weak Obama proposal
 

raise taxes - has anyone noticed that during the campaign it was 250K was top 5% of the population, then during debates it was top 4% and I just read now 250K is top 2%! Convenient.
BUT - they are also reforming the tax code so more people will have more taxable income! Thus more over 250K What a sham.
So again I'll say - Joe single guy making 199K will be taxed less than working family with 3 kids making 260K combined! BRILLIANT !!!!!
:smash::smash::smash:

Anyone see any NEW ideas? Any change? :wall::wall::wall::wall:

well break out the vaseline! Hes gonna double f 'em!

"While I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like home ownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize," he said.

What's not clear from his speech is whether the president is willing to consider getting rid of tax breaks from American families making less than $250,000

We are going to have reverse feifdom in the US. The wealthy working to support to middle and poor with no way to vote themselves out of the hole!
In 20yrs teh USA will look like Tijuana. A poor slum. Liberals rule! Nice work morons!

It's interesting how the GOP mantra is for lower taxes, lower taxes and more lower taxes like it's some magical fix. Historically taxes under Clinton weren't that terrible and since Bush and Obama have been at historic lows...yet, there doesn't seem to be any discernible relation to the low tax rates and economic performance.

The reality is that dramatic cuts in government spending are going to hammer the poor and middle class. While a longer-term objective of less reliance on Federal assistance might be a good thing, to do so in haste would likely cause economic instability...not to mention the ethical implications.

To do so simply so the wealthy don't suffer doesn't seem like a prudent move, unless you can show that Reaganomics do indeed work in the real world and not in a college debate.

I think there's a reason why the bi-partisan debt commission and many economists argue that both tax increases on the wealthy along with deep cuts are the best approach.

It's called common sense.

-spence

Close corporate tax loopholes, reduce defense spending, reform social programs.

Because RIJ wasn't making 250K/yr under Clinton, Bush I and Reagan :smash:

No, no, no, common sense cannot prevail.
wait, whats post #2 on this thread?
http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...ommission.html

Define wealthy.............................

a familiy with young kids making $250K a year isn't wealthy..........they may not be hurting, but they are not wealthy. Toss in the alternative minimum tax scam and they can't write anything off.

Ethical implications?? It's not ethical to make the few pay for the many.

The end of the tax break is for the difference beyond $250.k
For example a family making $251k will not get a tax break on 1 thousand.
It appears the GOP wants the economy to look bad because their goal is to have Obama a one term president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama is doing a nice job of fing things up without any help....

if your trophy wife maxes out your credit card then comes to you and says she needs a higher credit limit and a larger weekly stipend because she plans to continue and will probably increase her level of spending and that you need to reduce what you spend each week and pony up otherwise your obese children will starve and she will hold a press conference to deamonize you in front of America....aren't you going to have a few things to consider? we know that while democrats are enthusiastic to increase taxes, they have absolutely no intention of ever doing anything but expanding their various pet social programs which makes it foolish to give them any more money

Time to get rid of the trophy, "keep the deer head." :rotf2::rotf2:

Your knowledge of politics is noted but I listen to voice of reason and that is Spence.


I would divorce the wife and have her next husband take the burden that you described similar to what Bush did but his daughters were not obese.
The social programs have been around for many years it is not like Obama all of a sudden passed these programs.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually;
Wasn't 3/4 of the 4 Trillion cuts and 1/4 is taxes???

:wall:

Spence -

"there doesn't seem to be any discernible relation to the low tax rates and economic performance."

If you believe that, then you need to work on honing your ability to "discern".

Clinton and Bush cut taxes. Please do some research on what happened in our economy from 1996 until 2008. The economy grew like crazy, and that was only brought to a halt when the subprime mortgage crisis imploded (and that gem was a product of liberal social engineering).

On the flip-side, how many economies with high tax rates are thriving? I can think of one, and only one - Norway. And Norway pulls it off because (1) they don't allow any menaingful immigration, and (2) they are loaded with oil, and unlike liberals here, they are not bashful about exploiting their natural resources.

Spence, before it's too late, please look at the facts first, and then form your opinion. Don't start off concluding that liberals are right, and then looking only for facts that support that conclusion.

RST...who ever suggested that " Obama all of a sudden passed these programs"


Bry...do you seriously believe that Obama intends to cut 4 trillion...or 1 trillion for that matter... by any means???...

Do you really believe Paul Ryan does?:smash:

What he said...

