Originally posted by whodeywhodey you are a complete joke. Your Republican partisan shilling is ridiculous.
I guess to sum up what I'm trying to say here is, I don't think that Obama has his priorities in order. First take care of the crisis and then go after all the evil rich people if he wants to. With his future proposed tax hikes, it appears he anticipates the economy rebounding in a year or two. The way he is going, however, I don't think this to be the case.
In other threads, you consistently whine about the deficits Obama is running up. In this thread, you complain about the elimination of preferential tax treatment for higher income households and a few corporations that will raise tens of billions of dollars to reduce that deficit. Make up your mind (or have Rush make it up for ya).
You also completely ignore that the stimulus plan reduces taxes for 95% of Americans. In fact, you OPPOSED the stimulus plan. Now you're bitching that Obama should do something (what you never seem to say) about the economic crisis caused by the greed and incompetence of the wealthy. A major factor contributing to the crisis was a sharp rise in inequality of income; as I've pointed out in other threads, the percentage of total income claimed by the richest 10% in the US reached levels under Bush's policies which hadn't been reached since 1928. Predictably, the economy collapsed when the average worker's income was stagnant for about three decades. Obama is addressing that inequality; you and your Republican friends declare it's a "war on the rich" to have a more egalitarian society. So be it; the election results show who the American people think was right about whether more and more going to the rich while average workers' income is flat.
In sum, all you propose is more of the same policies that wrecked the economy. As I said, the people in November 2008 were given a choice between supporting government policies which reduced income inequality and those which increased it. They spoke. Their preference should be enacted into law. I suspect that somehow the wealthy will muddle through - even those reduced to "chump change wages" of a half a million dollars a year.
Originally posted by whodeyNow is probably a bad time to abolish mortgage deductions. But on the long term, they should be.
The price of a house has always largely been determined by what people can and will pay and afford for a house. However, when they over shoot this price the bubble bursts. This would have occurred with or without mortgage deductions. But now that the bubble has burst, why make the situation worse by taking more money away from home owners?
6 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderTrying to paint me as a partisan ditto head of Rush is what is laughable. I have NEVER once mentioned the mans name and have on numerous occassions taken issue with the Republican party. Case in point is the ridiculous spending that Bush and company ran up over his 8 year span. To be consistant, I am now whining about Obama's spending.
whodey you are a complete joke. Your Republican partisan shilling is ridiculous.
In other threads, you consistently whine about the deficits Obama is running up. In this thread, you complain about the elimination of preferential tax treatment for higher income households and a few corporations that will raise tens of billions of dollars to ough - even those reduced to "chump change wages" of a half a million dollars a year.
As far as tax brakes go, I don't have an issue with that. In fact, you HAVE to do that in a time of economic crisis. However, then question becomes will we pay more in the long run for other hidden taxes such as cap-trade and higher fuel rates? Will we have less to deduct on our mortgages etc? In addition, and perhaps most importantly, are we taxing enough to cover our spending habits? The answer would have to be a resounding NO! I would rather bite the bullet now that have our children pay for it. To be fair, in the case of Bush spending like a drunken sailor and then cutting taxes, this is equally appalling to me. If you are not willing to pay for things then you should not be spending the money.
I guess what drives me mad is the never ending spending habits of Washington. Then couple that with the never ending bottomless pits of companies like GM and AIG. The more we seem to give them the more they seem to need. Perhaps the best route was to bail them out so as to keep our economy from collapsing, however, if so stay with the plan by not penalizing other elements within that economy until the crisis is over. In short, I never addressed the question as to whether a redistribution of wealth was good or bad, rather, I only addressed the fact that now is not the time. If it is done, wait until Wall Street gets back on its feet. I don't see how Obama's policies will help do this by a redistribution of wealth right now but perhaps you can enlighten me. I suppose taking money from the rich and giving it to government automatically will cause the average Joe's income to go up. If so, I don't see how. All I see happening is less money available to help lift the stock market and less jobs to be created by the wealthy. But then again, now that the government is printing money like tissue paper perhaps we no longer need the wealthy to generate our jobs for us.
Now if you really want to address the issue of corruption, why not go after the people responsible in both government and the corporate world? Instead of limiting their salaries to $500,000 perhaps they should be removed and put in jail? Instead of simply blaming corporate America for our ills perhaps those in government who looked the other way as there were those who were sounding the alarm should also be removed and put in jail? Then again, we all know tha government is never to blame in the world for those who only think with the left side of their brian.
