Carbon Tax, timing is everything

[buckman]

This should help out the economy!

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...436/story.html

But he's only been in office a few months, give the man a chance.

[Raven]

your glass is always half empty

[RIROCKHOUND]

Canadian news, eh?
Coal sands are one of the dirtiest, least efficient ways to get fossil fuel. The Canadians have been fighting a long time to keep it coming here...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Canadian news, eh?
Coal sands are one of the dirtiest, least efficient ways to get fossil fuel. The Canadians have been fighting a long time to keep it coming here...

The story didn't originate from the Canadian news, it came from Obamas budget.

[RIROCKHOUND]

The link was. I was setting the tone for why the Canadians are against it.
I'm not against Carbon Tax.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I'm not against Carbon Tax.

Thats a shocker. Help yourself to what's left in my wallet anytime.

[RIJIMMY]

By rolling back tax cuts for high income earners, the White House said it was "rebalancing the tax so that the wealthiest pay more" to offset health costs of needier Americans.

"We must make it a priority to give every single American quality, affordable health care," Obama said.

these wealthy americans get no stimulus money, they get no child tax credit - thats limited to those making less than 150K per coulple, everyone lese gets $1000 per child back in their pocket. Also by limiting the deducitons, they will have HIGHER taxable income. Thats in addition to their higher rates. Add up the fact that they have limited deductions, resulting in a higher base for tax, NO tax credits for children, NO stimulus rebates. These wealthy people get no government assistance, they will have to pay EVERY DIME of their childrens education. Every dime of elderly care for their aging parents. But Obama is goign to f**k these people for working hard while giving THEM NOTHING. This is insane. He and many of YOU scoffed during the debates when it was said he was redistibuting wealth. HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

By rolling back tax cuts for high income earners, the White House said it was "rebalancing the tax so that the wealthiest pay more" to offset health costs of needier Americans.

"We must make it a priority to give every single American quality, affordable health care," Obama said.

these wealthy americans get no stimulus money, they get no child tax credit - thats limited to those making less than 150K per coulple, everyone lese gets $1000 per child back in their pocket. Also by limiting the deducitons, they will have HIGHER taxable income. Thats in addition to their higher rates. Add up the fact that they have limited deductions, resulting in a higher base for tax, NO tax credits for children, NO stimulus rebates. These wealthy people get no government assistance, they will have to pay EVERY DIME of their childrens education. Every dime of elderly care for their aging parents. But Obama is goign to f**k these people for working hard while giving THEM NOTHING. This is insane. He and many of YOU scoffed during the debates when it was said he was redistibuting wealth. HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then what is your solution to resolving the current economic situation - raise taxes for everyone equally? So the struggling family that hasn't seen a pay raise in 2 years because of the economy and faced with a rising cost of living should be hit with the same tax increases as the wealthy family who, if responsible with their money, should not have to be worried about losing their house or how they're going to put food on the table?

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

Good to see your coming around Johnny!
Now repeat after me..."It is our money and the government has more then enough, if they use it wisely."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Then what is your solution to resolving the current economic situation - raise taxes for everyone equally? So the struggling family that hasn't seen a pay raise in 2 years because of the economy and faced with a rising cost of living should be hit with the same tax increases as the wealthy family who, if responsible with their money, should not have to be worried about losing their house or how they're going to put food on the table?

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

It's all rather fuzzy to me (maybe some in power want it to be) but it doesn't seem that the people who are worried about putting food on the table are the ones hit hard by the current economic situation. Nor are most who bought homes worried about losing them. And some, I don't know the number, I don't even know if its been broken down for us, or if I could believe it if it were, and some who are in danger of losing their home are living in one much better than mine. Actually, technically, they're not losing it, the bank owns it. It seems to me that there are a lot more people that are above my pay grade that are being hurt by current conditions than at or below it. Maybe, if raising taxes on wealthy people is the solution to the problem, why not, instead, because, surely MANY would undeservedly be getting a tax hike, instead just use stimulus money to pay off the debts of the relatively small sector of poor folks and let all the greedy crooks go under.

[Raven]

is (has been) at the root of many of our problems.......

take our dependence on oil for example

for how many decades have improvements to Automobiles
been ignored (suppressed) to maximize profit by the oil companies

Our electrical infrastructure is PATHETIC at best

Space age materials need to enter the mainstream

carbon nano-tube technology ALONE can re energize
our economy ...not to mention new battery technology

there's high tech insulation for martian lander's that could
vastly improve what we are using now....

and the use of ethanol has been a total failure -> worldwide

restrictions on BIOfuels for diesel engines needs radical modification...

and i like the Pickens plan for utilizing Natural GAS for
our tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g industry... plus the wind corridor out west
for wind turbines...

