OMG! It's the Fiscal Cliff!
In case you've been wondering,
this story in Forbes gives a pretty good explanation of what the fiscal cliff is all about:
It begins with the December 31, 2012 expiration of the Bush tax cuts. These were originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2010 but were extended two years ago in a horse trade between President Obama and the GOP controlled Congress. You may recall the December deal, following on the heals of the Republican wave election victory of 2010, wherein President Obama agreed to continue the tax cuts for all Americans in exchange for Congress agreeing to extend long-term unemployment benefits for the many Americans who were out of work.
Should the Bush tax cuts now be permitted to expire, taxes will go up for most Americans—an increase that would extend to the taxes we pay on our earnings, investments and inheritance along with the removal of a number of tax incentives that have been made available to businesses for things such as research and development.
But the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is just the beginning.
The temporary, two percent reduction in payroll taxes that the Obama administration pushed through so that consumers could have a few more dollars to spend is also scheduled to end on December 31 of this year along with the long term unemployment benefit extension mentioned above.
Adding to the misery is the reality that, beginning on January 1, some 26 million households will again become subject to the alternative minimum tax which is estimated to raise taxes for many Americans by as much as $3,700.
When it is all said and done, the expectation is that the average American household will be paying $2,000 to $3,000 more in taxes each year—leaving them with $2,000 to $3,000 less to spend in our consumer driven economy.
Not a good thing as we struggle to get the economy on a more solid footing. But we’ve only just gotten started.
While the expiration of all these laws that have provided Americans a measure of tax relief dating back to 2001 will deliver the ‘set up’ punch, the ‘closer’ comes from the sudden and immediate reduction in government spending that hits on January 1—courtesy of the failure of the While House and the Congressional GOP to reach a more reasonable agreement in 2011 to resolve the debt ceiling crisis.
This is the ‘sequester’ you’ve heard so much about.
The cuts hit all areas of the federal budget, including a $55 billion reduction to the Pentagon’s budget in 2013, a reduction of payments to physicians participating in Medicare, substantial cuts to FEMA and the Dept. of Education budget along with a host of serious reductions across the wide ranging operations of the federal government. - more
There is some speculation that each side may play a game of “chicken” with the other. The lame duck Congress (to continue with bird analogies) will do a lot of posturing and blustering along the standard party lines then go home without resolving anything. Happy New Year, everybody.
The major sticking point seems to be the extension of the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes over $250,000. Republicans become hysterical at the very thought of this and the Republican propaganda machine is already working over time. If those in the $250,000 plus tax bracket have to pay higher taxes, this will adversely impact “small businesses” and the “job creators.” These people will take their toys and go home and pout if forced to pay the same amount in taxes as they did in the Clinton era. No jobs for YOU, America! Take that!
But wait? Small business? “Job creators”? George Orwell would have been proud. By the Republican definition, Mitt Romney is a “small businessman.” As a matter of fact, so is Barack Obama. Say what? And what’s all this about "job creation"?
Again I turned to Forbes, hardly a bastion of liberal progressivism, and read their well-researched historical analysis of
tax cuts and jobs creation. Jobs growth under the George W. Bush administration with its tax cuts averaged from 4.5% to 7%. Sounds good? Well, not really. Since 1950, with the exception of the Eisenhower administration, EVERY president who served two terms saw job growth during his tenure. And it was DOUBLE DIGIT job growth, not the anemic numbers W. managed to achieve with his tax cuts for the wealthy.
What we have here are a bunch of tea party inspired lemmings who will rush us over that “fiscal cliff” as a matter of political ideology, NOT what is good for the Country.
I'm with Lawrence O'Donnell on this one. It's not a cliff - it's a curb. If we step off, it'll be to the democrats' advantage - and then we can strike a deal that favors the left, and retroactively apply it back to the first of the year. Bam. Problem solved. Make the defense cuts, fix the other spending cuts, retroactively fix the taxes for the poor and middle-class but don't fix them for $250k+. Twist republican arms and we can make this work.
Here is another article explaining who will get hit and the possible effects on the economy:
But before we get to the policy -- and the graphs -- let's talk about the term. "Cliff" is an imperfect analogy. It's really more a long, rolling hill. A fiscal slope.
....
You pay more. That's the three word summary of the fiscal cliff's impact on your taxes. If your household makes a typical salary -- say, $50,000 -- you should expect to pay $2,000 more in taxes next year. If your household makes an atypical salary -- say, $500,000 -- you should expect to take a $50,000 hit. The richer you are, the bigger the hit you face as a share of income. The top 0.1% would see an average tax hike of $600,000.
....
The double whammy of spending cuts and tax changes will push the U.S. economy into a recession in the first six months of 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Unemployment would rise to 9%. Real GDP would decline by about 3% in the first half of 2013. That's a certain double-dip.
...
Nobody wants a recession. But you know what's worse than a short-term recession? A bad long-term deal. That's why some liberals are asking the president to dig in and not make a compromise with Republicans that would change Social Security and Medicare, or give up on higher tax rates on the richest 2%.
The CBO has projected that making a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff entirely would improve GDP growth by an astounding 2.9% by the fourth quarter of next year (see left). To put that in perspective, we're expected to grow by 1.5% in the fourth quarter of this year. About two-thirds of this growth would come from keeping taxes down. The rest would come from keeping spending up.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-fiscal-cliff-explainer-what-it-is-where-its-from-who-will-pay-and-why-it-matters/264990/
I'm support Obama right now with this. Extend the tax cuts for people who are more likely to spend the money (under $250,000) and make appropriate spending cuts. Nothing too extreme, I really don't want another recession, but enough to get momentum going on budget issues.
I've always wondered what sort of buying spree the $250,000 plus gang are supposed to go on. Since the US doesn't make anything anymore, the wealthy are not going to help things by buying expensive trinkets from their homeland. I think they buy their expensive trinkets from foreign countries, anyway. Art? Maybe they'd buy a bunch of stuff created by American artists, and the money from the art community would trickle down to the rest of us. Nah, I bet the uber rich consider it gauche to have a bunch of American art cluttering up the mansion.
I know! Learjets! Who couldn't always use another Learjet? Are those made in the US? OK, never mind. I just checked and the Canadians took over making the Learjet. Well, I'm sure the wealthy will do SOMETHING to help the US economy out, right? Especially if we all have to go over some financial cliff on their behalf. :rolleyes:
The rich throw a lot of parties. So they do pump money into the catering and rented entertainment industries. Also, they consume a fair amount of domestic wine mixed in with their foreign wine. So hey, that's practically like paying the migrant grape-pickers directly!
Art? Maybe they'd buy a bunch of stuff created by American artists, and the money from the art community would trickle down to the rest of us. Nah, I bet the uber rich consider it gauche to have a bunch of American art cluttering up the mansion.
