Here's my inspirational vitamin for today: Just because you think in a two dimensional spectrum doesnt mean the world operates in a two dimensional spectrum.Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Here's my inspirational vitamin for today: Just because you think in a two dimensional spectrum doesnt mean the world operates in a two dimensional spectrum.
lol. so do we hae a way around paying higher taxes? No. So the best thing to do is pay them and continue living man. That's my point. No need to argue it now.
And no. I did not want higher taxes... I don't think it'll help without spending cuts. Obama was my choice of president. That does not mean that I support everything he supports.
Just like I'm sure there are things that made Sinfix want to punch Romney in the face for and he voted for him.
I thought Republicans would not let Obama get away without spending cuts. Boy was I wrong lol
Funny thing is a person i work with who is an avid Obama supporter, was PISSSSSED on friday when her paycheck was $30 short. She got so angy and we were like , dont you pay attention to the news? The payroll tax break you have been getting for the last 2 years was removed, Obama (and congress) voted for it and signed it into law.
This wholle "I will not let taxes go up on the middle class" just meant he wouldnt raise their individual income rates. he was 100% behind letting Bush Tax cuts expire which is increasing taxes. its how Washington works and double talks.
Now, that being said, i support the 2.3% increase because its robbing peter to pay paul if we let it stand. It should have ended. But the look on her face when we explained it to her was priceless. It was the "I DIDNT VOTE FOR THIS". OH YES YOU DID
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Thinking to myself on my way home from work tonight I have solved the debt problem in this country. It is a very simple plan that could be handled in 1 bill less than 100 pages in length.
1. Raise the debt limit to 21T immediately.
2. Congress 'cuts up the credit card'. Debt in excess of 21T must be approved on a line by line basis by 2/3 majority in both Houses.
3. This Act can only be repealed by 3/4 vote in both Houses of Congress. (I dont know if this is possible or not)
4. Starting Jan 1, 2014 a new payroll tax of 1% (.5% paid by employer; .5% paid by employee) that is earmarked exclusively for debt (not deficit) reduction begins. No cap on this tax. Interest, dividends, and any form of employer to employee compensation is eligible.
5. All revenue from the new tax is placed in a trust. On Sept 30 of each year the entirety of the Jan 1 balance of the trust is used to pay off outstanding debt. On Oct 1, the debt limit is reduced by the amount corresponding to the debt payment.
Example:
Between Jan 1, 2014 and Jan 1, 2015 the new payroll tax collects 400B. On Sept 30, a 400B payment is made on the debt. On Oct 1, the debt limit is reduced by 400B to 20.6T.
A tax increase does not equal higher revenues. It's very similar to other markets as in there is a point where people don't buy in anymore.
Also, they are inherently bad for the economy.
GO DAWGS
What? You think tax increases are bad for the economy and that tax increases do not increase revenue?
Sounds like a bunch of poor people talking in here.
I'm like George Depardieu up in this bitch, looking for a way out. Although Russia has a VAT, still comes up to less than here.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Russia Tax Rates
But I'm thinking Kuwait.
http://www.taxrates.cc/html/kuwait-tax-rates.html
Did you know we spend about 14x what Russia does on their military?
wouldnt work
the interest on 21 trillion would be over a trillion dollars a year alone. You would be throwing a pebble against Mount Vesuvius. you couldnt tax enough to pay the debt off. IMO.
The problem still is SPENDING. Ask yourself, WHY ARE we spending 1 trillion dollars more per year in deficits if our Economy according to Obama is on the road to recovery, we are doing better, the strategy is working and he just got his tax increases?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Historically this is accurate.
Anytime we have cut rates, the treasury grows. Cutting taxes leads to investment in the economy in the form of spending by workers and businessmen (hiring). Do you have more taxes from 100 people taxing at 50% or do you make more money by taxing people 30% and have 1000 workers. Theres a happy medium between tax rates and revenues.
Bush took in the most tax revenue when he enacted the Bush Tax cuts. We had a booming economy. Clinton also had great economy, but he cut capital gains taxes for everyone (raised income).
Historically, when you raise taxes, revenues FALL, not rise.
