It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Dems buck plan to let taxes increase for rich

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

The most sweeping tax cuts in a generation are due to expire in January, and that's setting up a showdown when lawmakers return from their summer vacations this month. By waiting to act on the tax cuts until just before congressional elections in November, Democratic leaders have raised the stakes, politically and for taxpayers. If Congress fails to act - a possibility given the gridlock that has gripped the Senate - workers at every income level would face significant tax increases next year.



Obama's plan would let taxes increase by a little more than $38 billion next year, with nearly 80 percent of the increase falling on families making more than $1 million, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Taxpayers making between $200,000 and $500,000 would face an average tax increase of $532, according to the analysis. Those making from $500,000 to $1 million would average an increase of a little more than $9,800. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would average an increase of just over $95,000.


news.yahoo.com...

Well...let's see. Republicans are going to block ALL TAX INCREASES...even if Obama and Dems are only trying to let the increases go to those making over $200,000 only for the wealthy....no matter if it screws the middle class or not. YES REPUBLICANS CAN BLOCK IT with a filibuster as Dems have to have one Republican vote to bypass it.

Republicans scream about the deficit...yet letting these tax cuts go extended increases the deficit by 4 TRILLION DOLLARS over the next decade!!!

And for the record...it seems a large portion of Democrats are complete cowards.....or as many of us already believe...are completely bought by the wealthy and corporations. I swear to christ they cave on everything...EVERYTHING.



[edit on 2-9-2010 by David9176]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by David9176]




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Four Trillion dollars...

Those people earned that money and they make jobs here, why don't you tax the lazy
"poor" people more huh?

goddamned socialists

why don't we reduce minimum wage or get rid of it altogether?

Then everyone will be working
we can compete with China if we pay less -



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





why don't we reduce minimum wage or get rid of it altogether?


I think we should as well. This way we can finally get jobs paying 20 cents an hour and take those jobs back from China!!!

It's the answer to our prayers! The nerve of the American worker to desire a DECENT WORKING WAGE.

Corporate profits are increasing....why aren't they hiring? I THOUGHT PROFITS GUARANTEED JOBS?

THAT"S HOW IT"S SUPPOSED TO WORK RIGHT? WHEN'S THIS BS GOING TO START TRICKLING DOWN!?!?!?!?!

------

Raging sarcasm aside....

I'm tired of this BS!



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Howmuch do you want to bet the tax cuts we gave to the wealthy over the years went to those who were responsible for shifting our jobs overseas?

We continue to reward these corporations for cutting our jobs and yet amazingly people, even on this forum, continue to support this measure and insist it helps the economy. The Bush administration spent $1 trillion on tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, 6 years ago and for what? We ended up with a financial collapse in 2008 and 1000's jobs having being shifted off sicne that time. And yet the talking heads nag about how unfair it would be to end the Bush tax cuts. Unfreakingbelievable.


And for the record...it seems a large portion of Democrats are complete cowards.....or as many of us already believe...


I think some of the progressive democrats are cowards, but I do believe alot of democrats are just in the same tank as the Republicans. I'd evens go so far as to argue that half the Democratic party consists of Republicans as many supported the war with the Republicans, many supported the patriot act with the Republicans and they continue to vote hand in hand for corporate interests with the Republicans.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Howmuch do you want to bet the tax cuts we gave to the wealthy over the years went to those who were responsible for shifting our jobs overseas?


That's the problem. The theory behind the tax cuts for the wealthy make sense, but it seems like the jobs only materialize in Chinese factories.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
That's the problem. The theory behind the tax cuts for the wealthy make sense, but it seems like the jobs only materialize in Chinese factories.


Well that theory has proven to be flawed for the last 20 years we have been cutting taxes. It never changed a damn thing as to the amount of jobs lost over the years and to financial stability. How on earth is tax cuts suppose to compete with $1 a day worker at a factory in Vietnam? The corporations don't give a damn about America and keeping jobs for Americans. Its about financial maximization and tax cuts are no match for competing with many of these third world factories.

Its an insult to the people of this country that we continue to fall for this myth of 'tax cuts'. Maybe it does good for businesses tha keep jobs here and contribute, but the bulk of these large companies are shifting off.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jerico65
That's the problem. The theory behind the tax cuts for the wealthy make sense, but it seems like the jobs only materialize in Chinese factories.


