Tax Tsunami Coming to you!!!!

[ISASO]

How does giving the private sector the ability to create real jobs provide politicians and bureaucrats more power? It doesn't, so that's why some Democrats won't have anything to do with doing the right thing.

They firmly believe that people don't know how best to spend their money. They truly believe that people will waste it by saving it. They fail to realize that some well-placed greed will truly fix our economy.

[ShockBand]

That would be if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire. Obama's plan would only expire the cuts on $200k single/$250k married, so the family making $50k would have tax rates staying the same.

It looks to me like the tax cuts (all) will expire since neither the house or the senate have even drafted up legislation (they just talk about it). And there are hints that the democrats do draft up legislation will put poison pills in it that will likely drive away any bipartisan support (which it will needed to get it passed).

What is really mind boggling is the opponents who don't want the tax cuts to be extended so they can use the money to fund expansion of some of Obama programs on unemployment.

Does anybody get it that to solve the unemployment and poverty issues you have to create jobs. And to create jobs you have to create an environment where people with money want to invest in business? You don't grow wealth by government handouts (which they don't even have).

Does anybody get that if you actually quite spending more than you bring in and pay off the debt you eventually will have much more money available for great society programs? (of course their is going to be some pain - but the alternative ...)

But if you continue to spend like drunken sailors the only thing will be left is to hit the bottle.

Not defending, just stating fact of plans. Personally, I think we should extend the cuts to everyone for about 2-3 years, try to keep spending in check, see how the economy is doing at that time, then reevaluate whether or not those tax cuts should be expired for everyone, perhaps over a few years and not all at once. It is certainly possible that it may take a combination of spending freezes and reductions along with some tax increases to get us out of our long-term pickle without burning programs to the ground (unless that is the intention and is a related but different debate).

The problem is such thinking is not short-term electable, barking "I'll cut your taxes without cutting YOUR favorite program or benefit but I will slash spending" is. I would be considered a moderate, as I don't want big or small government, I want appropriate government, and what my government is called to do it should have the resources to do it well. One thing I do believe is that the federal government does too much - the authority for certain things such as education should return to the state level at the highest. Narrow the focus of what federal government does do, then make sure they have what it takes to do it well.

When you belong to the "haves" it is easy to be conservative.
When you belong to the "have nots" it is easy to be liberal.
Sometimes what is best belongs to neither extreme.

[1979Shocker]

If they end up extending the tax cuts for everyone, they'll need to cut some spending, actually a lot of spending.

When spending is cut, it's usually spending that would normally go towards helping the poor and middle class. So basically if that was to happen, it would be taking from those that need help (the poor and middle class) and giving to those that don't (the upper class and rich). That sounds like Robin Hood in reverse.

Or, I guess they could just not pay for the tax cuts, again.

[WuDrWu]

If they end up extending the tax cuts for everyone, they'll need to cut some spending, actually a lot of spending.

When spending is cut, it's usually spending that would normally go towards helping the poor and middle class. So basically if that was to happen, it would be taking from those that need help (the poor and middle class) and giving to those that don't (the upper class and rich). That sounds like Robin Hood in reverse.

Or, I guess they could just not pay for the tax cuts, again.

That's simply flawed thinking.

The poor by definition always have less than the rich. You, like the President, are simply engaging in class warfare.

Any cut in spending affect the poor....that's the way it is. Of course, the $64 question is where each of us draws the line between rich and poor. That's when the more conservative amongst us revert to THE CONSTITUTION instead of some elitist think tank Harvard professor.

Maybe we could cut disability payments and federally funded public housing for illegal immigrants, for starters.

But the bottom line is that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid take up the biggest share of the federal budget, along with defense.

Until we address SS, MC and MA, we're going to be treading water.

[SB Shock]

If they end up extending the tax cuts for everyone, they'll need to cut some spending, actually a lot of spending.

Whether they raise taxes or leave the taxes where they are - they need to cut spending.

When spending is cut, it's usually spending that would normally go towards helping the poor and middle class.

Please cite when exactly has this nation in the last 20-30 year our nation has cut spending. Also please tell us where those cuts were made.

My suspicion is you find that once a entitelment program become and entitlelment it is untouchable.

So basically if that was to happen, it would be taking from those that need help (the poor and middle class) and giving to those that don't (the upper class and rich). That sounds like Robin Hood in reverse.

Or, I guess they could just not pay for the tax cuts, again.

It is called redistribution. Socialism.

I suspect that if the government had to do what charities had to do and provide the %spent on administration - you would find that the Government is one of the worst charitable organizations out there.

I had a friend once tell me that if people actually had to write a check each pay period to the government for all the taxes they have to pay - there would be a revolution.

The dirty little secret is if you want to really fix deficit issue - you have to tax everybody.

50% is paying 96% of the taxes.

[1979Shocker]

But the bottom line is that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid take up the biggest share of the federal budget, along with defense.

Until we address SS, MC and MA, we're going to be treading water.

I agree with all that. Of course, cuts in those programs are not going to happen in our lifetime.

The only way it would happen is for the children (meaning those grown up and moved out on their own) to take care of their elderly parents/grandparents and not allow the government to do all the caring. Then we could get weaned off some of these programs. The government would then only need to help those unable to care for the elderly.