Youre taking peoples money away, which hurts the economy, not stimulate it. Obama wants to tax you 39%, take that money, and redistribute it back in the form of UE benefits (WHICH ARE TAXED) , Welfare, etc etc etc All sorts of govt programs. And then he wants to spend 1 trillion more past that, with no way to pay for it.
If youre a Democrat or a Republican, you should be absolutely LIVID at what Washington is doing. They are spending money we do NOT have, and stealing from everyone. Obama just let YOUR taxes go up even if youre middle class. He also raised taxes on the upper class.
I do not think the economy is going to get better by hurting the middle class which is already strapped.
IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO HELP THE MIDDLE CLASS, THEY WOULD CUT SPENDING, AND BALANCE THE BUDGET. Then they wouldnt need tax increases
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Again
SPENDS 1 +TRILLION IN DEFICITS, thinks 50-70 billion in tax revenue is going to save everyone? They just fought for 50-70 billion in tax increases........................and cut ZERO SPENDING.
spends 1600 billion, fights for 50-70 billion in more tax revenue= Prosperity for all? And they are setting up a FIGHT to SPEND MORE with the debt ceiling. This isnt rocket science, its SIMPLE econ 101/102
Cmon Blank , you cant possibly believe that.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I have had much pleasure from telling every person i see complaining about it "you voted for it"
Fun fact: You can vote for someone and not agree or be voting for everything they do.
Fun fact: you can vote for someone even though you know nothing about them.
Sometimes. And for this to be true, you definitely have to go into specifics. There's this axiom that's called the Laffer curve, which basically shows an equilibrium point between tax increases/decreases and revenue streams....
That curve works both ways. There comes a point where tax rates can be too low, and have diminishing returns in regards to motivating people to stimulate the economy and start to impact the availability of services.
America has always had individual taxes. Originally it was a poll tax and a property tax. Of course back then, the services provided by the government were limited and defense was militia based. With additional costs comes the increased need for more revenue.
We will always have taxes. Taxes and tax rates are not the current problem nor are they the solution. Spending control is what the discussion must center if we are to have a situational improvement.
i would bet you $1000 that raising taxes to 70% woudlnt generate more revenue, it would generate MUCH LESS. I would also bet you that lowering taxes to 1% on everyone isnt the answer either.
You and I both know its much more complicated than that.
What i think we should both be able to agree on is that the 4% increase on people making over $400k, and the 2.3% on people working in the payroll tax, amounts to a tear drop in the Atlantic Ocean.
If your credit card debt is $100,000 and you are almost maxed out, do you ask for a limit increase and a 1$ a year pay increase to combat it?
NO, YOU CUT YOUR SPENDING.
Taxes were NEVER the issue, its only used to score political points. Neither side is serious about cutting spending
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
not when it comes to one of the signature pieces of the platform he ran on. This isnt some entitlement social view. THIS IS TAXES.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
This was not a mistake by Jimmy but this seems like a good time to point out that many people don't understand the debt ceiling and what it does. The debt ceiling is not equivalent to a credit card limit, it is more like a limit on what can go out of your checking account. Congress can still pass laws and "buy" as much as they want on their "credit card" regardless of what the debt ceiling is. All the debt ceiling does it say whether they can pay the bill when it comes. The only way to stop congress from spending is to stop passing legislation that requires it or revising existing legislation that requires it. Holding the debt ceiling down will not do it.
Why not do both?
Because if you cant be trusted with $100000 credit card and you cant live within your budget, then you dont deserve more money you can not take care of.
Lets put this in perspective"
100+ YEARS we run up 10 Trillion in Debt
Obama runs up 6 TRILLION in 4 years
Now THEY WANT ANOTHER 5 TRILLION INCREASE?
Im sorry you can make all the fucking excuses in the world, but you cant talk out of both sides of your mouth. The GOP cant say spending cuts is priority while increasing defense spending like clockwork. Obama cannot say He has to spend a shit load of money because of what he "inherited" 4 years later while at the same time touting how much the economy is improving.
They are spending your money and people are either too stupid to realize what is happening, or just dont care
There is NOTHING you can tell me that warrants doubling the national debt in 8 years when the original number took over 100+. NOTHING. The 2008 Collapse, was AS BAD as what BUSH dealt with his 8 years (9/11, .COM bubble, Housing Crisis, KATRINA).