Americans are spending WAY to much money on Energy
which affects the price of all consumer goods....
for far too long

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's all rather fuzzy to me (maybe some in power want it to be) but it doesn't seem that the people who are worried about putting food on the table are the ones hit hard by the current economic situation. Nor are most who bought homes worried about losing them. And some, I don't know the number, I don't even know if its been broken down for us, or if I could believe it if it were, and some who are in danger of losing their home are living in one much better than mine. Actually, technically, they're not losing it, the bank owns it. It seems to me that there are a lot more people that are above my pay grade that are being hurt by current conditions than at or below it. Maybe, if raising taxes on wealthy people is the solution to the problem, why not, instead, because, surely MANY would undeservedly be getting a tax hike, instead just use stimulus money to pay off the debts of the relatively small sector of poor folks and let all the greedy crooks go under.

This is why I said "if responsible with their money." Some people will never be able to understand the term "living below your means." Those are the people that I don't feel bad for. The ones that bought "the most house they can afford" and took a little more on their mortgage to furnish the house.

It isn't going to benefit the country to take more money from the people that are struggling to put food on the table. Either their kid won't be able to go to college or they'll have to make other major sacrifices in order to survive. At the same token, the people that make $250,000+ should be able to handle an additional tax.

This country is financially f(*&ed at the moment. It's not a matter of the Republican's favorite term "redistribution of wealth." It is a matter of doing the only thing possible to pull the nose up before it crashed right into the ground.

My business has over $250,000+ in revenue. Even though most of that money is reinvested in the business, being an LLC I'm going to get hit with the increased taxes. Yes, it is going to hurt a bit but it's going to hurt even more when there are no customers any more. When people can't afford to travel for our events any more and my clients decided to throw in the towel.

[spence]

So I guess that Buck thinks human carbon emissions are not contributing to global warming?

Hence the post?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

So I guess that Buck thinks human carbon emissions are not contributing to global warming?

Hence the post?

Humans have no part in global warming. It is just a natural cycle of the Earth.

There... saved them from having to post it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This is why I said "if responsible with their money." Some people will never be able to understand the term "living below your means." Those are the people that I don't feel bad for. The ones that bought "the most house they can afford" and took a little more on their mortgage to furnish the house.

It isn't going to benefit the country to take more money from the people that are struggling to put food on the table. Either their kid won't be able to go to college or they'll have to make other major sacrifices in order to survive. At the same token, the people that make $250,000+ should be able to handle an additional tax.

This country is financially f(*&ed at the moment. It's not a matter of the Republican's favorite term "redistribution of wealth." It is a matter of doing the only thing possible to pull the nose up before it crashed right into the ground.

My business has over $250,000+ in revenue. Even though most of that money is reinvested in the business, being an LLC I'm going to get hit with the increased taxes. Yes, it is going to hurt a bit but it's going to hurt even more when there are no customers any more. When people can't afford to travel for our events any more and my clients decided to throw in the towel.

I live in a poor neighborhood. I doubt if anybody in it pays a federal income tax. I don't know the actual numbers or even if it's true, but I've heard that 51% of those who receive some form of compensation, either employment, pension, Soc. Sec., etc., don't pay federal income tax. No one I know is having trouble putting food on the table. A lot of them eat more (not better) than me with food stamps. I doubt that any of them would be your clients under any circumstance. Those that are or would be probably do pay fed taxes and would be helped more by a tax cut rather than taxing a wealthier person more. I also don't know but have heard that the wealthiest 2% or 4% or some small number currently pay 40% of the fed income taxes. It just seems like some kind of failure in our "system" that whenever there is a supposed financial crisis the most brilliant thing we can think of is to tax the rich.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So I guess that Buck thinks human carbon emissions are not contributing to global warming?

Hence the post?

Timing is everything. This country has come a long way since the seventies pollutionwise. We don't need the Feds taxing companies for Obama's idea of what is reasonable. The EPA fines companies for levels above what is allowed already. This is a scam to collect money. After throwing trillions of dollars around in his first three months I assume that the deficit is no longer an issue.

