Is 2% Really That Much?

[Skip8282]

For either side.

So the Clinton rate was like 39.6%.

Bush tax cuts put it at like 35%.

And both sides are still pissing about 37%

Really?

[LATS]

If that were the only tax .. Unfortunately adding in some state taxes into the equation and you have some who will pay over 50 percent.. I am not richby any meansbut no one should have to give the gov over half their income.. Silly..

[Primemuscle]

For either side.

So the Clinton rate was like 39.6%.

Bush tax cuts put it at like 35%.

And both sides are still pissing about 37%

Really?

I am not excited about forking over another $1,500 in taxes, but I'll live.

[Coach is Back!]

I am not excited about forking over another $1,500 in taxes, but I'll live.

You voted for it!

[Primemuscle]

You voted for it!

Like I said, I can live with it.
  

Obama made raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year a centerpiece of his economic message – something he emphasized in his recent press conference – and he was rewarded with a resounding victory. Voters also handed Democrats an increased Senate majority, where the tax debate played out front-and-center in many campaigns.

If you do some calculations you'll see that I don't make $250,000 a year. So strictly speaking, I did not vote for a tax increase on my much more modest income.

There's some good news for tax payers in Oregon, but this is bad news for state revenue. Oregon allows a subtraction for your current year's federal income tax liability after credits.

[bears]

For either side.

So the Clinton rate was like 39.6%.

Bush tax cuts put it at like 35%.

And both sides are still pissing about 37%

Really?

this post epitomizes the fundamental logical flaw made by citizens who let their country slowly slip out of their control and before they know it its too late to fix.  government bleeds you slowly while they smile at you and tell you everything is alright.  they never stab you with a big butcher knife.  this is how hypnotized lemmings talk.

[Fury]

For either side.

So the Clinton rate was like 39.6%.

Bush tax cuts put it at like 35%.

And both sides are still pissing about 37%

Really?

The problem is that the money is going to be pissed right down the drain and do nothing to fix our spending problem.

The government brings in ~$2 TRILLION in revenue every year. Does it really need more?

[avxo]

The problem is that the money is going to be pissed right down the drain and do nothing to fix our spending problem.

Spot on! If we had a solution - a real solution, not the semi-liquid bullshit that they will try to pass off as a solution - I wouldn't mind paying extra. I don't think very many people would either. At our core, we all want to see our country do better, and leave it better off than we found it. And, if nothing else, I hope I'm not wrong on that.

But as it stands now, with the stewardship that all the Administrations and the Congresses of the last few decades have shown, I wouldn't consent to pay one fucking red cent extra. Because it will be wasted, just as surely as it would be wasted if I gave it to a drug addict, scrounging money to get one more fix.

The government brings in ~$2 TRILLION in revenue every year. Does it really need more?

As for this... well, that's somewhat relative. It depends on what the Government has to do and what services it provides. Reasonable men can differ on that. And unreasonable ones can differ even more.

[bears]

The problem is that the money is going to be pissed right down the drain and do nothing to fix our spending problem.

The government brings in ~$2 TRILLION in revenue every year. Does it really need more?

theres no room for logic and reasoning in american politics.  i personally wish they would just settle on raising revenues by increasing the rates on the higher income taxpayers, then see that it doesn't help anything, then not make the same mistake again and start drastically cutting spending.   

[War-Horse]

You voted for it!

No one voted for tax hikes for the middleclass.  Re-storing tax rates for the wealthy is what was voted for. The GOP is holding america hostage again and spinning like you do.  They will pay heavily incoming years.

[War-Horse]

this post epitomizes the fundamental logical flaw made by citizens who let their country slowly slip out of their control and before they know it its too late to fix.  government bleeds you slowly while they smile at you and tell you everything is alright.  they never stab you with a big butcher knife.  this is how hypnotized lemmings talk.

This post rings true for the collective bargaing rights too.  Little steps here and there to destroy workers wages.....

[Skip8282]

The problem is that the money is going to be pissed right down the drain and do nothing to fix our spending problem.

The government brings in ~$2 TRILLION in revenue every year. Does it really need more?

No, it doesn't.  And I'm in full agreement that the rates should not increase and spending should decrease.

But, as we know, there's a lot of people who want the higher rates.

Reality dictates both sides have to compromise. 

Either side trying to force their view on the other is just causing gridlock (which may be a good thing at times, lol).  Not so sure at this point in time that gridlock is the best option.

[tbombz]

neither side is willing to do what's necessary to balance the budget and pay back the debt. We would need to cut a trillion per year in spending and increase taxes by 500 billion a year in order to do that. All the proposals consist of a couple trillion over the course of 10 years.  I think the fiscall cliff needs to hit. 

[GigantorX]

The tax hike is a political scalp, it doesn't even come anywhere remotely close to closing the deficit and neither do any of the fake spending cuts offered up by Republicans.

Spending automatically increases every single year, it's the law, start with that, freeze spending levels and go from there.

If not, two things continue to happen:

1.)All tax revenue will be eaten up by new spending.

2.)The  spending cuts will never be enacted.

And beware of the numbers game. All of the "...1.6 trillion dollars in additional revenue." being thrown about is over a 10 year period as are the "budget cuts." And remember that those aren't real spending cuts as the only thing that is getting "cut" is future spending. The budget still grows. We are running a 1 Trillion + in budget deficits every year.

Until the structural cluster-fucks are dealt with we will continue to slide toward the end.

[tbombz]

The automatic increases are mostly for adjustment due to inflation.  While shutting that off would decrease spending I think there is a better way.  Cut benefits and tighten requirement for beneficiaries. That way we can cut a huge amount at once and at the same time we wouldn't have yp get rid of the built-in inflationary adjustments that help keep things stable.

[Primemuscle]

The problem is that the money is going to be pissed right down the drain and do nothing to fix our spending problem.

The government brings in ~$2 TRILLION in revenue every year. Does it really need more?

I don't know. Why don't you present your budget for spending for the nation so we can figure this out?   

What I do know is this, $2 trillion would certainly make of an extravagant lifestyle for my wife and me.

[GigantorX]

The automatic increases are mostly for adjustment due to inflation.  While shutting that off would decrease spending I think there is a better way.  Cut benefits and tighten requirement for beneficiaries. That way we can cut a huge amount at once and at the same time we wouldn't have yp get rid of the built-in inflationary adjustments that help keep things stable.

Eh, those increases are dependent on how much a section of government spent the year before. Hence the reason departments of govt. need to spend all money allocated to them before the fiscal year ends or they will see less money for their budget for the next fiscal year. Another example is the bump in the overall federal budget that was seen after the 800 billion dollar stimulus bill was passed.