PDA

View Full Version : What will OBONGO do????



troy schwab
07-08-2010, 09:04 AM
Just read on Yahoo about Bush's tax cuts that will expire at the end of the year. (BTW, I think we all should thank Bush for these cuts, at least, if you work) I havent heard much mentioned in the White House blah, blah, about this. Basically, and there is a lot more to it, but, the current six tax brackets (10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35%) will be replaced by five tax brackets (15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6%). This is a pretty serious increase, given the state of our nation's workforce. I know there is bi-partisan support for extending some of the cuts, but I havent been able to find out which ones.......... Anyone have some thoughts or insight?? I cant believe that they havent begun discussing this. Maybe they have, ( I doubt it), and I just havent heard it? I think this may be a back breaker, cant win situation for OBONGO........ It will be interesting to watch this play out......

dnf777
07-08-2010, 09:08 AM
I think this may be a back breaker, cant win situation for OBONGO........ It will be interesting to watch this play out......

Yes it will. I thought back in 2007 that whoever won this term would walk into a "backbreaker" from the start. Barring a miracle, there is no way anyone in the whitehouse could come out of this era looking good. It will be very easy (as we're already seeing) to criticize, criticize, criticize and run negative campaigns based on the status quo.....but offer very little (nothing) in terms of solutions!

ducknwork
07-08-2010, 09:09 AM
As much as I hate to say it, I don't see how we are going to get out of our current mess if we don't cut spending and raise taxes, at least temporarily. Realistically, I don't expect either to occur at an amount large enough to affect our debt level.

dnf777
07-08-2010, 09:21 AM
As much as I hate to say it, I don't see how we are going to get out of our current mess if we don't cut spending and raise taxes, at least temporarily. Realistically, I don't expect either to occur at an amount large enough to affect our debt level.

At the risk of sounding like a republican, I don't think this is a good time to raise taxes. (allow cuts to expire, more accurately) Cutting spending will lower the deficit, without have ill-effects on consumer spending, which is also important to drive the recovery. I'm afraid tax increases, and their resultant revenue increases would be offset my reduced consumer spending right now. When things are better, ie more jobs, then I would favor letting those cuts expire and returning to the tax brackets we had during our largest economic expansion ever.

troy schwab
07-08-2010, 09:26 AM
Yes it will. I thought back in 2007 that whoever won this term would walk into a "backbreaker" from the start. Barring a miracle, there is no way anyone in the whitehouse could come out of this era looking good. It will be very easy (as we're already seeing) to criticize, criticize, criticize and run negative campaigns based on the status quo.....but offer very little (nothing) in terms of solutions!

DNF,
Dont know if I agree with you or not...... Obongo made this a much harder row to hoe because of his reckless spending. Not sure it would have been EASY for anybody, but Obama made his bed, knowing he would have to face this. Im just curious how he will twist it, and make it appear as though his administration had nothing to do with it. As I am sure he will.

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 09:30 AM
All things considered, I would rather see all of the tax cuts expire than see all of them extended. This is a tax increase that was architected by the Bush administration as a way of avoiding having to come up with any cuts to offset the dramatic loss of tax revenues. The cuts remain as the principal source of our projected future deficits -- bigger by far than all the stimulus programs, bigger than the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bigger than the revenue losses associated with the recession. The Obama administration would like to see the cuts extended for the middle and lower income groups, and would like to see them expire for the highest income category. That would minimize the political problems of having the cuts expire and minimize the cost since almost all of the benefits of the cits accrued to the highest income groups and having those cuts expire would recapture almost all of the revenues that were lost. I expect that Republicans will prevent any such partial move, preferring to see all taxes increase prior to the next election. They will argue for all or nothing and never offer any suggestions on how to pay for the future loss of revenue.

subroc
07-08-2010, 09:33 AM
At the risk of sounding like a republican...Cutting spending will lower the deficit...

that must have been hard to say...

the question when cutting spending always gets around to who's ox gets gored.

without a willingness to gore all the oxen in a scorched earth like manner, health care, SS, Medicare, welfare, corporate tax breaks, farm subsidies et al, there is an unlikelihood that any spending cuts will be anything more than partisan politics.

troy schwab
07-08-2010, 09:45 AM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;641759] This is a tax increase that was architected by the Bush administration as a way of avoiding having to come up with any cuts to offset the dramatic loss of tax revenues. The cuts remain as the principal source of our projected future deficits
Can you show me the numbers that back this up? Do you realize how much OBAMA has actually spent, in a year, (for nothing)?
The Obama administration would like to see the cuts extended for the middle and lower income groups, and would like to see them expire for the highest income category. QUOTE]
Where did you hear this, recently? I know he campaigned with such promises, but REALLY, how many promises has he kept?

dnf777
07-08-2010, 09:51 AM
that must have been hard to say...

the question when cutting spending always gets around to who's ox gets gored.

without a willingness to gore all the oxen in a scorched earth like manner, health care, SS, Medicare, welfare, corporate tax breaks, farm subsidies et al, there is an unlikelihood that any spending cuts will be anything more than partisan politics.

YES!!

While many people support a "flat tax" in the name of fairness, shouldn't that also apply to spending cuts?? Flat cuts? And please, after the past administration, lets not make deficit spending a partisan issue, ok?

duckheads
07-08-2010, 09:59 AM
now the debt commission is talking about a transaction tax? WTF is a transaction tax? I wonder if the dept commission is even looking at cutting spending or if it is just looking at raising taxes?

troy schwab
07-08-2010, 10:00 AM
Yardley, consider this......


Review & Outlook
Their Fair Share
The Wall Street Journal

July 21, 2008

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.
This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.
If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT..... Particularly before you go blaming BUSH again.....

subroc
07-08-2010, 10:11 AM
now the debt commission is talking about a transaction tax? WTF is a transaction tax?...

a stamp tax...

