Official Fiscal Cliff Discussion

[blackzeus]

Simple:

- Raise taxes on the rich to 60/70%.

This new educated populous will be the entrepreneurs of small businesses and their employees. America would become a FUBU Nation. Only thing imported from China is rice. It will also be your new majority tax base, taxed at, well, 15-30% (no exceptions or pandering deductions for kids and such. You brought that kid into the world, you can afford it). People would have paid off their loans in maybe 10 years. The rest of their taxes would go to basic gov services, but mainly to reducing the debt. Most importantly, you would have gotten rid of the "welfare queens" and increased the workforce. Slowly but surely, the debt would reduce. May take 50 to 100 years, but it took 50-100 years for it to get to this point anyway.

But republicans dont want this. They have no problems with corporations laying off workers while recording increasing profits and dispersing said profits amongst the elite. Theyre perfectly content with the immorality of the current income/wealth disparity. I've heard from rich repubs that greed is a positive trait, and from poor repubs that excess is a gift from God .

Of course I haven't crunched the actual numbers, but I think the general premise would work. You have a fairer, less-divided, more-content America. You'd still have a lavish upper class, but now there'd be a thriving and expansive middle class, and a supporting lower class that can live comfortably while performing the menial tasks that are required in society.

You really think increasing taxes on the rich to 70% is the solution? People would turn in their citizenships tomorrow. Nikkaz been itchin' for a reason to move the factory to Brazil, you would cause an avalanche of business closings and relocations. What they do need to do is find a way to close the loopholes. GE should not be paying 0% tax, that's ridiculous. They do need to cut some services, and they do need to cut military spending.

 

[Firefly]

This is the time where Obama has to take a bold leadership role and get everyone to the table. If things collapse people will turn on him. Quickly.

 

[TrueEpic08]

You realize after a 60% federal income tax, you have another 5% tax for MC/SS, and then state + local taxes, AND THEN sales taxes.....

When its all said and done you are talking about 80-90% taxes on "the rich"... which will do nothing but encourage tax evasion and expatriation

If you made $500K a year and taxes whittled that down to $50K a year would you sit and take that? So some other people making $50K a year could pay zero taxes????

You prob should "crunch the numbers" before this goes through... makes no fcking sense

A more logical solution would be to make capital gains taxes the same curve as regular income and ditch business/corporate taxes in a revenue neutral way.....

He means marginal tax rate (see here: Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and here: Tax rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), not some absolute rate on all income. Whenever some one talks about "income tax rates," they're really talking about marginal rates on whatever subset of income falls within a certain bracket. Which in no way, shape or form works like this. As a matter of fact, the US USED to have marginal tax rates of about 80-90% on extremely high incomes until the 1980s and the tax reforms that came beyond that. No one complained until then.

Well, no one complained because they could get their low, low tax rates and oppression of the lower classes in Latin America and certain places in Southeast Asia, but that's neither here nor there.

But, of course, no one is actually going to explain this to anybody because it fukks the dominant media narrative and manufactured consensus on the "truth" of the matter. Still, the English and Philosophy post-grad should be explaining this to anybody.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

He means marginal tax rate (see here: Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and here: Tax rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), not some absolute rate on all income. Whenever some one talks about "income tax rates," they're really talking about marginal rates on whatever subset of income falls within a certain bracket. Which in no way, shape or form works like this. As a matter of fact, the US USED to have marginal tax rates of about 80-90% on extremely high incomes until the 1980s and the tax reforms that came beyond that. No one complained until then.

Well, no one complained because they could get their low, low tax rates and oppression of the lower classes in Latin America and certain places in Southeast Asia, but that's neither here nor there.

But, of course, no one is actually going to explain this to anybody because it fukks the dominant media narrative and manufactured consensus on the "truth" of the matter. Still, the English and Philosophy post-grad should be explaining this to anybody.

