Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Taxing the rich more? How about making companies bring money back……
- This topic has 26 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 11, 2012 at 11:59 AM #756085December 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM #756084CoronitaParticipant
[quote=meadandale][quote=flu]I’m not really sure taxing people (any people more is really gonna solve any budget issues)…
Spending problem, no?[/quote]
???
December 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM #756086CoronitaParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=meadandale][quote=flu]I’m not really sure taxing people (any people more is really gonna solve any budget issues)…
Spending problem, no?[/quote]
That might be the most awesome disingenuous misrepresentation I have ever seen.
It uses one baseline for spending (which is NOT the current baseline), and two different baselines for changes in revenue and counts the increase but doesn’t count the decrease. It is entirely divorced from reality.[/quote]
What would be a more accurate one? Seriously, do you have one…Because I am curious
December 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM #756087SD Realtor
ParticipantKind of like saying there were no cuts to medicare during the election but counting cuts to medicare now as spending reductions.
December 11, 2012 at 12:13 PM #756089SK in CV
Participant[quote=flu]
What would be a more accurate one? Seriously, do you have one…Because I am curious[/quote]
I don’t remember the exact numbers, but Obama’s proposal is roughly $1.6 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cost cutting from current.
The republican proposal is roughly $800 billion in tax increases (Primarily on YOUR back, and not so much on the back of the really rich. Eliminating deductions hurts you a lot more than it hurts those with > $1 million of income), and i think $1.4 in spending cuts, primarily on the back of the elderly and poor. That’s also from current levels. From fiscal cliff levels, it’s also a spending increase.
December 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM #756090CoronitaParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
What would be a more accurate one? Seriously, do you have one…Because I am curious[/quote]
I don’t remember the exact numbers, but Obama’s proposal is roughly $1.6 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cost cutting from current.
The republican proposal is roughly $800 billion in tax increases (Primarily on YOUR back, and not so much on the back of the really rich. Eliminating deductions hurts you a lot more than it hurts those with > $1 million of income), and i think $1.4 in spending cuts, primarily on the back of the elderly and poor. That’s also from current levels. From fiscal cliff levels, it’s also a spending increase.[/quote]
SK, doesn’t really matter who’s in office for me. It’s always on my back…They just call me differently each time…
December 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM #756092ParticipantHere is a good site:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Go to the spending tab. Then you can plug in any year to see spending itemized by fairly major categories. You can then drill down into each category for subcategories. It is fairly laborious but it is as close to an unbiased presentation of numbers as it gets.
I really wish that each plan both from team obama, and team pub would simply tell me where the spending cuts would come from based on spending in each of these categories. I also want to see the breakdown year by year.
Honestly a 1 or 2 or 4 trillion dollar reduction in the next 10 years doesn’t comfort me much especially when we are projected to hit 20T in the next 4 years.
December 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM #756096UCGal
ParticipantI have a question.
I heard during the election and during the early fiscal cliff discussions a proposal to “limit deductions”…Isn’t that AMT on steroids? The GOP claims to hate the AMT…
What is the difference?
December 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM #756097no_such_reality
ParticipantI’m tired of the fiscal cliff discussion. A trillion, $400 billion, yadda yadda, those are decade long numbers.
$400 billion over a decade is $40 billion a year equivalent.
$40 billion is one penny out of every dollar we’re spending.
Oh the drastic cuts, the blood letting, oh how can we be so cruel
All Obama extended Bush era tax cuts need to go and spending needs an across the board 20% cut.
December 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM #756100Participant[quote=UCGal]I have a question.
I heard during the election and during the early fiscal cliff discussions a proposal to “limit deductions”…Isn’t that AMT on steroids? The GOP claims to hate the AMT…
What is the difference?[/quote]
The “limit deductions” scheme, particularly during the campaign, was to protect what the GOP considers the “job creators”. Those with very high income. Romney’s plan was to be revenue neutral, so eliminate deductions and at the same time decrease top rates. The current scheme is to increase revenue. Both end up with the largest benefits going to those with the highest income, who currently benefit very little from deductions. (If income is $2M or more annually, the maximum home mortgage deduction, for instance, will only save under current law and interest rates, about $17K. A savings of less than 1% of income. But for someone earning $300K, it would be more than 5%.)
Note that not a single politician involved in these negotiations on either side of the aisle has ever identified a particular deduction they’re ready to eliminate. They’re afraid to face the special interests that want to protect each and every deduction that has become essential to their particular piece of the economy. What will the NAR have to say when they seriously begin talks of eliminating the mortgage deduction?
December 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM #756107enron_by_the_sea
Participant[quote=UCGal]
Isn’t that AMT on steroids? The GOP claims to hate the AMT…
[/quote]
GOP never hated AMT.
AMT is GOP’s preferred way to take money from near rich to subsidize tax cuts for super rich.
That’s how GWB’s tax-cuts were designed. On the face of it everyone seemed to get a tax cut, but his moderately rich supporters missed the fine-print on AMT! GWB cleverly designed that tax cut such that capital gains are not subject to AMT.
Next time anyone gives you a tax cut, first look under the hood!
December 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM #756110CoronitaParticipantI hate AMT…I bend over on it every year…
At one point, people suggested I paid my entire property tax role this year. Doesn’t help one bit….
I guess the corollary is if you have x W2 income, and you live in California with y CA tax, it’s not that hard for AMT to kick you in the axx…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.