Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/07 06:01:27
Subject: So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
The wealthy keep their tax cuts for 2 more years, in exchange unemployment benefits will be extended by 13 months, a 2% employee-side payroll tax credit and $40 billion in tax breaks for families and students.
So, again, as always, the two parties reach agreement which each getting what they want, by sticking it on the deficit. Clearly, what is needed is more wild-eyed, substance less rhetoric about the deficit, and no actual plans of substance to begin to bring it down.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/07 10:36:41
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It's someone else's problem, we'll all be frozen heads waiting for new robotic bodies by then! Who cares!!
See also:
All hail our new Chinese overlords.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/07 12:21:04
Subject: So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Good:
[quoter]The wealthy keep their tax cuts for 2 more years, in exchange unemployment benefits will be extended by 13 months,
Bad:
a 2% employee-side payroll tax credit and $40 billion in tax breaks for families and students.
Where's Genghis Khan when you need him? Clearly for the good fo the planet we may have to step up Operation TriumphoftheWeinies
I like the bolded part below. Someone finally has a brain (clearly none of the politicians involved).
From WSJ:
Deal Struck on Tax Package
Grand Bargain Includes One-Year Drop in Wage Levy, Estate Tax of 35%
Article Video Comments (690) more in Politics & Policy »
Email Print Save This ↓ More
Twitter
Digg
+ More
close Yahoo! Buzz
MySpace
del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
LinkedIn
Fark
Viadeo
Orkut
Text
By JONATHAN WEISMAN, JOHN D. MCKINNON And JANET HOOK
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama reached agreement Monday with Republican leaders in Congress on a broad tax package that would extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for two years, reduce worker payroll taxes for one year and give more favorable treatment to business investments.
View Full Image
European Pressphoto Agency
President Barack Obama announced a bipartisan deal to extend expiring tax cuts for two years and to extend unemployment benefits on Monday.
More
Payroll Tax Cut: A Short Primer Other elements of the deal include a temporary reinstatement of the estate tax at 35%—the level favored by most Republican lawmakers—as well as an extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.
"We have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement,'' Mr. Obama said on Monday night, capping weeks of negotiations with leaders in Congress.
The outcome of the negotiations is vital, because the current tax levels signed into law by President George W. Bush expire on Dec. 31. Unless Congress acts, tax rates on virtually all Americans who pay income taxes will rise on Jan. 1. That could affect economic growth and even holiday sales.
In reaching the deal, whose details still need to be worked out, Mr. Obama brushed past the demands of many in his own party to curb tax cuts for the wealthy. Some liberal lawmakers and activists were left seething, particularly over last-minute concessions to Republicans on the estate tax. Democratic leaders didn't agree to the deal during meetings on Monday with Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, according to a House aide.
"I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many, if not most, Democrats," said Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.).
In the Senate, Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) called it "an understatement'' to say he was disappointed.
How the Senate Voted
See how each senator voted; compare with 2001 and 2003 votes, when the tax cuts were enacted.
Table: How the Senate Voted White House officials will now try to persuade Democrats to back the agreement, but anger on the left suggests that Mr. Obama might need to rely heavily on Republican support to move legislation through Congress.
Republican leaders spoke highly of the agreement. In a statement, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor said, "No one gets everything they want in a deal, but our top priority is to restore certainty to the private sector so that businesses small and large can start hiring again."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also praised the deal and asked that Democrats in Congress now "show the same openness to preventing tax hikes the administration has already shown.''
Mr. Obama acknowledged that the agreement marked a significant reversal for him, as he has long argued that income tax cuts for couples earning more than $250,000 should expire. If the political stalemate continued and led to a broad tax increase, Mr. Obama said, "that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.''
The deal would extend a raft of business tax breaks, including credit for spending on research. It would extend current tax rates on capital gains and dividends for two years, including for higher earners. It would also maintain protection for middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax.
As part of the deal, the White House is proposing a provision to encourage more investment in plant and equipment, by letting companies claim deductions on 100% of most kinds of investment.
Under the agreement between the White House and congressional Republicans, the estate tax rate would be set at 35% for two years and would apply only to estates over $5 million. Under current law, the estate tax has lapsed for 2010 and is set to spring next year to 55%.
Journal Community
A program of extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, which lapsed last month, would be revived for 13 months, the White House said. The jobless benefits would be financed by federal borrowing rather than by spending cuts.
