Associated Press
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a staunch conservative and senior House Republican, believes it's time for his caucus to take President Obama's offer on middle class tax cuts. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) offered a predictable response.
"I told Tom earlier in our conference meeting that I disagreed with him," Boehner told reporters after a closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference. "He's a wonderful friend of mine and a great supporter of mine. But raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent -- half of those people are small-business owners that pay their taxes through their personal income tax filing every year. The goal here is to grow the economy and to cut spending.
"We're not going to grow the economy if we raise tax rates on the top two rates," the Speaker added.
There's quite a bit wrong with Boehner's analysis -- including his misguided understanding of small businesses -- but let's pause for a moment to take a stroll down memory lane.
About two years ago, Washington was in a similar position. President Obama wanted to keep tax breaks in place on income up to $250,000, while allowing Clinton-era rates on higher income, while Boehner wanted lower rates on all income, no matter the cost. On "Face the Nation," the House Republican leader slipped and accidentally said what was actually on his mind.
Asked whether he could back lower tax rates on the middle class, while allowing breaks for the wealthy to expire on schedule, Boehner said, "If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for them."
In other words, if Obama's offer of tax breaks for 98% of the country was the best Boehner could get out of the White House, he'd take it.
Soon after, Boehner was told by his caucus that his position was unacceptable, and he quickly backpedaled, but not before we got a good look at the Republican leader's instincts.
Ultimately, Boehner thought Obama could be persuaded, and they worked out a deal that extended the lower rates. But 2012 isn't 2010. The question then becomes how long it'll take for the Speaker to once again conclude, "If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for them."
Leave a Comment:
Rachael did a bit on how a lot of huge businesses claim small business scam/tax benefit.
Ha Haa , Yogi-Boner ~ What a DEEEEEK !
It is all a chess game to these politicians- and WE are the sacrificial pawns!
And in a bold move they have removed the majority of the pawns they had. Was this a show of confidence and daring or of ignorance and arrogance?
The red queen is on her head.
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/red_states_vs_blue_states_guess_who_wins_in_number_of_per_capita_auto_fatal
To an extent that mystifies safety experts and other observers, federal statistics show that people in red states are more likely to die in road crashes. The least deadly states – those with the fewest crash deaths per 100,000 people – overwhelmingly are blue.
Every one, including the top 2% would get a tax cut if the Bush rates expire and are then reinstated for taxable income below $250,000, they just wouldn't be getting as much of a cut.
I wrote the following on the first post about Cole's comments, but that thread appears to be dead, so I'm reposting it here:
I agree with a post I read yesterday (sorry, don't know who gets the credit) where it was stated that Republicans would likely let the Bush tax cuts expire and then agree to give those cuts on income below $250,000. In this way they can say they didn't raise taxes. What wasn't stated, however, is that they still get to say that they cut the tax rate for all Americans, including the "job creators." They would be cutting the average tax rate on all taxpayers, but cut the marginal tax rate on those with taxable income < $250,000. Once the Bush cuts expire, all rates will revert to the Clinton-Era rates. If the Bush cuts are re-enacted on income up to $250,000, the "job creators" with taxable income exceeding that amount will have an average tax rate that is lower than under Clinton, even though the marginal rate will be the same. It might be somewhat disingenuous for Repubs to make this claim, but hey, they've got no problem with dishonesty.
Hopefully they will up the capital gains rates, some of which are 0%, 5% and 10%. They need to go up, way up.
As an aside, one of the articles yesterday linked to the "Tea Party News Network (TPNN)" site. Scary, I know. So I took a look at it and they had a link to an article on why Warren Buffett is wrong about how increasing tax rates will not dissuade investors from investing. The link went to some other nutjob site (not going to bother to find it again) and their argument was that taxes are to stop behaviors, like a cigarette tax or liquor tax is assessed so that people will use less of them, therefore increasing taxes on income will cause people to make less income. I couldn't believe I was reading something with such a simplistic understanding of taxation. To compare an income tax to a consumption or "sin" tax is moronic. As long as the tax rate isn't 100%, you will always be better off earning an extra dollar than not bothering to earn it because some of it will be taxed. I didn't read the whole article because I felt I was stupider for having read as far as I did. I had to play some soduko to shake the numbness that was clouding my brain.