Carbon credits = a total friggin scam. You would have to be an idiot or a drunk to buy into it.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Then what is your solution to resolving the current economic situation - raise taxes for everyone equally? So the struggling family that hasn't seen a pay raise in 2 years because of the economy and faced with a rising cost of living should be hit with the same tax increases as the wealthy family who, if responsible with their money, should not have to be worried about losing their house or how they're going to put food on the table?

You can't get water from stone, but let's try and get more money from people who are already struggling.

Johnny - you're misinformed. This higher tax is NOT to get us out of the current economic situation, it is to FUND healthcare and other programs Obama is targeting. Its part of the budget, not the bailout. There is a general misunderstanding on how money works that the Dems capitalize on. Put your politics a side and hear me out.
Since you dont have kids, you dont see it, here is a brief overview. For hard working people that want a better life for their kids, In order to pay for college for their kids most people need two incomes in a family, thus they need some form of daycare to take care of the kids before and after work - cha-ching! Tens of thousands each year - AND THAT HELPS THE ECONOMY BY PAYING DAYCARE SALARIES, whihc means more tax for the governement!. A good thing.
Because the have two jobs, they make more money and thus pay more taxes, fair enough. But since they make more money, they get no benefits. If they make over 150K per couple (taxable income) they dont get to take the $1000 tax credit (and this is under Bush, not Obamas fault) . If you have 3 kids, thats 3000 of actual CASH you dont get! Lets say the Dad takes a big risk and starts his own business, his salary is now $200k per year. He works nights, weekends - he sacrifices for his family because he wants a better life for them. His wife still needs to work since sending 3 kids to college will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. His wife makes 60k per year. CHA CHING - well guess what? That now means they make 260K per year. Hey! THEY ARE RICH!!! It doesnt matter that they pay daycare for the 3 kids, doesnt matter that the have to fund their childrens education. Now, they will pay more taxes! And not just a higher rate. Their itemized deductions will be reduced, thus raising their taxable income ! Bottom line - by trying to fund their own life, they get screwed.
So -you ask how then do we fund government initiatives? How about helping this family? How about more money (ie; their OWN money) in their pockets so they can take their kids to Disney (helps the economy) take the kids to Chuckie Cheese (helps the economy) open a 529 to save for college (helps the economy) enroll the kids in gymnastics (helps the economy) , buy a new volvo (helps the economy) take the kids to a science museum (helps the economy)
See what Im saying. This is no politcal rhetoric, no Limbaugh replublican crap. Its the opinion of someone who works with people like this and who see these situations all the time.

[buckman]

But who will pay for the ones that don't want to work two jobs? or one job ?

Where is your compassion?

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Johnny - you're misinformed. This higher tax is NOT to get us out of the current economic situation, it is to FUND healthcare and other programs Obama is targeting. Its part of the budget, not the bailout. There is a general misunderstanding on how money works that the Dems capitalize on. Put your politics a side and hear me out.
Since you dont have kids, you dont see it, here is a brief overview. For hard working people that want a better life for their kids, In order to pay for college for their kids most people need two incomes in a family, thus they need some form of daycare to take care of the kids before and after work - cha-ching! Tens of thousands each year - AND THAT HELPS THE ECONOMY BY PAYING DAYCARE SALARIES, whihc means more tax for the governement!. A good thing.
Because the have two jobs, they make more money and thus pay more taxes, fair enough. But since they make more money, they get no benefits. If they make over 150K per couple (taxable income) they dont get to take the $1000 tax credit (and this is under Bush, not Obamas fault) . If you have 3 kids, thats 3000 of actual CASH you dont get! Lets say the Dad takes a big risk and starts his own business, his salary is now $200k per year. He works nights, weekends - he sacrifices for his family because he wants a better life for them. His wife still needs to work since sending 3 kids to college will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. His wife makes 60k per year. CHA CHING - well guess what? That now means they make 260K per year. Hey! THEY ARE RICH!!! It doesnt matter that they pay daycare for the 3 kids, doesnt matter that the have to fund their childrens education. Now, they will pay more taxes! And not just a higher rate. Their itemized deductions will be reduced, thus raising their taxable income ! Bottom line - by trying to fund their own life, they get screwed.
So -you ask how then do we fund government initiatives? How about helping this family? How about more money (ie; their OWN money) in their pockets so they can take their kids to Disney (helps the economy) take the kids to Chuckie Cheese (helps the economy) open a 529 to save for college (helps the economy) enroll the kids in gymnastics (helps the economy) , buy a new volvo (helps the economy) take the kids to a science museum (helps the economy)
See what Im saying. This is no politcal rhetoric, no Limbaugh replublican crap. Its the opinion of someone who works with people like this and who see these situations all the time.

