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.
Do you have a 401K? Do you care what happens to it?
I guess if you don’t count all the ObamaCare taxes and other things that are being done....
If everyone thought the way you did, then where would it lead? The guy who makes $250k a year says, “Okay go ahead and tax the guy who makes $500k a year, as long as my rates don’t go up”, and the guy who makes $100k a year says “Okay, go ahead and tax the guy who makes $250k”, and the guy who makes $50k a year says “Okay, go ahead and tax the guy who makes $100k a year”. Pretty soon, everyone’s getting taxed, because the politicians can count on the votes of those who never have to pay any taxes, plus a small segment that they have bought off with low tax rates. Everyone else gets screwed.
So, even though my rates won’t be effected, I still won’t support this compromise, because it encourages the politicians to engage in class warfare, since it’s going to prove expedient for them to do so.
Your taxes are not going down
Sure. Give him more money now. That should pacify his lust, right?
This is an excellent and too infrequently mentioned point. Women having to work to support a family, thanks to taxes, means the kids are left to day care or whatever and the family unit and society pay as a whole. Everyone ultimately suffers so we can be tax slaves for the federal government. Women working was sold to us as women's lib - at the cost of a woman's primary duty - to take care of the young. Look where it has got us. Trillions for the politicians to play with while they blame everybody and everything for the problems THEY have created.
These people in D.C. are demons. The ones who are not get shoved aside - like Sarah.
People working into their 70s these days is another result of the government taking an ever bigger bite.
Except that 0bama said in his speech that any cuts during the debt ceiling debate will have to include additional revenues including closing of deductions for high income earners and corporations.
So he is already going for more taxes, right after he gets his tax raises this tome.
Yes...although I’m not entirely sure that it’s a bad thing - retirement can be hell for some people.
Retirement used to be a different game altogether. It didn’t mean so much an end of work as it mean an end of work for other people. Families used to stick together with “retired” elders taking on a lot of the light duty.
Yesterday my grandmother was telling me that the grandparents on The Waltons was actually a petty fair representation of the way retirement used to be. In fact when my great great grandfather retired in the 1930s, his daughter and her family lived with him and my great great grandmother on the farm and the son in law took over running the farm.
We've now avoided any sense of fiscal responsibility, and inflation is now closer as the FED will keep pumping money into the economy.
In the very short run, it's nice to have those dollars. Use them to prep for the trouble ahead.
Remember, Obama is an Alinskyite, and he wants a crisis and the bigger the better.
It was better then.
People with wisdom should not be put out to pasture. And they should be near their families - not in some “retirement home” put there to die. Their kids selfishness puts them there, unless there are significant health issues.
Once read an article by a reporter from Boston, most likely liberal, and she went back to Italy to see how a cousin lived. She stayed in the small town with the cousin and the rest of the family, who all lived together. The cousin, a young woman, lived a sheltered and safe life. The liberal from Boston came to the conclusion that the so called advancements for women in this country weren’t so great after all. They cost us a lot - in so many ways.
“And investment is the only thing that will put growth in the economy. So taxing the rich is hurting everyone.”
Completely agree that growth is the only way out of this mess. Problem is convincing the ‘low information’ person that taxing the rich will not solve the problem.
To an extent, Obama has worked himself into a box. He’s got the tax increases on the rich which he said would solve the problem. Now what? He said today, he’ll need more tax increases. The GOP needs to use this admission to advance the argument that tax increases will never be sufficient.
I don’t support higher rates for ANYONE.
BUT, we’ve got a class warrior in the White House who insists on creating the appearance that he’s going to stick it to the rich. The republicans hold the House, that’s it. Whether we like it or not there is going to have to be compromise.
Why would anyone on this site welcome higher taxes on all?
We take an agreement that spares some from further coerced contribution to the govt. waste and move on from there.
I understand that my payroll taxes are going up regardless, but I don’t need the federal taxes going up as well so it can be doled out to dysfunctional leeches and further fund an expansion of government’s hand.
You are supposed to hate this deal, because the rich will pay higher taxes, which is bad for you in ways that the republicans, and the conservatives, have failed to adequately explain to you or others. They are correct, but you’d never know it.
You are supposed to hate this deal, because you are supposed to believe that, contrary to all evidence and common sense, Obama was on the ropes and could have been forced to accept a deal identical to the deal we barely passed in 2001 when we had a republican president, a republican senate, and a republican house.
You are supposed to hate this deal because, in spite of the fact that the tax bill is a completely separate bill from the sequestration bill, you are expected to believe that it was imperative that a new bill to cut taxes had to also include spending cuts.
