Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Taxes are not the problem. You are right that spending is. Unfortunately, the only 'spending' they want to cut is spending that actually benefits the US in the long run. Neither party want to actually reduce the pentagon's budget by any significant degree.

You know what the kicker is? We can't even fight a war correctly. Tie one hand behind our back and read them their Miranda rights.:shk: For all those billions of dollars.

We shoulda been in and out of Libya in 2 weeks.

Originally posted by David9176

...snip... "That isn't right, and it isn't smart. We've got to cut the deficit, but we can do that while making investments in education, research and technology that actually create jobs."

news.yahoo.com...

It's about damn time!!!! I don't know how this can even be so difficult to stand for when the majority of Americans think the wealthy should pay more in taxes, especially in a time of record corporate profits and exploding wealth disparity. To expect the working middle class, the poor, and unemployed to take all the pain is ridiculous.



Is now just about the time the President starts pushing, sorry, 'campaigning/begging' for re-election...?

Because as you point out - " It's about damn time!!!!..." and if he follows through with this as an active policy... then he will probably be re-elected.

Or assassinated !

( Or BOTH !!! ?)

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by Kitilani

 

They are hooked on bull aren't they?

Not ONE of these Lases can exPlain the prosperity of the 50's
And the very high taxation rate. Ask them, actual proof they are
Full of it and they ignore it, cowardly huh?

I never get to dance like this anymore so it is actually kind of fun. Not really productive and mildly comical but fun nonetheless. Just glad no one acknowledges being proven wrong. They just barrel on through. That way it is easy to figure out who has any honesty to them at all and who is just looking to dance.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

We shoulda been in and out of Libya in 2 weeks.

Actually, You should never have been NEAR Libya in the first place!!! IMHO :-0

reply to post by Kitilani

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Kitilani

I have a question for all the people that cry that raising taxes on business just raises the cost to consumers.
What did GE reduce the prices on because of their refund? Any of you get a check from GE? Anyone?

I don't remember anyone making such a claim.

I do.

Your post makes no sense at all. All you've done is to repeat my claim a dozen times:

Corps pass costs on to consumers.

Kapish? Still with us?

As for your "question".. "What did GE reduce the prices on because of their refund? Any of you get a check from GE? Anyone? " I said Nobody here made such a claim. Except *You*.

You really are confused.

Maybe this will help...I'll talk real slow:

Nobody-made-the-claim-that-GE-lowered-their-prices-or-issued-checks-to-customers.

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by Kitilani

 

They are hooked on bull aren't they?

Not ONE of these Lases can exPlain the prosperity of the 50's
And the very high taxation rate. Ask them, actual proof they are
Full of it and they ignore it, cowardly huh?

Intellectual cowards with popcorn conviction.

Bring the pain, slay my commie propaganda, I'm on the ropes now.

reply to post by inforeal

When Reagan cut the tax rates for the rich, the deficit ballooned, and then Reagan had to raise taxes 11 times in order to balance out his tax cuts for the rich.

Under Reagan you had the hostile take over/leveraged buyouts which gutted American businesses.

...Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration's relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called "junk bond" innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals....www.econlib.org...

...
Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980's were hostile. The 1980's also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.'s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988... THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers.... In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America.... THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another's.
Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989 www.nytimes.com... New York Times

Whether you blame the leveraged buyout feeding frenzies of the 80's or the World Trade Organization “Free Trade” agreement of the 90's the result is the same America has been quietly sold off piece by piece. This is a sampling of the industries with over 50% foreign ownership, according to Source Watch www.sourcewatch.org...

* Sound recording industries - 97%
* Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
* Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
* Metal ore mining - 65%
* Wineries and distilleries - 64%
* Database, directory, Book and other publishers - 63%
* Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
* Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
* Rubber product - 53%
* Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
* Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
* Other insurance related activities - 51%
* Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
* Glass and glass product - 48%
*Coal mining – 48%

A real eye opener isn't it. But it gets worse. The Department of Homeland Security says 80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying and running US bridges and toll roads. www.alabamaeagle.org...

Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, before the World Trade Organization was ratified, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. www.fame.org...

reply to post by mishigas

reply to post by incrediblelousminds Taxes are not the problem. You are right that spending is. Unfortunately, the only 'spending' they want to cut is spending that actually benefits the US in the long run. Neither party want to actually reduce the pentagon's budget by any significant degree. You know what the kicker is? We can't even fight a war correctly. Tie one hand behind our back and read them their Miranda rights. For all those billions of dollars. We shoulda been in and out of Libya in 2 weeks.

