Arthur Dent wrote:I'm actually getting worried about all this talk about balanced budgets and cutting spending. The time to do that was when the economy was doing OK. Now that we're facing what is likely to be a nasty recession, we're going to need stimulus. That means we shouldn't be squeamish about more borrowing.
Especially with Treasury rates at low, low prices.
I'm not a millionaire, but I make a pretty good living. Based on my financial situation, I have a hard time believing somebody netting $300,000 a year is sweating over a $1,500 or $2,000 increase in his tax bill. One of the great benefits about having lots of money is supposed to be not having to worry about stuff like that. The guys who start to see a substantial impact in absolute terms are making millions a year, and the general security that our government provides is worth a lot more to those folks than what the welfare king down the street gets.
Diddy wrote:
I just dont see how its right to take something from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who screwed up. Maybe if we have some accountability people woudlnt be needing handouts from people who make over 250K.
And i guess thats just what it comes down to to me. Not eveyone can have everything, were not a socialist country yet . We need to go back to being happy with what we have and working hard for more, not being unhappy with what we dont have. We have to teach accountability to people, people have to learn how to manage their own money. Their are people that need help, im not opposed to that, i just think we throw a blanket over anyone with debt and say look at all these people. How many of them would the proposed projects (either parties) have prevented from being in the position that they are in now? I feel strongly that its a small number. If you bail people out and give them money they are just going to spend more and get into a bigger hole next time because someone else will just bail them out again. Well bail them out and they will be right back in the sam position because there is no accountability.
I find all of this very ironic considering that the huge bailout that just happened took money away from pretty much everybody- not just the $250k and over crowd- and was aimed at "bailing out" a bunch of Wall Street execs. It was the exact opposite scenario that you describe.
Ya and that was a big kick in the balls to most people if you ask me.
Assuming Obama wins, he is not going to be president for another 3 months. To get any tax bills through Congress will take more time, and of course he will have to look at the current economic situation and adjust accordingly.
People keep mentioning the concern that increasing taxes on small business will provide a disincentive to invest in hiring new people. Actually the opposite can be true. If you hire additional people, then that is money that comes out of your net profits, which means you will have less taxable income, and thus pay less taxes.
I completely agree however, that you don't tax your way out of a recession. The completley irresponsible thing is that we've had 8 years of incredible and unprecedented levels of deficit spending that have left us in a terrible position fiscally as we enter a severe recession.
Leroy wrote:They can raise taxes on the very wealthy...I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the way that the earned income credit has turned out. It is basically taking the money paid in taxes and given to the poorer people. At least that is how it was designed. But here is my problem...a girl who worked in our office had two kids by two different fathers and was unmarried. She made enough money to entitle her to over $3,000 in EIC. She stayed unmarried simply because of the EIC. That's gaming the system and I do have a problem with that. A good chunk of my tax bill went right into her pocket. Fair?
Not fair. But what's the alternative? Any program that is designed to help those truly in need will be abused by people who choose to do so. All you can do is try to prevent as much abuse as possible. Aside from that, I try not to lose any sleep over it. Her gaming the system really doesn't impact me unless I choose to let it.
Yeah, I'll just throw my hands up and say everything is cool.
The 15% was for the upper, upper class, not the 250k crowd. My mistake. I hadn't looked at that image since we were on page 70 or so of this thread.
Also, the tax breaks for the middle class were a bit better than I remembered for both parties. One of my problems with saying "trickle down is teh fail!1! let's bubble up!!!" was I didn't think that cut %'s were enough to actually show up in people's pay checks. That actually amounts are higher than I thought. I was thinking of my own income levels and determined that I probably wouldn't notice to much (but enough that it would be helpful). That's not the case all around.
Regardless, I still don't think that raising taxes on anyone is a good idea right now, and Obama is going to wear out his scalpel trying to balance the budget in this economy.
docellis wrote:
You keep mentioning "bailing people out"...I don't understand what you are talking about. Raising taxes (if I am correct) would be bailing out Bush and his failed economic policies. Not some welfare mother on the street.
no bailing out is bailing out all of the people making 35K that decided that they have to buy a 500K house or are in debt way beyond their means because of their own choices.
the bailout is a separate issue than the tax one though.
but I am pretty certain that the percentage of people who make 35k and bought 500k homes is insignificant. i worked in the mortgage industry for 7 years and the people buying 500k homes were the people who were making 250k+. Not 35k.
And it isn't all about people buying more than they can afford - there is a huge percentage of people who bought houses that are simply not worth what they appraised at when they were purchased.
should they be "bailed out"? I don't know.
I pulled 500K out of my butt. A house is an investment, it sucks if you need to sell now and its depreciated. The problem is with the people that bought something that they really couldnt afford, counting on it going up.
Mainly more then how much a person makes i just feel that a person needs to be able to live on what they make, and i think that most people can. To me its seems like the tax plans are more about rearranging wealth then they are about teaching people to live on what they make.
Leroy wrote:They can raise taxes on the very wealthy...I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the way that the earned income credit has turned out. It is basically taking the money paid in taxes and given to the poorer people. At least that is how it was designed. But here is my problem...a girl who worked in our office had two kids by two different fathers and was unmarried. She made enough money to entitle her to over $3,000 in EIC. She stayed unmarried simply because of the EIC. That's gaming the system and I do have a problem with that. A good chunk of my tax bill went right into her pocket. Fair?
Not fair. But what's the alternative? Any program that is designed to help those truly in need will be abused by people who choose to do so. All you can do is try to prevent as much abuse as possible. Aside from that, I try not to lose any sleep over it. Her gaming the system really doesn't impact me unless I choose to let it.
Yeah, I'll just throw my hands up and say everything is cool.
That's better than complaining about it without providing any other solution (unless you're suggesting we just get rid of all welfare programs).
