What if Obama gets his tax hike on the rich?

[syrenn]

What if Obama gets his tax hike on the rich?

I'm thinking that there will a lot more "rich" people, as in, that $250k income definition of "rich" will become a much lower number.

"Rich" will encompass anyone who is not on the public dole.

It already does. Where have you been?

 

[RDD_1210]

Why can't you answer an honest question, pole smoke? I specifically mean the small business investor which Obama wants to tax.

Will more taxation on our job creators, and more oppressive regulations, create more jobs or fewer jobs?

I did answer. Taxing the job creators, the people who fuel the economy, aka. the middle class will hurt economic growth and job creation. So lets extend the tax cuts for the middle class.

LOL

dance monkey dance.

(watch this)


Will raising the taxes which must be paid by the small business owners targeted by Obama for tax increase, coupled with Obama ever increasing onerous regulations on their businesses, cause them to create more jobs of fewer jobs?

ROTLF

Will pulling safety nets from people who are in the middle class and increasing their taxes make them more or less prosperous?

 

[auditor0007]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

Any tax increase on the wealthy or even everyone must come with spending cuts. This is why it is important to keep the House Republican. The problem is that if the Republicans refuse to deal and continue to oppose all tax increases, then they may lose the House. If the Dems get control of everything, I do not trust them to cut spending. Of course if the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, I wouldn't trust them to cut spending either based on their track record.

Getting people back to work is the biggest issue. If we can get people back to work, revenues will go up and spending on many social safety net programs will go down as many of those people will come off the dole once they start working again. The problem is that we have companies sitting on close to $3 trillion in cash that they refuse to spend on their own expansion. Based on that knowledge, we know that more tax cuts are not going to drive further growth. What I would like to see is to have the corporate tax rate reduced a little bit, to satisfy all of you who think it is too high, even though the effective rate is obviously too low, but close off all the loopholes so these companies must start actually paying taxes. Allow their only out to be through investing into their own future by investing in growth. I have no problem with companies paying zero corporate taxes if most of their earnings are being reinvested back into their own growth, because that is what needs to happen to get the economy growing again.

We can't continue cutting taxes thinking that will increase consumer spending and drive growth. That can work when taxes are too high to begin with, but it only creates larger government deficits when tax rates are already too low. That means that growth in our economy must come from businesses expanding first and hiring more employees. Once they expand and hire more employees, those people will then have the money to spend and the economy starts growing. We really need to start looking at this in reverse versus what we have tried over the last decade.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ahh, so jobs ARE being created under President Obama.

Thanks for the brief moment of honesty.

An invalid could be in in office and create a net of 300,000 jobs.

So Obama did create jobs then. Thanks for confirming.

I didn't call him an invalid....that was you.

 

[Oddball]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

The CBO says that ending the Bush tax cuts will generate 1 Trillion, not 80 billion.

CBO: Nearly $1 Trillion Saved By Letting Bush Tax Cuts Over $250,000 Expire | FDL News Desk

Now how long will it be before republicans want to start two wars back to back, give everybody a tax cut and pay for it by borrowing trillions from Chinese communists? As recent as Romney wanting to storm Iran without congressional approval, that is how long.

As always, scored statically.

Tax increases never -read: NEVER- bring in what they claim to when proposed.

 

[SniperFire]

I did answer. Taxing the job creators, the people who fuel the economy, aka. the middle class will hurt economic growth and job creation. So lets extend the tax cuts for the middle class.

LOL

dance monkey dance.

(watch this)


Will raising the taxes which must be paid by the small business owners targeted by Obama for tax increase, coupled with Obama ever increasing onerous regulations on their businesses, cause them to create more jobs of fewer jobs?

ROTLF

Will pulling safety nets from people who are in the middle class and increasing their taxes make them more or less prosperous?

Why did you not honestly answer the simple question put to you, and instead attempt a deflection? Didn't you just stomp your feet like a little twat demanding others to give you straight answers?

You are embarrassing yourself.


LOL

 

[RDD_1210]

An invalid could be in in office and create a net of 300,000 jobs.

So Obama did create jobs then. Thanks for confirming.

I didn't call him an invalid....that was you.

So the Bush Tax cuts don't create jobs then is what you're saying. Got it.

 

[shintao]

Ahh, so jobs ARE being created under President Obama.

Thanks for the brief moment of honesty.

A few, but everyone knows this is the worst recovery in modern history because of Obama's other oppressive policies.

So that's a yes, Obama has created jobs.

So let me have you answer a question honestly.

Will more taxation on our job creators, and more oppressive regulations, create more jobs or fewer jobs?

If we add more taxes on the job creators, aka. the middle class, that will stunt economic growth and job creation. So let's extend the tax cuts for the middle class! We can certainly agree on that.

Sounds mythical to me. Lowering tax on job creators & bail outs didn't translate to more jobs, but less, so that idea doesn't work. Paying your bills works like Clinton taxes.