First, we never should have been in Libya.It is not a war according to BHO. It is some sort of Kinetic Kenyan military action.. Whatever that is, but bombing a country that has not directly attacked? I think it is a war.
I'm still waiting for Congressional approval. Right or wrong with the Iraq war, Bush got the approval from Congress first, then the U.N.
Taxes are not the problem as stated, our Congress and President are the problem.

reply to post by Philojoshua


I'll agree with you there!

reply to post by mugger

First, we never should have been in Libya.It is not a war according to BHO. It is some sort of Kinetic Kenyan military action.. Whatever that is, but bombing a country that has not directly attacked? I think it is a war.
I'm still waiting for Congressional approval. Right or wrong with the Iraq war, Bush got the approval from Congress first, then the U.N.
Taxes are not the problem as stated, our Congress and President are the problem.

I will totally agree that we have no business being in Libya. But the size of govt is enormous and we have to feed the behemoth somehow. We're not getting many donations from Europe or the mideast so I guess it'll have to be taxes, eh?

Originally posted by mishigas
Your post makes no sense at all. All you've done is to repeat my claim a dozen times:

Corps pass costs on to consumers.

Kapish? Still with us?

You said you did not recall anyone making that claim. I showed you where they did. You now say you even made that claim? Then why did you say you never heard it?

As for your "question".. "What did GE reduce the prices on because of their refund? Any of you get a check from GE? Anyone? " I said Nobody here made such a claim. Except *You*.

You really are confused.

Maybe this will help...I'll talk real slow:

Nobody-made-the-claim-that-GE-lowered-their-prices-or-issued-checks-to-customers.

edit on 3-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

Being condescending only works when you say something intelligent. I never said anyone claimed they did. But then again, I wrote that in plain English so obviously it confused you. Take your smugness back with your ignorance and let them duke it out for a while.

Originally posted by mishigas

I will totally agree that we have no business being in Libya. But the size of govt is enormous and we have to feed the behemoth somehow. We're not getting many donations from Europe or the mideast so I guess it'll have to be taxes, eh?

This is a different way to look at the US federal budget.
www.warresisters.org...

In 2009 paying for previous, current and future wars cost more than half the US budget. At some point, someone should ask if it is really worth it.

reply to post by Kitilani


Just stop trolling and admit your error.

I'm done with ya.

Taxes are definitely not the problem, collect as much as you want, with the current monetary system you are always going to be in debt. Every dollar created is created with debt. Also, with the big government is going to look out after you social programs is another major hurdle to pass.

This has all been designed to cripple the system and eliminate the middle class....and its working. Not going to get into this classic class warfare garbage (which I see works wonders)


Regardless, taxes will go up, interest rates are going up - and with that what little economic growth that is going on will stop.

reply to post by David9176

I have to wonder if your Made In China is saying that you were made in china or a complaint but I know this, the problem is the out of control Federal Government; they do not need to take more money from anyone, they need to be cut back to the roles they are supposed to be fulfilling. Meanwhile, I oppose anything Obama wants because he has proven time and again to not have what is good for my country in his heart or mind.

And while you are sitting there smuggly thinking that I am the one who is the idiot, know this, if they raise the taxes on the wealthy and corporation, they will leave and have been. Then those who can not leave will be left to be the slaves to serve this wacked government like bond slaves. The answer is not more taxes, the answer is less government.

Originally posted by Janky Red
I keep reading that raising the highest bracket will
Initiate doom, you guys know who you are. So one of you
Explain the 50's, a period when this country had an unreasonable
90% bracket and a strong middle class???

This must be at least one hundred times I have issued this challenge.
Someone swing and pit me in the ground

I use this example because the "wisdom" of doom presented here did not
Happen in the 50's, a strong economy happened, home ownership happened.

Misoir, my friend, look at the taxation rate prior to the depression,
Look at the similar approach and results of modernity. You might
Have become a bit ridgid by now, but can't you see the correlation

All these ideas are crap if they destroy a countries economy



frankly


These ideas of worshiping the rich only concentrates wealth and if it
Is starting to destroy the economy I think any reasonable person should except
Trying a different approach. People are willing to consider trimming spending
Based upon conservative idealism, however conservatives are unwilling to
Compromise when it comes to achieving revenue. That is a childish and amature
Way to deal with a budget and partnership.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

I am all for removing the tax cuts if and only if they cut the 6trillion out of the budget. They haven't passed a budget in 3 years and that's because they don't care about the poor in this country. There is no longer a real middle class because they are considered on the verge of being poor.

Why were things so good in the 50's well that's because people worked hard for everything. There were plenty of jobs with the building of infrastructure and many new and booming industries thanks the WWII. Now it won't work because businesses are rewarded for outsourcing overseas taking away jobs from here only because America has become lazy and doesn't want to belittle themselves by taking a low paying job.

