New Obama thread

[lets-retire]

The only effective way to increase the tax on the rich without effecting the middle and lower income people is to allow so much income then tax everything above that. If it is strictly a percentage the rich, who most likely own a lot of something or have enough influence to be able to name their income, will simple increase the cost of goods to maintain their lifestyle. The end result is the tax increase is passed on to the lower income levels. :

 

[bosco]

Naw....... Hillary is not GWB. And "anybody but Bush" is the answer. Therefore Hillary is for you. Beside, for the moment, you almost live in New York.

Obama would take a lot of flack for his inexperience if running for Pres. But as VP....... hey, that's where he could get his experience. And with Bill back in the White House as First Gentleman, he'd be there as a mentor to guide him along. He could sit with him as he presides over the Senate whispering in his ear, etc. It'll be a snap for Bill and Obama could really learn all the ropes.

precisely what experience does Hilary have that Obama does not have? Other than her experience of supporting the $^%$^# war and her experience watching her husband play hide the sausage everywhere but where it belonged?

 

[astromeria]

I favor bringing back a couple of those high tax brackets to pay for the Bush deficit--they should've done it immediately upon going to war. The war and defiicit drag on, but they don't bring those brackets back, just cut a little here and there...things like diabled veteran benefits. Anything to support our wealthiest troops The next President (maybe even next year's Congress) will need to repair the damage.

 

[sgeeeee]

Hmmmmm.....don't know why you would say that sgeeeee. GWB's tax cuts are frequently discussed, at least in these parts, and "estimating" the income of a close friend or relative isn't exactly rocket science....... It's entertaining to listen to folk's opinions concerning the Bush tax cuts and their suggestions as to what new tax rates should be, especially when their suggestions inevitably seem to not include the suggester him/herself actually paying more, or very much more. Human nature I guess.

But, you're missing the question. You emphasized "billionaires" in your post. Do you think the tax tables should be changed only to have more impact on the stinky rich......the billionaire-types you mentioned? Or do we need something closer to home. Say, a tax structure that would significantly impact folks with AGI's in the $40K - $70K range.

What a dishonest debater you are, youbet. You didn't answer the question. And the reason I asked it is to get an answer. Geeee. That seems pretty obvious. Instead, you make some broad statements about fictional folks with implications that they are numerous and representative enough for you to know about the country's tax ideas in general. Your view is cynical and full of implications about my own motives, but without any basis in fact as far as I can tell. Next, you accuse me of missing the question. Of course you didn't ask a question in your previous post that I was responding to. In fact, youbet, I've noticed that you are much more inclined to post passive-agressive accusations than to actually ask questions. I assume that is becuase you do not actually want to collect data and ideas from others.

Eventhough I doubt your sincerity, allow me to address the tax issue. I don't know what the ideal distribution of tax burden is in this country or any other. I suspect that it would change over time as the social and financial culture evolves. I do know that the gap between rich and poor has been widening at least since the Clinton administration and possibly earlier than that. I believe one of Clinton's failures is his failure to recognize the opportunity to tax a portion of windfall that the wealthiest people in America got under his administration and use it to encourage financial success among the poor and middle class. The GWB administration actually drove things even more in favor of the wealthy. They have passed tax changes that shift the percentage of tax burden even further away from the very wealthy. My original statement suggested rolling back the tax breaks provided under GWB. I would view any movement in that direction as a step in the right direction. Roll them all back and start from there. Roll back the breaks given to the top 1%, 2%, 10%, 25% . . . Any movement in that direction seems more reasonable than where we are now. One problem in trying to figure out what the optimum tax burden distribution should be is that we currently are taxing future generations rather than accepting to pay our own way. That needs to stop. The Bush administration sold large tax breaks to the wealthy by handing out small tax breaks to the middle class. But these breaks are fiction in the long run. Someone has to pay those bills. And the distribution of the burden has now been shifted more to the middle class and away from the wealthy. So, what we've seen in recent years is effectively a shift away from the wealthy of today and toward the middle class of tomorrow. That's what I would like to see changed.

 

[donheff]

It's entertaining to listen to folk's opinions concerning the Bush tax cuts and their suggestions as to what new tax rates should be, especially when their suggestions inevitably seem to not include the suggester him/herself actually paying more, or very much more. Human nature I guess.

Interesting that I disagreed with the Bush cut from the day it was proposed as did most of the people I know, almost all of whom disproportionately benefited. It was clear from the get-go that the tax cuts would result in increasing deficits* making it much harder to deal with the impending social security and medicare crises. I don't need SS to thrive in retirement but I do need a flourishing economy. And that is less and less likely as the trillions in debt pile ever higher.

I would support rolling all of the Bush cuts back. DW and my income will be high enough that, if that was done, we would pay more taxes even in retirement. Would you? Or is the whole discussion academic for you?

* Both the CBO and the GAO agree that while cuts do potentially stimulate activities that generate more tax, those increases will - at best - produce no more than 7% of the cuts themselves. In other words, the cuts are a net 93% loss of Federal revenue.

 

[youbet]

precisely what experience does Hilary have that Obama does not have? Other than her experience of supporting the $^%$^# war and her experience watching her husband play hide the sausage everywhere but where it belonged?

