OMG! It's the Fiscal Cliff!

[Spexxvet]

I'm ready to go off the cliff. I know that I'll pay more, but I think it's important to reduce the national debt. For the last 4 years, there has been action on only one side: cuts. Now it's time for shared pain. Defense, you cost too much. FICA should be paid on all income, including capital gains income. Over $3 million per year income should be taxes at 50%. SS and Medicare should not be available to those who have income of greater than $300k per year, or maybe to those whose net worth is greater than $1 million. Retirement should be raised to 70 (it's the new 50!). Increase tariffs, penalize non-US owners/companies. I could go on ...

[BigV]

I heard another reason in favor of "stepping gently off the fiscal curb" or whatever it's being called these days.

President Obama has the highest trump hand here, and everybody knows it. No tax rate increases on filers > $250, no signature. All he has to do is wait, right? He *could* wait for a bill from the House that includes such republican blasphemy. He'd be waiting a long time though. By waiting until the new year, the republicans get to save face by saying they nevereverevernever voted for a tax increase. They get to save face. I think this has a lot of substance because there's not a lot of substance to the arithmetic found in their counteroffers.

President Obama's doing them a favor. They know that the higher marginal tax rates will be accepted by "the rich". They know it won't be the end of the world as they imagine it and talk about it. This way, they get to continue to appear stalwart, while permitting something good for the country to occur.

[ZenGum]

An overhyped alarmist soundbite is pretty much par for the course, these days.

[infinite monkey]

Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup.

But that's MISTER Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup to you.

[Lamplighter]

Thx to M. Doubleentendre

PS: that Knock knock Sundae was the best pun of the month

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup.

But that's PRESIDENT Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup to you.

FIFY

[infinite monkey]

Thanks, buddy.

[piercehawkeye45]

Here is a side-by-side view of Bowles-Simpon's, Obama's, and Republican's plan.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...charts/265901/

Note: I would just post the image but I would have to reduce the size and I don't feel like doing that now...

[BigV]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Here is a side-by-side view of Bowles-Simpon's, Obama's, and Republican's plan.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...charts/265901/

Note: I would just post the image but I would have to reduce the size and I don't feel like doing that now...

this is done.

[classicman]

"The truth is that everybody has to pay more taxes, not just the rich."
Howard Dean

"Beating up on "the rich" is a politically-convenient ploy for the moment, but the math doesn't lie:
Taxing only the upper echelons of income earners and small businesses would reap an insufficient pittance in the final analysis.
The government's unsustainable spending will soon require many more people to pay their "fair share" to the federal government.
Some voters who are currently on board with the Left's soak-the-rich crusade will one day (perhaps soon) discover that they themselves are the new "rich," with of their livelihood and income suddenly in Big Government's crosshairs. Dean is at least doing everyone a favor by serving notice early. He is very enthusiastic about middle class tax increases and deep defense cuts, but very protective of all other spending."

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

"The truth is that everybody has to pay more taxes, not just the rich."
Howard Dean

"Beating up on "the rich" is a politically-convenient ploy for the moment, but the math doesn't lie:
Taxing only the upper echelons of income earners and small businesses would reap an insufficient pittance in the final analysis.
The government's unsustainable spending will soon require many more people to pay their "fair share" to the federal government.
Some voters who are currently on board with the Left's soak-the-rich crusade will one day (perhaps soon) discover that they themselves are the new "rich," with of their livelihood and income suddenly in Big Government's crosshairs. Dean is at least doing everyone a favor by serving notice early. He is very enthusiastic about middle class tax increases and deep defense cuts, but very protective of all other spending."

I agree with Senator Dean.

But thank dog, someone on the board besides Adak has at last come to defense of the poor, down trodden upper 2% in wealth. You go, Classic!

If the math doesn't lie, then give us the god damn numbers, and at the very least, use ones put out by the CBO - not ones drawn out of the thin air by some outfit like the Heriage Foundation. Give us ANYTHING besides an uncollaborated statement.

The average median household income was around $51000 in 2011, a mere $200,000 below the income level targeted for a return to the Clinton era rates. Today Donald Trump and tomorrow Ibby.

