Here Comes the Tax Increase

[guido911]

As promised and what perfect timing. BOHICA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911.html?hpid=topnews

[GG]

Announcing you are going to raise taxes on businesses during a recession is not very bright.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by unreliablesource

Announcing you are going to raise taxes on businesses during a recession is not very bright.

Yeah, it probably wouldn't be that smart.  Fortunately, that's not what he's doing.  It's clear from the article that he's simply letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, expire.  

quote:Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011.

 Oh, and he proposes to cut the deficit in half over his first term.  That's a good thing.

[USRufnex]

...but wasnt it a Democrat who famously said, "Deficits dont matter"???......... oh, wait.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by unreliablesource

Announcing you are going to raise taxes on businesses during a recession is not very bright.

Yeah, it probably wouldn't be that smart.  Fortunately, that's not what he's doing.  It's clear from the article that he's simply letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, expire.  

quote:Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011.

 Oh, and he proposes to cut the deficit in half over his first term.  That's a good thing.

Two thoughts. First, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase. Taxes not just on the "wealthy" (you know, those people that work hard, get educated, or otherwise have the audacity to be successful) but on businesses will go up. Second, cutting the deficit is a good thing; but how does Obama plan to do that? He just signed a bill saddling my children with a trillion dollars to pay back and is contemplating another auto bailout and mortgage bailout.  Oh, I know, let's impose a "green" tax on business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?ref=business

[USRufnex]

yeah, the Clinton tax code was sooooooo awful and oppressive... nobody will ever want to be successful ever again..... the Welfare Queens and the working poor didnt create this mess... the Republicans only care about deficits when theyre not in power... so, your taxea are going up by three percent... yeah, cry me a handful of tears.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

yeah, the Clinton tax code was sooooooo awful and oppressive... nobody will ever want to be successful ever again..... the Welfare Queens and the working poor didnt create this mess... the Republicans only care about deficits when theyre not in power... so, your taxea are going up by three percent... yeah, cry me a handful of tears.

The Obama spooner speaketh. It's not just deficits you. I do not know what your 401k looks like, but mine is down 40% in the last year. The Dow is down 2500 since Obama was elected. It's about taxing those "wealthy" folks that have lost much of their retirement to subsidize the UAW and state employee retirees retirement plans. It's about increasing capital gains taxes when investors are already jittery over investment. It's about people who are fiscally responsible being forced to pay the mortgages of those who are not. It's about throwing billions at corporate faiilure such as the Big 3. In the face of these realities, you spew BS daily kos talking points? Thanks for going full retard.

[waterboy]

I've always had a problem with that reasoning Guido. This year my son turned 24 so he no longer can be a deduction for me even though economics forced him to reside with us this year. Lots of families have had the same experience.

So, did the government just raise my taxes because he timed out? That and other similar extensions of your logic become really strained.

The fact that there was a tax in the first place, implies that the tax was owed, but abated until a future time. That abatement has timed out. Otherwise the tax would simply disappear. Is that what happened here? It seems a semantics argument. The taxes could just as easily be described as "the low tax holiday has ended".

The other argument is also sketchy. When government most needs help to accomplish the rebuilding of its infrastructure, the emminent retirement of the largest tax paying class in history, and a possible further collapse of the economy, those most able to pay taxes rebell at paying any more, even though it eventually strengthens their financial condition? What good will all those tax savings do you when the bridges are out, the fuel is short, the police force unable to cope with crime and villagers are roaming the streets looking for BMW's to steal? Sounds just as lame as raising taxes on the wealthy during a recession does to you. In fact, it reminds me of the logic of bloodletting in the 18th century. Both hold no water by themselves.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
those most able to pay taxes rebell at paying any more,

Ah yes, the ole ability to pay routine. I think no one should require more that $100,000. per year of income (more than my income) to live. Let's tax everything above $100,000 at 90%. That will prevent a cap on income but still require those most able to pay taxes support those who cannot.

I've had enough of working for a living but I cannot afford to retire. Since it's all the Republicans' fault, I think I'll change political affiliation to become a Democrat. I will need some help learning how to hold my hand out in the correct place for a handout.

[guido911]

H2O:

I do not want to engage in a semantics debate with you. The fact is that my family will be paying close to an ADDITIONAL $20K in taxes under Obama's plan. To me, that's a tax increase. Your example that because you cannot claim your child as a deduction any longer is tantamount to a tax increase is an imprecise comparison. This tax increase is not applicable to all taxpayers (only those earning more than $250k) as is the rule governing tax deductions. Furthermore, following your logic, not making charitable contributions or not having  depreciating assets would be a tax increase because there would be a loss of a deduction.

Incidentally, your helping out your child is admirable and what family is supposed to do in times of turmoil. Far too often people believe that its government's job to take care of you when you fall on hard times.

Finally, your contention that the great unwashed (h/t Boortz) will take to the streets and physically take from the wealthy if the wealthy do not pony up more money is abject fear mongering. If anything, I would not be surprised that these wealthy folks that are not only employing the "working class" but give most to charities that assist the "working class" and the needy start cutting them off. As I have previously stated, I have already significantly reduced my charitable giving and several people in the circle I run in have likewise done so. Welcome to class warfare.