Waren Buffett blew the doors off that on charlie rose last night Brewer , he said in the 40 years of investing he never met one person who would not invest because they did not want to pay the taxes surrounding the investment , he basically said that claim was the deepest pile of horse @!$%# he ever heard come out of a persons mouth , but the gop will say it any way , it is their main economic policy after all
Something that seems to escape the understanding of most people is the idea that a marginal tax rate only applies to income above a certain threshold. I don't know why it's so mysterious, but it is.
As long as the tax rate isn't 100%, you will always be better off earning an extra dollar than not bothering to earn it because some of it will be taxed. I didn't read the whole article because I felt I was stupider for having read as far as I did.
Right. You think people shouldn't care whether they are working extra hours for eighty cents on the dollar or five cents on the dollar? And you're calling the author stupid?
Shooter, think about what you're saying. The line that's being drawn, at $250K in income, is a little over $20K a month. To some people, that's a lot of money. I believe the proposed change is 35% to 39% on those dollars above the threshold.
So you sit down to do your taxes and you've already taken your personal exemption, fluffed up your un-reimbursed business expenses and charitable donations and subtracted your full year's mortgage interest expense and property tax, not to mention your thousands of dollars in healthcare insurance you've received invisibly from your employer. And now you're down to the bare bones $250K number. (I'm not feeling sorry for you.)
Those additional hours aren't 5 cents or 80 cents on the dollar, you're just giving up four more cents on each additional dollar you earn. Don't you think you have enough already?
Douchebag242,
I realize nearly every single comment of yours is corrected, debunked or outright laughed at, so it comes as no surprise that your infantile reply displays your complete lack of reading comprehension skills. Is English your native language?
I never said that people shouldn't care whether they are working extra hours to earn 80 cents on the dollar or 5 cents on the dollar. Rather than throwing out an arbitrary number to depict what one would find as a suitable tax rate to make earning worth their while, I simply stated that earning income with any rate less than 100% would make one better off. It was hyperbole. I really wasn't referring to working anyway, since the article I mentioned was about Buffett and investing (there's that lack of reading comprehension thing coming into play for you) but even if referencing a wage earner what I wrote is correct - if someone worked to earn an extra $100 and got to only keep $5 after taxes, he's still better off by $5. He might not be happy about it and he probably could have used his time better, but that wasn't the point and these considerations are less important when discussing investing, but that would be in context, and you have even less of an understanding about that.
Here is another example of how clueless gop voters like shooter are ..... not one REAL gop investor will ever pay a higher tax , than what a worker pays on over time taxes , yet not one of you losers would stand up and say we need to cut those taxes , poseur
JL, I was responding to the nitwit who thinks people don't value their free time. As for your opinion about whether or not I'm worthy of keeping more of my earnings...
Greed isn't wanting to keep more of what one earns, greed is coveting those earnings for yourself.
I'm worthy of keeping more of my earnings...
Not going by you under whelming posts in here any way
@JL going from a marginal tax rate of 35% to 39% reduces the value of each additional dollar taxed from 65 cents to 61 cents on the dollar .
That's still "four more cents," any way you want to frame it, Mr. Bacon.
And Shooter, I hope you can empathize with someone who's making, let's say, $30K or $40K a year. He or she may be working hard to make that much money, even working two or three jobs to get there.
It's hard for that person to comprehend the tragedy of someone having to give up four more cents of each dollar earned over $250,000. Because that someone probably didn't have to choose the about-to-be-thrown-out package of hamburger at the grocery store or hope his clunker makes it one more month on the drive in to work.
There's a whole world of difference between living on $40K and $250K a year.
The guy making $250k is already subsidizing the other person's tax bill. The 1% alone pay 37% of the income tax. Double their income share. And yet you want more? I'm sorry but yes, that is greedy.
Everything is relative. To a person in Sudan, $40k/yr is untold riches. Everyone should contribute something even if just $100.
Are you aware that the reason many people at the bottom of the economic ladder do not end up owing income tax is that they've been granted certain tax credits (earned income credit, etc.) that Republicans preferred to incorporate rather than handing over cash sums to these people who were not making enough to support themselves and their families?