Uh huh, especially art purchased directly from artists. If the uber-rich deign to buy art made by living American artists, it is most likely through dealers and galleries (also very wealthy people) that take a 50% commission. None of those big-money art auction sales we see on the news benefit any artists.
BayPop Mag
Here is what the rich in my area splurges on...
Note the cufflinks on page 100 for $40k and the cell phone on page 107 for $179k. I would think you could blow a hell of a lot of money very easily.
Yeah, I know someone featured in this magazine, which is what brought it to my attention.
1) we know jobs were created and the economy boomed when taxes made sense. To create a recession, George Jr, et al created welfare for the rich. Selling that lie as a job creator. We know that welfare contributed to a massive recession. Why then continue what has a long history of creating recessions? Instead, restore taxes to levels that once made a booming American economy in the 1990s.
2) economics is now taking revenge. No money game that can avert that economic revenge. Remaining question: who will pay the most for the fiscal mismanagement in the 2000s? Those bills must be paid no matter what money game is played.
And so 3). Economists discuss two fundamental parameters that best define the resulting damage and recovery. The first is a Gini index. A relationship between the wealthiest and everyone else. Historically, when a Gini index falls, then a gap between the wealthiest and all others decreased. Then an economy booms. When the Gini index increases, then recessions tend to happen. Of course we are discussing short term economics - maybe a result in five or ten years. In the 2000s, America's Gini index has increased.
Second, is a variable called a "multiplier". A multiplier of 1.5 means that $1 in government spending cuts reduces the nation's GDP by $1.50. So does austerity create a multiplier greater than or less than 1? What is the economic harm in the next few years and much longer in the short term? Well, that multiplier varies between 0.9 and 1.7 when austerity is implemented during a recession. And that multiplier tends to be below 1 (better return on government dollars) when austerity is implemented during a booming economy - ie during Clinton's tenure.
These figures only summarize minor variations found in the money games. Because economics must still take revenge. We are discussing pain immediately or less pain over more years. Politicians have been preaching wild speculation without numbers. Also forget to mention that austerity today means different consequence in year one and in year eight. Moreso, the depth or a recession represent a shortage of innovation. Something that economists ignore because it cannot be quantified by economists.
Recessions are only solved by the resulting innovations in the economy. All towns suffer from a recession. Which ones in a nation, historically, recover from a recession faster and stronger? Those with innovative industries. Despite all that silly argument over austerity verses stimulus (or tax cuts), we know the only poeple who best solve a recession and debt crisis are the industries (and people) who innovate.
They tend to be people who are not rich (instead aspire to be rich). And tend to be stifled by rich who stifle innovation and harm economies to protect their wealth. None of that is discussed when the people are being fed sound bytes by extremist liberal and conservative politicians.
The fiscal cliff is about who gets punished most for George Jr's money games (and other fiascos including Mission Accomplished). Those who most deserve to be punished are those who got rich by playing money games. By not building productive industries.
How do we implement that solution? Good luck trying to punish those most responsible for this recession. Instead the economy must punish all workers. The people who did not get rich. No money game that can target the problem - ie MBAs. But we can try to reward those who create innovative products. That means nine totally defective and bankrupt investments only resulting in one product company.
Instead, we have politicians who said they want America to fail. Or who claim tax cuts create jobs (when history proves otherwise). So we have the fiscal cliff - that punishes the less guilty more and less punishes those who created this recession.
Anybody see Nardelli, Wagoner, Frazier, Perez, Cantor, etc complaining about pain from a recession they intentionally created? When we talk about the fiscal cliff, why are they not put forth as icons to this problem? Others who hype poltiical spin also do not discuss relevent numbers. Including a multiplier or a Gini Index. Liars and their deceieved victims routinely discuss solutions by ignoring such numbers. Note how many are outrightly lying (just like Rush Limbaugh). Note those with miracle solution never once discuss innovation or its sources. Instead they hype getting rich (the MBA solution) - as if money games solve problems or create innovation.
Well, y'all brought it on yourselves, Mitt would have fixed everything by now.:p:
Well, y'all brought it on yourselves, Mitt would have fixed everything by now.:p:
Well, if they hadn't screwed up the primaries we'd have been enjoying some of Newt's $2.50/gal gas by now!;)
Well, if they hadn't screwed up the primaries we'd have been enjoying some of Newt's $2.50/gal gas by now!;)
Or at the very least, I'd have one of Mitt's 12 million new jobs. :right:
Over the weekend I heard House Speaker John Boehner mention in passing that the tax cuts for the wealthy were important to help create a smaller government. At last, a politician speaking the truth if only accidently in passing. Dry up the funding in order to starve the beast.
Republicans have always wanted "small government." That means not only fewer taxes, but among other things, less government oversight in the form of regulatory agencies. I'm no big fan of government snooping, but on the other hand, lack of any sort of real outside regulation helped allow the boys on Wall Street to play fast and lose with the mortgage lending industry and other financial instruments for their own gain and to the nation's continuing sorrow.
It's like a teenager wanting his parents to trust him to be home alone next weekend when the last time they left him in the house by himself for a few days, he threw the biggest party evah for him and his friends. Kids were passed out on the front lawn, the furniture was destroyed, the police were called, and a good time was had by all. Except Mom and Dad who had to clean up the mess and bail Junior out of jail. Like Junior's Mom and Dad, I view Republican demands for "less government" with a jaundiced eye.
I think we've all been looking at this the wrong way. We've been looking at the financial meltdown and worldwide recession as a failure...but the very wealthy have increased their wealth. Maybe to them it doesn't seem like a failure.
I know that, for me, as an employed single childless white male with no mortgage who lives in an area whose housing prices never crashed, and who started investing* after the crash, it's been great!
I can only imagine what it's like for someone truly wealthy.
*not counting 401K
I know that, for me, as an employed single childless white male with no mortgage who lives in an area whose housing prices never crashed, and who started investing* after the crash, it's been great!
I can only imagine what it's like for someone truly wealthy.
*not counting 401K
would you like to come over for dinner?
I think we've all been looking at this the wrong way. We've been looking at the financial meltdown and worldwide recession as a failure...but the very wealthy have increased their wealth. Maybe to them it doesn't seem like a failure.
I would imagine that the very wealthy consider it a resounding victory. According to the Center for Tax Justice, the super rich have at least
$21 trillion stashed away in offshore holdings around the world. They're doing quite well, thank you very much, and they don't need any official types poking around in their affairs. Did you know that the 6 members of the Walten Family (of WalMart fame) have as much wealth as 30% of the US population?
Abd I doubt very much if people like that are so much worried about higher taxes as they are by the thought of supporting a govenment which includes watch dog agencies with those taxes. I bet when the super rich hear that quote of President Kennedy's,"Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country," they bend over with laughter.
What's a country good for if you can't use it to further your own ends without caring what this may do to everyone else?