 

[healthmyths]

All we need to do is stop what got this nation into this mess in the first place. End the horrific Bush tax cuts to the rich, slash the ridiculously over-bloated military spending, and the deficit will turn around virtually overnight.

AND ALL YOU have to do is download the IRS facts and see that returning those "HORRIFIC" 4.6% reduction from to 39% will add $69 billion more DOLLARS! THAT's IT!

BUT when you take $69 billion out of the economy to pay government taxes you TAKE OUT $81 billion from the GDP!
As a result that $81 billion creates 144,000 jobs! These employees at $40,000 a year pay and their employers match the payroll taxes BACK in taxes EVERY YEAR almost a $1 billion.
$81 billion year 2 another 144,000 jobs.. and so on..

Now let's talk about THIS overbloated REAL examples NOT made up hyperbolic "bloated military" where is examples like THESE government WASTES???

- spend $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China drink less on the job.
- $1.44 million in federal funds estimating the size of the population and examining the “social milieu”
of male prostitutes in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
NoW there is government WASTE! Wouldn't you agree??

SEE this book for a list of such waste in government!!! From Senator Coburn...


http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365

A stunning amount spent on stupid studies like Why do chimps throw their poop?
Almost $600,000 of your tax dollars was sent to the folks who studied chimpanzee poop tossing,
plus $198,195 paid to find out if “tweeting” makes people happy… It’s all HERE.

Chimpanzees will often throw food or feces at passersby.
Taxpayers have funded a study to figure out the origins of this odd behavior.
William Hopkins, at Agnes Scott College, and researchers at the Yerkes National Primate
Research Center (associated with Emory University) used a portion of the $600,000 from the National Institutes of Health in 2011 to assist their study of throwing behavior in chimpanzees and its neurological origins.

Chimpanzees are one of very few organisms that can throw objects, which zoo visitors can often observe. For example, one of the investigators‘ research papers says,
Some of the chimpanzees will pile faeces or wet chow in their cage and wait for visitors to pass by before throwing this at them.

Literally YOUR tax dollars being used for CRAP studies!!!

 

[Charles_Main]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

My guess is nobody will ever ask Obama to explain

When he said he could increase investment in Infrastructure, And Lower the Deficit all by just "asking the rich to Pay a little more" nobody in the Media did their jobs. Not one Mainstream Media person said wait a Min, that math does not add up, raising taxes on the Rich by a little does not even come close to making a Dent in the Deficit, let alone paying for more Investments in Infrastructure.

Nope if we give him his Tax Increases, and the Deficit is still massive, and Jobs are still not growing fast enough, The Press will find a way to blame the GOP for Obama's Ideas not working.

They always do.

 

[RDD_1210]

LOL

dance monkey dance.

(watch this)


Will raising the taxes which must be paid by the small business owners targeted by Obama for tax increase, coupled with Obama ever increasing onerous regulations on their businesses, cause them to create more jobs of fewer jobs?

ROTLF

Will pulling safety nets from people who are in the middle class and increasing their taxes make them more or less prosperous?

Why did you not honestly answer the simple question put to you, and instead attempt a deflection? Didn't you just stomp your feet like a little twat demanding others to give you straight answers?

You are embarrassing yourself.


LOL

Funny how you refuse to answer the question. Actually, not funny at all. It's expected of you. You're known for your avoiding of questions. Stay consistent!

 

[Oddball]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

Any tax increase on the wealthy or even everyone must come with spending cuts. This is why it is important to keep the House Republican. The problem is that if the Republicans refuse to deal and continue to oppose all tax increases, then they may lose the House. If the Dems get control of everything, I do not trust them to cut spending. Of course if the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, I wouldn't trust them to cut spending either based on their track record.

Getting people back to work is the biggest issue. If we can get people back to work, revenues will go up and spending on many social safety net programs will go down as many of those people will come off the dole once they start working again. The problem is that we have companies sitting on close to $3 trillion in cash that they refuse to spend on their own expansion. Based on that knowledge, we know that more tax cuts are not going to drive further growth. What I would like to see is to have the corporate tax rate reduced a little bit, to satisfy all of you who think it is too high, even though the effective rate is obviously too low, but close off all the loopholes so these companies must start actually paying taxes. Allow their only out to be through investing into their own future by investing in growth. I have no problem with companies paying zero corporate taxes if most of their earnings are being reinvested back into their own growth, because that is what needs to happen to get the economy growing again.

We can't continue cutting taxes thinking that will increase consumer spending and drive growth. That can work when taxes are too high to begin with, but it only creates larger government deficits when tax rates are already too low. That means that growth in our economy must come from businesses expanding first and hiring more employees. Once they expand and hire more employees, those people will then have the money to spend and the economy starts growing. We really need to start looking at this in reverse versus what we have tried over the last decade.

