Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

reply to post by David9176


Absolutely it is required! We were fine until the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, TeaBags who are utterly ignorant have given America over to the corporations.

You guys have fun with that. The world laughs as America dies.

Should be interesting to see the trickle down effect here. End the tax breaks for business owners and oil companies etc. You'll see the increased charges passed down the line, they most certainly will not do with less.

reply to post by David9176


It is truly sad that people let jealousy dictate their views on these issues. The rich aleready pay far beyond their "fair" share, unless of course some want to punish success. The successful, as of now, pay the lion's share of the taxes while others pay nothing. Lower taxes make possible, a climate where buisness growa, but hey lets not let pesky things like facts get in the way (www.heritage.org...). However, revenue is not the problem we have; our problem is spending.There is enough money coming in right now to service the national debt, without rasing taxes or the debt ceiling. Even obama has admitted that these tax increases are ment to push some bizzare view of equality, when it actually takes it away.

Here is a novel idea; instead of trying to punish the job creators, try coming up with an idea of your own and become wealthy, or at least pull your own weight, I promise once you do,this jealousy will subside, and you will view the world in a differnt way. Before someone says it, yes I have been dirt poor. However, I didn't have a daily pity party, and built my own success. In closing, we need to stop demonizing the successful, and realize no one is entitled to another persons earnings no matter how jealous they get.

reply to post by Kitilani


Why should anyone get a check from GE? This is another "I am entitled to everyone's stuff, just because I am jealous of success" Get over it already, you or anyone else (including government) are not entitled to thing that isn't yours.

You can quote statistics, studies and charts all you want, but here is a real life, actual example of what happens when you try to tax the wealthy and re-distribute their wealth.

I am in the boat/yacht business. We sell, broker, service and provide dockage and storage space for large multi-million dollar yachts. Years ago the government imposed a 10% luxury tax on the purchase of boats over $100,000.00. The result? The wealthy stopped buying boats and went golfing, we were lucky to survive and had to layoff lots of good middle class employees. We were barely able to hang on. One of the yacht manufacturers we represent went from 1500 employees to 90 in just over a year. That is 1400 hard-working, middle-class people who lost their jobs because the government tried to soak the rich. And that is only one yacht company, I don't know what the overall, nationwide job loss was from that luxury tax (fortunately it was repealed).

My theory is, if you want to re-distribute wealth, create a good or service the wealthy want. They will buy it and you will get some of their wealth.

There is not a revenue problem in this country, there is a spending problem. We send more than enough money to Washington for this country to be run responsibly without having to raise taxes on anyone.

The class warfare and the pitting of groups of people against each other has to stop. The real problem is not the rich, poor or anyone in between. It is the government with their irresponsible, unsustainable spending, plain and simple, end of story.

reply to post by makaira1985


Obviously there is a difference between a luxury tax on a good versus taxable income that they must pay at the end of the year. Again, I'm asking this seriously, why are we not cutting spending and raising taxes? This seems like the best way to bolster our economy yet both sides do only half of it.

reply to post by Ryanp5555

reply to post by makaira1985


Obviously there is a difference between a luxury tax on a good versus taxable income that they must pay at the end of the year. Again, I'm asking this seriously, why are we not cutting spending and raising taxes? This seems like the best way to bolster our economy yet both sides do only half of it.

Because it just encourages them to continue destructive habits. They just keep raising the debt ceiling every time they run out of money:

How many times has the ceiling been raised? Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001

money.cnn.com...

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

reply to post by makaira1985


Obviously there is a difference between a luxury tax on a good versus taxable income that they must pay at the end of the year. Again, I'm asking this seriously, why are we not cutting spending and raising taxes? This seems like the best way to bolster our economy yet both sides do only half of it.

Because it just encourages them to continue destructive habits. They just keep raising the debt ceiling every time they run out of money:

How many times has the ceiling been raised? Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001

money.cnn.com...

Why does it encourage them to raise the debt ceiling? We'd be cutting our spending and raising taxes. I thought the debt ceiling came about due to excessive spending.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


Granted, a luxury tax on goods and income are different. My point is that the government doesn't need any more revenue from anyone. If they acted responsibly with our money they could easily run the government with what they presently tax from us.