The super-rich are definitely swinging farther in that direction. Almost makes those 250k "fat-cats" look like they're in the middle class, huh?
Republicans have always wanted "small government." That means not only fewer taxes, but among other things, less government oversight in the form of regulatory agencies.
Not always, from
Life magazine, June 21, 1954, The Republicans were gleefully screwing the free market with farm supports that were doing more harm than good.
Is a fiscal cliff destructive? If yes, then someone is saying why with specific numbers. Nobody is. Why so much fear? Businessmen do not like unknowns. Bottom line: nobody knows what the fiscal cliff will do. Nobody knows quite how to plan for it. That lack of prediction and planning - not the actual cliff - has created fear. The cliff itself is not that destructive. The need to adapt to change scares the shit out of finance people.
Some businesses must adapt accordingly. Others will see no change. But due to spread sheet models that cannot define change or innonvation, then many businessmen are hyping an end of the world. Ironically setting up Republicans to become scapegoats just like Newt Gringrich was when he foolishly tried to shutdown government.
The fiscal cliff means many companies living fat off government must become more productive, search for new markets, or be properly punished by bankruptcy (what destroys bad management). Since many business managers have no idea how the work gets done, then they will be exposed as incompetent by a need to change. That incompetence - not the actual cliff - is probably the source of much fear.
what a great find xoB.
I think the president is in the driver's seat right now for exactly the same reason. Do this the right way for the country, the bleatings of the tea partyers notwithstanding, with revenue increases, including from tax rate increases on the top 2% along with cuts, maybe even means testing medicare/medicaid/social security/schedule changes/rate changes/income limits/etc
or
don't.
then boom goes the dynamite.
and the president can now come to congress with this proposal, hey I have a package here that REDUCES TAXES for 98% of the citizens, y'all want in on this? Or, are you gonna fuck them just to hold out for that last two percent?
Come on cliff. Let's do this thing.
I'm with V. I'm disgusted with the way the Republican Party continues to cater to the extremely wealthy and the rest of the country be damned. I don't see how Republicans can continue to label the upper 2% as "job creators" while managing to keep their faces straight.
These "job creators" have had from the Bush administration to the present to expand the percentage of new jobs created in the US. To this day, there has been no significant increase in the number of jobs as a result of the upper 2% plowing their tax decrease bonanza back into American industry and business. Why should this change in 2014 and the years that follow?
During the election I was bemused to hear Romney and his Republican partners in crime talk about the 8 or 12 million or whatever fantastic number of new jobs it was that they were going to create. How? By getting rid of HUD and down sizing other government agencies? (Except for Defense, of course). By making deep cuts in or completely eliminating all programs which constitute the social safety net? By cutting discretionary spending and allowing the nation’s infrastructure to continue to deteriorate? HOW?
Now the greater good of the country is being held hostage for the benefit of a privileged few. Fuck that. I’ll go over the fiscal cliff just so those bastards will have to pay something approaching their fair share of the tax burden. If it’s the choice of a plutocracy versus the fiscal cliff, I’ll take the cliff every time.
[YOUTUBE]ozjN_bmfI5c[/YOUTUBE]
Relevance at around 3mins
During the election I was bemused to hear Romney and his Republican partners in crime talk about the 8 or 12 million or whatever fantastic number of new jobs it was that they were going to create. How? By getting rid of HUD and down sizing other government agencies? (Except for Defense, of course). By making deep cuts in or completely eliminating all programs which constitute the social safety net? By cutting discretionary spending and allowing the nation’s infrastructure to continue to deteriorate? HOW?
By waiting until 12 million jobs are created, and taking credit. Apparently, 12 million was the estimate for new jobs in that time frame if nothing more was done.
If it’s the choice of a plutocracy versus the fiscal cliff, I’ll take the cliff every time.
Some people pay good money just to ride a roller coaster. This one will be free? And no queueing.
We go off the cliff, everyone gets a tax increase. In February Obama sponsors a retroactive tax cut for the middle class and let the Republicans try to vote against that with impunity.;)
Where is Adek when you need him ? Pls explain this to me...
Obama says...
The wealthy (>$250 k/yr) must pay higher tax[COLOR="DarkRed"] rates[/COLOR]
Republicans say...
"Revenue is on the table"
"Higher tax [COLOR="DarkRed"]rates[/COLOR] harm "job creators"
"New revenue can be found by eliminating business tax deductions and loopholes"
"Small business owners create more jobs that anyone else"
But, but, but...
Dun & Bradstreet
Scott Shane
5/3/12
Small Business Owners’ Earnings
Let’s start with the average small business owner.
Researchers at the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis examined IRS data on people who filed
personal income tax schedules C, E and F, Forms 1065, 1120 and 1120S because they had business income in 2007.
They found that the 9.4 million business owners generated $335 billion in net income in 2007.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]That means the average small business owner’s net income was approximately $36,600 in the last pre-recession year.[/COLOR]
<snip>
The average small business owner’s earnings are held down
by the large number of micro businesses with no employees.
The analysts at Treasury found that only about one-in-five small business owners have any employees.
And Census data show that non-employer businesses make very little.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]While income data aren’t available, the average revenue of a non-employer firm in 2009 was less than $40,000[/COLOR]
Also holding down average small business income is the large number of small companies set up as sole proprietorships.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data show that the average nonfarm sole proprietorship had net income of less than $12,000 in 2008.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]More successful small business owners are generally set up as Sub Chapter S Corporations.
IRS data reveal that the average S-Corp generated about $100,000 income in 2007.[/COLOR]
<snip>
So, are the Republicans
knowingly proposing to eliminate deductions
that affect small business owners (earning less than $250 k/yr) ???
If your taxable income from a business is over $250,000, then either:
a) You're sucking the business dry before having it declare bankruptcy.
b) You have the worst accountant.
c) It's not a small business.
And most small businesses don't make enough revenue for a) or b).
If your taxable income from a business is over $250,000, then either:
a) You're sucking the business dry before having it declare bankruptcy.
b) You have the worst accountant.
c) It's not a small business.
And most small businesses don't make enough revenue for a) or b).
The other day I heard "Papa" John Schnatter call Papa John's a "small business".
Uhm. No mate. No.
What Ibby said.
In my capacity as a US citizen, I have become increasingly disgusted with a government which does not work toward solving the serious issues facing our country, but instead continues to play party politics and the people be damned.
We do not live in a democracy when the interests of an elite 2% are upheld at the expense of the remaining 98% of the American people. Such a system can be called many things – a plutocracy, an oligarchy, even a dictatorship. What it cannot be called is a Democracy and certainly not a Republic.
Nor do we live in a Republic when Congress subscribes to the ideology of an extremist few such as the Tea Party, and in the name of that ideology enacts laws which are contrary to the greater good of the rest of the country. As Thomas Paine wrote,
“… How often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being engrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favor and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.”