1. Hilary has already been tutored and mentored by Bill. Will Hilary as Pres, Obama as VP and Bill as First Gentleman, Bill would be available to tutor and mentor Obama prepping him for his future role as Pres.

2. Isn't the correct expression "hide the weenie" and not "hide the sausage?" Maybe not....... Perhaps it's just a regional variation. Getting it hidden properly is what counts, no matter what you call it I suppose.

 

[youbet]

I would support rolling all of the Bush cuts back. DW and my income will be high enough that, if that was done, we would pay more taxes even in retirement. Would you? Or is the whole discussion academic for you?

I generally agree with rolling the Bush tax cuts back too Don. And that will impact a lot of us middle to upper-middle class ER types, not just the "billionaires" frequently referred to. It won't be pleasant at tax time, but it will, unfortunately, be necessary if we're going to turn the tide on this deficit.

I appreciate the candor of your comments. Like you folks, DW and I will pay higher taxes if/when the Bush tax cuts are rolled back.

The fact that the "billionaires" and other stinky rich types will get hit harder than us is some consolation. But I'm still preparing to budget for higher taxes for us. And so be it.

 

[HFWR]

Of course, one alternative would be to cut spending...

 

[JohnEyles]

- Get out of Iraq.
- Fight a more focused and effective war against terrorism.
- Make modifications to tax/benefit structure to insure SS and Medicare continue long term.
- Improve voting procedures and make them more uniform across the country.
- Rebuild torn and broken relationship with allys.
- Medical system/medical insurance reform.

I think you have left out the most important one of all (with the possible exception
of medical system reform), mainly because it has such wide-reaching impacts:
pushing towards energy independence, mainly through conservation and alternative
technologies. Thomas Friedman says it better than I, but benefits of addressing
this issue include:

- Our whole mid-East policy (which has consumed much of our foreigh policy),
is based on this need for massive amounts of oil. "We are funding BOTH sides
of the war on terror".

- Starts to deal with the global warming issue.

- New technologies could provide an economic boost and a "moon shot" type
stimulus to our lagging educational performance in science and engineering.

- Makes our economy more robust, as it becomes less dependent on foreign
oil supplies.

 

[greg]

Oh, boy! A manage a trois taxes. I want to participate too, please .

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I would support rolling all of the Bush cuts back. DW and my income will be high enough that, if that was done, we would pay more taxes even in retirement. Would you? Or is the whole discussion academic for you?

I think you're nuts. All the government will do with more money is waste
it. Cut government. Cut spending. This is not rocket science, people.

JG

 

[bosco]

Isn't the correct expression "hide the weenie" and not "hide the sausage?" Maybe not....... Perhaps it's just a regional variation. Getting it hidden properly is what counts, no matter what you call it I suppose.

I'd rather have a sausage than a weenie, but I guess that's a matter of preference....

 

[JohnEyles]

I'd rather have a sausage than a weenie, but I guess that's a matter of preference....

According to Joe Esterhaus' book American Rhapsody, Clinton liked to call
it his Willard (because it's longer than Willy).

 

[Alex]

According to Joe Esterhaus' book American Rhapsody, Clinton liked to call
it his Willard (because it's longer than Willy).

actually, it is because 'willard' is the name of a rat. Poor bubba, he has his place in the history books.

 

[Alex]

Interesting that I disagreed with the Bush cut from the day it was proposed as did most of the people I know, almost all of whom disproportionately benefited. It was clear from the get-go that the tax cuts would result in increasing deficits* making it much harder to deal with the impending social security and medicare crises. I don't need SS to thrive in retirement but I do need a flourishing economy. And that is less and less likely as the trillions in debt pile ever higher.

I would support rolling all of the Bush cuts back. DW and my income will be high enough that, if that was done, we would pay more taxes even in retirement. Would you? Or is the whole discussion academic for you?

* Both the CBO and the GAO agree that while cuts do potentially stimulate activities that generate more tax, those increases will - at best - produce no more than 7% of the cuts themselves. In other words, the cuts are a net 93% loss of Federal revenue.

If you feel so strongly, why don't you voluntarily pay more taxes?

 

[youbet]

I'd rather have a sausage than a weenie, but I guess that's a matter of preference....

A sausage hung on a weenie.......interesting...... But, ah, let's just drop it.

 

[sgeeeee]

If you feel so strongly, why don't you voluntarily pay more taxes?

If you are against crime, why don't you become a police officer?

If you are against terrorism, why don't you travel to the mid-east and start fighting terrorists.

 

[Alex]

If you are against crime, why don't you become a police officer?

If you are against terrorism, why don't you travel to the mid-east and start fighting terrorists.

Simple, Because I already pay for these services in the form of TAXES. Now, If you want to pay for extra police or servicemen, you can volunteer extra money or your own time and energy. Just don't take my free time and money and volunteer it for me. If you want to raise taxes, raise them on yourself, voluntarily. I feel that I already pay enough, thank you.

.

 

[donheff]

If you feel so strongly, why don't you voluntarily pay more taxes?

Because that would have no impact on the situation. I am not going to punish myself in vain.

 

[lets-retire]

Because that would have no impact on the situation.

Good argument for not raising taxes.

 

[youbet]

I am not going to punish myself

Punish yourself? It's your privilege as a citizen to be allowed to pay taxes and a source of great joy to you!