Redistribution of wealth

[Adam]

So if he allows the cuts to expire, about half of Americans get a tax increase including the middle class. That'll piss off a lot of voters.

At the risk of sounding stupid- which this question probably will......won't that keep things pretty much the same? I mean if the rich get taxed more, they pass it down. Won't things generally stay where they are?

 

I don't profess to be an accountant or to have a full grasp of things, but that seems to make some sense. Seems as if we make cosmetic changes, but nothing real

[keepthefaith]

No, it's the upper income earners that will have the tax increases.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-bud...pire-2010-02-01

 

Yes, but his budget has to be approved in both the house and the senate, correct or just the house?

[Magox]

At the risk of sounding stupid- which this question probably will......won't that keep things pretty much the same? I mean if the rich get taxed more, they pass it down. Won't things generally stay where they are?

 

I don't profess to be an accountant or to have a full grasp of things, but that seems to make some sense. Seems as if we make cosmetic changes, but nothing real

The upper income earners are the people that provide the most employment. I believe it is safe to say that if you place additional taxes on the job providers the odds of them creating more jobs are slimmer than what they were before.

 

On the other hand, it is also safe to say that if you are on the receiving end of government entitlement programs, there isn't as much incentive to strive for more because Uncle Sam has got your back.

 

It's a matter of incentive.

 

In any successful business you reward those who are productive, in socialistic societies, you punish the productive by taking away a portion of their earnings and redistribute to those who generally aren't.

 

I will never agree with this line of thinking. EVER

[Magox]

Yes, but his budget has to be approved in both the house and the senate, correct or just the house?

Both, I believe that the Senate will resist more so than the house. Meaning that I don't believe many of the centrist democrats want the bush tax cuts to expire, specially in this economic environment. On the other hand, there is that little pesky Deficit thing.

[Adam]

The upper income earners are the people that provide the most employment. I believe it is safe to say that if you place additional taxes on the job providers the odds of them creating more jobs are slimmer than what they were before.

 

On the other hand, it is also safe to say that if you are on the receiving end of government entitlement programs, there isn't as much incentive to strive for more because Uncle Sam has got your back.

 

It's a matter of incentive.

 

In any successful business you reward those who are productive, in socialistic societies, you punish the productive by taking away a portion of their earnings and redistribute to those who generally aren't.

 

I will never agree with this line of thinking. EVER

If Uncle Sam has their back, who has Uncle Sam's back? China, maybe

[John Adams]

If Uncle Sam has their back, who has Uncle Sam's back? China, maybe

 

China can't stab Uncle Sam in the back without blowing themselves to hell. The US and China are in a death dance. If the US defaults on its debt to China, it's not like China can repossess all the land west of the Mississippi. China wants the US to dig out of its hole...but slowly so it can continue to rise up.

[finknottle]

The upper income earners are the people that provide the most employment. I believe it is safe to say that if you place additional taxes on the job providers the odds of them creating more jobs are slimmer than what they were before.

 

This is a point that is often misunderstood. The argument against it usually goes "C'mon, they will still hire even if their profit is cut, because half a loaf is better than none."

 

The right way to look at it is not as if I have an on-going business and am considering hiring more people. It is to imagine I am considering a new business venture from scratch. Two things could happen: it could fail and I lose all the money I put into it, or it could succeed and I make lots of cash. I weigh the pros and cons, the likliehood of success, and calculate my expected return. If you now tell me that success means I pay 40% of any profit to the government instead of 25%, I have to think again. The odds of success have not changed, just the payoff. I lose it all, or I make a little cash. Chances are, instead of creating a new company with actual jobs I decide to play it safe and invest in government bonds. Where there is less reward, there is less willingness to risk ones money.

[Magox]

China can't stab Uncle Sam in the back without blowing themselves to hell. The US and China are in a death dance. If the US defaults on its debt to China, it's not like China can repossess all the land west of the Mississippi. China wants the US to dig out of its hole...but slowly so it can continue to rise up.

It is a symbiotic relationship, however I've noticed that the Chinese have reduced US treasury holdings for three months running. China basically has told the US that if you slap additional tariffs upon us because of Yuan valuations then we will punish you more so than what you guys can do to us.

 

I just hope we don't follow Krugmans advice.

[keepthefaith]

Both, I believe that the Senate will resist more so than the house. Meaning that I don't believe many of the centrist democrats want the bush tax cuts to expire, specially in this economic environment. On the other hand, there is that little pesky Deficit thing.

 

Yeah, it'll be tough to get it through the Senate I think, but there are always deals that can be cut with the Snow's and collins's of the world.