Obama has NO REASON to continue to keep spending at 1+ trillion dollar deficit levels. Hes doing it because he is expanding the entitlement society and because they are lieing about what Obamacare and all the entitlements are REALLY costing. they are lining their own pockets (BOTH SIDES) with YOUR money
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Wrong.
The Debt Ceiling closes the amount they can spend by forcing them to prioritize what gets paid with what they have. Right now, its a blank check.
Program costs 100BIllion, spend it, 500 billion spend it, etc etc
When you clamp the debt ceiling down, they must meet their obligations not by printing more money or selling more bogus bonds, they have to deal with the revenue they have coming in.
The debt ceiling is how much MORE MONEY we can BORROW(translation ISSUE) and we never worry about paying down what we already have borrowed or spent. By not lifting the debt ceiling, we will force washington to deal with what they have already spent, not give them more ways to spend more.
There are laws on how much money can be in circulation and the Debt ceiling is 1 factor of the equation
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
So...is there anyone that's actually FOR these new tax laws?
Yes..... 97% of black people, 52% of white people and 55% of women. At least that's how those dumb asses voted.
Romney would have done the same thing, and you would have lapped it up as something necessary for the freedom of America. Face facts.
Nope. Your president is shit. Worst president in the history of our country....... you validating your vote by saying "the other guy would have done the same thing" is not a fact. It's you admitting your bias. Obama is the one fighting for tax increases, blowing the deficit up, and refusing all spending cuts.
Let me rephrase that, congress would have still done it and Romney would have approved it.according to a few conservative zealots who are unsure of what they want and unsure of how government works.
As previously stated:
1) I agree with letting the 2.3% payroll tax go back into effect because its robbing peter to pay paul. When it was first enacted IIRC under Obama back in 2011, we cut payroll tax by 2.3%. The problem with that is A) that is used to directly fund SS B) its such a small amount of money that it has little to no effect on the economy. Obama/Congress was correct IMO in letting that tax be re-instated.
The conundrum is that Obama said NO TAXES would be raised on the middle class. He campaigned on this (SO DID ROMNEY) during the '12 election.. This is obviously patently false as people who work WILL SEE an INCREASE in their taxes because that tax rate will go up. Obama will say "i said no INCOME taxes" which is true, no income taxes will be raised currently for people making under $400k or 450K jointly. But all the people making under that are seeing as much as a $700-1000 increase in taxes coming directly from their paycheck. Washington should be held accountable instead of playing the double talk of income vs capital gains vs payroll taxes. Just be honest and tell us what is going to happen.
If you collect a paycheck, you have already noticed your check is smaller than it used to be.
2) I dont have a problem with the top tax rate going up to 39%, but what i do have a problem with is WHY it went up. As previously state we do not have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem. The amount of money the treasury will see theoretically from that increase amounts to like less than 1% of the yearly DEFICIT we run (100 billion out of 1600 billion).
3) When you need people to hire to get the economy going, you need people with money to invest, raising taxes on them has the opposite effect historically.
4) Im 10000% against the fiscal cliff deal because despite the tax raises i can live with, there was ZERO spending cuts. Washington just said "we will take more of your money, and not care what we spend it on"
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
They already spend money they don't have, I don't think lowering tax revenue will stop that. Decreasing revenue is treating the symptom not the actual cause. The actual cause is...
This is the actual cause. The public simply doesn't care much about our debt. If they did care they could turn our spending problem around in a few years by electing people on platforms of not spending and decreasing the debt.
And the people just reelected him so why should he do anything differently? In a democracy, we don't have the luxury of blaming politicians for all our problems because they only have power as long as we let them. Of course the politicans have responsibility but how long can we blame them for when we keep reelecting the same ones over and over and over again?
You are right to an extent but what you neglect to discuss (and my main point) is the fact that we must raise the debt ceiling simply to pay for the laws as they already exist. The promises have been made and the money spent so no matter how much you prioritize, some promises will be broken. Who should get shafted then? SS? Medicare? Military salaries? Other countries? There is fallout when you don't have the cash to pay your bills. We got a small glimpse of that during the last debt ceiling debate that resulted in the drop in our credit rating.