And your comparison with $40K a year in Sudan is just way off base. Their way of life and related cost of living has a completely different structure than ours. My cost for groceries for a single person is $400 a month, for example. How would you possibly feed a family for under $1,000? Utilities are going to set you back $200 or so, adequate housing has to be another $800. A car if you don't live near public transportation costs money to operate and maintain, and if you do have access to transportation, it ain't cheap. Your shoes and clothes wear out eventually and have to be replaced. And still you pay taxes, but your taxes are cutting into the quick, as opposed to Ms. $250K's, where she won't be able to afford that second show horse's training.
What universe are you living in?
Your statement is completely gop delusional once again shooter , so how much am I subsidizing romney when his tax rate is 12% , and mine is 28% ?
And by the way , he would not bother to piss on you if you were on fire , yet you stand in traffic for him daily , the brown nose voters
You know Boner is right -- Clinton raised the top marginal rates, and the country collapsed. GWB gave millionaires and billionaires big tax cuts, and the economy grew and grew and grew and grew.
I don't know why you liberals try to debate it -- the facts are right there. We lived through it. Do you think we're stupid, that we don't remember??
Oh, wait....
Clinton had a growing economy. The top 2% won't even notice a 4% increase. The top 2% are orven not to bet the "job creaters". If they were, after 9 years there would be 2 jobs for everybody. History bears out the tax decreases don't work.
Didn't the economy just grow to the sky under Bush?
That would be the DEBT that grew to the sky under Bush's policies, not the ECONOMY... unless you limit your attention to firms like Blackwater and Halliburton, who did an excellent business wrecking a nation and providing many recruits to Al Qaeda.
Right. Tax increases brought prosperity.
If that's really the case then shouldn't you be promoting tax increases on everybody?
They should go up overall... on those who can afford them. Since the lower and middle class are struggling, and the upper are doing just fine, guess what that means?
Everybody should pay something toward the Federal income tax burden. Especially the 47% that don't currently. The rich don't have enough money to cover your bills.
You may have missed out on the data point: the rich are AMONG those who don't pay any federal income tax. If the dear Mr. Romney didn't have speaking income, he'd have paid none, only his pitifully-low capital gains rate. So, it's not the rich who are shouldering the burden of the income tax revenue so manfully, but people like me (and possibly you, but somehow I think a troll's pay is in cash and under the table).
shooter wants to tax retired veterans and grand pa and grand ma on social security , while excusing the romneys who pay 1/2 the rate as the working class , pretty scummy dude
And yet, Romney owes some $2 million in income taxes for last year.
How much did you contribute to the general welfare? I'm getting tired of the bigotry people like you spew 24/7/365. Why don't you take the quiz on the left and get an education. Romney is an exception, he isn't representative. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html
Like most on the left you're obsessed with symbolism and adherence to progressive dogma. In short, nothing tangible. The reality is that Romney paid actual money, and a lot of it. You whine he isn't being fair, yet I see more actual dollars from Romney than you'll likely contribute in your lifetime.
The 1% pay 34% of the entire income tax load while making half that share in income. And yet you want more, more, more. Greed isn't wanting to keep more of what one earns, greed is coveting those earnings for yourself.
OF COURSE the top 1% pays 34% of the load. It is both good policy and good common sense for the top income earners to pay a disproportionate amount. Do you really think that the bottom 33% of income earners could manage to pay for 33% of the budget? They literally DO NOT MAKE enough money in their paychecks for that - it would be a tax rate of over 100%.
By making that argument you're basically implying that a regressive tax scheme would somehow be "more fair" and that's either incredibly naive or intellectually dishonest. Progressive taxation is used because taking $10,000 from someone who earns $500,000 a year hurts a LOT less than taking $10,000 from someone who earns $50,000 a year. For the former, it's an inconvenience; for the latter, it could easily mean the difference between keeping or losing a home.
Don't talk to us about "symbolism" and "adherence to dogma" when you're basically advocating forcing people into poverty instead of taking an extra 10 grand from someone who makes half a million a year.
The rich should pay a larger portion of the total tax burden because they have the larger portion of the income.
According to 'Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class' by political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson
"Most of the gains of economic growth since the 1970s have gone to the top 1% of Americans, and most of that to the top 0.1%. While the share of America's income gains between 1979 and 2005 for the bottom middle- and lower-income 60% of the population was just 13.5% (and most of that gain came from working longer hours), the top 0.1% share was over 20%. In other words, the top 300,000 Americans gained half again as large a slice of income as the bottom 180 million."
