Obama States 'You Don't Raise Taxes' in a Bad Economy

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by gulflover

Well, that and the fact that a sales tax is inherently regressive.

No, it's not. Please read fairtax.org. You will learn something.

[JD Barleycorn]

I'm sorry but you've fallen for the red herring. This is not about taxes on anyone. This is about spending. You can tax everyone at 100% and it won't pay the budget for one year, and you can't do it again.
This about cutting spending and we all know that Obama is the all time champion of spending. Greater than Bush, greater than LBJ, greater than Clinton, and even greater than FDR. You pathological Bush haters can squeal all you want but it is Obama spending that is driving this country into the ditch that Obama made popular. His next term we will grab a front loader and bury us all in debt.
That is the reason that the Senate has not come up with a budget. A budget would imply some sort of accountability. The current practice is just to spend and spend.

[nwarounder]

The wealthy do not care if taxes get raised on them. What is so hard to understand about that? As long as the loopholes stay intact, it will not effect them. If you actually read the buffet rule, it EXCLUDES the tax hike on all trusts, and what wealthy person doesn't have his wealth in a multitude of trusts or overseas already. Truly sad that Americans fall for this political stupidity on a daily basis.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

The wealthy do not care if taxes get raised on them. What is so hard to understand about that? As long as the loopholes stay intact, it will not effect them. If you actually read the buffet rule, it EXCLUDES the tax hike on all trusts, and what wealthy person doesn't have his wealth in a multitude of trusts or overseas already. Truly sad that Americans fall for this political stupidity on a daily basis.

Buffett is a clown. He uses every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes and then complains because he isn't paying high enough taxes. His company Berkshire-Hathaway has been fighting the IRS in court for years over hundreds of millions in unpaid taxes. Buffett is paid a token salary as CEO of Berkshire-Hathaway and is paid in stock options and other ways that aren't subject to an income tax. He's like a lot of rich liberals that claim to support higher taxes for the rich.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'm sorry but you've fallen for the red herring. This is not about taxes on anyone. This is about spending. You can tax everyone at 100% and it won't pay the budget for one year, and you can't do it again.
This about cutting spending and we all know that Obama is the all time champion of spending. Greater than Bush, greater than LBJ, greater than Clinton, and even greater than FDR. You pathological Bush haters can squeal all you want but it is Obama spending that is driving this country into the ditch that Obama made popular. His next term we will grab a front loader and bury us all in debt.
That is the reason that the Senate has not come up with a budget. A budget would imply some sort of accountability. The current practice is just to spend and spend.

The primary problem is definitely out of control spending. I think that major tax reform is also important. The Fair Tax makes sense to me. I think it would help to revitalize the economy by letting people keep their whole paycheck. Taxing income was a bad idea from the start. When you tax something you discourage the activity. We have high taxes on alchohol and tobacco because society benefits from discouraging those activities. Taxing income discourages work; that's the last thing we want to do. The harder you work the higher the tax rate; the less you work the lower your tax rate. Our tax system is like a dog owner who gives his dog a treat every time he craps on the carpet and punishes him when he doesn't do it.

[CJ7]

days past

Reagan cut taxes for the top 2% and left office in front of a recession
Bush1 raised taxes ... the world didnt come to an end
Clinton kept Bush tax policy going ... the world didnt come to an end
Bush 43 cut taxes 3 times and left office at the start of the deepest recession since the depression


apparently history says two things ... live with the economic pitfalls of tax cuts and bitch about the world ending ... or live in a somewhat better enviornment and bitch about high taxes

[gulflover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, it's not. Please read fairtax.org. You will learn something.

Eh, that's one version of a sales tax, and it's got nearly as many manipulations as the current income tax code, with its prebates and all, in order to iron out the inherent regressiveness in its system.

Note, I didn't say it wasn't a viable solution, perhaps even a necessary one, but the fact remains that imposing the same tax rate on people with vast disparities of income is inherently regressive. It just is. And the line that says "Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. " really takes the cake, because of course the wealthy spend more on the basics. But what percentage of their income do they spend on the basics? I guarantee you the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on basic necessities than the wealthy. Which is what makes such things regressive.

Disclaimer: I make my (meager) living preparing income tax returns, so I'll never be able to shed the label of bias.