Well that theory has proven to be flawed for the last 20 years we have been cutting taxes. It never changed a damn thing as to the amount of jobs lost over the years and to financial stability. How on earth is tax cuts suppose to compete with $1 a day worker at a factory in Vietnam? The corporations don't give a damn about America and keeping jobs for Americans. Its about financial maximization and tax cuts are no match for competing with many of these third world factories.

Its an insult to the people of this country that we continue to fall for this myth of 'tax cuts'. Maybe it does good for businesses tha keep jobs here and contribute, but the bulk of these large companies are shifting off.


I'm afraid we will never learn, what is clear is we have created some very wealthy people. I kind of wish the liberals would exit politics for six years, we could all see what is what, no scape goats or bait and switch situations. I do not participate much anymore
because the level of rhetoric has become overwhelmingly illogical. Our friends at large confuse quantity and quality - Next time we shall be proud of what we do and not bow down in some sense of false shame.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
Then everyone will be working
we can compete with China if we pay less -


It would be a lot easier competing with China if tariffs were slapped on Chinese imports. Then again, much of the U.S. investor class is heavily invested in China.

As for the deficit, it would still be there and still be high even if everyone was taxed 95% of what they earned. Looking at the trend of government since the IRS was implemented, it seems that government has a tendency to spend more then they take in and become increasingly inefficient as time goes along.

The reason why the budget will be overblown is not because of the Bush tax cuts, it's because the government spends too much and much of that spending is bailing people out or going to war. The Dems have been in control of the purse-strings for 4 years and they vastly exceeded the spending of the Reps (not that they are full of thrift).

Even if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, I can bet a lot of money that the government budget will still be overblown by extreme amounts, probably higher than the anticipated deficits if the Bush cuts were allowed to continue.

While the Bush tax cuts might be debatable, the U.S. fought 3 wars with superpowers (two with Britain and one with Spain), doubled in size, fought and rebuilt from a civil war, all before there was regular income taxes.

The main problem isn't tax cuts or who gets taxed. The problem is that the government is addicted to taxation and spending to protect their pet interests.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by Janky Red
Then everyone will be working
we can compete with China if we pay less -


It would be a lot easier competing with China if tariffs were slapped on Chinese imports. Then again, much of the U.S. investor class is heavily invested in China.


Agreed. You will not get much support from both parties over taxing chinese goods. Too much vested interests and corporate ties to China. it is also a matter of debate as we can ask ourselves, does the 'free market' extend beyond our borders or not? This is what I would like to know from free market advocates.


As for the deficit, it would still be there and still be high even if everyone was taxed 95% of what they earned. Looking at the trend of government since the IRS was implemented, it seems that government has a tendency to spend more then they take in and become increasingly inefficient as time goes along.


As much as I agree that the government overspends, what needs to be recognised here is the jobs. No amount of government spending will change the corporations shifting our jobs overseas. These are private wealthy elitists individuals making the decisions to maximize profits and shift jobs abroad. The government is being inactive over the entire situation because they are either in bed with the wealthy or are powerless to the business community. Either way it is private wealthy hands leading these jobs away.


The reason why the budget will be overblown is not because of the Bush tax cuts, it's because the government spends too much and much of that spending is bailing people out or going to war.


The reason for the overblown budget it not just the Bush tax cuts, but the Bush tax cuts contributed towards it. We spent $1 trillion fron what? 2003 to 2006, and where did that lead us? How about lets go back to the Reagan administration of the 80's where the biggest tax cuts in history were given to corporations and the top 5%. We started with $910 billion in debt when Reagan Came in and we were left with $2.5 trillion and another 40,000 americans on welfare.

I do believe tax cuts are effective when we are passing it onto businesses that contribute back to this country, when we pass it onto small businesses and working -middle class families. Unfortunately the bulk of the tax cuts have been a complete waste in my opinion.


The Dems have been in control of the purse-strings for 4 years and they vastly exceeded the spending of the Reps


The Democrats only held filibuster proof majority for about a year. In the time the Dems held majority, more filibusters were used by the Republicans than anytime before. In addition to that half the Democratic party consists of Republican hacks. But if you can note down the spending the Dems made, any notable laws, please do.