Edit: As hard as it may be to fathom, it is possible to be a conservative without being a blind follower of Rush.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe proposal is a very modest reduction of the mortgage interest deduction for the wealthiest taxpayers. To wit:
Now is probably a bad time to abolish mortgage deductions. But on the long term, they should be.
The Obama administration hopes to tap the rich to help pay for its ambitious programs. Specifically, that would include slashing mortgage interest deductions for high-income taxpayers.
The proposal would cap at 28% the tax break for itemized deductions.
That would leave people in higher marginal tax brackets of 33% and 35% - the wealthiest Americans - with a smaller benefit from the deduction of mortgage interest, state and local taxes and other items such as charitable contributions.
The move is projected to raise $318 billion over 10 years and fits nicely with the president's campaign pledge to increase taxes only for families earning more than $250,000. Few, if any middle-income homeowners are in tax brackets of more than 28%.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a D.C. think tank, said he was impressed with this part of the budget plan.
"It's a no-brainer for economists," he said. "Why have taxpayers been [in effect] subsidizing home payments for the highest income people in the country?"
The overwhelming majority of low and middle income people take the standardized deduction when they file their taxes [and] they receive no benefit at all from the mortgage interest deduction, said Patrick Fleenor, chief economist for the Tax Foundation.
"If you live in an inexpensive home or you're deep in your mortgage and paying little interest, you're better off taking the standard deduction," he said.
But homeowners in the highest marginal tax bracket, those earning more than $357,700 a year, get back 35 cents on their taxes for every dollar they spend on mortgage interest. Under the Obama plan, that benefit would be reduced by 20% to 28 cents on the dollar.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/real_estate/mortgage_interest_deduction_slashed/
The question in bold is a good one. Of course, every dollar the wealthy dodge in paying taxes by preferential treatment like this has to be made up one way or the other either by taxing someone else or running up more debt.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeywhodey, the country is currently in a severe recession where consumer and business spending is way down and credit markets have caved in. Unless you are willing to ride out a possible depression, the government has to step in and spend money. The stimulus plan does this plus gives the average worker more money in their paycheck to hopefully increase consumer spending. Taxing the same people to pay for the program at this point would be counterproductive. A deficit has to be accepted during times of economic duress. Furthermore, the increases in income inequality over the last thirty years are a major contributing cause to the instability of the economic system. Thus, rolling back these policies ("redistributing" in your lexicon) is utterly necessary for future economic health.
Trying to paint me as a partisan ditto head of Rush is what is laughable. I have NEVER once mentioned the mans name and have on numerous occassions taken issue with the Republican party. Case in point is the ridiculous spending that Bush and company ran up over his 8 year span. To be consistant, I am now whining about Obama's spending.
As far as tax b be to fathom, it is possible to be a conservative without being a blind follower of Rush.
I would prefer deep cuts in unnecessary spending for foreign wars and our bloated military. I would prefer that banks and insurance companies not be bailed out (as I stated from Day 1 while you supported the bail outs until the Republicans in the House mostly voted against it). But that's probably asking too much in the short term from a government still run by people who believe in neoclassical economics and are part of the wealthy elite. Maybe some day soon ........
As much as right wingers would like to blame the government for the incredibly reckless behavior of big banks and other rich folks, that dog doesn't hunt. Government policies did lead to greater income inequality and stagnation of the average worker's income ("free trade" is a definite culprit, for example) which led to greater and greater personal debt; but the cause of this severe recession was that banks and others in their never ending greed created $63 trillion worth of securities dependent on home mortgages which were worth a tiny fraction of that amount. When the country hit an inevitable downturn and foreclosure rates rose (a common occurrence in the business cycle), these securities were shown to be virtually worthless and the avalanche began. Who should go to jail for this? What laws were broken? None that I know of. This is just what happens when you toss more and more money to the wealthy.
BTW, the great bulk of jobs in the US are created by small businesses, not big corporations or the super rich. Obama has proposed tax breaks for those job creating businesses.
EDIT: According the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses:
Employ about half of all private sector employees.
Pay nearly 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade.
Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers).
http://entrepreneurs.about.com/b/2009/01/21/startups-critical-for-job-creation-in-us.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is one theory, however, I say that the answer is focusing on stimulating the economy so as to provide jobs and oppurtunity rather than expecting a little more cash in our pockets via the tax payers to do the trick. Of course that helps, but what does that have to do with going after the "rich"? Why not cut back government spending and give us all tax breaks? Of course, the argument is that government spending is needed to avoid economic collapse but I remained unconvinced.