Come on bro I know all about marginal rates, effective rates yadda yadda

And it still doesnt matter

A 60% tax is essentially a cap on income below that margin... it makes no sense and would legitimately disincentivize investments + making more money

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Come on bro I know all about marginal rates, effective rates yadda yadda

And it still doesnt matter

A 60% tax is essentially a cap on income below that margin... it makes no sense and would legitimately disincentivize investments + making more money

Perhaps, but I don't know why you dismiss it like it's crazy talk. Like Epic said, the nation had top marginal rates between 70-91% from the late 30's I believe until about 1982 and we did relatively fine. I know the argument is there is increased global competition now, so rates have to be lower for our businesses to remain globally competitive, but I'm not convinced for sure they have to be in 35% range and they shouldn't be substantially higher. It's not like businesses are just going to be like "Damn...my taxes are too high now I'm going to stop trying to make money."

What we're doing now is not working. There's increasing debt, lack of public investment in infrastructure and tech, low revenue generation, a shrinking middle class, declining wages, and exploding income inequality since these Friedmanite ideas became status quo.

I don't know what the top marginal rate should be honestly. But I wouldn't be so dismissive. Here's a paper from two nobel laureate economists saying 70% is the optimal top marginal rate. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The fact that big corporate CEOs and their media and political surrogates are flipping out like a hike from 36% to 39% is some kind of bolshevik revolution and trying to censor nonpartisan economic research on the effects tax rates have on growth should let you know they're exaggerating like crazy because they want to keep every crumb.

I think the more important aspect of our tax policy is getting rid of loopholes and deductions as opposed to rates anyway.

 

[88m3]

Large government works projects are a great idea. I think it could really turn this country around.Americas infrastructure is in awful shape so its the perfect time.
Highways, Bridges, Tunnels, solar farms, fiber optics, hard infrastructure, coastal management.

Simplify the tax code.

Raise taxes on corporations.


low cost/free higher education and certifications


If Congress and Senate can't be progressive they should be drawn and quartered in mass at the end of each month.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Perhaps, but I don't know why you dismiss it like it's crazy talk. Like Epic said, the nation had top marginal rates between 70-91% from the late 30's I believe until about 1982 and we did relatively fine. I know the argument is there is increased global competition now, so rates have to be lower for our businesses to remain globally competitive, but I'm not convinced for sure they have to be in 35% range and they shouldn't be substantially higher. It's not like businesses are just going to be like "Damn...my taxes are too high now I'm going to stop trying to make money."

What we're doing now is not working. There's increasing debt, lack of public investment in infrastructure and tech, low revenue generation, a shrinking middle class, declining wages, and exploding income inequality since these Friedmanite ideas became status quo.

I don't know what the top marginal rate should be honestly. But I wouldn't be so dismissive. Here's a paper from two nobel laureate economists saying 70% is the optimal top marginal rate. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The fact that big corporate CEOs and their media and political surrogates are flipping out like a hike from 36% to 39% is some kind of bolshevik revolution and trying to censor nonpartisan economic research on the effects tax rates have on growth should let you know they're exaggerating like crazy because they want to keep every crumb.

I think the more important aspect of our tax policy is getting rid of loopholes and deductions as opposed to rates anyway.

The 30s were also a period of rampant lawlessness. Facing a 90% tax bill, I would not be surprised if tax evasion was the rule and not the exception. Every time top marginal rates were cut more than ~30% or so, the economy grew and revenue from the rich increased. The link you posted, if I am not mistaken, bases this whole theory off of one year of data (!?!?!?!) and a lot of statistical gymnastics. In real life whenever we cut marginal rates from like 70% to 40% the economy boomed.

Regarding what to do about taxes. I still think we should just ditch corporate taxes completely. They have the $$$ and manpower to pay as little as possible and they don't even pay that much anyway. That simplification would have a huge simple effect and could be shifted onto investors + individuals. Investors already pay the brunt of corporate taxes on their capital gains. This graph + their effective rates say it all.

Not to mention the $500B we spend annually on tax prep. For what? Our revenue is shyt. Simplify the tax code and collect that $500B as revenue.

