[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]
I think your comments made more of an anti-tax point than you intended . . . we had a great economy then. It is terrible now. So, let’s increase the marginal federal brackets to 39%? Also, of course, like most lefty examinations on these issues, there was an omission of other new proposed taxes: increased capital gains rates, payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limiting mortgage int. deduction, possible cap and trade taxes. Not to mention, the more pronounced impact of the alternate minimum tax.

Of course, we have liberal states like CA and NY passing new taxes whenever possible.

I used to think we were going to have decades of liberal government with Obama et. al. However, as I see it, they are so going to derail the economy with all of this regulation and taxation, they’ll be lucky to escape 2010 with anything intact. Hope and change doesn’t mean much when you don’t have a job.[/quote]

For 1, the top marginal tax will not go to 39%, it will go to 36.5%. (35% + 1.5% surcharge).

And no, it does not make an anti-tax point. Just the opposite. It proves that higher tax rates are not necessarily incompatible with a strong economy. (It does not, however, prove that higher taxes improve the economy, nor do lower taxes weaken the economy, it is simply correlative.)

I haven’t omitted any other “new” proposed tax increases because there aren’t any. Nor is there any evidence that there will be a more pronounced impact of alt min tax. That entire discussion of higher taxes is almost entirely a right-wing talking point, not based on reality. So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee. Most of them would not get the support of the blue dog dems anyway, and are unlikely to pass even if they did come up for a vote.

It seems to be getting more and more unlikely that the GOP will resurface as anything more than a regional party, regardless of what the Dems do. Their treatment of Sotomayor in her hearings have probably driven away the small percentage of hispanic votes they still had. The best thing that can happen for the democrats is the vote to go purely along party lines. They can’t win with nothing but old white men and the south. And I don’t think that’s a good thing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]
I think your comments made more of an anti-tax point than you intended . . . we had a great economy then. It is terrible now. So, let’s increase the marginal federal brackets to 39%? Also, of course, like most lefty examinations on these issues, there was an omission of other new proposed taxes: increased capital gains rates, payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limiting mortgage int. deduction, possible cap and trade taxes. Not to mention, the more pronounced impact of the alternate minimum tax.

Of course, we have liberal states like CA and NY passing new taxes whenever possible.

I used to think we were going to have decades of liberal government with Obama et. al. However, as I see it, they are so going to derail the economy with all of this regulation and taxation, they’ll be lucky to escape 2010 with anything intact. Hope and change doesn’t mean much when you don’t have a job.[/quote]

For 1, the top marginal tax will not go to 39%, it will go to 36.5%. (35% + 1.5% surcharge).

And no, it does not make an anti-tax point. Just the opposite. It proves that higher tax rates are not necessarily incompatible with a strong economy. (It does not, however, prove that higher taxes improve the economy, nor do lower taxes weaken the economy, it is simply correlative.)

I haven’t omitted any other “new” proposed tax increases because there aren’t any. Nor is there any evidence that there will be a more pronounced impact of alt min tax. That entire discussion of higher taxes is almost entirely a right-wing talking point, not based on reality. So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee. Most of them would not get the support of the blue dog dems anyway, and are unlikely to pass even if they did come up for a vote.

It seems to be getting more and more unlikely that the GOP will resurface as anything more than a regional party, regardless of what the Dems do. Their treatment of Sotomayor in her hearings have probably driven away the small percentage of hispanic votes they still had. The best thing that can happen for the democrats is the vote to go purely along party lines. They can’t win with nothing but old white men and the south. And I don’t think that’s a good thing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]
I think your comments made more of an anti-tax point than you intended . . . we had a great economy then. It is terrible now. So, let’s increase the marginal federal brackets to 39%? Also, of course, like most lefty examinations on these issues, there was an omission of other new proposed taxes: increased capital gains rates, payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limiting mortgage int. deduction, possible cap and trade taxes. Not to mention, the more pronounced impact of the alternate minimum tax.

Of course, we have liberal states like CA and NY passing new taxes whenever possible.

I used to think we were going to have decades of liberal government with Obama et. al. However, as I see it, they are so going to derail the economy with all of this regulation and taxation, they’ll be lucky to escape 2010 with anything intact. Hope and change doesn’t mean much when you don’t have a job.[/quote]

For 1, the top marginal tax will not go to 39%, it will go to 36.5%. (35% + 1.5% surcharge).

And no, it does not make an anti-tax point. Just the opposite. It proves that higher tax rates are not necessarily incompatible with a strong economy. (It does not, however, prove that higher taxes improve the economy, nor do lower taxes weaken the economy, it is simply correlative.)

I haven’t omitted any other “new” proposed tax increases because there aren’t any. Nor is there any evidence that there will be a more pronounced impact of alt min tax. That entire discussion of higher taxes is almost entirely a right-wing talking point, not based on reality. So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee. Most of them would not get the support of the blue dog dems anyway, and are unlikely to pass even if they did come up for a vote.