People used to say "love it or leave it" when someone complained in this country. I have to wonder why they hate their country so much. They are free to leave it if, it's that bad.
Mexico has pretty low individual tax rates:
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/mexico/mexico_taxes.asp
We had people very happy they had been successful when tax rates were MUCH higher than now.
That is a badly flawed analogy to make that the high income pay more of its share, yet those of us that have paid into Medicare and SS must pay more or lose before their rate (on a very high income, I'd say) ticks up 3 or 4 points on the amount over $250K.
I'll repost what Joan in Sacramento post, the CRS report that Repugs don;t want people to see: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
It's pretty obvious what the end game is going to be: we'll go over the fiscal cliff (bump) and then Republicans, just as Patti Murray says, can vote for tax cuts for the 98% and they will do so, passing the bill already passed by the Senate. But then they'll refuse to raise the debt ceiling or even discuss a Grand Bargain unless the cuts are also extended to the top 2%. It's their MO and no amount of pressure from Obama, Congressional Democrats or the public will budge them. They're not up for re-election until 2014 and they don't give a rat's ass if the nation's credit rating is downgraded. In DC, with House Republicans, it's always Groundhog Day.
In regards to the those in Congress (Willard too, I'll bet) that signed the Norquist pledge:
They love their ideology more than they love their Country. - Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY)
Love it when he comes out in public and speaks his mind. <vbs>
Perhaps the Republicans should watch this clip of Reagan.
http://front.moveon.org/the-one-reagan-quote-that-republicans-dont-talk-about/
Very good Pamela. I guarantee you will not see that on fixed news.
Maybe S&P can lower our credit rating again due to instability
Oops, the word your looking for is insanity, not instability.
The Right Wing Congressional Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist a boneheaded lobbyist destroying America, and in his deep pockets from which I’m influenced, one congressman under control, influenceable, with no morals or ethics at all.
Quick note...Go to fixthefilibuster.com and sign Senator Merkley's petition.
Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is call what again? Oh yeah, Boehner rhetoric
We have to feel sorry for Boehner who is caught in a vise between reality and the hard right. If he is lucky he will lose the House Speaker title next January and Cantor will take over and really muck everything up. Then Boehner can come back and say "I told you so" to the fools who keep pushing him into untenable positions.
Dear John Bonehead,
Not only are you bad at your job, you are a traitor to 98% of working Americans! Bad enough that you weren't prosecuted while handing out checks from big tobacco on the floor of Congress back in the day, your obfuscations do not hold up and you sir are the whore & a traitor as you betray US for your pimps! Maybe that's why you drink so much, you can no longer look at yourself in the mirror - well good! You need to quit the Congress, don't worry as you will still receive your pension for the sloppy job that you've done, and probably more than you deserve! Go home, just go away, because you and your caucus of know nothings are terrible for America and working Americans!
Well done! (applause)
Aw, heck, Zora... Tell us what you REALLY feel...
Boehner only does what the puppet masters demand! More and more exposure of those masters and their dirty tricks is needed! The public can break their strangle hold!
When I win the Powerball, the first thing I'm going to buy is John Boehner.
You could do that now if you have some spare change in your pocket.
Honestly, he's probably not worth two cents.
A piece of bell-button lint would be overpaying.
The top 2% consist of about 400 people out of 10 of millions of Americans. 400 people. That is all. They should be taxed by a larger percentage of their income, or we as Americans could well do without the whole lot of them.
Actually, look at IRS stats... they are do pay a larger tax rate...
the top 1% pay an average rate of 24%
the top 10% pay an average rate of 18%
the top 50% pay an average rate of 12.5%
the bottom 50% pay an average rate of 1.85%
Hard to believe, Lisap. The bottom tax bracket is $1 to $8,700 and it's 10%. Are you trying to say that 50% of the people in the United States make below $8,700, after deductions and expenses? Really??
Go the the IRS website. I get my stats from the government sites.
Really ? when did they raise capital gains to 24% ? I guess you missed the whole election thingy and romney paying some where between 11% ,,,,,,,, and zero when his caymen accounts were added , it is like the election details were never vetted in wingerville , imagine that?