For Mr. Obama, reaching a deal with the GOP on taxes could help him score points with moderates and independents, an increasingly important constituency, by underscoring his ability to work with newly empowered Republicans. But the discussions have angered some liberal groups, who say Democrats should engage the GOP in a showdown, even if that risks letting the tax cuts expire for all income levels. In an email to its members, the liberal Moveon.org said, "They've given up on this critical issue without a fight."
The payroll-tax reduction under discussion now would cut the 6.2% Social Security tax levied on a worker's wages to 4.2%. A worker making $40,000 a year would save $800, and some economists say that could help stimulate demand at a time when the economy remains relatively weak.
Earlier
As the White House and Republican leaders try to reach a deal to extend cuts, one idea that could gain traction is a temporary payroll-tax holiday. Jerry Seib has details. Plus, T. Boone Pickens' wife says 'nay' to Nevada ranchers.
Tax Deal Within Reach The employer's half of the tax—also 6.2%—wouldn't be affected under the White House proposal, and thus the cost of hiring new workers wouldn't be directly affected.
The payroll tax reduction would take the place of a $400-per-worker income-tax break that Mr. Obama included in the 2009 stimulus bill. That break, known as Making Work Pay, provides a tax credit of 6.2% on the first $6,450 of a worker's wages. It phases out for workers making more than $75,000.
Some Republicans prefer the payroll tax reduction to the Making Work Pay program because it goes to everyone who works, regardless of income. A senior administration official said that the payroll tax cut would cost $120 billion, twice that of Making Work Pay, and would give bigger benefits to some low-income workers.
Versions of a payroll tax cut have been considered before, and they enjoy a measure of support in Congress. But some Democrats are wary of any change to the payroll tax, which funds the Social Security program.
—Corey Boles and Martin Vaughan contributed to this article.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/07 12:36:49
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/07 22:32:42
Subject: So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Committed Chaos Cult Marine
|
so republicans get what they want for 2 years and dems get what they want for one year.Nobody gave a good got damn about the debt. It was a nice way of saying I hate Dems.
|
And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.
Well, Duh! Because they had a giant Mining ship. If you had a giant mining ship you would drill holes in everything too, before you'd destory it with a black hole |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/07 22:42:09
Subject: So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Tax cuts for anyone are a problem when you are trying to reduce the deficit.
However they can work if the spare cash is put into sensible, productive investments (Ha ha ha!)
TBH I thought most western nations extended a fairly considerable tax break on investment in plant through the depreciation system. Not as good as 100%, though.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 00:57:46
Subject: So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Committed Chaos Cult Marine
|
Tax cuts for anyone are a problem when you are trying to reduce the deficit.
Killkrazy for once you are dead wrong. by keeping taxes low money will trickle down on the debt....and AIDs cancer and satan.
|
And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.
Well, Duh! Because they had a giant Mining ship. If you had a giant mining ship you would drill holes in everything too, before you'd destory it with a black hole |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 02:22:57
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Hauptmann
Diligently behind a rifle...
|
So leaving the Tax rates at what they have been for the last 7 years will increase the deficit? That news to me. Spending more than you take in will definitely raise the deficit.
|
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Res Ipsa Loquitor |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 05:00:19
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Stormrider wrote:So leaving the Tax rates at what they have been for the last 7 years will increase the deficit? That news to me. Spending more than you take in will definitely raise the deficit.
I don't think anyone said that it would increase the deficit. Rather, it seems as though people are noting that continually cutting taxes does nothing to decrease it.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 05:04:50
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Nigel Stillman
|
dogma wrote:Stormrider wrote:So leaving the Tax rates at what they have been for the last 7 years will increase the deficit? That news to me. Spending more than you take in will definitely raise the deficit.
I don't think anyone said that it would increase the deficit. Rather, it seems as though people are noting that continually cutting taxes does nothing to decrease it.
It's such an inconvenient truth...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 05:36:33
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Hauptmann
Diligently behind a rifle...
|
dogma wrote:Stormrider wrote:So leaving the Tax rates at what they have been for the last 7 years will increase the deficit? That news to me. Spending more than you take in will definitely raise the deficit.
I don't think anyone said that it would increase the deficit. Rather, it seems as though people are noting that continually cutting taxes does nothing to decrease it.
The cuts really wouldn't hurt if we could balance our budget (which is unlikely). With a $1.4 Trillion budget deficit, this increase wouldn't do that much to turn it around. Plus our almost 100% debt-to-GDP ratio is yet another problem on the very fast approaching horizon.