[WuDrWu]

50% is paying 96% of the taxes.

Yes but remember, it's money they don't need.

[SubGod22]

Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

The "framework" of the deal that Obama outlined Monday evening calls for a two-year extension of the cuts in all income tax brackets. It also would extend long-term unemployment benefits through next year. The estate tax rate would be renewed, but at a lower rate than even during the Bush administration. And the Obama administration is proposing a one-year payroll tax reduction that sources say would cut the amount contributed to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

Beyond the Bush-era tax cuts, the renewal of the estate tax also could be tough to swallow for liberal Democrats, who have argued for higher rates. Under Bush, the tax on large estates dropped from 55 percent to 45 percent -- then to zero this year. Under the deal announced by Obama, it would change to 35 percent next year for estates larger than $5 million.

Sources tell Fox News that a payroll tax reduction, if approved, would take the place of the Obama-backed "Making Work Pay" tax credit that gave up to $400 to individuals and $800 to couples through the economic stimulus package. Obama had pressed for an extension of the tax credit, but Republicans objected.

To no surprise, the far left, Pelosi/Reid, hate this deal and will probably end up fighting it. This deal may not be perfect but it's better than what appeared was going to happen.

[WuDrWu]

Sub, can you provide the details of the estate tax and how it is affected here? To me, this is the most annoying and punitive tax there is.

Sometimes it's the government's third, fourth and even 10th bite at the apple, so to speak.

This is the most blatant kind of socialism. Why should the government be involved in what a family wants to do? They have collected tax upon tax upon tax in these cases, then at the end they want to take even more.

I also wish politicians would be thrown in jail every time one of these idiots say they are "giving" money to the rich. They aren't GIVING the rich anything. They just aren't fleecing the rich as much. It's ALWAYS been the "rich's" own money, and never belonged the government in the first place. I think that phraseology is borderline criminal. A tax cut isn't giving the rich anything (and I use the term "rich" in their context, not mine).

Rant over.

[SubGod22]

Sub, can you provide the details of the estate tax and how it is affected here? To me, this is the most annoying and punitive tax there is.

Sometimes it's the government's third, fourth and even 10th bite at the apple, so to speak.

This is the most blatant kind of socialism. Why should the government be involved in what a family wants to do? They have collected tax upon tax upon tax in these cases, then at the end they want to take even more.

I also wish politicians would be thrown in jail every time one of these idiots say they are "giving" money to the rich. They aren't GIVING the rich anything. They just aren't fleecing the rich as much. It's ALWAYS been the "rich's" own money, and never belonged the government in the first place. I think that phraseology is borderline criminal. A tax cut isn't giving the rich anything (and I use the term "rich" in their context, not mine).

Rant over.

I have no details on it other than what the article said. The Death (Estate) Tax is a crock. 35% is better than the 55% it was going to be. But it's still 35% too high. But I think in this case it was something that had to be compromised to get other things passed (extending tax cuts for all). There's still no guarantee this will pass as the far left that control way too much are very against a few aspects of this deal.

I give Obama some props for trying to work with the other side here. He doesn't do it often, but it may still get shot down depending.

[SubGod22]

Bipartisan Heat Flares Over Obama's Tax Cut Compromise

While the liberal wing of President Obama's party was howling over his decision to negotiate with Republicans -- likened to "terrorists" by one Democratic senator last week -- conservatives also were grumbling that the president won concessions for Democrats in the process.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, told Fox News the tax cut extension is vital but criticized the jobless benefits and said they should at least be paid for. "We want to make sure we're dealing more with paychecks and not so focused on unemployment checks," he said Tuesday, noting that he needs to review the deal more closely.

"I'm not initially thrilled about it, and that's perhaps is what a successful negotiation is all about," he said.

This will be interesting.

[RoyalShock]

The estate tax is the only way to be absolutely certain they got at least two cuts of the dollar. After all, those rich folks might have actually saved money that had only been cut into by the payroll tax. Heaven forbid!!!

And I agree about the "giving" language, Doc. Really, I want to see copies of the checks to all the rich people that says it came from the US Treasury.

[DUShock]

There is no such thing as a free lunch...

[SubGod22]

Obama Calls Tax Cut Plan a 'Good Deal,' Says Republicans Would Not 'Budge'

The president, calling a rare press conference at the White House Tuesday afternoon to discuss the proposal, reiterated his personal opposition to extending tax cuts for the wealthy but said he had to accept a temporary extension because Republicans were "unwilling to budge" on it. He said he would push to end those cuts two years from now, but urged Congress to support the plan to avoid a crushing tax increase at the beginning of next year.

"I'm not here to play games with the American people," Obama said, adding he did not want to wage a "protracted political battle."

"I don't like what I see, because it looks like a ransom was paid with a let-them-eat-cake attitude," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

"I'm opposed" to the deal, said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo, adding that he sees a plan that's "unbalanced when it comes to helping the middle class."

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La, who is adamantly opposed to the compromise, called tax cuts for the wealthy "morally unconscionable."

:roll:

Some Republicans have reservations for obvious reasons too. But I haven't seen them as opposed to it as some of the Dems.

[DUShock]

There is no such thing as a free lunch...

http://concordcoalition.org/press-releases/2010/1207/concord-coalition-says-major-tax-reform-should-follow-two-year-extension-ta