxes on 98%.
Most on here will not agree but this issue is a winner for Obama.
The House GOP may wait until after the election act hoping the GOP will gain total control, if not this will be passed, the $250,000 figure will probably be increased to$500,000-$1,000,000.
By waiting until after the elections could hit the GOP candidate in any close elections.
 
#36
#36
Gramps said:
Obama and the Dems can hold firm on this issue. The polling is on their side.
If the House GOP does not go along with this they will be responsible for raising taxes on 98%.
Most on here will not agree but this issue is a winner for Obama.
The House GOP may wait until after the election act hoping the GOP will gain total control, if not this will be passed, the $250,000 figure will probably be increased to$500,000-$1,000,000.
By waiting until after the elections could hit the GOP candidate in any close elections.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the polling is on there side - in fact I thought it was the opposite that a decent majority opposed any tax hikes. The issue of making the rich pay more was also a very low priority in a recent poll.

I could be wrong but that's my recollection of the polls.
 
#37
#37
EDIT - I stand corrected. It polls well for taxing the rich but actually taxing the rich is the lowest priority of 12 investigated by Gallup.
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
And put even more money in the pockets of the rich, while not decreasing the debt, according to non-partisan tax watchdog group.

Meanwhile, Obama wants to continue the Bush tax cut for 98 percent of the country, and ask top 2 percent to pay more. House won't even take it up, of course.

Answers the question posted elsewhere about who connects better with the struggling middle class.
Click to expand...

LG I have no idea how much money you make and I may be insinuating too much here, but I assume you're a lawyer or going to be by your name? If that's the case then what do you consider the rich? Many a lawyer make more than $250k and are therefore considered rich. You may one day, or already are, in this situation. Are you all for your taxes being raised? FTR, I don't make anywhere near $250k nor does anyone in my family nor do we ever plan to and I'm against raising taxes.

It's been shown that tax revenue only fluctuates between 17-19% of GDP regardless of rates. Raising taxes on the "rich" isn't going to solve any problems, it never has.
 
#39
#39
Taxing the Rich more may make some people feel better. It's not going to fix the problem of the federal government spending money like a drunken sailor.
 
#40
#40
How long does a "tax cut" have to be in place before it just becomes "the tax rate"? We're 10 years out on these tax rates and Democrats still speak of them as a temporary situation.
 
#41
#41
GAVol said:
How long does a "tax cut" have to be in place before it just becomes "the tax rate"? We're 10 years out on these tax rates and Democrats still speak of them as a temporary situation.
Click to expand...
Yep. They keep reminding us they're doing us all a favor by letting us keep more of our own money. What would we do without these guys?
 
#42
#42
GAVol said:
How long does a "tax cut" have to be in place before it just becomes "the tax rate"? We're 10 years out on these tax rates and Democrats still speak of them as a temporary situation.
Click to expand...

Cartervol said:
Yep. They keep reminding us they're doing us all a favor by letting us keep more of our own money. What would we do without these guys?
Click to expand...


The Bush tax cuts remain referred to in that parlance -- instead of as the rate -- because the cuts didn't work.

Trickle down did not happen. The deficit exploded.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
The Bush tax cuts remain referred to in that parlance -- instead of as the rate -- because the cuts didn't work.

Trickle down did not happen. The deficit exploded.
Click to expand...

Put your head in the sand and keep telling yourself spending isn't the problem.
 
#45
#45
rjd970 said:
Put your head in the sand and keep telling yourself spending isn't the problem.
Click to expand...


Its a huge problem, and if there were less pending and lower taxes, there'd be more disposable income. That is why we should reduce spending.

But that is only part of the solution. Right now, the economy needs to be kick started. There is absolutely no reason -- NONE --to think that supply side economics will work this go 'round.

As BPV says elsewhere, there's plenty of money sitting on the sidelines that could be used to build supply. The big corporations have the money to do it. But they won't until there is a sustained demand on the other end of the pipeline.
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
Its a huge problem, and if there were less pending and lower taxes, there'd be more disposable income. That is why we should reduce spending.

But that is only part of the solution. Right now, the economy needs to be kick started. There is absolutely no reason -- NONE --to think that supply side economics will work this go 'round.

As BPV says elsewhere, there's plenty of money sitting on the sidelines that could be used to build supply. The big corporations have the money to do it. But they won't until there is a sustained demand on the other end of the pipeline.
Click to expand...

At this point you think another stimulus will decrease the deficit faster than spending cuts?
 
#47
#47
rjd970 said:
At this point you think another stimulus will decrease the deficit faster than spending cuts?
Click to expand...

any analysis suggesting anything but spending being the problem is obfuscation and needs to be ignored.

Tax receipts, regardless of bracketology, are going to amount to a very predictable and steady percentage of GDP. Those unaware keep falling into the trap of the class warfare politics routine, which helps them ignore reality.
 
#48
#48
rjd970 said:
At this point you think another stimulus will decrease the deficit faster than spending cuts?
Click to expand...


A stimulus directed at creating more money in the war chests of international conglomerates and banks does no one any good. A stimulus that puts significant money in the pockets of the middle class is the best shot we've got to get out of this. And if you don't want to increase the deficit, there are two places to get it: reduced spending by the government and increased taxes on the wealthiest.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
A stimulus directed at creating more money in the war chests of international conglomerates and banks does no one any good. A stimulus that puts significant money in the pockets of the middle class is the best shot we've got to get out of this. And if you don't want to increase the deficit, there are two places to get it: reduced spending by the government and increased taxes on the wealthiest.
Click to expand...
All they really do is give it a shot in the arm for a minute. You have to either increase wages or reduce consumer costs to have a true stimulus. What they try and what they end up doing never addresses that problem. That's why it failed the first time and it's not worth trying again. The fed doesn't even want to move on anything right now. It would end up adding more debt.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
A stimulus directed at creating more money in the war chests of international conglomerates and banks does no one any good. A stimulus that puts significant money in the pockets of the middle class is the best shot we've got to get out of this. And if you don't want to increase the deficit, there are two places to get it: reduced spending by the government and increased taxes on the wealthiest.
Click to expand...

holy crap. I'm not sure you can even begin to follow the math and make this make any sense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top