(emphais my own)
What we have now is a government of smoke and mirrors where those in power tell cynical lies to the governed and expect us to believe (or at least accept) a strongly partisan view of reality which is patently false. The upper 2% in wealth are neither “small businessmen” nor are they “job creators.”
Rather, they are the CEOs who outsource American jobs to make the bottom line look good. They are the officers of large corporations who will declare the businesses they run (into the ground) bankrupt even as they award themselves 100’s of millions in annual pay and bonuses. They are members of the contingent of super rich who have hidden $21 TRILLION in offshore banks in order to avoid taxes.
It is high time that the Tea Party and its admirers be called on their outrageous ideologies and refusal to consider any other ideas except their own. Are we a nation of free people or are we a bunch of sheep too ignorant to realize we are being led to the slaughter?
Fiscal cliff indeed!
Forward ... lets hit that cliff with both feet on the accelerator!
That's what Thelma said.
It must be a good thing. She's famous.
OK, I have not thought this through, so maybe someone else can improve on my question...
Elsewhere I posted about a few Republicans changing their attitude
towards Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes.
Those Republicans, and a few others, are saying that they are not willing to raise the tax rates,
but instead want to "raise revenues" by closing loopholes and "capping the deductibles".
One of them said that capping deductions at (maybe) $30K - $40K
might be acceptable, but only if the Democrats would cut entitlements.
So, my question is this:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Why are Republicans pushing the idea of capping deductions ?[/COLOR]
My distrustful mind wanders through ideas like these...
If tax rates are generally around 28% on upper levels of taxable income,
a cap at $35K seems as though it would be equivalent to such a deduction on (only) $125K.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Why is that OK with Republicans ?[/COLOR]
Is it because it is applied to "earned income",
as opposed not to income from "interest", "capital gains", "return of capital", etc.
Or, are the wealthy looking to remove all foreign income from their taxes completely.
I like xoB's current signature: "Everything is interesting... look closer"
I'm not sure. Maybe the ones changing their positions are not pure evil? Maybe they know we need to put taxes back to where they were. Maybe they figure that by reducing deductions for the rich they can raise taxes without "raising taxes."
Obviously, the devil is in the details.
1) There are only 824,584 tax filers making over $500,000 a year.
2) There are only 2,761,934 tax filers making over 250,000 a year.
Combined that's about 3.5 million taxpayers.
There is NO WAY we can solve anything by addressing only this group of "rich" people.
3) 142,892,051 - Total number of tax returns filed 2010.
Only 84,475,933 - Total number of TAXABLE returns.
Thats is under 60%. Conclusion - Its simple math. The tax revenue base must be broadened. There is no other way.
No one is seriously considering solving the deficit problem solely by taxing the rich. I think the "rich pay a little bit more" talk is just a reaction to the general feeling that the rich disproportionally benefit from the current tax code. I understand Republican fear that 'tax the rich' will become a scapegoat solution for future deficit problems and their belief that Obama is leading us towards that possible slippery slope but their current talk is just fueling that populist anger.
Our tax code needs to be simplified and I'm waiting for Republicans to propose a serious plan. A lot of independents and liberals would get behind that.
1) There are only 824,584 tax filers making over $500,000 a year.
2) There are only 2,761,934 tax filers making over 250,000 a year.
Combined that's about 3.5 million taxpayers.
There is NO WAY we can solve anything by addressing only this group of "rich" people.
3) 142,892,051 - Total number of tax returns filed 2010.
Only 84,475,933 - Total number of TAXABLE returns.
Thats is under 60%. Conclusion - Its simple math. The tax revenue base must be broadened. There is no other way.
So what, just leave them paying at the current rate and just increase the burden on everybody earning below that amount?
Just because they cannot be the only solution doesn;t mean they shouldn't be a part of the overall solution. Redressing an imbalance is all that's being asked for.
The wealthy in America pay proportionately less tax than they have ever done. As a group, the highest earners have increased their share of the wealth as well as their wealth in real terms during a period which has seen everybody else's wealth stagnate. They have been the biggest beneficiaries of the financial meltdown and they have continued to reap benefits from the whirlwind that has swept so many of their countrymen to personal ruin.
As a class, the 'job creators' have changed the employment landscape to suit themselves at the cost of millions of lost / outsourced jobs and insecure employment at home.
The people scratching around in the fucking dust, desperate for work and living in temporary accomodation did not create the current economic crisis, they shouldn't be the ones who have to pay for it through the loss of yet more services and assistance and the creeping rise of less direct taxes, whilst the super rich squirrel away their ever-increasing piles of cash into off-shore tax havens, because they're too fucking selfish even to pay the minimal levels of tax currently expected of them.
So what, just leave them paying at the current rate and just increase the burden on everybody earning below that amount?
Did I at ANY POINT say that? EVER?
What I did say was:
Conclusion - Its simple math. The tax revenue base must be broadened. There is no other way.
The only resolution to this problem if for EVERYONE to pay more. One party is implying that "taxing the rich" will solve the problem. MANY believe that. They are incorrect.
Nice rant though. :thumbsup:
No, you didn't. I am sorry I assumed. I think because I see that point made so often by right wing conservative peeps on Fox News as part of a general 'rich people are the real victims of class war' attitude. Usually before some enlightening little segment on how the poor aren't like the real poor of yesteryear.
Thanks, Dana. By the way - I AM the poor.
That doesn't always stop people making those arguments though :p
That doesn't always stop people making those arguments though
We know what works. Put taxes back the way they were in the 1990s. Unfortunately that contradicts pledges made by too many Republicans to Norquist, Limbaugh, et al. What works is evil - because it was done by Clinton.
What worked so well, before tax cuts destroyed jobs, is how we start fixing the economy again. By ignoring ideology preached on Fox News. By using well proven economics.
In your bubble perhaps. There were other factors besides the tax rates which impacted the state of the economy in the 90's.
In your bubble perhaps.
So we should keep destroying jobs because Eric Cantor says making America fail is good? Patriotic Americans instead restore tax rates that created deficit reductions and more jobs.
George Jr tax cuts destroyed jobs and contributed to record deficits. Only fools still think tax cuts do anything good or useful. The educated can understand why predictions, based in history and economics, were so accurate. Tax cuts that create recesssions were predicted repeatedly in the Cellar including
2001 and
2004. Those predictions were spot on accurate.
Tax cuts were based in lies when implemented. Tax cuts destroy jobs; complete with reasons why tax cuts are destructive.
Money games (ie tax cuts) to make a productive economy only create less jobs. Nothing new: Economics will take revenge. So let's keep the tax cuts and destroy more jobs because extremists do not want to admit their mistake.
sadly, nothing new. Ignoring every other facet doesn't make them go away.
I'm in favor of taxing the rich because that's where the money is.