I was really basing my statement of Nacny Pelosi's obvious faslehood about the "cut". She said it would cost us $700 billion, which is a lie since it is merely a continuation of the same rates, not a new cut. A new cut would have to be accounted for by the Buget committee, this is merely operating at the status quo, along with an increased estate tax.
|
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Res Ipsa Loquitor |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 06:04:56
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Stormrider wrote:
The cuts really wouldn't hurt if we could balance our budget (which is unlikely).
Well, balancing the budget is basically an empty term. Great, you want an even ledger, but what really matter is what your budget looks like after the fact. Additionally, the idea of a balanced budget is essentially misleading, the budget will never be perfectly balanced. And, because the state doesn't have liquid assets of the sort that a corporation does, a legitimately balanced government budget is actually one that consistently ends the year with a surplus.
Stormrider wrote:
I was really basing my statement of Nacny Pelosi's obvious faslehood about the "cut". She said it would cost us $700 billion, which is a lie since it is merely a continuation of the same rates, not a new cut. A new cut would have to be accounted for by the Buget committee, this is merely operating at the status quo, along with an increased estate tax.
Well, you also have to consider opportunity cost. I'm not sure what the net revenue lost over the next two years will be, but it certainly could be 700 billion USD if I'm going on nothing more than bare possibility.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 06:46:50
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Stormrider wrote:The cuts really wouldn't hurt if we could balance our budget (which is unlikely).
Umm, that doesn’t make any sense. Balancing requires an even amount of revenue and expenditure. An action that reduces income makes balancing harder. This is not something you should need to have pointed out to you.
With a $1.4 Trillion budget deficit, this increase wouldn't do that much to turn it around. Plus our almost 100% debt-to-GDP ratio is yet another problem on the very fast approaching horizon.
Umm, if tax rates were returned to the previous level you’d see half the deficit cut. That is more than ‘not doing much’, it’s halving it.
And yes, moving a lot closer towards an even budget is exactly what you need to do begin to address the debt to GDP ratio.
I was really basing my statement of Nacny Pelosi's obvious faslehood about the "cut". She said it would cost us $700 billion, which is a lie since it is merely a continuation of the same rates, not a new cut.
It was completely reasonable. The cuts were designed to expire, and if they expired you would have seen another $700 billion added to the state coffers, which would have halved the yearly deficit, which includes a large amount of expenditure items which will soon expire, as they are there to combat the . With a return to sensible tax rates you would have had balanced budgets in a couple of years, and from there you could have From there you could have set about making cuts to begin to bring down the total debt.
But it was more important to cap the tax rate for the rich at 35%. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:And, because the state doesn't have liquid assets of the sort that a corporation does, a legitimately balanced government budget is actually one that consistently ends the year with a surplus.
You might be misremembering, because it's actually the other way around. Because government accounting is run on a cash basis, any infrastructure investment is actually shown as an outgoing, whereas in a private company it wouldn't be an expense. As such, a government will expanding the nation's assets as it should will naturally show a deficit.
There's also the idea that debt can grow as fast as the GDP without impacting the debt to GDP ratio. So you could run constant, small deficits, and not get into debt ratio trouble, as GDP would grow to match.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/08 06:54:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 12:12:25
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Stormrider wrote:So leaving the Tax rates at what they have been for the last 7 years will increase the deficit? That news to me. Spending more than you take in will definitely raise the deficit.
indeed.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/08 12:41:36
Subject: Re:So the Democrats and the Republicans made a deal on the tax cuts...
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
sebster wrote:
You might be misremembering, because it's actually the other way around. Because government accounting is run on a cash basis, any infrastructure investment is actually shown as an outgoing, whereas in a private company it wouldn't be an expense. As such, a government will expanding the nation's assets as it should will naturally show a deficit.
Oh, I know. I was assuming what I've come to understand as the conservative definition of "balanced budget" which essentially seems to be "no deficit". My point was that if you really don't want to run a deficit, then in reality revenue has to exceed spending on paper, as the idea that any budget can reliably return perfectly even results is ridiculous when the entity being considered cannot simply sell material assets in order to generate additional income. I suppose there are government bonds, but that also seems to cut against the "zero deficit" idea.
I agree though, effective state budgets always run at least some form of deficit.
sebster wrote:
There's also the idea that debt can grow as fast as the GDP without impacting the debt to GDP ratio. So you could run constant, small deficits, and not get into debt ratio trouble, as GDP would grow to match.
Unfortunately, that's too nuanced an argument when the nominal opposition line is some variation of "No more spending!"
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
|