It seems to be getting more and more unlikely that the GOP will resurface as anything more than a regional party, regardless of what the Dems do. Their treatment of Sotomayor in her hearings have probably driven away the small percentage of hispanic votes they still had. The best thing that can happen for the democrats is the vote to go purely along party lines. They can’t win with nothing but old white men and the south. And I don’t think that’s a good thing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=luchabee]
I think your comments made more of an anti-tax point than you intended . . . we had a great economy then. It is terrible now. So, let’s increase the marginal federal brackets to 39%? Also, of course, like most lefty examinations on these issues, there was an omission of other new proposed taxes: increased capital gains rates, payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limiting mortgage int. deduction, possible cap and trade taxes. Not to mention, the more pronounced impact of the alternate minimum tax.

Of course, we have liberal states like CA and NY passing new taxes whenever possible.

I used to think we were going to have decades of liberal government with Obama et. al. However, as I see it, they are so going to derail the economy with all of this regulation and taxation, they’ll be lucky to escape 2010 with anything intact. Hope and change doesn’t mean much when you don’t have a job.[/quote]

For 1, the top marginal tax will not go to 39%, it will go to 36.5%. (35% + 1.5% surcharge).

And no, it does not make an anti-tax point. Just the opposite. It proves that higher tax rates are not necessarily incompatible with a strong economy. (It does not, however, prove that higher taxes improve the economy, nor do lower taxes weaken the economy, it is simply correlative.)

I haven’t omitted any other “new” proposed tax increases because there aren’t any. Nor is there any evidence that there will be a more pronounced impact of alt min tax. That entire discussion of higher taxes is almost entirely a right-wing talking point, not based on reality. So far there has been nothing more than ideas floated about higher payroll taxes, limits on charitable deductions, phaseouts for other deductions, limitation of home mortgage interest deduction (which I think would be a very good thing for real estate). No bills even in committee. Most of them would not get the support of the blue dog dems anyway, and are unlikely to pass even if they did come up for a vote.

It seems to be getting more and more unlikely that the GOP will resurface as anything more than a regional party, regardless of what the Dems do. Their treatment of Sotomayor in her hearings have probably driven away the small percentage of hispanic votes they still had. The best thing that can happen for the democrats is the vote to go purely along party lines. They can’t win with nothing but old white men and the south. And I don’t think that’s a good thing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=GH]SK,
Some of my best friends are Mexican. I marched in London against Apartheid in the late 70’s. So go ahead and call me a racist if I don’t support your view, but you would do better to engage in meaningful dialog. Sotomayor is an activist judge and is not a good choice for a position requiring absolute impartiality.[/quote]

I suggest that you share with them your view that the NCLR is racist. And that congress and the supreme court, including the current nominee are conspiring to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. See how well they take that. It’s unlikely they will consider it “meaningful dialogue”.

Sotomayor has no record of activism from the bench. I would challenge you to cite any. (and PLEASE do not say Ricci. The Ricci decision wasn’t even close.) The current Roberts court majority is the most activist since the 60’s.

[SK in CV]

[quote=GH]SK,
Some of my best friends are Mexican. I marched in London against Apartheid in the late 70’s. So go ahead and call me a racist if I don’t support your view, but you would do better to engage in meaningful dialog. Sotomayor is an activist judge and is not a good choice for a position requiring absolute impartiality.[/quote]

I suggest that you share with them your view that the NCLR is racist. And that congress and the supreme court, including the current nominee are conspiring to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. See how well they take that. It’s unlikely they will consider it “meaningful dialogue”.

Sotomayor has no record of activism from the bench. I would challenge you to cite any. (and PLEASE do not say Ricci. The Ricci decision wasn’t even close.) The current Roberts court majority is the most activist since the 60’s.

[SK in CV]

[quote=GH]SK,
Some of my best friends are Mexican. I marched in London against Apartheid in the late 70’s. So go ahead and call me a racist if I don’t support your view, but you would do better to engage in meaningful dialog. Sotomayor is an activist judge and is not a good choice for a position requiring absolute impartiality.[/quote]

I suggest that you share with them your view that the NCLR is racist. And that congress and the supreme court, including the current nominee are conspiring to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. See how well they take that. It’s unlikely they will consider it “meaningful dialogue”.

Sotomayor has no record of activism from the bench. I would challenge you to cite any. (and PLEASE do not say Ricci. The Ricci decision wasn’t even close.) The current Roberts court majority is the most activist since the 60’s.