[USRufnex]

you guys are NUTZ... Obama has been in office ONE MONTH... guess he hasnt kissed enuff wall street butt... red arrow, pancakes are you talking about?  nobody denies others their opportunities to make money... $100,000 per year?... those people arent paying more taxes... who benefitted most from the Bush tax cuts over the last eight years?  what did the children of Sam Walton actually do to earn that extra money?... and how did that money benefit the general economy...

[waterboy]

I remain unconvinced. My comparison seems accurate enough. The deduction is only for those who have children who are less than 24 yrs old and don't take themselves as a deduction. Its a subset of the population just like those who make over $250,000. And that deduction has varied over the years. Just like deductions for interest on vacation homes. When they disappear it isn't an increase in taxes because it really served as an incentive to sell real estate. When that incentive is determined to be uneccessary it is eliminated. A tax increase is when your home is appraised at a higher value, even when you haven't sold it, can't sell it and probably wouldn't get what they appraise it for...yet your tax increases.

I truly regret that you will pay $20,000 more this year but I'm happy you have done that well. Too bad it couldn't have happened during the Bush reign.[] I missed out on some opportunities during that 8 years as well. How could you have thought it was going to be permanent anyway? Tax rates on the top levels has decreased substantially during my lifetime. Now they are in need of readjustment.

I only spoke of the danger of mayhem because of history repeating itself so often. I don't expect it, but it would be stupid not to consider history. We seem to think our time is immune to stuff like the Bolshevik revolution and the French Revolution. When people are hungry, unemployed and angry they punish those who are not, whether they deserve it or not. It could get ugly.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I remain unconvinced. My comparison seems accurate enough. The deduction is only for those who have children who are less than 24 yrs old and don't take themselves as a deduction. Its a subset of the population just like those who make over $250,000. And that deduction has varied over the years. Just like deductions for interest on vacation homes. When they disappear it isn't an increase in taxes because it really served as an incentive to sell real estate. When that incentive is determined to be uneccessary it is eliminated. A tax increase is when your home is appraised at a higher value, even when you haven't sold it, can't sell it and probably wouldn't get what they appraise it for...yet your tax increases.

I truly regret that you will pay $20,000 more this year but I'm happy you have done that well. Too bad it couldn't have happened during the Bush reign.[] I missed out on some opportunities during that 8 years as well. How could you have thought it was going to be permanent anyway? Tax rates on the top levels has decreased substantially during my lifetime. Now they are in need of readjustment.

I only spoke of the danger of mayhem because of history repeating itself so often. I don't expect it, but it would be stupid not to consider history. We seem to think our time is immune to stuff like the Bolshevik revolution and the French Revolution. When people are hungry, unemployed and angry they punish those who are not, whether they deserve it or not. It could get ugly.

I get your point. Can we agree to disagree on this? [] Good debate though.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
those most able to pay taxes rebell at paying any more,

Ah yes, the ole ability to pay routine. I think no one should require more that $100,000. per year of income (more than my income) to live. Let's tax everything above $100,000 at 90%. That will prevent a cap on income but still require those most able to pay taxes support those who cannot.

I've had enough of working for a living but I cannot afford to retire. Since it's all the Republicans' fault, I think I'll change political affiliation to become a Democrat. I will need some help learning how to hold my hand out in the correct place for a handout.

You chose that one line to object too? Lets not exaggerate so much Red. How do you explain the 90's? You know, back before that great tax cut that Bush gave folks in Guido's bracket. Somehow the economy was strong, people prospered at many levels and the deficit shrunk. Even if you give all credit to a republican congress, which true repubs do, the increased tax burden did not hurt the country.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I remain unconvinced. My comparison seems accurate enough. The deduction is only for those who have children who are less than 24 yrs old and don't take themselves as a deduction. Its a subset of the population just like those who make over $250,000. And that deduction has varied over the years. Just like deductions for interest on vacation homes. When they disappear it isn't an increase in taxes because it really served as an incentive to sell real estate. When that incentive is determined to be uneccessary it is eliminated. A tax increase is when your home is appraised at a higher value, even when you haven't sold it, can't sell it and probably wouldn't get what they appraise it for...yet your tax increases.

I truly regret that you will pay $20,000 more this year but I'm happy you have done that well. Too bad it couldn't have happened during the Bush reign.[] I missed out on some opportunities during that 8 years as well. How could you have thought it was going to be permanent anyway? Tax rates on the top levels has decreased substantially during my lifetime. Now they are in need of readjustment.

I only spoke of the danger of mayhem because of history repeating itself so often. I don't expect it, but it would be stupid not to consider history. We seem to think our time is immune to stuff like the Bolshevik revolution and the French Revolution. When people are hungry, unemployed and angry they punish those who are not, whether they deserve it or not. It could get ugly.

I get your point. Can we agree to disagree on this? [] Good debate though.

Absolutely. [8D]