Tomorrow, everybody’s taxes go up tremendously. After that, there would be pressure to lower taxes, because people like lower taxes. Forget sequestration — that’s a different bill — and frankly there is no true political pressure to do much of anything with that, except for the angst over actually pretending to cut spending.
So you have to ask yourself, as do all conservatives — given a tax rate identical to that of January 1, 2001, and a trillion-dollar-a-year deficit (as opposed to the on-paper SURPLUS in 2001 — what possibly deal do you really think you could get?
2001 - Republican President just elected, with Republican Senate (barely - 50/50 with tiebreaker going to republicans) and Republican House. Technical Budget Surplus, ran on across-the-board tax cuts. In that environment, the best we could do was a temporary 10-year tax cut, which reverted in 2011 (and was extended then for a 2-year-period).
2013 - Democratic President just relected, with Democrat Senate (55-45) and republican house. Huge budget deficit, president ran on NO TAX CUTS for “the rich”. In this environment, do you really believe we would EVER get a deal like the bad one we got in 2001. The deal we currently have on the table — PERMANENT tax cuts for everybody making under $400,000 a year.
You should oppose this, because taxes are already too progressive. But it is hard to see how we would have done much “better”. The solution was to do “worse”, meaning NOT approve tax cuts for anybody. But that’s a hard sell. Technically, the tax pledge would work against anybody wanting to vote AGAINST tax cuts for 99% of us, even though it is the right thing to do.
So I assume you would be in favor of Obama letting you keep YOUR Guns but taking away the Guns of others?
Sorry, first thing that cam to mind when I read your Post.
I see your point, but there aren’t any Tax Cuts. Tax Rates for the under $400,000 crowd will remain unchanged.
There are only Tax Increases for the over $400,000 crowd.
I realize we are dealing in semantics, but Obama will get credit for doing what President Bush did, cutting Tax Rates.
The only reason there was a ten year limit was because the Tax Rate Cuts, which RAISED Tax Revenue BTW, were not passed with a Super Majority in the Senate, therefore they contained a Sunset Provision. Too bad Spending Bills don’t meet the same fate.
Not counting ObamaCare that hits everyone
Congratulations - you are starting to understand how easy it is to become enslaved to the government by accepting the crumbs they throw your way and not having a care in the world when the cow will finally die - on that day, the flow of milk stops and there won’t be enough steaks for a last meal.
I hate this argument when Obama makes it, and I hate it even more when conservatives buy into it.
The basis for a democratic form of government is that people sometimes agree to compromises, not because they contain everything they think is good, or agree with the other side, but because it is required to get anything done.
Voting for a compromise where taxes are raised on the rich doesn’t in any way indicate that republicans think that part of the compromise is a good thing. IT certainly doesn’t mean they “agree” with everything — if they did, it wouldn’t be a “compromise”.
When Obama claimed that our acquiescence to NOT including a tax cut for the highest earners means that we “now admit” that they don’t pay enough is the type of smarmy statement that makes me want to punch him in the face.
You welcome higher taxes for all because it puts the pain everywhere, where it truly belongs. If the burden is never placed on the parasite, it thrives.
If we continue to allow a large portion of our population to malinger, then we will never get out of this hole!
How many people do you know who consistently make more than $250,000 a year, and have not yet amassed one million dollars worth of assets?
I agree that Obama keeps lying about what he wants, and people are generally deceived by him into thinking he is talking about those who EARN one million a year; but the phrase “millionaire” refers to how much money you have, not how much money you make.
For example, Joe Biden is a millionaire, even though his earnings are in the $250,000 range. Obama is a millionaire, even though he also does not make one million in a year.
The true falsity of Obama’s statement is that he does NOTHING to tax people who are “millionaires and billionaires”; Warren Buffet will be able to pretty much pay no taxes next year, if he so chose, simply by not making realizable capital gains, and avoiding interest and dividend earnings, and hiding whatever income he has in trusts and charitable foundations. He won’t, but Buffet isn’t all that concerned about what the top INCOME TAX rate is, because he hasn’t “earned” over $250,000 in income for a while now, since all his “earnings” are investment-style.
If Obama truly wanted to get billionaires to pay their fair share, we’d have a one-time 10% wealth tax — take 10% of everything people who own more than a billion dollars of assets own. I don’t think that would be a GOOD idea, but we’d be targeting “millionaires and billionaires”.
In truth, that whole phrase is simply the most base deployment of class warfare — no different really than the rhetoric of Bane from the latest Batman movie, or the shrill violent voices of the occupy wallstreet folks.
Of course, I can guarantee you that Obama and his family will NEVER be without expensive armed guard protection from the rabble he stirs up against those who earn and save.
