quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

A tax increase, yes. A tax rate increase, no. It can be said to be an increase in the effective tax rates, but that's nothing more than some statistical argument. The tax brackets aren't being changed, so there is no rate increase.

Tell that to Mitt and Co when they are no longer paying 15%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

LOL

I am over it.... they wont be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Whats the point of lowering rates while deleting loopholes? It simply cancels each other out.

That would depend heavily on what the new rates were, and what loopholes got closed. Drop the rates, but lose that earned income tax credit, and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, and watch the middle class not only wind up paying more, but forcing a lot to start paying at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

LOL

I am over it.... they wont be.

Trust me....they're over it.

Now....open a vein.

Then remember one very important aspect of hiring Mr Obama for a second term:

Keep that vein open.

(Drink lots of water).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The only way to push back on the trend by which the 1% has absorbed 25% of the nation’s wealth in the years since 1979 is to make this super-wealthy cohort pay more taxes– more capital gains taxes.

Capital Gains Rate Changes Since 1978

1978; lowered from 35% to 28%
1981;lowered from 28% to 20%
1987: raised from 20% to 28%
1997: lowered from 28% to 20%
2003: lowered from 20% to 15%

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/11/12/resolving-fiscal-cliff-will-require-raising-capital-gains-tax-33/

Thats not the only solution. Cutting spending across the board and raising revenue is the only way. Far too many get away with paying next to nothing.. and Im not speaking of those who make next to nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

LOL

I am over it.... they wont be.

Trust me....they're over it.

Now....open a vein.

Then remember one very important aspect of hiring Mr Obama for a second term:

Keep that vein open.

(Drink lots of water).

Uh huh... and you are as sure about this as you were about Obama losing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

LOL

I am over it.... they wont be.

Trust me....they're over it.

Now....open a vein.

Then remember one very important aspect of hiring Mr Obama for a second term:

Keep that vein open.

(Drink lots of water).

Uh huh... and you are as sure about this as you were about Obama losing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The only way to push back on the trend by which the 1% has absorbed 25% of the nation’s wealth in the years since 1979 is to make this super-wealthy cohort pay more taxes– more capital gains taxes.

Capital Gains Rate Changes Since 1978

1978; lowered from 35% to 28%
1981;lowered from 28% to 20%
1987: raised from 20% to 28%
1997: lowered from 28% to 20%
2003: lowered from 20% to 15%

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/11/12/resolving-fiscal-cliff-will-require-raising-capital-gains-tax-33/

Thats not the only solution. Cutting spending across the board and raising revenue is the only way. Far too many get away with paying next to nothing.. and Im not speaking of those who make next to nothing.

1982....the top ten percent paid 51% of all federal tax revenues (exception: corporate taxes).

2009....the top ten percent paid 83% of all federal tax revenues (exception: corporate taxes).

Kinda tough to argue they "deserve" to pay more (even though those very same people are and have been since the mid 90's willing TO pay more....and have been arguing for a tax increase commensurate with same since the mid 90's).

The funny thing is...with all the people screaming that the wealthy should pay more...they been attempting to agree for nearly 2 decades.

Now the question is...."who is wealthy"?

But it doesn't really matter any more because.....now even the poor get to pay more.

Yeeehaaaah..

quote:

As to the certainty of higher taxes for everyone, more so as a % for lower income workers.

Yeah....that's a given.

It's not my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The only way to push back on the trend by which the 1% has absorbed 25% of the nation’s wealth in the years since 1979 is to make this super-wealthy cohort pay more taxes– more capital gains taxes.

Capital Gains Rate Changes Since 1978

1978; lowered from 35% to 28%
1981;lowered from 28% to 20%
1987: raised from 20% to 28%
1997: lowered from 28% to 20%
2003: lowered from 20% to 15%

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/11/12/resolving-fiscal-cliff-will-require-raising-capital-gains-tax-33/

Thats not the only solution. Cutting spending across the board and raising revenue is the only way. Far too many get away with paying next to nothing.. and Im not speaking of those who make next to nothing.

1982....the top ten percent paid 51% of all federal tax revenues (exception: corporate taxes).

2009....the top ten percent paid 83% of all federal tax revenues (exception: corporate taxes).

Kinda tough to argue they "deserve" to pay more (even though those very same people are and have been since the mid 90's willing TO pay more....and have been arguing for a tax increase commensurate with same since the mid 90's).

The funny thing is...with all the people screaming that the wealthy should pay more...they been attempting to agree for nearly 2 decades.

Now the question is...."who is wealthy"?

But it doesn't really matter any more because.....now even the poor get to pay more.

Yeeehaaaah..

Its not hard to argue at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

As to the certainty of higher taxes for everyone, more so as a % for lower income workers.

Yeah....that's a given.

It's not my opinion.

Something I said a few years ago. Its gonna hurt.... but hurt everyone, not just select groups.

quote:

And so, based on your thesis, I'll ask: Since the % of tax paid by the top 10% is clearly moving higher annually (and you ask for it to be higher still), which, knowing that both the deficit is rising higher annually and the amount paid by the lower 90% grows smaller....annually....at what point should those in the lower 90% pay more?

When the top 10% are paying 98% of all personal federal taxes? 100%? 125%?

quote:

Isn't there a reasonable argument to be made that possibly those in the lower 90% need to up their game? Raise their income?

quote:

Isn't there a reasonable argument to be made that possibly those in the lower 90% need to up their game? Raise their income?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

And when the landlord keeps jacking up the rent. Maybe we'll see something done about that sort of exploitation in the 2nd term, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

And so, based on your thesis, I'll ask: Since the % of tax paid by the top 10% is clearly moving higher annually (and you ask for it to be higher still), which, knowing that both the deficit is rising higher annually and the amount paid by the lower 90% grows smaller....annually....at what point should those in the lower 90% pay more?

When the top 10% are paying 98% of all personal federal taxes? 100%? 125%?

They are paying what.. 15%? Wasnt that the brag this year?

Its time we started treating all income as income and not just wages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:


double talk?!? How about you continue on with your quote? I acknowledged in my very next sentence that would be a tax revenue increase.

How about we are supposed to trim quotes.
I addressed the part I needed too.
Yes, its double talk. I could get behind the tax loop hole being gone.... however in return we get this...

quote:

Boehner, the Ohio Republican who has emerged as party leader in the deficit talks, agrees to the concept of increased revenue, though he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky both remain opposed to actually raising tax rates.
Instead, they propose broad tax reform that will lower rates while eliminating unspecified loopholes and exemptions to spur economic growth that they say will result in more overall government revenue.

Whats the point of lowering rates while deleting loopholes? It simply cancels each other out.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

One of the things I really liked about Ryan's budget plan was that spending was capped at the previous year's revenues. So, each time revenue rose, it would lower the National Debt by the $$ amount of the increase. Commit to something like that, and then actually making the economy rock and roll becomes the way to increase revenues.