While the Bush tax cuts might be debatable, the U.S. fought 3 wars with superpowers (two with Britain and one with Spain), doubled in size, fought and rebuilt from a civil war, all before there was regular income taxes.


150 years ago the United states held 10% of the population we hold now and our resources were still largely unused at the time. Take into mind also that over 150 years ago slavery was still allowed in the South of the United states making financial benefits much more significant at the time.

In a perfect world we don't need to function on taxes, but we do not live in that world. Not in these times.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


You really believe that abolishing the minimum wage and letting employers pay 20-30 cents an hour to "compete" would be the answer? And to call those who do not think this way socialist, well you want Chinese wages so you sir must be a Communist.

You do realize that at those wages a person would have to work a 10 hour shift just to buy a gallon of milk.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by frimilden]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I agree. I cannot understand those who advocate for these cuts to remain, they did no good for this country they only benefited very few. They will not bring us out of this Depression.

The Republican and Democrats are essentially the same party, no doubt about that. Two corporate parties: one pro-life, one pro-choice



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
[The reason for the overblown budget it not just the Bush tax cuts, but the Bush tax cuts contributed towards it. We spent $1 trillion fron what? 2003 to 2006, and where did that lead us? How about lets go back to the Reagan administration of the 80's where the biggest tax cuts in history were given to corporations and the top 5%. We started with $910 billion in debt when Reagan Came in and we were left with $2.5 trillion and another 40,000 americans on welfare.

I do believe tax cuts are effective when we are passing it onto businesses that contribute back to this country, when we pass it onto small businesses and working -middle class families. Unfortunately the bulk of the tax cuts have been a complete waste in my opinion.


Any corporate or business tax will always be passed down to the consumer level. This is actually a regressive tax because the poor will be paying for this the most. Some of these businesses however take their operation overseas to maximize profits on slave labor. This is why tariffs are the answer and also why many of the investor class that take advantage of slave labor oppose tariffs.

Although the cost of a tariff will be passed on to the consumer level as well, it won't affect domestic food prices or goods prices. This will cancel out the slave labor cheapness and make domestic companies much more competitive. China won't like it but they have been screwing with currencies to promote trade imbalances and outsourcing so they can suck it.

Reagan had it right to cut the corporate tax cuts but he was shortsighted because many corporations would maximize their profits by moving out. Cutting business taxes would pass the savings down to the consumer level and heavy tariffs would pay for those tax cuts by punishing those that want to outsource.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian150 years ago the United states held 10% of the population we hold now and our resources were still largely unused at the time. Take into mind also that over 150 years ago slavery was still allowed in the South of the United states making financial benefits much more significant at the time.

In a perfect world we don't need to function on taxes, but we do not live in that world. Not in these times.


Actually 50 of those years, there was no slavery and the country tore itself apart to fight against it. During those 50 years, the country also rebuilt itself and became a world power. The U.S. payed a heavy price for its first years of slavery but was able to pay that without an income tax and still prospered after the reconstruction.

The big thing that wasn't around during that time was a Federal Reserve. When the debt currency became monopolized in 1913, the government or the people couldn't help but to go into debt. Stick in the inevitable economic cycles and human greed and we have the sick system we have today.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Amazing how this thread got so much attention!!!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wutone
Any corporate or business tax will always be passed down to the consumer level. This is actually a regressive tax because the poor will be paying for this the most. Some of these businesses however take their operation overseas to maximize profits on slave labor. This is why tariffs are the answer and also why many of the investor class that take advantage of slave labor oppose tariffs.

Although the cost of a tariff will be passed on to the consumer level as well, it won't affect domestic food prices or goods prices. This will cancel out the slave labor cheapness and make domestic companies much more competitive. China won't like it but they have been screwing with currencies to promote trade imbalances and outsourcing so they can suck it.

Reagan had it right to cut the corporate tax cuts but he was shortsighted because many corporations would maximize their profits by moving out. Cutting business taxes would pass the savings down to the consumer level and heavy tariffs would pay for those tax cuts by punishing those that want to outsource.


Tarrifs are good in theory, but wont work in practice as most of your manufacturing has ALREADY been outsourced.

If you slap China with tarriffs, they cease trade KNOWING that you will buckle first. By you, I mean the American Government. And, yes, you will buckle first.