[b]whodey, the country is currently in a severe recession where consumer and business spending is way down and credit markets have caved in. Unless you are willing to ride out a possible depression, the government has to step in and spend money. The stimulus plan does this plus gives the average worker more money in their paycheck to hopefully increase cons ...[text shortened]... these policies ("redistributing" in your lexicon) is utterly necessary for future economic health.
Originally posted by no1marauderI had mixed feelings about TARP because, on the one hand, it seemed immoral to throw hard earned tax money toward companies that were failing due to ineptitude and corruption. On the other hand, however, these corporations had the world economy by the gonades because if they went down so do all of us. In effect, it was like holding a gun to the tax payers heads. I remember the initial reaction from the populace was to reject the bail out, however, as TARP was delayed people began seeing their retirement portfolio decrease further and further until people began supporting the bail outs.
[
I would prefer deep cuts in unnecessary spending for foreign wars and our bloated military. I would prefer that banks and insurance companies not be bailed out (as I stated from Day 1 while you supported the bail outs until the Republicans in the House mostly voted against it). But that's probably asking too much in the short term from a gove ...[text shortened]... o believe in neoclassical economics and are part of the wealthy elite. Maybe some day soon ........
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderGovernment is equally to blame for over seeing the production of the $63 tillion worth of securities that were of high risk and doing nothing about it. In fact, there were those who tried to sound the alarm about what was occurring in companies like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac but nothing was done.
As much as right wingers would like to blame the government for the incredibly reckless behavior of big banks and other rich folks, that dog doesn't hunt. Government policies did lead to greater income inequality and stagnation of the average worker's income ("free trade" is a definite culprit, for example) which led to greater and greater person ...[text shortened]...
http://entrepreneurs.about.com/b/2009/01/21/startups-critical-for-job-creation-in-us.htm[/b]
In short, the "powers that be" that over saw these high risk securities should be put on trial as well as those over seeing Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. If nothing else, they should all be charged with neglagence.
So do you think the average small business has an income level of under $250,000? If so, they are the "rich" that needs to be targeted by Obama. Not a good move.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt has been said that corporations don't really pay taxes, they just
So Obama is in favoring of ending preferential tax treatment of oil companies. Good for him.
I really suggest you Republicans win elections if you want to continue policies that favor the super rich and a few well connected corporations.
collect taxes from employess, investors, and customers.
So if we change tax policy to be less in favor of domestic oil producers, who would you want to feel the pain? Investors (some of which are teachers retirement funds), employees, or customers?
Originally posted by techsouthNonsense. The government must chose some segment of the society to act punitive towards. Otherwise, where is the fun in it all?
It has been said that corporations don't really pay taxes, they just
collect taxes from employess, investors, and customers.
So if we change tax policy to be less in favor of domestic oil producers, who would you want to feel the pain? Investors (some of which are teachers retirement funds), employees, or customers?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI am all for personal liability -- pierce that corporate veil, hold those execs at every level who financially benefited from their funny accounting, their sleight of hand securities and their huge bonuses accountable personally. Hold them upside down, shake them until all the pennies drop. Then leave them to twist, slowly, in the wind.
If the Tinbergen norm (perhaps in a less extreme variation) is implemented legally, then the best and the brighest (as if that guarantees becoming a CEO...) will still work for "measly" 500k wages because they won't be able to earn more unless they actually also have personal responsibility.
I would exempt from this all those in the financial industry who did not engage in predatory, fraudulent lending, who did not make markets in bogus CDS and CDO instruments, and those who did not profit thereby.
for example, I'd let most community bankers off the hook and would not apply compensation limits to them for the reasons I would exempt others noted above.
can anyone give me reasons to let community bankers out from under the pay caps, even if they take TARP money?
what happens if those sorts of banks disappear?
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's even worse in Holland, the rich are getting back 52 cents on the dollar from their mortgage interest! It's preposterous.
The proposal is a very modest reduction of the mortgage interest deduction for the wealthiest taxpayers. To wit:
The Obama administration hopes to tap the rich to help pay for its ambitious programs. Specifically, that would include slashing mortgage interest deductions for high-income taxpayers.
The proposal would cap at 28% the tax br ...[text shortened]... be made up one way or the other either by taxing someone else or running up more debt.
Originally posted by techsouthi'd go for the executives. is it really necessary for
It has been said that corporations don't really pay taxes, they just
collect taxes from employess, investors, and customers.
So if we change tax policy to be less in favor of domestic oil producers, who would you want to feel the pain? Investors (some of which are teachers retirement funds), employees, or customers?
corporations to shell out jillion-dollar bonuses to attract competent help, especially when the help isn't punished for screwups?