I heard recently that the 400 richest people in the US have as much wealth as the bottom (economically speaking) 185,000,000. Top four hundred same wealth as the bottom one hundred and eighty five million. You want more filers? What about redistributing the wealth of one of those 400. That translates into 462,500 po' folks.
When I hear the whining about how taxing the rich won't solve things, then I think the same logic applies to the bottom 185 million people too. They have the same amount of money, right? Except when you divide how much they have by the number of people you have to spread it all around to, it gets scraped pretty thinly.
I'm working out the math on the proposed changes to the tax code I've seen put forward by the President. When I have that math, I'll post it here.
Just sacrifice one of them, like in a volcano. They won't be missed. Of course we'll have to sacrifice one per year, but that's four centuries of purging... unless they figure it out first.
Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rateJust sacrifice one of them, like in a volcano. They won't be missed. Of course we'll have to sacrifice one per year, but that's four centuries of purging... unless they figure it out first.
Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate
ha ha.
From your link:
In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.
This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election. (me--too bad we don't have a date for this event)
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.
It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.
Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.
Some observations.
There definitely were more dollars and pounds floating around in 2009-2010 than there were afterward, so the direct cause of the change in the number of rich people and the change in the tax law is unknown, but certainly not complete.
There's a big difference between driving rich people out of the country and people manipulating their income so that they're under some threshold. I don't recall the name (jimmy somebody), some acerbic comedian who paid minimal taxes by such manipulations and had a public mea culpa on the subject. Once again, saying the tax rate change caused the number of millionaires to drop from 16000 to 6000 isn't easy to support without a lot more evidence.
Then the last bolded section, I find interesting. The tax rate is still 50p, it won't change until next year, but the number of millionaires has risen to 10000. Why? Surely it isn't the tax rate, since it's unchanged. Claiming, suggesting that the change in the tax rate drives millionaires out of the country is not believable.
Whatever. Just purge one of them, man, and see how many are left in the country a year later to play that lottery.
Why purge them? Why not just expect them to pay a fair rate of tax?
Ask biggie, he put the idea up.
I put the idea up?
I don't think so. You might have mistaken a fart for a trial balloon.
I'll tell you what. The taxes paid by those poor babies in the $250,000 plus gang DO make a major difference. Why do you think the Tea Party members in the House have been so intransigent and refused even the most reasonable of compromises - keep the tax cuts for 98% of the people in the country and fight over the upper 2% tax rate come January? Surely, that would be simple common sense to the Right and the Left both.
The Tea Party wants small government, and they don't care what they do to the country in order to achieve this goal. Choke government revenues by keeping the tax rates for the wealthy artificially low. Tah dah! Small government. Put our disabled vets out on the streets, send the country back into an economic tail spin, let unemployment rise to 9% or more, etc., etc., etc. Who cares? We will have SMALL GOVERNMENT at last.
The Tea Party LOST some seats in Congress. The DEMOCRAT nominee for President won. The Tea Party does not represent the will of the majority of the people in the U.S. And just what office was Grover Norquist elected to again? Don't everybody all answer at once. :eyebrow:
OK, I have not thought this through, so maybe someone else can improve on my question...
Elsewhere I posted about a few Republicans changing their attitude
towards Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes.
Those Republicans, and a few others, are saying that they are not willing to raise the tax rates,
but instead want to "raise revenues" by closing loopholes and "capping the deductibles".
One of them said that capping deductions at (maybe) $30K - $40K
might be acceptable, but only if the Democrats would cut entitlements.
So, my question is this:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Why are Republicans pushing the idea of capping deductions ?[/COLOR]
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Why is that OK with Republicans ?[/COLOR]
<snip>
I like xoB's current signature: "Everything is interesting... look closer"
Today the Republicans have made public their budget proposal...
L.A. Times
Lisa Mascaro and Michael A. Memoli
12/12/03
Republicans counter with their own 'fiscal cliff' plan
<snip>
Obama seeks $1.6 trillion in new revenue over a decade with a tax
increase on the wealthy and a broader overhaul of the tax code,
while Boehner's proposal would raise half that amount.
At the same time, Boehner proposed $1.4 trillion in spending cuts to
Medicare, Social Security and other programs favored by Democrats.
Obama has offered $400 billion in cuts.
Obama is also seeking new investments to stimulate the economy and
wants to continue long-term unemployment insurance and the temporary reduction
in the payroll tax. Republicans did not address them.
<snip>
Studies have shown that almost as much revenue, about $800 billion,
could be generated by the GOP plan to limit deductions as by
Obama's proposal to raise rates on the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But that revenue might never be realized if next year's
tax code overhaul results in lower rates, as the GOP proposes.
Democrats appear unwilling to take that risk.
[/COLOR]<snip>
So is this last bit the real answer to my questions ?
They consider lower tax rates and closing loopholes pro-growth revenue increases. I don't know any details of why.
The closing loopholes thing is a mixed bag, but overall, I think it would hurt Democrats the most. So that's part of the reason Republicans are pushing for it.
What are the biggest itemized deductions? There are three. State and local taxes, mortgage interest, and charities. And they are pretty much in that order of importance for most people.
If you can't deduct state and local taxes any more, who is going to be hurt the most? People in the states and localities that have the highest taxes. Typically, tax rates are higher in liberal leaning states like Massachusetts and California, and lower in conservative states like Texas. Also, taxes in urban areas are generally higher than in rural areas because property values are greater in urban areas. Urban areas are also generally more liberal. So eliminating the deductions for these taxes will hurt Democrats much more than Republicans.
For mortgage interest, it is pretty mixed. You're hitting much of the middle class if you eliminate this deduction. At the two extreme ends of the spectrum you have rich Republicans in mansions losing pretty nice deductions, and poor Democrats in apartments not being touched at all, but in the middle, it's completely mixed.
And finally, for charitable giving, it's also pretty mixed, but Republicans give slightly more to charity, so this would hurt Republicans a little bit more. Really, though, eliminating charitable deductions would decimate the work charities do, and that would be terrible at a time when the government is cutting back the work they do for the needy. The people hurt most by eliminating charitable deductions would overwhelmingly be the needy.
My dad was on CSPAN talking about the AMT portion of the fiscal cliff. It's the only part of the cliff that actually takes effect immediately, because it's the AMT adjustment for tax year 2012, not 2013, and you really don't want to be changing 2012 tax policy while people are filling out their returns. All the rest can be fixed retroactively later in the year.
What I found most interesting was that the AMT actually kept lots of people in the $200,000-$500,000 from getting the Bush tax cuts, so letting them expire for people making over $250,000 may only actually raise taxes on people making over half a million.
So is this last bit the real answer to my questions ?
Who knows? It always goes back to the Tea Party faction. Why did all those people in Jonestown drink the kool-aide? Ask Grover Norquist. :right:
@Glatt - Thank you for your clearly worded explanation!
