The politics of s'im-c'ity....

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by BigV

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Just because we can't do one big thing that will solve the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't do many small things that will make the problem smaller. OF COURSE there isn't one thing, one magic wand wave that will make the deficit disappear. So the only positive choice is to take what steps we can, like a rule like this, and let them all add up.

~snip~

I agree with BigV. Steps in the right direction add up.

There is no fix-all. Baby steps? Fine. Better than backwards steps.

[tw]

We had this discussion in early 2000s. Stated back then with numerous examples - a tax cut creates a short term economic boom followed by economic downturns. What happened? We got the usual and predictable recession since the rich got tax breaks.

All we need do is restore the fair and economically healthy taxes once paid in the 1990s. That is only difficult when a political agenda hype government welfare to the richest.

What happened when the rich stopped paying their fair share? We have the recession as predicted by history and predicted when tax cuts were being advocated in The Cellar in the early 2000s.

How to create jobs? Stop heavily taxing those who create jobs. Tax the people who do not create the jobs - the richest. We know that is when an economy is prosperous. We know from a decade of history that welfare to the rich only makes bigger deficits and economics downturns. As demonstrated by history. As predicted. And as it happened. Simply restore what works by ignoring the political agenda. An agenda that pays word games and Limbaugh logic by relabeling no welfare as a tax increase.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

Regarding the Buffett BS - more and more people are stating that it is little more than divisionary politics with an aim at a soon to be candidate.
It simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.

more and more people are stating that there are problems with the "theory" of evolution too. But that doesn't make it so either.

[classicman]

Actually less and less are.
The Buffett deal simply doesn't do much of anything. Sad, but true.

[Ibby]

define "much". Don't Ask Don't Tell wasn't "much" help to gay servicemembers but it let them attempt to serve. steps in the right direction beat the status quo. why does it have to do MUCH to be a good idea?

[BigV]

From WaPo:

Wonkbook real talk: Republicans have taken an amusingly Woody Allen-esque "the food is terrible and the portions are so small" approach to fighting back on the Buffett rule, they say. On the one hand, the proposal is "class warfare." A counterproductive tax hike on job creators. On the other, it would only raise $47 billion (though $160 billion against the more oft-used current policy baseline), and so it doesn't do enough. So: This terrible, dangerous policy is too small to even talk about.

[tw]

A counterproductive tax hike on job creators.

That is where the lying begins. Those who pay lower or near zero taxes also do not create the jobs. In fact, their increased income often goes to things that only increase national trade deficits and enrich the least productive (luxury good providers).

As history proves, tax breaks to those who do not create the jobs only contributes to economic downturns. We have a decade of reality to prove it. Meanwhile "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is the political agenda behind those lies.

[JBKlyde]

Proverbs 6:16-19
New International Version (NIV)
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

I can't help but to think that if only America would do things the way God had intended for it to be done that the world would be a better place.

[Ibby]

So, do you think the government should make it illegal to have a lying tongue or haughty eyes? Should rabble-rousing or stirring up conflict land you in prison?

[classicman]

define rich. define fair. . . . .
Actually, don't. It'll only make things worse.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

From WaPo:

From Reuters

Either way, the revenue is far less than the $1 trillion or more that would be lost from scrapping the alternative minimum tax. The AMT also is meant to be a minimum tax on the wealthy. Democrats have said the Buffett tax could replace the AMT.

The Buffett tax proposal has little chance of passing with Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives and its prospects in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate are murky.

[classicman]

From Wash Times

Congress's official tax scorekeepers said late Tuesday that a Buffett Rule tax like the one President Obama has called for would raise about $47 billion over the next decade — less than 1 percent of the deficits Mr. Obama's spending plans would lead to.

[classicman]

or a more accurate and complicated assessment.

The big reason is that the estimate presumes the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of 2012 (as provided for under current law) and that a new 3.8% Medicare “surtax” on investment income (to help pay for the health insurance subsidies in Obamacare) takes effect as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2013. If both those things happen, the top tax rate on long term capital gains will go from 15% this year to 23.8% (20% plus 3.8%) while the top rate on ordinary dividends (the kind Apple Inc. announced this week it will start paying) will jump from 15% to 43.4% (39.6% plus 3.8%). And that’s even before the scheduled Jan. 1, 2013 return of a provision that shaves the itemized deductions of the better off, effectively adding another 1.2% points to their tax rate. If all those tax hikes take effect, as scheduled, the rich will be paying more anyway, reducing the potential haul from a new 30% minimum tax. According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, if the Bush tax cuts don’t expire, 36% of millionaire households will pay the new minimum tax; if they do expire, the tax will hit just 19% of those households.

[classicman]

Its nothing more than political pandering. There are much better ways , as suggested above, to achieve the same end.

[BigV]

curious... you struck my use of "deficit" replacing it with debt. Then you used deficit yourself in a subsequent post. we have both, which do you think is more trouble?