Originally Posted By plpeters70 Republicans are releasing a new platform today that they are calling their "Pledge to America". From the NY Times: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/us/politics/23repubs.html?_r=1&hp" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09...?_r=1&hp</a> <<House Republicans on Thursday will issue a legislative blueprint called “A Pledge to America” that they hope will catapult them to a majority in the November elections. Its goals include a permanent extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, repeal of the newly enacted health care law, a cap on discretionary federal spending and an end to government control of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.>> Why would any sane person, who isn't fabulously wealthy or a shill for corporate America, want ANY of these things?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo There are a lot of stupid people out there, many who have been brainwashed.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<many who have been brainwashed.>> Sadly, my mom is one of these. She's still convinced there are death panels as part of the health care reform bill.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo What is her view of the death panels that insurance companies have had for decades?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 My mom is sadly one of those people too. We were talking the other day about how the huge gap between the rich and the poor in this country was de-stabalizing for society. And while she agreed with me, when I suggested that we should really place a cap on the amount of wealth one person can control through higher tax percentages on larger earnings, she told me I was crazy. Apparently she doesn't like the gap between rich and poor, but doesn't actually want the government to do anything about it!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I consider myself to be pretty sane but some of the things I read in the document (as I scanned it, admittedly) don't seem to "wacko" to me: Small Business Tax Deduction Weekly votes on Spending Cuts Ability to Purchase Health Insurance across State Lines Medical Liability Reform End Govt. Control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac I'm insane if I think any of those ideas are good ideas? The problem is, the Republicans DO have some good ideas that the Democrats reject out of hand because they are Republican ideas. And, the Democrats DO have good ideas that the Republicans reject out of hand because they are Democrat ideas. But, both of the controlling interests in these two parties that are doing ANYTHING other than what is best for the PEOPLE are completely opposed to compromise. I hate to say it..but John Stewart is on to something. If the two parties want to know why they are facing competition from a group of people (Tea Party) that no one heard about 12 months ago they simply need to look in the mirror.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I'm insane if I think any of those ideas are good ideas?>> No, I was really only talking about the points in the paragraph I cited above. Some of the things you mention may have merit, and should be debated - but I'm not sure that's what Republicans want with this "Pledge". Clearly, they are trying to stake out a position they can use for the election - I'm just not sure who they are targetting with this. I mean, extending the Bush Era tax cuts for everyone - don't the polls all show that the majority of Americans don't support extending tax cuts for the wealthy?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper No, I don't think the wealthy necessarily need an extended tax cut (though I would also argue they are paying MORE than their fair share of taxes as it is). But again, I think there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle but bipartisanship is history. If anything good comes of the tea party it might just be that it forces the two big guys to reconsider their tactics.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Small Business Tax Deduction<< Which begs the question, why did Republicans filibuster this when Obama and the Democrats wanted to do it?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<though I would also argue they are paying MORE than their fair share of taxes as it is>> I guess I just don't understand this sentiment - how are they really paying more than "their fair share"? What exactly constitutes a persons "fair share" when it comes to taxes? Wealthy people ONLY were able to get the amount of wealth they have because the United States, and its citizens, have created an environment where they can do so. Without the people of this country, and their laws, none of that would be possible. So, if some individuals are benefiting from the society much more than the VAST MAJORITY of the rest of the people, shouldn't they be asked to contribute more back to that society?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Well, I consider myself to be pretty sane but some of the things I read in the document (as I scanned it, admittedly) don't seem to "wacko" to me: Small Business Tax Deduction Weekly votes on Spending Cuts Ability to Purchase Health Insurance across State Lines Medical Liability Reform End Govt. Control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac >> You may be sane, but you are also gullible. None of these items requires any political capital or results in meaningful differences to the status quo. - Small Business Tax Deduction: 90% of small business report no income and pay no taxes. This has always been the fallacy of tax policy for small businesses. You're offering something that they'll never take advantage of in the first place. If they do take advantage, it's just another loophole they can exploit to avoid paying the taxes that they've already found the loopholes to avoid paying previously. - Weekly votes on spending cuts. Since spending is controlled by appropriations bills (which don't get issued weekly), these votes would just be theater to mask what is actually occurring in the legislative process. - Ability to purchase health care insurance across state lines. The lobbyists for the health care industry have been pushing this one furiously. Their plan is to get a interstate health plans so that they can all move their operations to the state that is most willing to offer the fewest regulations for their lobbying dollar. They will then all operate out of this regulation-free state and offer consumers the worst possible coverage for the highest possible price. - Medical Liability Reform -- Another pet project of the insurance industry. Lawsuits in the health industry account for less than 2% of all health costs. There would be no substantial improvement in health care costs for consumers, but health insurers would gladly take these savings in their legal bills to increase payouts to executives. - End governemnt control of Fannie & Freddie. The banks have been lobbying for this over the past couple of decades. The banks would love to get their hands on 100% of the mortgage business in this country. We've seen how well banks handled the mortgage business during the past decade. Why not give them everything they want? By the way, a conservative economist has completely debunked the whole issue of Fannie/Freddie being a cause for the economic collapse -- by every metric, he found that they were not remotely responsible. <a href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/fannie-freddie-acquitted/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29&utm_content=FeedBurner" target="_blank">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2...edBurner</a> Of course, I'm resigned the most of Americans are gullible enough to fall for this crap. While I hate to see people suffer, I suppose I'll just have to be satisfied that I have a good protected income and savings that will likely grow when the GOP forces us into a prolonged deflationary spiral. It will be painful for almost Americans to endure. I really hope folks wise up before it's too late.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper plp...according to numbers I've seen from the Congressional Budget Office: The poorest 1/5 of taxpayers (under $15K income) pay 4.5% tax. The middle 1/5 (under $56K) pay 13.9%). The top 1/5 ($207K) pay 25.1%. The richest 1% ($1.2 million and up) pay 31.1%. I don't think it is too "conservative" to say that noone should have to pay more than 1/3 their income to the Federal government. No, I don't think they should be asked to contribution more back to society. (Even though many do through charitable contributions.)