Here in CT, our governor recently announced a plan to build a 9.5 mile busway into downtown Hartford, along an abandoned railway. So the plan is to rip up 9.5 miles of rail track, pave a road, and buy a few commuter buses. The cost...wait for it...$570 million.

Honest to God, $570 million to pave 9.5 miles of road. I called the governor's office and asked how it could possibly cost $60 million per mile to pave a road, and I got no answer. Maybe they are paving the road with Fabrege' eggs and hope diamonds. I told them that I'd be willing to do it for half that much, and still have enough profit left over to buy Australia if I wanted...

It's this type of insane, crazy waste we need to get rid of. Do that, and we can balance the budget without raising anyone's taxes, and without having to gut badly needed social programs.

yes....and apparently Obama believes that Ryan does as well :uhuh:

Why not just refurbish or replace the tracks for a commuter trains.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;851337]What he said...

Here in CT


here in RI


Rhode Island Pension Board Widens Funding Gap 27% by Lowering Return Rate
By Michael McDonald - Apr 14, 2011 12:01 AM ET

Rhode Island’s unfunded public pension liabilities for teachers and most state workers jumped about 27 percent after the board overseeing the retirement system voted to cut the presumed rate of return on assets.

The fund lacks about $6.83 billion to meet projected needs, up from about $5.4 billion before overseers yesterday cut return expectations to 7.5 percent a year from 8.25 percent, according to Treasurer Gina Raimondo. The plan, with $7 billion in assets as of Nov. 30, covers more than 50,000 people.

“It’s a big deal,” said Raimondo, a Democrat who heads the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island board and voted for the change. “I believe it was the right thing to do.”

The move may drive state taxpayers’ fiscal 2013 obligation to the system up 33 percent, to $622 million, from what had been projected, Raimondo said. The pension’s funding ratio, or the proportion of assets to projected liabilities, fell to about 48 percent from 54 percent. Actuaries consider at least 80 percent the level needed to ensure adequate coverage.

The system’s “current real rate-of-return assumption is not justified by asset allocation and forward-looking expected returns by asset class,” consultants from Gabriel Roeder Smith & Co. said in a report that recommended cutting the projections. The nominal rate adopted yesterday includes 5.15 percent on invested assets net of expenses and 2.75 percent for inflation, as recommended by the Irving, Texas-based advisers.

Rhode Island joins states from New Jersey to California and Illinois that face unfunded pension liabilities estimated to be as much as $3.6 trillion, when city plans are included. The Ocean State was ranked sixth-worst, based on assets as of Aug. 20, in data compiled by Bloomberg. Based on data from fiscal 2009, its pension plans had a funding ratio of about 61 percent

So long as we continue to maintain this unconstitutional centralized governance of the people there will be no reigning in of Federal government spending. No Ryan plan, no Obama plan, no Central One Size Fits All plan can work because it destroys the federalist concept of States and local units of government being the "laboritory" of evolutionary progress, of individuals being the driving force of that evolution, and it molds us into a stagnant pool of mediocrity where the dwindling generation of wealth is siphoned into unproductive programs that "take care of" an expanding population of unmotivated dependants. The dwindling source of wealth will not be enough to "pay" for this "vision" of America, so tax rates on the fewer that have wealth will need to be raised, and, since even that will not be enough, money will have to be borrowed or printed. Of course, for this to have an iota of a chance to "work," the rest of the world has to join the game so that "Big Business" will not be able to find cheap, low tax labor elsewhere, then we can have a true United Nations of world government and central planning for all.

Scott, here in CT, the unfunded liabilities for public unionized employees is $34 billion (that's pension and healthcare benefits, I don't know how much goes to each piece). There are 3.4 million people in CT, so that works out to $10,000 for every human in the state, $50k for my soon-to-be family of 5.

The total tax rate in CT is always in the top 5 nationally, yet the politicians primised these uniom employees $34 billion more than they took in. There are only 2 explanations - either our taxes are unreasonably low, or the benefits are unreasonably rich. There isn't a third option.

I told my governor's spokesjerk that if they ever extend that rail line up to the New Hampshire border, to sign me up for a 1-way ticket.

CT is doomed. Doomed.

Because they are already doing that elsewhere. They are building a high-speed commuter train from Meriden, CT to Springfirld, Mass. That's great, connect 2 dying towns. The cost of that projact is $1 billion, that's "billion" with a "b", for a train that no one will ever ride.