[CJ7]

pretty strange the right favors a fair tax since a fair tax has the propensity to support social programs more than the current system does

just sayin

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

pretty strange the right favors a fair tax since a fair tax has the propensity to support social programs more than the current system does

just sayin

I think most everyone favors a tax system that is fair, except the politicians.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

????

(Have no idea where the $800K came from.)

Is anyone really acting like $800K is more than $40 billion? I know that a lot of people suffer from serious cases of innumeracy, and that our educational system has gone to hell, but geeeeez!



I doubt it, too (in the unlikely event that he gets elected.)

Mitt's platform is very simple: It's about Mitt being president! And should he become president, it will be all about him remaining president. So he'll pander and pay off any constituency he feels can help him. (Of course, the same is true of Obama as well.)



Obama will undoubtedly try to raise taxes, but only within the framework of maintaining his 2008 campaign promise of avoiding tax increases on everyone making below $250K per year. But I think he'll have trouble even doing that. Republicans have locked themselves in with Norquist's anti-tax pledge, so they'll expend all their political capital to block any such attempt.



Yes, but I think you're leaving out the biggest gorilla of all -- namely, Medicare. If we don't reform the system and do something about the trajectory of health care cost increases, this monster will devour us all.

I don't believe for a minute that anyone in either of our free-lunch parties is going to do anything before the onset of the next crisis, which I believe is likely to be very ugly. That's why for years now I've advised investors to exercise great caution.

I agree with all you have said. To bad most folks do not have a clue

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by gulflover

Eh, that's one version of a sales tax, and it's got nearly as many manipulations as the current income tax code, with its prebates and all, in order to iron out the inherent regressiveness in its system.

Note, I didn't say it wasn't a viable solution, perhaps even a necessary one, but the fact remains that imposing the same tax rate on people with vast disparities of income is inherently regressive. It just is. And the line that says "Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. " really takes the cake, because of course the wealthy spend more on the basics. But what percentage of their income do they spend on the basics? I guarantee you the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on basic necessities than the wealthy. Which is what makes such things regressive.

Disclaimer: I make my (meager) living preparing income tax returns, so I'll never be able to shed the label of bias.

I would appreciate it if you could explain how the FairTax has as many "manipulations" as our current code. The only one you mentioned was the prebate, which essentially allows everyone to purchase their basic needs free of any tax whatsoever. What other "manipulations" are there? How do the loopholes in the current code compare with "loopholes" in the FairTax?

[gulflover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I would appreciate it if you could explain how the FairTax has as many "manipulations" as our current code. The only one you mentioned was the prebate, which essentially allows everyone to purchase their basic needs free of any tax whatsoever. What other "manipulations" are there? How do the loopholes in the current code compare with "loopholes" in the FairTax?

Poor wording on my part. I meant it is as susceptible to manipulations as our current code. You know the polticians would tinker with the prebates and exemptions and what is a service and what the definition of "used" is and on and on.

I would appreciate if you could explain this. From their FAQ :
"Why not just exempt necessities from the FairTax instead of providing for a rebate?

The prebate is the most equitable and most efficient way to make the FairTax progressive. If the FairTax were to exempt necessities, the tax rate would have to be 20 percent higher than the FairTax rate with a prebate."

My reading of that is that it admits that a flat sales tax is inherently regressive. They've had to tinker with it in order not to unduly penalize the poor. Is this not correct?

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by gulflover

Disclaimer: I make my (meager) living preparing income tax returns, so I'll never be able to shed the label of bias.

So you will have to find a new line of work if the Fair Tax were to ever be enacted. Along with almost every person that is currently employed by the IRS.

Originally Posted by CJ7

pretty strange the right favors a fair tax since a fair tax has the propensity to support social programs more than the current system does

just sayin

Incorrect CJ. The Fair Tax has nothing to do with how the revenues will be spent, only how they are collected. The spending issues will still have to be tackled in any event.

[CuteOldGuy]

Actually, Gulf, I would prefer exempting necessities from the FairTax rather than the prebate. I don't like the prebate, but it is still much preferable to our current system. And there is no way the prebate can become as convoluted as our current system.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gulflover

The prebate is the most equitable and most efficient way to make the FairTax progressive. If the FairTax were to exempt necessities, the tax rate would have to be 20 percent higher than the FairTax rate with a prebate."

My reading of that is that it admits that a flat sales tax is inherently regressive. They've had to tinker with it in order not to unduly penalize the poor. Is this not correct?

Your reading is correct. Not sure why they will not admit it