An actual member of the top 400 , Mr Buffett , repeatedly tells wingerville he polls his workers every year , and confirms he pays less in taxes than they do every time , it is easier for them to stay stupid and believe the lies I guess
IRS stats Patango... average tax rate is 24%... I prefer to deal with stats instead of rhetoric.
Your the clue less one honey , those are one of the rates , but what people actually pay is a completely different story , there is pay roll , capital gains , and income taxes , your only presenting one while TRYING to tell everyone that is it , so " try and fail " again sister
Lisafp you are confusing average tax rates and marginal tax rates - they're not the same thing.
Sal L, 2% of taxpayers (137 million) is 2,740,000... not 400. Gad.
Lisa, welcome to the bubble where never is heard a contrary word. You have to hand feed the willfully ignorant. The link will help.
Brewer, Lisa quoted you the effective/average rate, not the marginal rate. Don't be gullible.
http://taxfoundation.org/article_ns/summary-2009-federal-individual-income-tax-data
No, I found the page where Lisafp pulled her info. I'd post a link, but I don't have that permission on this site yet. They're numbers for CY2009, the most current data available.
If it weren't so late, I'd have more to say on the subject. I'll leave it that those numbers are the ones written on the page, but there's a story they tell and the nuance they represent has been lost without adequate labels. (It's not quite so simple as saying the top 1% had an average tax rate of 24%. The question is 24% of what?)
You know, the role of a data analyst is to turn facts into data and data into information. Facts alone are pretty much worthless.
contrary word
When your contrary word ends up being twisted logic that makes no sense 99% of the time , I would say you have every right to complain about coming up short all the time shooter , it must be discouraging
You get props for digging out the real data. Surprised at what you see, yes?
So, they are telling us we are not going to grow the economy if we raise tax rates on rich because Boehner and Limpy said so?
I have to ask what country am I living in? Is this not the U.S. the land of opportunity? Are these folks seriously trying to hold us all hostage again for their tax cuts? They have to hold the gun to the heads of seniors so they can keep middle class tax rates? Ridiculous!
They are in no position to keep digging that hole to expose their true selves as FDR haters and aristocracy shills. They think they can get elected by promising Koch. Adelson, lobbyists perks. Then framing the message with "better words" and show some women and people of color now and then. Sheesh… De Nile not just a river in Egypt.
They actually think they can say no, the people did not vote for tax rate hikes on the rich? How do they figure that? They are still looking for a weapon to use against the voters.
Ryan says he thinks their message was popular. But Ryan, you lost and there were more votes for Democrats in House seats than Repugs. There were abundant lies that people believed and voted. But the truth prevailed, these things are NOT popular, popular is tax fairness, raising rates on high incomes.
The truth has a nasty habit of persistently resurfacing.
Okay... everybody does realize that this fight is over generating income (via letting the tax cuts expire for the top 1%) to fund the government for 8 1/2 days... right?
FDR haters? Aristocracy shills? I see this as being about bringing government spending under control. Asking for MEANINGFUL spending cuts as part of the deal seems rather realistic. Why just raise revenues to get sucked into the black hole that is our government?
Let's see... government outlays since 2008 have risen by 21%. 21% in four years... that's sustainable? The annual deficit has risen by 65% ...
Let's be real people. We are on a spending trajectory that cannot be maintained.
Isn't it rather self serving for politicians to keep making promises that our pocketbooks can't afford to keep?
I disagree with most of what you've written here. Experts (and I mean Nobel laureates) agree that pure capitalism in the form of trickle down growth doesn't work, just as pure communism doesn't work. That's why the Soviet Union flat-lined and China is flourishing.
So when the private sector slows down, the proper action for government is to support the economy by temporarily increasing its spending. Not doing so brings about the austerity horrors we're witnessing in Greece and Spain. Before that, it was the Lost Decade in Japan.
It was never intended that this spending trajectory would be maintained forever. It's temporary. Someone has to prime the pump to keep economic activity limping along until there's enough momentum to sustain healthy growth. It's not rocket science but something every voting-age American should understand.
The austerity budgets in Greece and Spain came about because of a repeated denial that they were on an unsustainable trajectory. They're broke.
Perhaps we should listen and learn before we end up in the same boat.