Originally Posted By mawnck Interestingly, the Tea Party types seem to hate this as much as the Dems do, based on its lack of, well, pretty much anything of substance. If anything, the document exposes the Repubs' distaste for truly following the principles they claim to stand for. "We're for fiscal responsibility! Uh, except when it comes to old people, the military, entitlements, businesses, tax increases, or anything else the government actually spends money on." Seems like the Repubs would know that the best thing to do when you've won the argument is to shut the heck up. Besides, ain't no way the Repubs are going to get a 60% majority in both houses. So this is just a lot of hot air.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Let's see, I have been paying 40% tax most of my working life (17.5% sales tax - though that is going up to 20% in Jan). People earning more than $240,000 a year have to pay 50% here. And if that means good schools, hospitals, public transport, parks, arts funding etc. I gladly pay it. US tax levels are rediculously low compared to other countries in the world. WE get far more out if we all put in (btw - lowest tax payer in UK is 22%)
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, you raise an interesting point dave. If our lowest tax payer rate goes up at the same time our highest does then you would have less of an argument from me. But, I wonder how our bottom 1/5 of tax payers would feel about going from a 4.5% tax rate to a 22% tax rate? The other thing to keep in mind is that I believe only a handful of Republicans have signed on to this whole pledge.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo They are talking about having a 0% tax for those earning less than $15,000 a year.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<If our lowest tax payer rate goes up at the same time our highest does then you would have less of an argument from me.>> Why would you want to burden the poorest people in this country more than they already are? Is your sense of what's fair really that off? Let's look at some numbers - let's say I make 1.2 million and get taxed at 31.1% on all of it - that means I pay approx 373,000 in taxes. Sounds steep - but I still get to keep 826,000 dollars. If I only make 15,000 and get taxed at only 4.5%, then I only have to pay approx 600. Now, on the surface that doesn't sound fair to the rich, but think about it - the rich person still has $826,000 to take home while the poor person is living off only $14K. So, is that really so much of a burden for the rich?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>the Tea Party types seem to hate this as much as the Dems do, based on its lack of, well, pretty much anything of substance<< And if the Tea Party says it doesn't have substance, boy howdy, that's saying something! That whole movement was built on non-substantive slogans and generalities. Oh and anger. They got plenty of anger. At "them."
Originally Posted By JeffG The idea of a progressive tax system (which is what we have) is that taxes become more affordable once your income is higher. Basically, as income gets higher, it becomes increasingly likely that your tax burden is coming out of discretionary income rather than having any impact on your ability to meet your basic needs of food, shelter, transportation, etc. Let's add a bit of additional information to the numbers given in post #12: >> The poorest 1/5 of taxpayers (under $15K income) pay 4.5% tax. << At $15K, that leaves $14,325 to cover personal expenses. >> The middle 1/5 (under $56K) pay 13.9%). << At $56K, that leaves $48,216 to cover personal expenses. >> The top 1/5 ($207K) pay 25.1%. << At $207K, that leaves $155,043 to cover personal expenses. >> The richest 1% ($1.2 million and up) pay 31.1%. << At $1.2 million, that leaves $826,800 to cover personal expenses. Looking at those numbers, who do you really think is going to be more likely to be struggling to get by after they pay their taxes? Which of those people are most likely to be be affected least by the tax increases that are really unavoidable if we ever hope to actually deal with the budget deficit? I do understand the sentiment that people want to keep as much as possible of the money they earn and I can even kind of understand the sentiment behind the idea that it is unfair that those with more money are carrying a lot of the burden of paying for services used by those that can less afford them. Still, I think that is simply part of the price of living in society. I do completely recognize that overtaxing the population can result in all kinds of serious economic issues as fewer funds are re-invested into the private sector. What many conservatives seem to have completely lost sight of, though, is that taxes that are too low are also seriously damaging as the government needs revenue to cover expenses that can't simply be wished away. "Lower taxes" is always going to be a popular campaign promise as nobody likes paying more, but right now we really need a strong dose of reality. -Jeff