 

Personally I feel that everyone should pay some taxes, everybody should have skin in the game. We have 40% + in this country that pay no Federal tax.

 

Obama's comments and treatment of the upper wage earners really show the animosity he has toward financially successful people. He is a liberal's dream come true.

[keepthefaith]

This is a point that is often misunderstood. The argument against it usually goes "C'mon, they will still hire even if their profit is cut, because half a loaf is better than none."

 

The right way to look at it is not as if I have an on-going business and am considering hiring more people. It is to imagine I am considering a new business venture from scratch. Two things could happen: it could fail and I lose all the money I put into it, or it could succeed and I make lots of cash. I weigh the pros and cons, the likliehood of success, and calculate my expected return. If you now tell me that success means I pay 40% of any profit to the government instead of 25%, I have to think again. The odds of success have not changed, just the payoff. I lose it all, or I make a little cash. Chances are, instead of creating a new company with actual jobs I decide to play it safe and invest in government bonds. Where there is less reward, there is less willingness to risk ones money.

 

Very well said.

[John Adams]

It is a symbiotic relationship, however I've noticed that the Chinese have reduced US treasury holdings for three months running. China basically has told the US that if you slap additional tariffs upon us because of Yuan valuations then we will punish you more so than what you guys can do to us.

 

I just hope we don't follow Krugmans advice.

 

The best thing to happen to the US is to have creditor number one pull back...that will force fiscal responsibility faster than almost any other thing.

 

Funny right? The Chinese may force the US government to start being responsible.

[Adam]

The best thing to happen to the US is to have creditor number one pull back...that will force fiscal responsibility faster than almost any other thing.

 

Funny right? The Chinese may force the US government to start being responsible.

If I can make an analogy, it is likely to be like a drug user's withdrawl. It will be painful, but you need to suffer through it- if you want things to get better

[Magox]

The best thing to happen to the US is to have creditor number one pull back...that will force fiscal responsibility faster than almost any other thing.

 

Funny right? The Chinese may force the US government to start being responsible.

You bring up an interesting point JA, and I would think the Chinese dumping a good portion of their holdings over the next year would sound all sorts of alarm bells. It's starting to get nasty between the US and China and it looks as if Graham and Schumer are looking to try to push a resolution towards a currency vote by May.

 

I think it's a bad idea., and from what I have observed recently China is not one to lash out with idle threats. They are in a much better position than we are to withstand a trade war.

[DC Tom]

You bring up an interesting point JA, and I would think the Chinese dumping a good portion of their holdings over the next year would sound all sorts of alarm bells. It's starting to get nasty between the US and China and it looks as if Graham and Schumer are looking to try to push a resolution towards a currency vote by May.

 

I think it's a bad idea., and from what I have observed recently China is not one to lash out with idle threats. They are in a much better position than we are to withstand a trade war.

 

Good plan. Accuse of currency manipulation the guys who are singularly most able to manipulate our currency.

 

Does ANYONE on the Hill have a working brain?

[Alaska Darin]

Personally I feel that everyone should pay some taxes, everybody should have skin in the game. We have 40% + in this country that pay no Federal tax.

They may be no Federal "Income" tax but I'd venture to guess that the majority of that 40% pay a much higher percentage of their income in tax than any other entity.

 

At the end of the day, taxation in this country is broken and the most successful thing the government has done is pitted the middle class against itself to the point where it doesn't care about truly important things and instead bickers about meaningless statistics.

[Booster4324]

They may be no Federal "Income" tax but I'd venture to guess that the majority of that 40% pay a much higher percentage of their income in tax than any other entity.

 

At the end of the day, taxation in this country is broken and the most successful thing the government has done is pitted the middle class against itself to the point where it doesn't care about truly important things and instead bickers about meaningless statistics.

 

Say it ain't so. Is it at all relevant that the higher percentage hits them even harder?

[manateefan]

They may be no Federal "Income" tax but I'd venture to guess that the majority of that 40% pay a much higher percentage of their income in tax than any other entity.

 

At the end of the day, taxation in this country is broken and the most successful thing the government has done is pitted the middle class against itself to the point where it doesn't care about truly important things and instead bickers about meaningless statistics.

All I know is that in 2009 we got a break on Federal income tax in our paychecks. Unfortunately when we filed we paid half of that back. Is that a true break? My husband I combined only made about $70,000.

[Booster4324]

All I know is that in 2009 we got a break on Federal income tax in our paychecks. Unfortunately when we filed we paid half of that back. Is that a true break? My husband I combined only made about $70,000.

 

You aren't in the 40% he is discussing (not sure right off hand what percentile that puts you in) and we are discussing total taxation, not federal income tax.