@HM - My speakers have wonked out on me, so I can't listen to the video. Your Dad looks pretty cool though. Your folks aren't divorced by any chance? :blush:
I found
a site with maps that reflect who would be hurt if various deductions would be eliminated.
Here's a map of mortgage interest rate deductions. It shows the percentage of tax returns that used this deduction in each state. It seems to correspond pretty closely to states that went to Obama. There are obviously some exceptions like Utah, but the South matches the election map pretty well.
[ATTACH]41923[/ATTACH]
Here's total itemized deductions by state.
Fascinating. No wonder the Republicans are pushing this.
[ATTACH]41925[/ATTACH]
And of course, here is the 2012 electoral map to refresh your memory.
[ATTACH]41926[/ATTACH]
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 ...
@HM - My speakers have wonked out on me, so I can't listen to the video. Your Dad looks pretty cool though. Your folks aren't divorced by any chance? :blush:
Sorry, happily married.
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.
Sorry, happily married.
best bad news I've heard all day. :)
There is talk of taxing employer paid insurance plans as income. That'd be pretty brutal for the middle class, I'd think. Seems like a step toward National Health Care but taking the most painful route possible to get there.
Sorry, happily married.
Drat! Why does it always seem like the good ones are already taken?
best bad news I've heard all day.
hmmm... Let's see - Washington or Washington? :D
There is talk of taxing employer paid insurance plans as income. That'd be pretty brutal for the middle class, I'd think. Seems like a step toward National Health Care but taking the most painful route possible to get there.
That idea has been out on the table for a few years now. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the employer tax exclusion
“The largest single subsidy in the tax code” in a paper they put out in 2009.
The exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income is considered a “tax expenditure” or “tax subsidy” because it is an exception to the usual rule that all compensation is counted as taxable income. In fact, the employer tax exclusion is the largest single subsidy in the tax code. [1] According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it reduced federal tax collections by $246 billion in 2007 — $145 billion in income taxes and $101 billion in payroll taxes.
~snip~ Although the tax exclusion provides a big boost to employer-sponsored health coverage, it is poorly targeted. It gives the greatest benefit to those with the highest incomes, although they are the group that least needs help paying for health insurance. The 24 per¬cent of tax units with incomes over $75,000 in 2004 received almost half of the benefits of the exclusion, while the 27 per¬cent of tax units with incomes under $20,000 received just 6 percent of the benefits.
I don't get it. Everyone keeps talking about a fiscal cliff. Obvously the entire problem is mental.
An overhyped alarmist soundbite is pretty much par for the course, these days.
That idea has been out on the table for a few years now. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the employer tax exclusion “The largest single subsidy in the tax code” in a paper they put out in 2009.
This is where left and right use different language and think about things very differently. To those of us on the right a subsidy is when you get something not when the Feds fail to take something.
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.
But they will lose the entire middle class vote. The Democrats want to protect the middle class from a tax increase. When the republicans allow middle income taxes to increase, the middle class WILL hold it against them.
The electorate has short memories. If this gets resolved in January, then by November election time, nobody will remember much at all. And if the elections are a year or two from now, it won't matter at all.
Agreed.
Just look how we've completely forgotten Wecanseerussia ??? and Anyonebut ??? (whatever their names)
Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup.
But that's MISTER Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup to you.
:D
Thx to M. Doubleentendre
PS: that Knock knock Sundae was the best pun of the month
This is where left and right use different language and think about things very differently. To those of us on the right a subsidy is when you get something not when the Feds fail to take something.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is non-partisen. The link I gave above gives a pretty exhaustive analysis of the effect of the tax break on health insurance thing. (does calling it a "tax break" make you feel more comfortable?) If this is a subject that deeply concerns you, it's worth the read. They discuss a number of possible scenarios. For example:
Based on the income of the taxpayer. Under this variant, only people with incomes above a certain threshold would face taxation on their employer’s contributions to the cost of their health insurance. For example, in one version estimated by CBO, the tax exclusion would be phased out for single persons with incomes above $80,000 and married couples with incomes above $160,000. CBO estimates that this option would raise $182 billion over five years and $552 billion over ten years. An alternative would be to use the income thresholds at which eligibility for Roth Individual Retirement Accounts begins to phase out — $105,000 for individuals and $166,000 for couples in 2009.
Coming from the Right, how do you feel about the proposal above?
It makes more sense as a progressive proposal.
Here is a side-by-side view of Bowles-Simpon's, Obama's, and Republican's plan.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-plans-in-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...
Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup.
But that's PRESIDENT Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup to you.
FIFY
:D
Here is a side-by-side view of Bowles-Simpon's, Obama's, and Republican's plan.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-plans-in-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.
[ATTACH]41971[/ATTACH]
It makes more sense as a progressive proposal.
In other words, you consider it more about some progressive agenda rather than a legitmate proposal to extend health care coverage to lower income Americans while keeping down costs?
If the latter, what would constitute a more reasonable compromise?
Just curious.
No, I think if they do tax the value of an employer health plan it must be a progressive tax because a lot of folks work shit jobs just for the coverage.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. And I have to agree.
"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."
[YOUTUBE]wO9jnq8pg28[/YOUTUBE]
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.
"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."
[YOUTUBE]wO9jnq8pg28[/YOUTUBE]
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. :eek:
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
I found that in a pdf on a government site a few days ago. I can't give you a link, as I only could quote it because I put in in an email I sent at the time.
Another thing I found there;
Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
Sam - You are arguing with Howard Dean, NOT ME!
He said all those things. you may now take your shitting fucking attack attitude and stick up your ass. I neither attacked nor defended anyone. Typical bullshit not worthy of a response.
Accusing us of wanting the tax cuts for the rich to be rescinded to fix the budget problems is wrong. It's because the rich are paying a lower rate than the rest of us which isn't fair. We're well aware that isn't the final solution to our fiscal bloat.
Sam - You are arguing with Howard Dean, NOT ME!
He said all those things. you may now take your shitting fucking attack attitude and stick up your ass. I neither attacked nor defended anyone. Typical bullshit not worthy of a response.
Try reading your PM's.
If you did already check them and then went ahead and posted the above anyway, oh well. At least you'll be pleased to know that I'm leaving the Cellar for an indefinate period of time.
Sam, Got it and responded.
Somehow this sounds familiar...
Boehner offers millionaire tax hike, Fox News confirms
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner has proposed
raising tax rates on people making more than $1 million,
a source familiar with the talks told Fox News,
in a development that could signal at least some movement
toward a deal with President Obama.<snip>
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/15/boehner-offers-millionaire-tax-hike-report-says/#ixzz2FE7TozH7
Oh yeah, now I remember
A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum.
She replies affirmatively.
He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee.