There are tax cuts. If we do nothing, the tax rates dictated by the current law continue in effect. I realize that the current law dictates that the tax rates go back up to the 2001 levels; but that is the current law.
Since it is now January 1st, the current tax rates are identical to the tax rates of January 1st, 2001. That is a fact. It does mean your taxes likely will go up this year, under the current law, and if you want to call that a tax increase, well it is, so go ahead.
But realize that it already happened. Your taxes are higher, right now.
So, what do you want to do about that? The tax rates right now are the January 2001 tax rates. If I tell you we can pass a law with no sunset provision that lowers the tax rate you pay, that is a “tax cut”, because it will make your taxes on the day the bill is signed LOWER than they are today.
Suppose in 2009, the democrats with their supermajority had passed a new law setting the taxes to 50% for everybody.
Then suppose today, we were discussing lowering the tax rates back to the Bush rates, and to 40% for the highest bracket. Would you argue that this isn’t a “tax cut” since back in 2009 the taxes were the same?
If so, then nothing we do is a tax cut, because back before we passed the 16th amendment, nobody paid income taxes at all, and even afterwards, the tax rates were lower for most of us at some point in the past.
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t WANT to keep the bush tax rates (although I would love to have the discussion over why we claim that THOSE particular rates are the perfect ones, and not rates that might be 1% lower or 1% higher than those rates — we fall into the trap of claiming that current law is the best law, rather than asking what the best law SHOULD be).
I’m arguing that in the current political environment, I’d like to see the argument that shows how we could have gotten a permanent law setting tax rates for everybody at the “Bush” levels, when we couldn’t even do that when we first passed those Bush tax cuts.
And if you have no plan or reasonable expectation to achieve that, let’s stop pretending otherwise, and argue about whether a permanent tax law with the bush rates for 99% of people is better or worse than the Jaunary 1, 2001 tax rates for all people.
Because that was the argument. I could argue that we’d be better off letting the taxes go up, so everybody can see that you can’t simply tax yourself to balance. I would note when people scream that we had budget surplus and a thriving economy for several years with the tax rates that went back into effect today, so you are going to have to work hard to prove that they are impossible to maintain.
Go for a year with no new tax laws, and see if you still think that is true.
Your tax rate is higher today. You can accept it, or fight it.
The question is, are you willing to pay those higher taxes for this year, in order to fight for a new tax bill that lowers the taxes back to the old Bush tax rates for the top income tax brackets.
You can pretend your taxes didn’t go up, so then you can pretend they didn’t go back down. But right now, your taxes are the same as they were on January 1, 2001.
whether or not repubs agree with it or not, obama and all the dems in front of cameras will claim it, and guess who’s only going to be put in front of those liberal msm “objective reporting” “unbiased” cameras?
Boner and company have really been out there chewing up the airwaves with the conservative side of the argument. I see the msm gives them all equal time as all the dems they have on film -—— oh wait, they don’t. the message isn’t out there.
Notice how the new Obamacare Taxes have not even been mentioned in relation to the “Fiscal Cliff” nonsense?
Must just be a silly coincidence, like Hillary’s Concussion and subsequent Blood Clot. Short term memory loss is soon to follow.
I understand completely.
My point was that the Politicos “Sunset” Tax Rate Cuts on the basis of a stupid Senate Rule, but any increases in spending never have a similar Sunset Provision.
You are in fact correct, but the idea that Obama will take credit for a magical Tax Cut because the Rats couldn’t or wouldn’t make the Bush Tax Rate Cuts permanent in the first place makes me marvel at the level of manipulation the American People willingly swallow.
We are surrounded by Dolts who possess the most dangerous Assault Weapon in this Country, their Vote.
As Conservatives, we are lucky to get the table scraps the King tosses our way.
They’re raising taxes by a half trillion dollars on people who will pass much of that cost on to you.
They’re not cutting spending.
And they’re calling it a compromise.
They’re negotiating in their interests, not yours.
The message is not out there. That is the problem.
But that doesn’t change the fact — it’s like saying the bridge is out, so in fact we CAN cross over the gorge, since there was a bridge if it just wasn’t out.
You have to deal with reality as it exists. We failed to win this election — that was the plan to get tax cuts for everybody. That was the plan to stop Obamacare.
The only power we have now is the power to prevent spending, by stopping bills. We can’t enact anything the democrats don’t want us to enact.
If there is anything for which we need to actually pass something into law, we will need to find some reason for the democrats to agree, which means either giving them some of what they want, or figuring out how to make it political suicide for them to not go along.
And since nothing seems to be political suicide for democrats these days (other than, I suspect, an attempt to take guns away) we’ve got quite a job to do if we also are not going to consider giving the democrats ANYTHING they want in any bills we want to pass.