Please define what you would consider a "fair share" of taxes, too. What? 5% for Trump and 0% for everyone else, or better yet, 0% on Trump and 5% on single Moms earning less than $10,000/year? Whatever because the US doesn't really need a government, anyway, since Goldman Sachs is already doing the job?

Also, since you seem comfortable using Tea Party terminology, could you please define what you mean by "small businesses" - especially the SMALL part? Seriously, I really want know.

Another question I have is why are you upset by the thought of cuts to defense spending? The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Mission accomplished in Iraq. (ahem) Maybe you'd like the US to declare war on the remaining two members of the "axis of evil": Iraq and North Korea? Why not declare war on Canada as well? We could get all that oil, and I bet the Canadian army would be a push over.

What are you a defense contractor or something?

Now, since we are at war on the Canadian and Iranian and N. Korean fronts and Goldman Sachs has decided to outsource the Army to Rwanda, what do you suggest happen to the earned benefits that the American people paid all those taxes for out of their hard earned paychecks? That amount comes to quite a bit and every last one of us who worked for even a day or two paid into those funds.

Oh, I forgot. Those are now called "entitlements" and that money was given to Donald Trump, so he wouldn't have to pay an extra .001% toward the cost of our Rwandan mercenaries.

Good thing we no longer have to worry about the government throwing money at such fripperies as education, infrastructure, and disaster relief for worthless states on the stupid East Coast like New Jersey.

And it's a relief to be rid of all those old people and the disabled ones, too - bunch of worthless parasites. Glad we took away their housing and medicaid and put 'em out on the street to die.

We'll show YOU, Howard Dean!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Small business?
Hows this, firms that have fewer than 50 employees. 96% of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Small business?
Hows this, firms that have fewer than 50 employees. 96% of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers.

Ok, but I still need a more precise definition. I'm wondering about profit margins. Could you give me the link where you found this information?

Like, I can understand that a firm with 50 or so employees might rake in a profit of a million dollars or more. Financially speaking, how much in profits defines a small business as opposed to a large one?

And what's the percentage of small businesses that have 10 employees or less? The percentage of the ones run by a sole proprieter? Do small businesses on this end of the spectrum typically show a profit of a million dollars or more?

The Republicans seem to want us to believe that Joe of Joe's plumbing is going to be taxed at the same rate as Donald Trump. Not so.

For example, I read that the typical Mom and Pop eatery brings in an average income of $36,000/year. Was that a lie? If so, what is the real average? If a business earns enough money to fall under the Dem's proposed repeal of Bush era tax cuts, how can it be defined as "small"?

This is what's making me dig in my heels:

Another smokescreen is the "small business" meme, since standing up for Mom's and Pop's corner store is politically more attractive than to be seen shilling for a megacorporation. Raising taxes on the wealthy will kill small business' ability to hire; that is the GOP dirge every time Bernie Sanders or some Democrat offers an amendment to increase taxes on incomes above $1 million. But the number of small businesses that have a net annual income over a million dollars is de minimis, if not by definition impossible (as they would no longer be small businesses). And as data from the Center for Economic and Policy Research have shown, small businesses account for only 7.2 percent of total US employment, a significantly smaller share of total employment than in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.

However, this comes from a populist site, and if I'm going to request that people use non partisen sources, then I have to do the same. I've read similiar things from other sources, but are these statements lies? There must be somewhere that gives the sums involved where the Dems want to repeal the Bush era tax cuts on businesses worth X amount. There must be somewhere that gives the Republican monetary definition of a "small business," but I can't find that either.

I'm so sick of smoke and mirrors.

[Ibby]

Yep. I actually agree. We need to rethink how we constitute "rich" in America. +250,000 is far too high a top bracket, we need to spend HALF of what we are on defense, and we need to spend MORE on infrastructure and social safety nets.
I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all on the left.

[Happy Monkey]

A hedge fund manager and their secretary are a "small business" if measured by employee count. It makes more sense to measure a small business by its revenue, rather than its employee count, especially when discussing the effect of income tax rates on them.

And if a business not only makes $250,000 in taxable income, but makes enough over $250,000 that a few percent increased rate on that money is a significant amount, that is no small business.