The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Now we’re just haggling over the price.[/COLOR]
AP is reporting that the house of Representatives will miss the deadline to vote on any deal with respect to the fiscal cliff.
*checks watch*
well, yeah...
They suck. Seriously. The fuckers.
There is only one immediate downside to going off the cliff: unemployment insurance checks may stop going out between now and a deal. Every other change can be retroactively fixed.
Now, the Democrats have even more leverage. Polls show that the nation blames the republicans for obstructing, not the democrats. We'll see a deal in the next five days, i promise you - and it'll be a deal that, while not ideal, will reflect an actual compromise, not the stupid move-the-goalposts-further-and-further-right compromise we've seen so much of lately.
I am happy to quote go over the cliff quote. Too many reasons to list via phone but it will all be alright.
NBC is reporting right this minute that Biden is ON capitol hill, and a deal has been reached in the senate. They might get this shit done tomorrow.
NBC is reporting right this minute that Biden is ON capitol hill, and a deal has been reached in the senate.
Most forget that the fiscal cliff and a resulting resolution were defined long ago by a different name:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=U-A9c6VNeRQAP is reporting that the house of Representatives will miss the deadline to vote on any deal with respect to the fiscal cliff.
The real deadline is the 3rd, because the new Congress takes over on the 4th, which erases any bills in progress.
Of course, the new Senate would probably be able to get it to this point again rather quickly, leaving it with the House again.
Live (MST) from Island in the Sky, the Lost Corners, USA:
All lemmings - please move to the back of the bus!
5...4...3...2...1...
And we're off!
[CENTER][SIZE="6"]WHOOO HOOO![/SIZE][/CENTER]
[RIGHT][SIZE="5"]Hang on California, you're next![/SIZE][/RIGHT]
sent by Coyote Song, courtesy Canyonlands NP pack (union no.666)
Man, when TW censors himself you know things have gotten out of hand.
You know it's bad for Boehner when George Hamilton asks for his autographed bottle of Hawaiian Tropic back.
Capital Hill. Slowly they turned. Step by step. Inch by inch. They smashed them. They hit them. They lied about them in TV ads. Rivers of blood. Pools of blood. The blood!
Its been a long time since they called one another pal.
Meanwhile, who is the victim here. Not all are bald. And yet we all are only Curly.
Fiscal Cliff. Slowly we turned. Accusation by accusation. Job loss after job loss. Until suddenly 89 out of 97 found they really could agree.
Now let's go have an Alice in Wonderland tea party. Good reason why they call that the Lower House.
Capital Hill. Slowly they turned. Step by step. Inch by inch. They smashed them. They hit them. They lied about them in TV ads. Rivers of blood. Pools of blood. The blood!
Its been a long time since they called one another pal.
Meanwhile, who is the victim here. Not all are bald. And yet we all are only Curly.
Fiscal Cliff. Slowly we turned. Accusation by accusation. Job loss after job loss. Until suddenly 89 out of 97 found they really could agree.
Now let's go have an Alice in Wonderland tea party. Good reason why they call that the Lower House.
Smile when you say "tea party," Mister.
Who cares what the Senate does when the House might as well be filled with Cheshire Cats for all the good they NEVER do?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
It's a beautiful day down here at the bottom of the canyon. The Colorado River is sparkling in the winter sun and there's a couple of bighorn sheep grazing near the talus slope across the river from me. There's cliffs everywhere around here. I'm just relaxing and taking in the views. CNN and everyone else should do the same instead of attempting to herd all those cats back in DC.
Sent courtesy of the Colorado Division of Wildlife via the radio collar on a mountain lion who just landed next to me on all 4 feet. Nice kitty... It's a beautiful day down here at the bottom of the canyon. The Colorado River is sparkling in the winter sun and there's a couple of bighorn sheep grazing near the talus slope across the river from me.
When they say go jump off a cliff, then you will find how fiscal it can be. The day is not so beautiful when you get to the bottom.
And so the Chesire Cat (Rush Limbaugh) will laugh. He called for America to fail. And gets what he wanted because we listen to his rhetoric - and jumped off that cliff.
Fiscal Falls. Slowly we turned ...
Alice, Curly ... does not matter. We are all victims when some pal (a business school graduate) said he would fix the economy by cutting taxes for the rich. Even went to Pittsburg, Miami, Dallas and New Orleans to promoted it. Economics then took revenge - as even Curly learned.
Clearly we all need even bigger guns to solve this. Do they make depleted uranium bullets? Go nuclear for a sparkling future.
BTW, not all cats like to be petted as you might already know.
When they say go jump off a cliff, then you will find how fiscal it can be. The day is not so beautiful when you get to the bottom.
And so the Chesire Cat (Rush Limbaugh) will laugh. He called for America to fail. And gets what he wanted because we listen to his rhetoric - and jumped off that cliff.
Fiscal Falls. Slowly we turned ...
Alice, Curly ... does not matter. We are all victims when some pal (a business school graduate) said he would fix the economy by cutting taxes for the rich. Even went to Pittsburg, Miami, Dallas and New Orleans to promoted it. Economics then took revenge - as even Curly learned.
Clearly we all need even bigger guns to solve this. Do they make depleted uranium bullets? Go nuclear for a sparkling future.
BTW, not all cats like to be petted as you might already know.
Geez, lighten up, tw! This is Sam, the one who started this stupid thread. I've e-mailed my so-called Representatives, written letters to the editor of several newspapers, voted for Obama, canvassed for the Dems prior to the election, etc., etc., etc.
You may think the situation is bad, but I'm out here in the trenches and I KNOW the situation is bad. However, RFN, the House is composed of the same ignorant, far right ideologues who are in it for some devious end of their own and Country be damned. These reptiles lack the ability to act for any reason other than a few neural sparks from their stem brains. That's not going to change today or tomorrow or next week. MAYBE when the new Congress goes into session, the House might agree to something or other.
Meanwhile, I'm just laying back and enjoying the show, because that's the only option any of us regular people in the US now have. I choose my battles and the current DC sideshow ain't one of them.
One of the nice things about being out here in Canyonlands is that the Rush Limbaugh reception is nothing but a bunch of static. Fitting, yes? So, chill out and take a couple of extra days holiday vacation, and I'll show you around. This is a spectacular place and helps put everything in its proper perspective.
PS Thank you for your concern re the mountain lion. Turns out it was just a clever ad for some smart phone outfit and created by a desperate Sri Lankan working in an outsourced anime' factory. Meow?