Certainly discretionary spending needs to be brought back under control but it's not rocket science to note that we have established a level of entitlement spending that in no way can be viewed as "temporary". This remains the big deficit - debt issue.
It is not hard Lisa , your gop put tax cuts and 2 wars on the credit card , did you imagine we would never have to pay for all that with interest ? now it is time to pay it off , and your parties solution is to cut food stamps etc? GOP budget sense is right up their with their economy sense
And the OVER LAYS is just gop economic snake oil , the cbo shows once the economy amps up again , people get off the gov dole , and we pay down the debt , they will return to normal....save the carpet bagging for the trolls you hang out with , and who will actully buy that rookie spew
Limpy says that FDR is DEAD and we're in the process of doing something about his policies, so that to me sounds like an FDR hater. He still seems to be on the air, so there must be a market for his b.s?
As for aristocracy shills, the folks that want to manipulate government toward the upper levels and cut for lower levels seem to be promoting an aristocracy. They want people to have to wait in long, long lines to vote and if they have to get out of line or don't have a photo ID, even if they voted in the same place for decades they cannot vote?
They want to eliminate voting days and purge voter rolls.
It seems the representation wants to now direct the President on everything, after wtp elected him. Susan Rice, no no, insufficient answers and not too bright (Oxford-hello?) oh no, we'd tell him to nominate Kerry.
And those tax increases for the rich were just immaterial to the reelection of President Obama-totally a fluke and those "other people" voted, not the ones that know how the country needs to go. Forget those voters, they only want gifts.
And yes, snark is freely flowing above.
I've said it before and I just want to hear some Rep. say those tax cuts and war spending ran up the national debt-big time. And it was not the seniors and baby boomers that led to the financial crisis that has been drawn out with these refusals to do what the President said he wanted and was elected overwhelmingly to do, raise tax rates on above $250 4 years ago.
But no, they were too busy fanning flames of partisan obstruction of JOB bills and calling for birth certificates, genuflecting to Grover Norquist and kicking sand in American workers' faces while they are being foreclosed upon.
What a bunch of bums, trying to make sure the Koch Bros, Trump and Adelson keep low taxes, put the onus on Middle Incomes and below to pay for their spending spree that was borrowed all through the 2000-sies with a drummed up war that left OBL on the loose.
Yes, they hate FDR and he welcomed their hatred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU
http://www.therationalradical.com/transcripts/133transcript-tenforobama.htm
http://republicandirtytricks.com/step-into-my-parlor-said-the-republicans-to-the-working-class/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980973/-It-Almost-Happened-Here
JL, Japan has been priming the pump for two decades now. They owe over 200% of the GDP. The interest on that debt consumes every penny of income tax paid by the citizenry. It isn't working, and shoots the expert's theory out of the water. Like japan we aren't experiencing a regular recession. This is a debt-driven recession. Big difference.
You're just spewing hot air, Shooter. The graph of Japan's economic health for the 1990s is a W: downward trend followed by government support that was pulled back too soon, so another downward trend until the government's spending was reinstated and left in place until adequate recovery. They could've just left businesses to fend for themselves and government operatives to line their pockets until they were as bankrupt as Greece. I suppose that would have been one solution.
Shootie, I refer you to the link above that states the Grover Norquist plan to rid the country of the New Deal FDR safety nets. It's a PLANNED debt that was exacerbated by tax cuts while borrowing to fund multiple wars off the budget.
here, http://www.therationalradical.com/transcripts/133transcript-tenforobama.htm just read the first few paragraphs, it discusses the Limpy quote and the Norquist "run up debt" and cut social programs. Boy, Bush/Cheney went gung ho on spending and people now just say "you can't blame Bush". Yes we can. It's what they want to do, they just know they can't sell it to voters. They have to lie, distract and obstruct. And people fall for this stuff?
WW11 got the economy back on track, but we had people sacrificing, pitching in and not cutting taxes for rich. The big secret that gets revealed once in awhile is that they do HATE the social programs that people love.
Rmoney let it slip with his disdain for those people that want "gifts".
Here, credit Joan in Sacramento for the (not so) "secret" CRS report. #19.2
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
The CRS link is dead. Got another?
Try it again, I'm not having a problem with it.
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
Can I just say something about this myth of the Job Creators' hardship over the tax increase on income above $250K?