[SK in CV]

[quote=GH]SK,
Some of my best friends are Mexican. I marched in London against Apartheid in the late 70’s. So go ahead and call me a racist if I don’t support your view, but you would do better to engage in meaningful dialog. Sotomayor is an activist judge and is not a good choice for a position requiring absolute impartiality.[/quote]

I suggest that you share with them your view that the NCLR is racist. And that congress and the supreme court, including the current nominee are conspiring to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. See how well they take that. It’s unlikely they will consider it “meaningful dialogue”.

Sotomayor has no record of activism from the bench. I would challenge you to cite any. (and PLEASE do not say Ricci. The Ricci decision wasn’t even close.) The current Roberts court majority is the most activist since the 60’s.

[SK in CV]

[quote=GH]SK,
Some of my best friends are Mexican. I marched in London against Apartheid in the late 70’s. So go ahead and call me a racist if I don’t support your view, but you would do better to engage in meaningful dialog. Sotomayor is an activist judge and is not a good choice for a position requiring absolute impartiality.[/quote]

I suggest that you share with them your view that the NCLR is racist. And that congress and the supreme court, including the current nominee are conspiring to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens. See how well they take that. It’s unlikely they will consider it “meaningful dialogue”.

Sotomayor has no record of activism from the bench. I would challenge you to cite any. (and PLEASE do not say Ricci. The Ricci decision wasn’t even close.) The current Roberts court majority is the most activist since the 60’s.

[SK in CV]

Nothing much will change.

From Conor Clarke at Andrew Sullivan’s blog
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/daily-chart-tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-health-care.html)

(Please note, the min-max on this graph is from slightly over 31% to just a tiny bit over 36%.)

Even if this legislation is passed, the effective rate for the top 1% will remain considerably below the highest rates of the mid-90’s (when the economy was strong, and subsequently booming) and probably still below the norm of the last 8 years. Families with adjusted gross income under $350,000 will see no tax increase. 96% of small businesses will see no tax increase.

Since when? Since always. (at least during our lifetimes.)

[SK in CV]

Nothing much will change.

From Conor Clarke at Andrew Sullivan’s blog
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/daily-chart-tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-health-care.html)

(Please note, the min-max on this graph is from slightly over 31% to just a tiny bit over 36%.)

Even if this legislation is passed, the effective rate for the top 1% will remain considerably below the highest rates of the mid-90’s (when the economy was strong, and subsequently booming) and probably still below the norm of the last 8 years. Families with adjusted gross income under $350,000 will see no tax increase. 96% of small businesses will see no tax increase.

Since when? Since always. (at least during our lifetimes.)

[SK in CV]

Nothing much will change.

From Conor Clarke at Andrew Sullivan’s blog
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/daily-chart-tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-health-care.html)

(Please note, the min-max on this graph is from slightly over 31% to just a tiny bit over 36%.)

Even if this legislation is passed, the effective rate for the top 1% will remain considerably below the highest rates of the mid-90’s (when the economy was strong, and subsequently booming) and probably still below the norm of the last 8 years. Families with adjusted gross income under $350,000 will see no tax increase. 96% of small businesses will see no tax increase.

Since when? Since always. (at least during our lifetimes.)

[SK in CV]

Nothing much will change.

From Conor Clarke at Andrew Sullivan’s blog
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/daily-chart-tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-health-care.html)

(Please note, the min-max on this graph is from slightly over 31% to just a tiny bit over 36%.)

Even if this legislation is passed, the effective rate for the top 1% will remain considerably below the highest rates of the mid-90’s (when the economy was strong, and subsequently booming) and probably still below the norm of the last 8 years. Families with adjusted gross income under $350,000 will see no tax increase. 96% of small businesses will see no tax increase.

Since when? Since always. (at least during our lifetimes.)

[SK in CV]

Nothing much will change.

From Conor Clarke at Andrew Sullivan’s blog
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/daily-chart-tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-health-care.html)

(Please note, the min-max on this graph is from slightly over 31% to just a tiny bit over 36%.)

Even if this legislation is passed, the effective rate for the top 1% will remain considerably below the highest rates of the mid-90’s (when the economy was strong, and subsequently booming) and probably still below the norm of the last 8 years. Families with adjusted gross income under $350,000 will see no tax increase. 96% of small businesses will see no tax increase.

Since when? Since always. (at least during our lifetimes.)

[SK in CV]

I do believe we agree.

[quote=Aecetia]That is correct. It is the flip-side of the same coin. I have seen the most religious intolerance committed by deeply religious people. This country was founded on religious tolerance. Many of us have relatives who fled from Europe for freedom to worship or not to worship as they saw fit. I think it would be sad to degenerate into tribalism at this stage in our development. The partisan politics have driven a permanent wedge between many Americans. Obama’s election has not healed this division. I watched a video of the Russians being rude to him when he offered to shake hands and it irritated me. He is the President and insulting him insulted the country.[/quote]

I am intolerant of those without religious tolerance. I don’t believe the two to be equivalent.

[Author]

Posts