Jump to content

2011-2012 Tax Extension Bill


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Can anyone possible defend the Democrats voting this down, because they want to raise tax rates on the uber rich?
Not having read the bill at all ... I would think that it is more political at this point. They probably didn't get enough concessions for something else unrelated to the bill. Or perhaps since the Repubs have been uncompromising most of the year it is their turn to play hardball. At least that is how I see it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone possible defend the Democrats voting this down, because they want to raise tax rates on the uber rich?
haven't read the bill...but i am pretty sure i won't be defending any democrats either!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be almost as bad as voting for trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the rich over the next decade but saying $8 billion for aid to 911 victims is too expensive. But that would never happen, right, I mean, it'd be too ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone possible defend the Democrats voting this down, because they want to raise tax rates on the uber rich?
I mean, if by they you mean "a majority of Americans" then sure. A majority of Americans have consistently supported keeping the Bush tax cuts for only people under that threshold. the Dems learned their lesson about subverting the will of Americans during the health care debates I guess.I guess it was possible to defend. Counter-question: Can anyone possibly defend the Republicans holding things like healthcare for 9-11 responders and a nuclear treaty with Russia hostage just so the uber rich can keep a tax cut with a giant price tag?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone possible defend the Democrats voting this down, because they want to raise tax rates on the uber rich?
I would say that some politicians are standing by their beliefs that these huge tax cuts for the rich the last ten years haven't helped the economy or the deficit and are not going to vote to keep making the rich, richer. The top 1% has 70% of all the money and it's continuing to grow exponetially.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This would be almost as bad as voting for trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the rich over the next decade but saying $8 billion for aid to 911 victims is too expensive. But that would never happen, right, I mean, it'd be too ridiculous.
And that would almost be as bad as a system in which 57 out of 100 people can vote to start discussion on an issue but because a group of 40 bigoted or politically motivated dirtbags vote against it, it fails to move forward.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the point of bringing up something that happened 9 years ago. I don't know what happened with what you guys are discussing and it really should not have any bearing on the merits of extending these tax laws.If anything (from what I have seen) the Dems got a win, because they got a 13 month extension to jobless benefits and a payroll reduction. Both of which will benefit lower tax payers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And that would almost be as bad as a system in which 57 out of 100 people can vote to start discussion on an issue but because a group of 40 bigoted or politically motivated dirtbags vote against it, it fails to move forward.
Exactly. That's fucked.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all face saving BS. It was a stupid non-binding vote. It's all just posturing so big tax liberals can save face. When push comes to shove it will pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
uber rich?
the rich
uber rich
the richthe rich
this really needs to stop. unless I missed something, the highest threshold is at 250,000 a year for a family. that means a couple, both making 125,000 a year are subject to this. regardless of what you think a tax cut or increase to these people will do to the economy, how are you considering this "rich?" that's upper middle class WHERE I LIVE. everybody constantly calling these tax breaks "for the rich" or "for the wealthy" or "for the wealthiest americans" is the reason why so much of the population thinks its a good idea. "hey, all those richers have all that money! that ain't fair! tax 'em!"enough with the intentional misrepresentation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
this really needs to stop. unless I missed something, the highest threshold is at 250,000 a year for a family. that means a couple, both making 125,000 a year are subject to this. regardless of what you think a tax cut or increase to these people will do to the economy, how are you considering this "rich?" that's upper middle class WHERE I LIVE. everybody constantly calling these tax breaks "for the rich" or "for the wealthy" or "for the wealthiest americans" is the reason why so much of the population thinks its a good idea. "hey, all those richers have all that money! that ain't fair! tax 'em!"enough with the intentional misrepresentation.
That was not what I was referring to. It has to do with the Estate Tax laws. The republicans are looking for a higher exemption amount, like in 2009 where it was 3.5 MM. The dems want it back at 1MM. I should have been more specific.
Link to post
Share on other sites
this really needs to stop. unless I missed something, the highest threshold is at 250,000 a year for a family. that means a couple, both making 125,000 a year are subject to this. regardless of what you think a tax cut or increase to these people will do to the economy, how are you considering this "rich?" that's upper middle class WHERE I LIVE.
and lower middle class where I live.