The United States NEEDS China far more than China needs the US, right now (in the short term) anyways. Unfortunately, that is all that will matter if tarrifs took place.

At this point the best thing the US could do is literally let it all fall apart.

Let everything start from zero.

You guys are pretty good when building something from nothing, and have a great deal of natural resources to build with.

You have ample food production.

You have ample building material production.

Let natural growth and development rebuild, and keep government fingers out of it.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


why shouldnt they block them

you tell me how is paying $532 vs paying $9800 fair any way you look at it?


why the hell because someone makes more they arent entitled to keep it?

taxes are a disincentive to be successful why succeed and make money when you can sit on your azz and pay nothing?

then yeah dems will left them expire because those people hardly ever pay any taxes.

finance 101 just cause someone looks like they are rich think about how much they are putting into their businesses etc.

if you look at the bank accounts of most of those "so called rich" most will look like your own bank account.


with the past history of our government when they spend spend spend spend with no thought of the consequences why the hell would you give-GIVE them more money because for most americans theres no choice in paying them unlike the trash in the congress.

the shear insanity of tax tax tax is dumbfounding why the hell give them more money? so they can bail out banks, corporations give more money to enititlement programs? more money offshore? big unions?

HELL NO!!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!


MY BUCK STOPS HERE and i will be damned if i give the us government anymore money for which is HASNT EARNED.


big difference we earn our money--the sham of the federal government hasnt earned jack.


imo.





spending 4 trillions in 2 years and NOW they get conerned bout the deficit.




[edit on 3-9-2010 by neo96]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Not to mention the quote "Obama only wants to tax (x group" is complete BS.....

LoL anyone that would believe that has blinders on, he said all that before on his campaign promises, seriously what has he done to ANYONE to believe ANYTHING he says........

Sorry I dont trust him or his policies.....



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
You guys are pretty good when building something from nothing, and have a great deal of natural resources to build with.

You have ample food production.

You have ample building material production.

Let natural growth and development rebuild, and keep government fingers out of it.


This is exactly why tariffs would work.

The U.S. is a superpower by sheer location. The land is a dream come true geo-politically.

With such a wealthy land with tremendous resources, there should not be a single starving person in the U.S. much less the rampant economic problems going on now.

China has been buying U.S. debt to bring down their currency and gain trade and manufacturing advantage. By gaming the currency, a huge part of the manufacturing base has just moved out. This isn't free market economy going on. Tariffs would balance out their manipulations. Why should the U.S. government stay out of international trade when the Chinese government actively manipulates it?

Besides, what does the U.S. really need from China? Cheap labor? Paper debt?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Alright, if the deficit is so bad, how about we be responsible grown ups and call for government to cut programs. How about we grow up and bite the bullet? We want these programs but we can't afford them. How about some financial responsibility? If we can't afford it, don't keep spending on it.

But no, god forbid people have to pay for the programs they feel entitled to. If people don't want the taxes increased, fine, just cut spending. When people complain, they should just say they were doing what they were told to do by the people.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I didn't fall for the Myth of tax cuts stimulating the economy, I just want federal government spending to be decreased. Taxes should be cut across the board at the federal level, along with federal programs.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


taxes are a disincentive to be successful why succeed and make money when you can sit on your azz and pay nothing?

then yeah dems will left them expire because those people hardly ever pay any taxes.



While I agree with most of what you say, the working poor pay a tremendous amount of the earnings to the government.

All the business taxes, fees, sales taxes get passed down to the consumer level. Just to survive a person earning minimum wage has to pay the same exact tax as the rich person. Obviously this means that the poor person is paying much more of his earnings in taxes than a rich guy. It might not be through the income tax system, but the poor are paying waaaaay more of what they make than the rich.

Just to buy food, a poor person gets the passed along taxes that the farmer has to pay, the gas taxes, the shipping company's taxes, the store's taxes, then the sales tax. This is highly regressive and hugely unfair.

The government needs to throw out all the complex taxes altogether, create a standard sales tax then send a cost of living check to every U.S. citizen to offset the regressive aspect of a sales tax. The people that buy more than necessary (the rich) will pay more taxes, the poor won't pay anything with the cost of living checks offsetting their necessary purchases, and the complex behemoth IRS which sucks the life out of Americans would go bye bye.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join