I did just that after being in the construction industry for 10 years then after my return from Iraq in the end of 2005 the industry was starting to fall apart. I was making a pretty decent living until 2008 in fact the same week my son was born I was laid off for a year. Then jobs were hit and miss, I was making $28/hr in my last job and now just over a month ago I took a $7.50 job in a factory and must of done good because after a week I am making $9/hr.

The whole point is that most people in USA won't do this because they feel they are better than anyone and are just plain lazy. We sacrifice a lot because of my choices but I do have steady work right now and we have what we need and honestly couldn't afford more.

People look at rich corporate owners and CEO's that have gone to college for many years and some have come from nowhere to succeed. They are jealous of them and feel they should have what they do even though they haven't done anything to achieve this.

Why has our economy tanked? It's because of the government giving tax breaks to corporations for outsourcing overseas and then most recently the bailouts given to banks and motor vehicle industry. We also have the largest amount of social programs in our countries history and this is the largest part of our budget as people now believe it's our right to have what others do even though we didn't work for it.

We have lost the American dream and all that is about is working hard being honest and you will prosper in your heart and community and just being free to do what we would like at times.

This has been afascinating thread. I was the VP of tax at a large U.S. multinational for many years so know a bit about tax policy, tax planning and movement of profits offshore. First, the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. Raising taxes on U.S. corporations would be a huge mistake as it would make the remainder of the U.S. based multinationals vulnerable to foreign take over or simply leaving the U.S. That is a legal way to avoid U.S. taxes, i.e. you cannot tax what is not here. What they should do is remove a number of targeted corporate tax breaks; manufacturing deduction, percentage depletion, targeted tax credits and deferral of offshore income where the tax rate is less than 20%. Offshore income deferral should end and should be taxed at a reduced rate, 5% to end the incentive to keep funds offshore. This reasonable rate should allow American corporations to remain competitive while giving them an incentive to invest in the U.S. to avoid paying the 5% tax. These changes would effectively end the ability of companies like GE to avoid paying any U.S. tax.

When it comes to individuals, approximately 45% of Americans do not pay income taxes. They do and should pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes. Instead of raising rates, there are a huge number of loopholes that can be closed that would raise taxes without changing the rate. A few examples, tax-free municipal bonds, tax-free build-up of life insurance and annuities, non-qualifed compensation plans to name a few. These are the types of arrangements that allow the rich to pay very little taxes on millions of income that infuriate the masses. If these types of loopholes were eliminated, the indignation would die down in a hurry.

The suggestions above would do a lot to collect tax from the truly rich without raising anyone else's taxes. It also levels the system by not making some types of income and investment more favorable than others by some quirk of the tax code. There are lots of other loopholes like these. This was not meant to be an exhaustive list.

None of this addresses the problem of spending. That is the single biggest issue. But, one last point, for you fair taxers out there. If we assume that the tax system needs to collect the amount of revenue it currently is to keep up. (That seems like a minimum since it is ~$1.5 trillion short each year.) the 'fair tax' proposals eliminate corporate taxation since they tax consumption. This would have the effect of transferring the $300 billion tax burden bourne by corporations onto lower income individuals. I would rather have a less well off person working, not paying taxes and not on welfare, than for that person to not work because it is now hopeless due to a 'fair tax' and be on welfare.

I think my suggestons would go a long way toward making the system fairer and eliminating the systemic avoidance of tax that has made a mockery of the system. You can call me a hypocrite for facilitating it for years. But, I also know enough about it to fix it in a fair manner. I have lots of other ideas, but, that is a good start.

Well of course, because scaling back spending, well that's just unacceptable. They make it sound like they're doing somebody a favor by having tax cuts...like they're giving us something that didn't already belong to us.

I hate tax and spend socialists. They should all be dumped in a mass grave and buried. It's MY MONEY not theirs. They have lost sight of that.

I dont own any companies, I dont own any jets, I pay about 20% of each paycheck to taxes and I believe thats too much. Too much because I know the government is worse with money than I am. I do know that millionaires and billionaires own companies, that build factories and office buildings, and hire people like me. Like someone said earlier, the costs get past on to the customer.... who is also the average employee. America is already anti-business due to our tax laws, we wonder why large companies go overseas.... because they are taxed 35% which will be even more if they raise taxes again.

It's easy to be short-sighted, but it isn't wise.

We have too many regulatory bodies and wars that equals to way too much spending. We don't need to raise taxes, whether history shows the economy improved or not. When Clinton raised taxes, we were not in a depression. Yes, it's a depression. Ask your neighbor.

So do you own a company? Or will you be depending on the CEO of your company not making cuts due to even more taxes? It's hard to fight for CEOs when they make millions, seem overpaid, and when their salaries increased 23% this year, but they also take on more risk than any of us ever will and employ thousands of people.

Shrink the government, end of story.