We keep hearing that these small business owners won't be able to hire more people because they'll be so strapped with all the tax they're paying, but really, think about it. If you hire someone for your business, their salary and benefits are counted as a business operating expense and so would be deducted from the income of the business before the owner calculates his AGI. Tax is only paid on the AGI--that is, after expenses are subtracted from the gross income.
We're really talking apples and oranges here. That person is still making over $250K per year--after expenses. So I say a little extra tax is entirely appropriate.
Your net revenue is your profit but it also represents the maximum amount of cash that you have available to invest back into the business in order to grow it.
But they haven't put it back into the business, which is why they're paying tax on it. They're keeping it as income. Surely a business owner with $250K net profit is savvy enough to invest before the tax deadline and so capture those dollars before paying his tax.
And another point, as has been pointed out here recently, up to $250K in income would remain at current tax rates, if the Obama proposal is followed. It's only the 250,001st dollar and the rest that would get a slightly higher tax. Don't you think that $250,000 for a single ($500,000 for married filing jointly) is enough to live on before you start paying higher percentage of your income as tax?
Reasonably speaking, you need to have a level of cushion especially if you are an employer.
I operate a partnership so just have to deal with my business partner and myself but moving into 2013 I saw our health insurance costs alone increase by 12%. I cannot predict how other costs of operating my business will increase over the next year. Certainly when gas is high, everything else goes up. And... the businesses that hire us have less money so we get crunched again.
Not so simple...
Not so simple...
Yet your people have determined a 3% increase on INCOME ONLY MADE ABOVE $250,000 a year will ruin everything , go figure
Guess what, my premiums also went way up. Why? Costs are higher. There is supposed to be regulation of insurance companies to rein in costs to be 80% must be toward health care.
You could have counted on increased insurance costs continuing for as long as you can pay it, unless someone says, enough. This is unsustainable.
The President does something and they call him every name in the book.
In CA we have insurance commissioner for keeping insurance companies honest.
We absorb costs of ER health care by paying higher premiums. Are we going to just let the them charge whatever they want and stock dividends go up and up?
Yes, I want some reasonable stuff to keep us all from getting crunched everywhere we turn because people think it's too much government to regulate them. Well, just look at Great Depression banks ran wild, well look at 2008, ran wild leading up to that crash. BP, I shudder to think about the MONTHS of oil gushing and is it really being monitored still?
I want to be less oil dependent, but no every time that climate change comes up someone says "oh, it's weather". We can have jobs in renewable energy.
The Affordable Care Act should have addressed tort reform and portability accross state lines to encourage competition. That would have assisted greatly with addressing cost containment.
I think it would be a good idea to read about the act and see what it has done and will do.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
The law is in effect, that is reality. What should be done is not seeing what is before you now, but trying to alter it.
Tort reform is only going to allow businesses to weigh the advantage of doing what is right against the chance they would get sued. Some businesses might say, if that risk is a maximum of (X), then the odds might justify cutting a corner or two because of the savings. Yes, there are some that would not care if they got a black eye or someone died, they are still profitable.
As far as state lines, I thought that we already had that, with each state having their regulations as it is?
I n CA, we have an elected Insurance Commissioner.
I get my insurance from Connecticut and having Kaiser Permanente (sorry, not meant to advertise), they have Northern Ca and Southern CA and when I was in Virginia, I was seen at Kaiser with my insurance, so…
Caveat, I am not in the insurance industry, but a layperson's knowledge.
Not meant to be rude or insulting, but it's time to say, this is the law we have and how to work within it.
I think the pizzas are going to go up by 15 cents a pizza. I also think premiums will be coming down or not go up as much as they would have without this law.
Another alcoholic douchebag.. I've been one before, I know what I'm talking about.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30835791@N07/3295727824/in/set-72157614241935013/
Nobody ever offers me 98 percent of what I want, for free. If they did, the answer would be YES.
The Republicans have lost any hope of achieving credibility. It has degraded to a state of immaturity.
If you look back over the 4yrs. Republicans have actually prolonged the start of an economic recovery just to serve their political goals. You can get more pathetic than that.
I think the real problem is the majority in charge of voting (Congress) taxes up or down fall into the upper categories making more than 250,000. They could care less about the middle class and the poor. Their interest is in maintaining what they think they deserve.