Too put it simple, ALL THE ABOVE. Want to talk about FAIR SHARE? Both sides have been overpromising and under delivering for a generation.
The simple answer is everyone and i mean EVERYONE is going to have to pay. Theres ways to do it without shafting people directly, like raising SS age, phasing it in, privatizing it, etc.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Thank you for the input!
Been busy as hell so I am slow getting back to this. A lot to go talk about so lets get to it.
1. The debt will be 21T by the end of FY16 anyways.
2. By giving congress the large cushion to deal with, they will have time to adjust their habits over time so there is no major shock. When they decide not to do that, they will have no one to blame but themselves. This is why the new tax reduces the overall debt AND the debt authorization at the same time.
Both of you are right and wrong. To put it into very simple terms, the debt limit is the amount the govt can borrow. Because the govt receives money on a daily basis, they will always have operating revenue, they just wont be able to operate at the same level they do now. If I remember correctly (on my laptop so I dont have a lot of my bookmarks ready) the govt brings in about 6B a day in revenue and spends about 10B a day. If the debt limit is reached and no authorization is approved to raise it, the govt would be forced to make VERY drastic cuts that would adversely affect everyone.
Paying more into the Ponzi Scheme sucks when I know I will never collect from it, but as you said, we are going to pay it anyways.
I also agree with your other points. The tax increases are just feeding the addiction. There was no attempt to actually reign in spending to a sustainable level. If the increases were part of a large package to deal with the debt it wouldnt be so hard to stomach, but as it is, its no different than giving crack to an addict.
People dont care because they havent been affected yet. They havent been affected yet because politicians have mortgaged everything and then some to give away more and more benefits and hand outs. When they do start to feel it, most are too stupid to actually understand what happened.
People keep re-electing the idiots over and over because they are absolutely clueless.
There are no laws that require spending except SS and medicare. Promises have been made, but since when has a politician been trustworthy? Who should be shafted? No one needs to get shafted. Some people just wont get paid to sit at home on unemployment for 4 years. Welfare requirements could go back to where they were 5 years ago. The list goes on and on with pork projects and handout programs that dove the vast majority of the budget short falls.
The government worked the entire history of our country without being anything like Obama. How did we make it this far without the spending prowess of your "savior"
Definitely agree that we need to restructure our debts so that we can afford them and minimize the pain but if we don't increase the debt ceiling before make those changes (raising SS age etc) then there will be a lot of pain immediately and it will not be done in a way that most people consider fair.
It's not just welfare spending. It's all the government spending including debt interest, military salaries, immigration enforcement, employee salaries, etc. You could end unemployment insurance tomorrow (UI maxes out at less than 2 years, not sure where you got 4 years from) and still not get close to making all the payments on everything else. We need to cut spending but it needs to be done in a smart way, not just in a cut all cash flow and let the chips fall where they may manner.
Which is exactly what the GOP has been asking for. A way to reduce the deficits and eventually debt by overhauling the programs that drive it. SS and Medicare along with defense are what drive the deficits. GOP wont touch defense, Dems wont touch SS and medicare. So we are left with little fringe slowing in growth and zero cuts. The so called Sandy relief bill has more pork than relief in it.
No, its not just welfare spending. Its every program and agency. HHS could hire 50K fraud investigators and pay them 100k a year to investigate medicare and medicaid fraud and the US would save $10 for every dollar spent on them. Will it ever happen? Hell no.
Who came up with this idea that if we dont raise the debt ceiling the US will have no money? As I already explained, the US has around 6B a DAY coming into its coffers. All of our debt would be served, there would be no default. All of the SS checks would go out and clear. All of the medicare bills will be paid. Where the cuts will come in is in unnecessary programs and agencies. DHS can go away and take the TSA with them, there is 110m a day in savings. The Dept of Ed. can go away and take their 300M a day budget with them. Congress wanted 17B in pork in the Sandy bill. Thats is 50M A DAY over the next year. How many billions a year to go colleges for research? Its great for everyone involved, but we still dont have the cash.
Nothing to argue with here.
But we both know that those "unnecessary programs" (which many people consider necessary) would not simply go away. It's easy to come up with a solution when you don't take into account what other people value and the reality of politics.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