The tax rate increases and spending cuts are already baked into the sequester.

If you were half as clever as you believe yourself to be, you'd be asking why it is there's all of this kerfuffle going on if the vaunted "balanced approach" is already part of the sequester (I'm sorry, I mean "fiscal cliff"), and everyone is re-fighting the battle today.

 

[auditor0007]

All we need to do is stop what got this nation into this mess in the first place. End the horrific Bush tax cuts to the rich, slash the ridiculously over-bloated military spending, and the deficit will turn around virtually overnight.

The deficit will disappear when we get people working and paying taxes. As they go back to work, spending on safety net programs will decrease. Obviously, some tax increases and spending cuts are also in order, and cutting military spending a little definitely should be on that list. The biggest problem with cutting military spending is to determine where to cut it. There are cuts that would most likely make much more sense than other cuts. I don't personally have any idea what would make the most sense when it comes to cuts in military spending, but I am positive there are plenty in the military who do.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm thinking that there will a lot more "rich" people, as in, that $250k income definition of "rich" will become a much lower number.

"Rich" will encompass anyone who is not on the public dole.

It already does. Where have you been?

While you and I, and others like us, have long recognized that fact, those of weaker intellectual ability have been persuaded that $250,000 demarcates "rich".

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The CBO says that ending the Bush tax cuts will generate 1 Trillion, not 80 billion.

CBO: Nearly $1 Trillion Saved By Letting Bush Tax Cuts Over $250,000 Expire | FDL News Desk

Now how long will it be before republicans want to start two wars back to back, give everybody a tax cut and pay for it by borrowing trillions from Chinese communists? As recent as Romney wanting to storm Iran without congressional approval, that is how long.

If I had a dime for every time the CBO was wrong, I could pay off the national debt.

How's your track record of predictions? Just wondering.

100 percent in 8 and 10. 30 percent in 12.

 

[shintao]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

The CBO says that ending the Bush tax cuts will generate 1 Trillion, not 80 billion.

CBO: Nearly $1 Trillion Saved By Letting Bush Tax Cuts Over $250,000 Expire | FDL News Desk

Now how long will it be before republicans want to start two wars back to back, give everybody a tax cut and pay for it by borrowing trillions from Chinese communists? As recent as Romney wanting to storm Iran without congressional approval, that is how long.

As always, scored statically.

Tax increases never -read: NEVER- bring in what they claim to when proposed.

I agree, stuff happens that change the equation, so do we sit on our hands and cry about it? Doing nothing, like Bush tax cuts certainly did nothing.

 

[RDD_1210]

if i had a dime for every time the cbo was wrong, i could pay off the national debt.

how's your track record of predictions? Just wondering.

100 percent in 8 and 10. 30 percent in 12.

lol.

 

[Oddball]

The CBO says that ending the Bush tax cuts will generate 1 Trillion, not 80 billion.

CBO: Nearly $1 Trillion Saved By Letting Bush Tax Cuts Over $250,000 Expire | FDL News Desk

Now how long will it be before republicans want to start two wars back to back, give everybody a tax cut and pay for it by borrowing trillions from Chinese communists? As recent as Romney wanting to storm Iran without congressional approval, that is how long.

As always, scored statically.

Tax increases never -read: NEVER- bring in what they claim to when proposed.

I agree, stuff happens that change the equation, so do we sit on our hands and cry about it? Doing nothing, like Bush tax cuts certainly did nothing.

Oh, so debunking your bullshit static calculations is now equated with "doing nothing".

God, you socialist twerps are a hoot!

 

[Rozman]

90% was a top tax rate for some time.

The country did fine.

wake up and smell the facts.

You lost becuase you REFUSE to deal in facts

I doubt that a 90% tax rate would make many Dems happy!
That just doesn't make sense to them....
Why just stop at 90% when there is still 10% for them to take.

 

[shintao]

In addition to all the other tax hikes I mean. So we get another 80 billion in annual revenue but we still have over a trillion in deficits every year. What then, will the democrats then cut spending? Don't think so. Some people think an extra 80 billion of revenue just means an extra 80 billion the democrats can spend. And how long will it be until the democrats want to raise taxes again? And again after that?

My guess is nobody will ever ask Obama to explain

When he said he could increase investment in Infrastructure, And Lower the Deficit all by just "asking the rich to Pay a little more" nobody in the Media did their jobs. Not one Mainstream Media person said wait a Min, that math does not add up, raising taxes on the Rich by a little does not even come close to making a Dent in the Deficit, let alone paying for more Investments in Infrastructure.

Nope if we give him his Tax Increases, and the Deficit is still massive, and Jobs are still not growing fast enough, The Press will find a way to blame the GOP for Obama's Ideas not working.

They always do.

The CBO says it's 1 Trillion. I ask, is that a dent? This isn't instant coco, it is going to take years to recover from the Bush economy.