Some "Tax" quotes from some pretty intelligent people (yea, I Googled it). Can't really find any I disagree with, can you?


"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute. " - Thomas Paine

"For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." - Thomas Jefferson

"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." - Calvin Coolidge

"The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. " - Ronald Reagan

"The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy." - John F. Kennedy

"The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination." - Ronald Reagan

"If you make any money, the government shoves you in the creek once a year with it in your pockets, and all that don't get wet you can keep." - Will Rogers

"We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."" - Erwin N. Griswold

"We shall tax and tax, and spend and spend, and elect and elect." - Harry Hopkins

"The tax collector must love poor people, he's creating so many of them." - Bill Vaughan

"Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton

"When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans." - Ron Paul

"The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away." - John S. Coleman

"The politicians say "we" can't afford a tax cut. Maybe we can't afford the politicians. " - Steve Forbes

"The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending." - Thomas Sowell

"We all know what the problems are: it's tax and spend. One party will tax and spend, the other party won't tax but will spend. It's both of them together." - Glenn Beck

"The best things in life are free, but sooner or later the government will find a way to tax them. " - Author Unknown

"Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages." - H.L. Mencken

what is a little mind boggling is that they had been calculating returns at 8.25%..."before overseers yesterday cut return expectations to 7.5 percent a year from 8.25 percent"....a rate that they had never achieved in the past...

[QUOTE=Piscator;851349]Some "Tax" quotes from some pretty intelligent people (yea, I Googled it). Can't really find any I disagree with, can you?


after listening to Obama's speech, I think he'd refer to those quotes as "un-American" :uhuh:


Krauthammer considered it “hyper-partisan,” “intellectually dishonest.”

OUCH!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop


The Presidential Divider

Obama's toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt..

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda

get your facts straight. the bi-partisan commission called for LOWER tax brackets across the board AND removing the major deductions FOR ALL. So revenues would increase overall. But it wasnt just the top earners bearing the ENTIRE burden

Obama IS NOT proposing that! He is RAISING THE tax on people over 250k and considering only eliminating the deductions for people over 250K. That part is not set in stone, but he acknowledged he is considering it.
That doubly screws people and as piscator said, screws familys and does nothing to address AMT, although I guess AMT wouldnt matter since there are no deductions. To put it simply - people making over 250k pay a flat tax, while the rest of the country gets to deduct. Insane.
Want to talk about common sense? Try and wordsmith your way around this Spence but facts are facts :wall:

All I will say on this is if they do indeed remove the mortgage interest deduction like they're talking about that many people will be forced to sell their houses.

If the interest deduction is the only reason they were able to afford a house then, they never should have bought one in the first place.

No different than buying a two-family. If you can only afford the two-family as long as the other unit is rented out then, you can't afford the house. I have a few friends in this latter category that got close to serious trouble because of an vacant unit.

I don't think that's the only reason many people can afford the house, but it's a significant amount of money that usually goes back into the economy. In my case, we spend our tax refund money on a vacation and other non-essential things. If our refund is much smaller because of that deduction, we won't be spending as much. If others do the same thing, it's only going to hurt the economy.

In the first thread I responded to in this forum the other month (shoulda never broke the seal...:smash:) there was pretty much unanimous agreement among the conservative crowd that business is overtaxed.

Go back to the tax rates of the 90's, get rid of loopholes, cut some spending and everything will straighten out.

Democrats won't do the cuts and 'pubes won't raise taxes. Both things need to be done.

By the way, if my family of 4 was making >$250,000 a year and wasn't living comfortably, that would be pathetic.

The worst thing about removing the deduction is, it will send housing prices WAY down, because the same house will suddenly cost a couple hundred more each month. It would be horrible...

Living comfortably and wealthy are 2 very different things. I think most here would agree that a family with children making $250Kare living comfortably. They are very far from Wealthy though and should not be asked pay the tax burden.

The other thing to consider is cost of living. A family making 250K in Boston/New York/San Fran is not as “wealthy” as that same family in another area of the country where the cost of living is cheap. It’s all relative.

