Posted on 12/31/2012 2:39:36 PM PST by Jake8898
As it stands, I pay thousands upon thousands in federal income taxes...
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.
Absolutely.
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.
You lose.
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.
They would need to pass a bill for that. Which means they have to take back the house.
“If the burden is never placed on the parasite, it thrives.”
Good point.
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.