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 10:14 AM
[quote=YardleyLabs;641759] This is a tax increase that was architected by the Bush administration as a way of avoiding having to come up with any cuts to offset the dramatic loss of tax revenues. The cuts remain as the principal source of our projected future deficits
Can you show me the numbers that back this up? Do you realize how much OBAMA has actually spent, in a year, (for nothing)?
The Obama administration would like to see the cuts extended for the middle and lower income groups, and would like to see them expire for the highest income category. QUOTE]
Where did you hear this, recently? I know he campaigned with such promises, but REALLY, how many promises has he kept?

Buzz posted this graph on another thread:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg

This comes from an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that may be seen at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

troy schwab
07-08-2010, 10:21 AM
Yardley,
Seriously??? That is what you are basing your opinion on? According to that graph, the current amount of deficit is about .3 trillion that Bush's tax cuts are responsible for. How much has OBAMA spent this year????? He has the power to change all of these charts, and I would presume that this chart is based on the expiration factor. So if you extend these cuts, the deficit portion of the tax cuts would probably stay the same.....(0.3 trillion) Also, this was based on projections, not data, by a white house committee under the supervision of OBAMA..... Really?

troy schwab
07-08-2010, 10:24 AM
Oh and seriously???? You think the Freddie Mae, Mac mess is over? Thats what your chart says........ ROFLMAO..... Hardly. Just wait and see what comes of that tragedy........ What a joke!

Franco
07-08-2010, 10:31 AM
If we really wanted to get serious about growing the economy and eliminating the deficts we would;

Extend the tax cuts to all tax payers. This empowers the people not irresponsible government that does not know how to spend money wisely.
Those at the upper end of the tax bracket would be more encouraged to invest, thus creating more jobs. At the middle and lower end, people would have more money to spend. Money is better spent by the people that earn it as opposed the the government that will waste it.

Then we need to redo the Federal Budget eliminating all of the wasteful entitlements and social programs that really don't do a thing for tax payers. Cut the budget hard and strive for a real recovery and not like the fake one current administration promoting. Remember, Government is never the answer to the economy. They can only screw it up, just look at our history.

Also, in a show of Good Faith, all Congress should accept the same Health Care Plan that they are forcing on the American tax payer. All of thier pensions should be deleted as a reminder that they are citizens in DC to serve and not milk the system as they are currently doing.

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 10:34 AM
Yardley, consider this......
...
FOOD FOR THOUGHT..... Particularly before you go blaming BUSH again.....

The fact that tax policies and the benefits of our economic growth have overwhelmingly favored the wealthiest segments of our population is not a Bush phenomenon. It has been going on for 30 years and has its roots in Reagan's trickle down economics. Unfortunately, the emphasis definitely needs to be placed on the word trickle. In a period that saw after tax incomes for the top 1% of income earners increase by 281%, the median only went up 25%, or less than one-tenth of the benefit seen by the wealthiest. This is in radical contrast to the patterns seen in the 30 years after World War II, when the benefits of economic growth truly benefited all segments of our population relatively equally.

Average After-Tax Income by Income Group:
1979 – 2007 (in 2007 dollars)
Income Category .....1979 ....... 2007 ..%Change
Lowest fifth .....$15,300 .....$17,700 ... 16%
Second fifth .....$31,000 .....$38,000 ... 23%
Middle fifth .....$44,100 .....$55,300 ... 25%
Fourth fifth .....$57,700 .... $77,700 ... 35%
Top fifth .......$101,700 ....$198,300 ... 95%
Top 1 Percent ...$346,600 ..$1,319,700 .. 281%

Source: Congressional Budget Office, Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2007, June 2010.

troy schwab
07-08-2010, 10:37 AM
The fact that tax policies and the benefits of our economic growth have overwhelmingly favored the wealthiest segments of our population is not a Bush phenomenon. It has been going on for 30 years and has its roots in Reagan's trickle down economics. Unfortunately, the emphasis definitely needs to be placed on the word trickle. In a period that saw after tax incomes for the top 1% of income earners increase by 281%, the median only went up 25%, or less than one-tenth of the benefit seen by the wealthiest. This is in radical contrast to the patterns seen in the 30 years after World War II, when the benefits of economic growth truly benefited all segments of our population relatively equally.

Average After-Tax Income by Income Group:
1979 2007 (in 2007 dollars)
Income Category 1979 2007 %Change
Lowest fifth $15,300 $17,700 16%
Second fifth $31,000 $38,000 23%
Middle fifth $44,100 $55,300 25%
Fourth fifth $57,700 $77,700 35%
Top fifth $101,700 $198,300 95%
Top 1 Percent $346,600 $1,319,700 281%

Source: Congressional Budget Office, Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2007, June 2010.

Wait a minute, we blaming BUSH or REAGAN??????? LOL Your arguement makes no sense????

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 10:55 AM
Wait a minute, we blaming BUSH or REAGAN??????? LOL Your arguement makes no sense????
I thought my statement was pretty clear. For the last thirty years we have followed economic and tax policies in this country that have radically shifted the distribution of before and after tax income from the lower 80% of the population to the the top 20%, with the bulk of those benefits going to the top 1%. Those policies originated in large part under Reagan and have been continued under every subsequent administration. Under Bush, policies favoring the wealthiest few accelerated, but the trend began long before the year 2001.

The fascinating part of this is that those promoting policies leading to this shift of income and wealth have repeatedly attacked opponents for class warfare and seeking a socialist state. Class warfare has been going on for 30 years and the rich have won. I have personally benefited from this shift. But where Reagan held out the promise that the growth in incomes for the wealthiest few would "trickle down" to everyone else, the reality has been far different, as shown in the numbers.