Originally posted by Kitilani
When you finish laughing can you please explain the following given the relative tax rates at the times given?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e3e6b780ba8.jpg[/atsimg]

What that graph shows us is that when taxes were highest, the U.S. was at war. Each of those timelines shows a less expensive war to fight. Taxes went down because businesses were making more money than the cost of the war, so fewer taxes were levied to pay for those wars mainly to appease the taxpayers to allow the government to continue killing people.

Today we are in the most expensive military maneuvers in history, even adjusting for inflation. So naturally taxes must be raised on those mean rich to support war against the innocent. They're not even pretending to mollify the citizenry with lower taxes, since the the head megalomaniac in charge thinks he can do whatever he wants, and Congress is allowing this behavior. How about, instead of raising taxes, stopping war? Or is that too radical an idea for the Progressives?

/TOA

reply to post by Ryanp5555

Why does it encourage them to raise the debt ceiling? We'd be cutting our spending and raising taxes. I thought the debt ceiling came about due to excessive spending.

The debt ceiling is way too high. Taxes do not need to be raised; spending needs to be reduced. If we had kept spending at correct levels, we wouldn't have to talk about raising taxes.

Higher taxes are a product of raising the debt ceiling. You neutralize pending cuts by raising the debt ceiling.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

Why does it encourage them to raise the debt ceiling? We'd be cutting our spending and raising taxes. I thought the debt ceiling came about due to excessive spending.

The debt ceiling is way too high. Taxes do not need to be raised; spending needs to be reduced. If we had kept spending at correct levels, we wouldn't have to talk about raising taxes.

Higher taxes are a product of raising the debt ceiling. You neutralize pending cuts by raising the debt ceiling.

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.

Originally posted by The Old American
What that graph shows us is that when taxes were highest, the U.S. was at war.

What it shows is job growth by decade. It is even labeled for you.

Originally posted by nonapologetic
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Why should anyone get a check from GE? This is another "I am entitled to everyone's stuff, just because I am jealous of success" Get over it already, you or anyone else (including government) are not entitled to thing that isn't yours.

You did not understand my post. I do not want or expect a thing from GE. I am specifically addressing the "When you raise taxes on business they just pass the cost onto the consumer" crowd to explain why that never happens in reverse and since it does not, why it should continue going forward.

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.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
As with all other costs associated with doing business, the corporation will attempt to recover those costs. How will they do this? They will pass the cost, ie the taxes, along to the purchaser of their product/service in the form of higher prices. Thus I ask again, who is actually "paying" those corporate taxes???????

Need more?
I got more.

Originally posted by vkturbo
Then companies pass on cost of taxes to the public.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Corporations either will outsource or they will pass the cost to the consumers. Or both.

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Contrary to what liberals believe, taxes are *not* taken out of corporate profit margins... they pass the cost onto you and me.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
As another here stated, when corporations have to pay higher taxes they just pass on the cost to consumers.

Coming back yet?

How about from this very thread?

Originally posted by beezzer
The kicker here is, is that if companies get taxed more, they will defray that additional expediture onto us, by raising the prices of what they provide.

Have you been reading this thread or just hitting reply on my posts?

Real Americans

Explain the 50's and the 90% tax rate, thanks

Stop being so wimpy and bring it!

reply to post by beezzer

So in the end, a tax on the rich will cost us more....

Beezzer, You forgot one point.

If you raise taxes on business not only will the cost be passed on to the consumer but the big corporations will take their "toys" and head overseas just like General Electric has done. Once a corporation has a branch overseas there are all sorts of accounting games that can be played.

I worked for an American branch of a foreign Corporation. We NEVER EVER made a profit. We sold raw materials to the overseas branch at break even and all the sales and research costs were "assigned" to our factory. The corporation NEVER paid a dime of US tax!

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 wish the GOP would end this facade about tax cuts for the rich hurting the 'rest of us'. Just admit you represent the interests of the top 5% of the country, and the multinational corporations who want to see wages in he US on par with the third world and I'll respect your honest