PSS One of the members of the Sri Lankan camera crew just told me that a Reptilican Represetative went on CNN and accused the Senate of being drunk on New Year's cheer when they passed the 2am measures this morning. The Reptilican went on to complain that Obama wanted to squander billions on stupid stuff like extending unemployment benefits and Hurricane Sandy relief. Yeah! Those stupid people who don't have jobs by now should should just go hang out in the park until a "job creator" comes along and graciously offers them a minimum wage job at Walmart. Plus, I never cared much for the East Coast myself. SCREW New Jersey! SCREW New York! If people are deluded enough to live in those places they deserve MORE hurricanes, not hurricane relief. :p:
sent via meadow lark songBREAKING NEWS:
GOP No. 2 Cantor doesn't back Senate fiscal deal, House Republicans say
Hm. this might not get sorted out today after all. All the whips must be just completely worn out from all the politician-wrangling. 's like herding cats.
PSS One of the members of the Sri Lankan camera crew just told me that a Reptilican Represetative went on CNN and accused the Senate of being drunk on New Year's cheer when they passed the 2am measures this morning.
This situation is created by wacko tea party types (who even tried to elect a witch to the Senate from Delaware). Anybody need an archetype for this entire situation? His name is Eric Cantor. With blind followers who signed Norquist's pledge.
Senate voted 89 to 8 to solve the problem. Intelligence prevailed. But wacko extremists in the House (same people who have backstabbed Speaker Boehner) are doing exactly what Limbaugh ordered. "We want America to fail."
Only lanquid humor can comprehend their stupidity.
Who are these idiots who subverted McCain's and Romney's campaigns. And even worshipped Sarah Palen? Eric Cantor is only the prototype of the new Republican party typified by Ann Coulter.
Even Three Stoogers never performed so much violence.
it's over now. at least, for two more months.
I'm not overjoyed at the deal, but it's something at least.
That gang of drama queens who are attempting to pass as members of a responsible legislature doesn't fool me. You can't outfox a fox and I'm staying right where I am. Going off that damned cliff once was enough trouble without having to come back out here again for Valentine's Day and having to do it all over again. You have no idea how hard it was to coax Wyn to jump off after me, him with his short little legs. And never mind the damn mountain lion scare.
Nothing has been done about the sequester other than to extend unemployment benefits and nothing has been done about the debt ceiling - just more histrionics and shoving the problem a couple of months down the road. Watching Grover Norquist posturing on CNN is worse than watching old made for TV Santa Claus movies. Yeah, Scrooge is real and Santa isn't. We know that already.
I just got a cool assignment monitoring the Colorado State Legislature for its own outrageous behavior. And I can even do this from the comfort of my new home on the banks of the Colorado River. Colorado apparently has its own version of C-Span which I can connect with via my laptop. The laptop can be recharged via my truck battery or an outlet at the Visitor's Center located just a few miles upstream from here.
I'll be doing volunteer work for the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition which does outstanding stuff on behalf of Colorado's disabled folks. Hah! The Colorado Legislature won't know what hit them. That's what happens when a gal is pushed over the edge. ;)
Sent by a note in a bottle
When you factor in the expiration of the payroll tax holiday and the increase from 4.3% back to 6.2% we're pretty much all going to take a hit.
Here's a chart. Not a very good one, because those bars at the top are broken, but it still gives some information. And if you have been listening to the politicians say that only those with income over $450K will be hit, you may be a little surprised by it.
[ATTACH]42320[/ATTACH]
This "deal" is a piece of shit. If you haven't figured that out yet, then you either don't care or are too partisan to understand. glatt has posted a part of it, but that is not the whole story.
Fourth quarter 2012 economic slow down is attributed to cuts in defense spending.
Forbes only cites that as only one reason for the downturn. Others have listed many other reasons. The most obvious was uncertainty intentionally created by extremist who said they want the economy to fail. And who are intentionally creating gridlock at every oppurtunity so that Obama will fail.
Despite those extremists, the economy is recovering. And government debt is being reduced for record levels created by wacko extremsits and George Jr in 2007.
We could easily advance America by eliminating what obviously makes America less productive. The paper dollar bill is a perfect example. We waste $1 billion annually making that rediculous paper (that was once called a dime). No other major economy uses a denomination that tiny. Canada eliminated their paper dollar over 20 years ago. Britian uses a coin worth about $3.25. 5 Euros (about $3.70) is a coin. But America would spend $1 billion because extremists hate change; want to make America fail.
It demonstrates why they promoted so much fear last quarter to create economic downturn and malaise.
Why does America have no plans to make America more productive? We have wacko extremists who will do anything to make America less productive and less prosperous. So that they can be reelected. That is a major reason for a last quarter downturn. Their extremist obstruction is also cited by WalMart for seriously reduced sales in February.
These people are so extremist that we cannot even get rid of paper $1 and $5 bills. So extremist that we still waste money making pennies ($0.01).
Who the fuck wants to carry around dozens of $1 and $5 coins?
Sounds like change for the sake of change to me. :p:
We have 5, 10, 20, 50 cent and 1 and 2 dollar coins. I haven't noticed myself walking in circles through being weighed down on one side by my wallet full of coins.
Don't worry so much, inflation will turn those dollars into pennies. Leave them on the ground or in the tray.
Who the fuck wants to carry around dozens of $1 and $5 coins?
It was never a problem when quarters dimes, quarters, and half dollars were used then as $1 and $5. Also not a problem everywhere in the world where coins have replaced stupid paper money to save money, increase jobs, and make monetary transactions easier.
I haven't noticed myself walking in circles through being weighed down on one side by my wallet full of coins.
I can't help it if you pissed away your yen.
Don't worry so much, inflation will turn those dollars into pennies. Leave them on the ground or in the tray.
Fuck that, inflation ain't that bad yet. I need those fives for my medical copays.
I ate a a very nice bar & restaurant on Cape Cod last week, that did away with all credit cards about a year ago. The $1,000 to $1,200 a month they're saving, they donate to local charities. On the back of the menus they list two charities for each month and amounts.
That's cool. I'm seeing more small businesses turn against credit cards, but you need the right niche to pull it off.
The $1,000 to $1,200 a month they're saving, they donate to local charities.
Remember, banks are run by MBAs. People who enrich themselves by even stifling innovation.
Smart Cards are standard throughout the world for at least 20 years. America still has no smart cards because banks fear innovation. That would only hurt profits.
One town installed electronic parking meters. Collected about $1300 per month in parking fees on cards. Credit card companies take $700 of that. Credit card industry even got many laws changed so that a credit card purchase must cost a customer same as cash. And so many consumers have no idea who they are enriching when using credit/debit cards to buy coffee and donuts. Enriching people so corrupt as to even create this reception.
WalMart saw these profits were extreme. And therefore tried to get into the credit card business. The industry panicked. Because Walmart would offer a better product rather then increase profits.
Why do MBA go into banking? You are sheep to be fleeced. Money games enrich the MBA while leaving us to pay for the debts maybe ten years later. Welcome to the George Jr created recession. People got rich by producing nothing and stifling innovation. Then even blame the workers and unions.
What idiot would use a credit card that cannot be paid off at the end of the month? Fodder for MBAs.
