Skip to comments.Why am I supposed to not want a tax compromise?
Posted on 12/31/2012 2:39:36 PM PST by Jake8898
As it stands, I pay thousands upon thousands in federal income taxes...
Why should I be unhappy that an agreement tonight will save me another several thousand in federal income taxes? I realize the deal will not meet our standards for federal spending cuts, but, I'd rather not be forced to throw another large sum down the rabbit hole. It's not 100% of what we want but to make the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts permanent is a solid start.
Folks, we have a president who is addicted to spending your money. Realistically, given the media's relating of the message, we are not going to fully get our way. Why give him more tax dollars???? Start with the proposed bargain tonight, win 2014 and 2016 and cement in place a sensible policy.
Because investors will have less money.
So there’ll be less jobs. Less growth.
What good will that do you?
The problem isn't under taxing. Taxes should not even be on the table unless the issue is freeing the tax slaves once and for all. Cutting off the freeloading is the ONLY thing that should be on the table at this point. That's what got us into this mess. The non employed by choice are outspending the employed, and it isn't even their money they're doing it with.
Using more of our wages to cover up the problem for another month isn't going to fix anything. The wise politician would target the disease - welfare freeloading - and the symptoms would go away by themselves.
Instead of sharing the wealth, why not share the WORK and allow the wealth to share itself?
Jake seems delusional to the fact that once the DC Party takes money
from the rich, they will coming for his tax bracket, as well.
Because we don’t have a revenue problem - we have a SPENDING problem - any tax “deal” that doesn’t include spending cuts (which was the original deal Zero made with Congress) is just economic masturbation....
True, investors will have less to invest and there will be lower growth. But, after these last few months it should be apparent that you will lose the political argument when you sound like investor profits are more important than the middle class.
Any proposals to cut spending will be countered by arguments that you can avoid those cuts if only you raise taxes on the ‘rich’. One of the positives from this deal is we can make the argument that since we’ve raised taxes on the rich, now it is time to make the cuts.
Because you are paying for things you are not receiving, quality education system, stable and reliable transportation system, border security, sound financial system, veteran rehabilitation/reintegration system and a government of the people, by the people. That is why.
they allow this and it means they agree with democrats that “the rich” - as dems define it - have not been paing their fair share all along and it’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now. it is full license to continue to rape the productive and keep redefining who “the rich” are.
even though we have numbers showing we could take all the rich’s money it wouldn’t make a big dent in spending for even one year, facts don’t matter and the press will not ever admit the truth so hardly anyone will hear it.
To a certain extent I agree with you. We have entered into an era of dog-eat-dog where it is every man for himself. Just give me my Obamaphone, keep my taxes low and screw everybody else. That’s at one level.
However at a dynamic level we will all suffer from these tax increases as it will slow down the economy, increase unemployment, hurt the stock market, etc etc In addition revenues to the government will be constrained due to the bad economy. The democrats will then want to raise even more taxes and will run out of money from people in the higher brackets and come after us.
so we are screwed no matter what
The disease includes welfare freeloading, it isn't limited there.
The disease includes foreign aid, gratuitous spending on pork and idiotic feel good projects, bloated civil service, attempting to manage local and state problems from Washington, lack of oversight of congressional and executive office salaries and spending on their own perks (note, this includes presidential vacations and first wookie trips and the car covers she wears as well as using govt franking privilege for purely political correspondence (including sending naughty pic's via official email), and tax dollar's spent in support of unions, ....want me to go on?
can’t ever make reductions, things always cost more than they were expected to cost. always.
If they can’t give up a crumb of cuts now, what makes you think that placating you with the crumb of slightly less high taxes will work out later. They’ll just do the same thing again in the future, only you will be paying even more taxes next time and the situation will be worse because the debt will be worse and more people will be out of work and needing welfare money.
Are you wearing blinders? Do you not see this? Is this that difficult to comprehend?
If they don’t actually work the real spending problem now, they will never do it later. They will just threaten you with massive taxes increases and then only force some of those increases on you saying they have compromised. The cause for the need for those taxes, overspending, will never be addressed and more and more people will be forced onto the dole. They will have no incentive to cut back their lavish spending, which means more and more tax money will be required.
I see...lower rates for you as long as they “stick it” to those that are not you and make more.
Sounds like a liberal to me.
“One of the positives from this deal is we can make the argument that since weve raised taxes on the rich, now it is time to make the cuts.”
I agree, though the media will try to make that moot and will probably succeed.
Nonetheless taking money from investors keeps them from investing it.
And investment is the only thing that will put growth in the economy.
So ‘taxing the rich’ is hurting everyone.
Because sometimes it’s all yunz can stand and yunz can’t stand no more!
Then yunz spit.
Yep. The taxing has gotten to the point where the commies are calling those who make $250K/yr "millionaires and billionaires."
What's it going to be next time their parasitic base gets hungry? Will those making $50K be the new millionaires and billionaires? Because there won't be any other "rich" boogieman left to demonize.
This is what they did to tobacco. First, a modest tax. Then, a bigger tax. Then, another tax. Then, corporate extortion, but they weren't done yet. They had one more card. They hit the smoker up through Obomcare. They've milked that boogieman dry.
SO.......now they move on to pot. Three joints have as much poisonous carcinogens as an entire pack of cigarettes, yet for some reason health no longer matters. Gee. Why is that?
Tax. First, there will be a modest tax. Then, a higher tax. Maybe another tax. Then, corporate extortion. After that, extra fees for health care costs. Eventually, they'll milk the pot industry dry, too.
I wonder what the next boogieman gold mine will be. They're setting the stage for sugar, too, so that might be the next "evil" $$$$ cash cow.
The freeloaders gotta eat somehow, right? The politicians have to steal the money from someone somewhere.
With one proviso:
Investments need to be made in America.
Not China, Europe or anywhere else.
Exactly. Once u go after one group, it is easier to go after the rest.
This is my thought as well. And I hope we see the argument made that every other department should be responsible for larger cuts than those the DOD will be forced into via the sequester that is apparently still going to be enacted. 10% absolute cuts across the board should be easily achievable.
Taxes aren’t the primary problem. The problem is the insanely out of control spending that they use to justify overtaxation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.