Jimmy, I agree with most of this but you're off base on one point.

Anyone with children should not buy a Volvo. There just isn't enough room for children over the age of 5 to fit in the back seat of an S60 or even an S80 behind a normal or bigger size adult. Never mind trying to fit 4 grown men (and a cooler in the back seat because the trunk is too small) for a ride down to the Cape.

[RIJIMMY]

you need the X90, whihc is more expensive, thus you pay more property tax AND sales tax!
everyone wins!

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you need the X90, whihc is more expensive, thus you pay more property tax AND sales tax!
everyone wins!

I'd take the SUV in a heartbeat, but I have a feeling my boss doesn't think I need something so expensive.

Don't worry about the taxes, though. I'm sure Deval will find a way to come up with even more obscure and ridiculous taxes for all of us.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I also don't know but have heard that the wealthiest 2% or 4% or some small number currently pay 40% of the fed income taxes.

Nonetheless, the rich are doing just fine and have been for the better part of the last 3 decades.... thank you very much.

I'd like to know the size of the slice of the aggregate income pie the the wealthiest 2% or 4% have made their own. And more importantly, how that slice has grown over the last dozen or so years.

I think Johnny summed it up well, you can't get water from stone.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Nonetheless, the rich are doing just fine and have been for the better part of the last 3 decades.... thank you very much.

I'd like to know the size of the slice of the aggregate income pie the the wealthiest 2% or 4% have made their own. And more importantly, how that slice has grown over the last dozen or so years.

I think Johnny summed it up well, you can't get water from stone.

Damn them rich bastards. I hate them all.

I would like to know the slice of the tax burden these bastards are paying. And more importantly, how that slice has grown over the last dozen or so years.

[fishbones]

What you guys are talking about is that phrase that Spence hates: "redistribution of wealth". I'm not wealthy, but I don't believe that wealthy people should be taxed more just because they have more. They already pay the most, why should they have pay more.

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.

Keep in mind that many of the high wage earners are business owners who employ and provide benefits to others. If they have no incentive to grow their businesses, the can't create more jobs. This is just a way to discourage people from trying to grow businesses and by extension, the economy.

And many of the "rich" aren't doing just fine. Ask a guy who has a lot of his assets in investments if he's doing "fine" right now. You might just get a tall chock in the gulliver.

[buckman]

A quick google to the IRS web site and here it is:

This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

Ya, Bush did them huge favors.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by fishbones

What you guys are talking about is that phrase that Spence hates: "redistribution of wealth". I'm not wealthy, but I don't believe that wealthy people should be taxed more just because they have more. They already pay the most, why should they have pay more.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but were talking an increase of 3% for take home pay and a change from 15% to roughly 36% on capital gains taxes - ballpark. I would hardly call that a disincentive but than again I dont buy into many of the assumptions of classical economics and human behavior.

I think before Reagan, the government took 80 cents of every $1.00 earned above the $3,000,000 income threshold - now that, one could argue, is a bit much. But then again, thats still 250,000 dollars, not exactly chump change.

Originally Posted by fishbones

Take the money from the politicians. I wonder if you'd hear any complaints from Congress if they were to have their "expense" money taken and redistributed to the needy. Or cut back on their car services and free meals. They certainly make enough to drive their own cars and pay for meals, don't they? I'm sure if that was proposed, it wouldn't get very far.

Agreed

Originally Posted by fishbones

And many of the "rich" aren't doing just fine. Ask a guy who has a lot of his assets in investments if he's doing "fine" right now. You might just get a tall chock in the gulliver.

Humans can get used to just about anything....why are the rich any different?

[EarnedStripes44]

250,000 dollars a month*

*type error from previous thread

[RIJIMMY]

ES44, I think my post clearly articilates the issue. If rich is over 250K
How can you justify a family with 2-3-4-5 kids having to fund their entire education themselves, daycare, etc and PAYING MORE TAXES????
THEY GET NO ADDITIONAL DEDUCUCTIONS! THEY WILL GET NO BENEFITS. There will be NO FINANCIAL AID for college!
your missing the picture by thinking its just tax.
I dont make 250K a year, but I have a hard time saying thats "rich".
In order to support their families, the "rich" will cut back more on spending, which will hurt the economy more that tax revenue will help

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

Humans can get used to just about anything....why are the rich any different?