 

[zerozero]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html?_r=0

Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

In saying this, I don’t mean to minimize the very real economic dangers posed by the so-called fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of this year if the two parties can’t reach a deal. Both the Bush-era tax cuts and the Obama administration’s payroll tax cut are set to expire, even as automatic spending cuts in defense and elsewhere kick in thanks to the deal struck after the 2011 confrontation over the debt ceiling. And the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts looks easily large enough to push America back into recession.

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.

Why? Because Republicans are trying, for the third time since he took office, to use economic blackmail to achieve a goal they lack the votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. In particular, they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even though the nation can’t afford to make those tax cuts permanent and the public believes that taxes on the rich should go up — and they’re threatening to block any deal on anything else unless they get their way. So they are, in effect, threatening to tank the economy unless their demands are met.

Mr. Obama essentially surrendered in the face of similar tactics at the end of 2010, extending low taxes on the rich for two more years. He made significant concessions again in 2011, when Republicans threatened to create financial chaos by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And the current potential crisis is the legacy of those past concessions.

Well, this has to stop — unless we want hostage-taking, the threat of making the nation ungovernable, to become a standard part of our political process.

So what should he do? Just say no, and go over the cliff if necessary.

 

[Alexander The Great]

let's go over that cliff

 

[zerozero]

let's go over that cliff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogCtOe8FFY

 

[Jello Biafra]

Obama is not going to just sit back and let the country go over the fiscal cliff...dude may not have to worry about re-election but he does have to worry about his legacy and if what the CBO says will happen does happen on his watch it won't be a good look for him:

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report highlighting the economic shock that awaits America. The automatic spending cuts and tax increase will shrink the already anemic economy by 0.5 percent and cause the jobless rate to spike to 9.1 percent, the report predicted.

The average American family will pay an extra $2,000 to $3,000 in taxes after all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire Jan. 1, and about 1,200 government programs will experience spending cuts.

 

[Brown_Pride]

A lot of brays in that income range don't pay any taxes. If people werent crying about that theyd be crying about them getting rid of deductions. One way or another they gotta generate revenue... I think a good place to start would be w/folks that pay no taxes. I would go for deductions over rates

in terms of cash on hand though it makes a difference and you WILL be seeing more money taken outyour check. You may get it back at the end of the year but on a check by check basis you're going to have less money on hand.


Unless you're smart and claim all sorts of dependents and then put the money they take out your check into a savings account, then use that to pay the govn't at the end of the year.

Obama needs to strong are these fools now.
Obama: "here's my plan. keep tax breaks fro 250< raise the roof on 250>. You don't like it, you can tell the people that, i'll hold a press conference for us all to discuss publicly"

 

[Mr swag]

Obama is not going to just sit back and let the country go over the fiscal cliff...dude may not have to worry about re-election but he does have to worry about his legacy and if what the CBO says will happen does happen on his watch it won't be a good look for him:

That is if we are over for a year. Going over for a few weeks does nothing

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

in terms of cash on hand though it makes a difference and you WILL be seeing more money taken outyour check. You may get it back at the end of the year but on a check by check basis you're going to have less money on hand.


Unless you're smart and claim all sorts of dependents and then put the money they take out your check into a savings account, then use that to pay the govn't at the end of the year.

Obama needs to strong are these fools now.
Obama: "here's my plan. keep tax breaks fro 250< raise the roof on 250>. You don't like it, you can tell the people that, i'll hold a press conference for us all to discuss publicly"

What is the logic in keeping tax breaks for 98% of the country and putting the burden of making up the difference of the remaining 2%

You dont think those folks will feel it

 

[Brown_Pride]

What is the logic in keeping tax breaks for 98% of the country and putting the burden of making up the difference of the remaining 2%

You dont think those folks will feel it

I'd word it like this...
In order to continue this recovery we need to continue to build up the middle class, we need to extend these breaks so that the heart of this country can continue to recover, so that working moms and dads can continue to provide. We also need to go ahead and close those loopholes Romney and Ryan were talking about, as we both agreed it was a good idea we should start there.


Now which of these two are you opposed to exactly?
Helping out the middle class.
Closing loop holes.
?