A family making 250K has to maximize contributions as much as they can to 401K’s, 529’s etc so they aren’t bringing home as much spendable $$ as most people would think. Making higher salaries incur much more cost than just taxes. Most families that make over 250K have both spouses working. That means less dependents to claim. That same duel family income typically has to pay for additional costs such as Childcare, commuting to work, etc etc as one spouse isn’t staying home. If they are near the 250K number they most likely are near the Alternative Minimum Tax as well which prevents many of the write offs that most others enjoy putting that family at an additional disadvantage. Higher wage earners working in the Corporate world pay higher premiums for benefits than lower wage earners in many cases. In both my company and by wife’s, your medical insurance rates increase the higher up the pay scale you go. You make more $$, you pay more for your healthcare to subsidize the rest of the company. Lots of hidden expenses that don’t appear on the surface.

This can often de- motivate a family from being productive. People on the edge of the $250K line might sometimes be better off if there were less productive and had one spouse stay home so they would not cross the line when it comes to taxes. It should be this way and if done in masses would hurt our economy.

Government has an unsustainable spending problem. The answer isn’t to raise taxes, it is to look at the root cause (spending) and fix it. People families should not be punished for being successful, they should pay a fair share in taxes, the question is what is fair?

I'm not convinced we need to raise taxes. I say, get rid of the indefensible waste first, and if we see that's not enough, then raise taxes. But there is an enormous amount of waste begging to be cut. Tax hikes hsould be a last resort...

I agree that we have to get really hard core regarding the amount of money that flows out of the government with no real benefit. Part of that is wrapped up in the tax system. Why have lower taxes for capital gains or carried interest it makes no sense when you have a deficit like ours.
As far as the mortgage deduction it will probably be phased out over time starting with second homes and mortgages over X amount and then there will be a drop dead date where it will not be available for any new home purchase.
One of the few things I liked about the President's remarks the other day was when he said everyone wants the deficit cut until it touches on of their perks. Until we get over that mentality I think this is going to be a slow painful process.

What "perks" does he mean? They can have mine. I'm saving for "non-Social Security" living know for when I get old. T

Can you point out a relatively nonpartisan economist that thinks we can fix our debt problem at this point by cuts alone? I can't find it. I hear politicians say it, but that is mostly because they are looking to incite their voters. The #'s don't add up.

Restore the Bush tax cuts and cut spending to balance the budget. I can do it. No one will be happy.

That's a fair question, and the answer is "no", I haven't heard any leading economists say that. But I have heard conservative legislators say it, and I also trust my own common sense.

I see a small iota of that waste every day, and so does everyone else who has eyes. The entire stimulus bill ($800B) was essentially useless pork...it's not like lots of new highways or bridges went up.

Tax revenue in this lousy economy, I believe is around $1.5 trillion. The federal budget in 2000 was around $1.5 trillion. In other words, to balance the budget, we need to get spending back to what we spent in 2000.

Can that be done? Certainly. Get rid of wasteful defense programs, Medicare fraud, start cutting services to all the illegals. Reform the tax code so that EVERYONE pays SOMETHING. I think 35% of citizens pay $0 federal income taxes? The folks at the top of that range can pony up a little, they use the roads too, and they rely on the military. It won't be easy, but I am positive we can do it without raising taxes.

The homeowners deduction will not be eliminated while the GOP controls the House. They won't let it happen. Even if they had to filibuster it, they would do it.

I can't believe Obama is even considering that. He's amazing, he cannot even get one right by accident.

I have a family of 4 and made less than 1/5 that last year.

Johnny D it's not any reason to buy a house unless you look at what you would be paying a landlord and losing all your money forever vs paying a mortgage company for the rest of your life that is being subsidized by the us govt. It would raise the cost of living in a home too much for many because of higher taxes.

The system is effin broken. :wall: Whether it's health care, home ownership, insurance, whatever.

We're #^&#^&#^&#^&ed no matter what.

Lots and lots and lots of people would be happy. Everyone killing themselves to make ends meet would be happy. Freeloaders wouldn't be happy. Those abusing the system wouldn't be happy.

I don't believe we have to make masive cuts, I just think we have to eliminate the stupidity. Consider a local example. I have said this before, and I'll say it again. Public unionized employees have absolutely no right collecting pensions while the rest of us live with 401(k)s. Here in CT, a whole lot of state and local debt would go away if we demanded that public servents be compensated in a way that doesn't dwarf what's available to those they claim to serve. Cops retiring at age 45 with masive pensions? We simply cannot have that anymore.

I believe those cuts would do it. But the liberals won't go against their constituency.

the other problem with hitting filers that make over $250k is that a lot of small businesses file that way. This is no time to increase taxes on small businesses, but liberals think that's free money to them.