Yes they can, but they shouldn't be forced by the government to.

Why don't we just take your theory on economics and apply it to other areas of life.

In high schools, lets take all of the students who get A's and knock them down to B's. We can then give all the C students B's. That way, they can get into the same colleges as the hard working, more intelligent A students. Hey, the A students can still get into college so what's the harm?

In the Olympics, lets take away some Gold Medals from the US team because they won too many. Give a few to Lithuania and Bolivia because they don't have any. It's ok though because even though the US athletes worked hard and trained for years for their medals, the team still has the most.

I know these examples are far fetched, but hopefully you can see where your logic is flawed.

People who work hard should not be forced to give up what they earned when they are already giving a lot more than their fair share.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Johnny - you're misinformed. This higher tax is NOT to get us out of the current economic situation, it is to FUND healthcare and other programs Obama is targeting. Its part of the budget, not the bailout. There is a general misunderstanding on how money works that the Dems capitalize on. Put your politics a side and hear me out.
Since you dont have kids, you dont see it, here is a brief overview. For hard working people that want a better life for their kids, In order to pay for college for their kids most people need two incomes in a family, thus they need some form of daycare to take care of the kids before and after work - cha-ching! Tens of thousands each year - AND THAT HELPS THE ECONOMY BY PAYING DAYCARE SALARIES, whihc means more tax for the governement!. A good thing.
Because the have two jobs, they make more money and thus pay more taxes, fair enough. But since they make more money, they get no benefits. If they make over 150K per couple (taxable income) they dont get to take the $1000 tax credit (and this is under Bush, not Obamas fault) . If you have 3 kids, thats 3000 of actual CASH you dont get! Lets say the Dad takes a big risk and starts his own business, his salary is now $200k per year. He works nights, weekends - he sacrifices for his family because he wants a better life for them. His wife still needs to work since sending 3 kids to college will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. His wife makes 60k per year. CHA CHING - well guess what? That now means they make 260K per year. Hey! THEY ARE RICH!!! It doesnt matter that they pay daycare for the 3 kids, doesnt matter that the have to fund their childrens education. Now, they will pay more taxes! And not just a higher rate. Their itemized deductions will be reduced, thus raising their taxable income ! Bottom line - by trying to fund their own life, they get screwed.
So -you ask how then do we fund government initiatives? How about helping this family? How about more money (ie; their OWN money) in their pockets so they can take their kids to Disney (helps the economy) take the kids to Chuckie Cheese (helps the economy) open a 529 to save for college (helps the economy) enroll the kids in gymnastics (helps the economy) , buy a new volvo (helps the economy) take the kids to a science museum (helps the economy)
See what Im saying. This is no politcal rhetoric, no Limbaugh replublican crap. Its the opinion of someone who works with people like this and who see these situations all the time.

RIJimmy, none of this is new information to me. I know how child tax credits work and understand the costs involved with raising a child to 18y/o ($170,460 including child care) and sending one to college.

However, I refuse to accept that the average family with 3 kids and over $250k total income is struggling to raise their kids, put food on the table and send their kids to college. I refuse to accept it because my single mother, who doesn't even have a High School degree nor has ever had anything handed to her always put food on the table and sent me to college. I also know of 2 different families (one with 3 kids and one with 4) that has a combined income over $200k and both families have sent all their kids to college.

As I have said in many other posts, people making that kind of money who have been *responsible* with that money should not be struggling. That means not buying the biggest house they can buy, the wife not going for facials or pedicures every month and the husband not owning the biggest boat fully outfitted that he can buy.

I have met quite a few people who at first look you would expect are extremely wealthy. But in actuality even though the husband makes $200k/year, they live paycheck to paycheck. I also know people in this category that are going to lose their house. They bought the absolute biggest house they could afford on an ARM and then eventually couldn't afford the payments - missed payments on the car, truck and house and are now in foreclosure. I don't feel bad for these people - they have completely over extended themselves without any safety net by living above their means.

I'm also an opponent of people being rewarded for having children. Now, I know that is easy for me to say right now not having any, but I think it is completely irresponsible for anyone to not take steps to avoid pregnancy unless they can afford a (or an additional) child.

Now, I don't think higher earners should be paying taxes out the a*s forever, but I do think the money has to come from somewhere. I was never a fan of Bush's tax cuts and I have always been a proponent of rolling them back. My opinion for the last two years has been that those tax cuts will be seen as the starting point for the current state of the economy.