Link to post
Share on other sites
this really needs to stop. unless I missed something, the highest threshold is at 250,000 a year for a family. that means a couple, both making 125,000 a year are subject to this. regardless of what you think a tax cut or increase to these people will do to the economy, how are you considering this "rich?" that's upper middle class WHERE I LIVE.
and lower middle class where I live.
Link to post
Share on other sites
this really needs to stop. unless I missed something, the highest threshold is at 250,000 a year for a family. that means a couple, both making 125,000 a year are subject to this. regardless of what you think a tax cut or increase to these people will do to the economy, how are you considering this "rich?" that's upper middle class WHERE I LIVE. everybody constantly calling these tax breaks "for the rich" or "for the wealthy" or "for the wealthiest americans" is the reason why so much of the population thinks its a good idea. "hey, all those richers have all that money! that ain't fair! tax 'em!"enough with the intentional misrepresentation.
No, our assessment is correct. If the Bush Tax Cuts were removed, the tax hike would start for couples earning $250,000 or more. But the increased taxes only effect the money above that threshold. So, if you earn a bit above that threshold, you are taxed at a higher rate only on a small fraction of your income. So, most of the tax increase will come from people earning MUCH more than the minimum threshold (only if you earn as a household over $500,000 is the majority of your income subject to the tax increase).And what percentage of households would you say earn $250,000 and above? According to Wiki, the number is 1.5%. I understand that $250,000 isn't a ton of money, but I'm comfortable associating the top 1.5% of a country with the rich of that country, especially when the country in question is among the richest major industrial country in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...e_United_StatesSo, I don't know. $250,000 doesn't sound like a lot, but that's because we're spoiled Americans who think you're not rich if you don't have several houses and a boat.
Link to post
Share on other sites
and lower middle class where I live.
and lower middle class where I live.
so poor that he... double posts... cause he's poor... god damn it. I think I'm losing my touch. there's something here though.
No, our assessment is correct. If the Bush Tax Cuts were removed, the tax hike would start for couples earning $250,000 or more. But the increased taxes only effect the money above that threshold. So, if you earn a bit above that threshold, you are taxed at a higher rate only on a small fraction of your income. So, most of the tax increase will come from people earning MUCH more than the minimum threshold (only if you earn as a household over $500,000 is the majority of your income subject to the tax increase).And what percentage of households would you say earn $250,000 and above? According to Wiki, the number is 1.5%. I understand that $250,000 isn't a ton of money, but I'm comfortable associating the top 1.5% of a country with the rich of that country, especially when the country in question is among the richest major industrial country in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...e_United_StatesSo, I don't know. $250,000 doesn't sound like a lot, but that's because we're spoiled Americans who think you're not rich if you don't have several houses and a boat.
no I know how the taxes work, I'm just miffed at how everybody is throwing around the words rich and wealthy and what not for a group of people that it doesn't really apply to. and I mean vb's right (even though I assume he was jokingly exaggerating), you go to any large city with higher costs of living, and 250k a year ain't shit (for 2 people anyways). but just like vb always says, it's really just semantics anyways.but really, what I'm trying to get at here about the ridiculousness of spouting terms like rich, uber rich, wealthy, etc.: it's more of an emotional argument attempting to pit people against each other. what we should be doing is approaching the problem with pragmatism and analyzing the impact of of a raise in taxes or a maintenance of current tax levels on the economy as a whole. will an increase on earners making 250k or more help, hurt, or have no change to the job market? what is the overall impact of this help/hurt/no change to the economy when compared to how the increase or decrease in revenue will effect the deficit, and how will all of the come together to effect the economy as a whole on a long term basis? that's how the decision should be made, not "take those rich bastard's money!", which is where the exaggerated rhetoric leads.(early morning posting: when I first looked at the chart I was like "wow! only 190 people in the country make less than 2,500 year! we're doing great!" yeah.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, our assessment is correct. If the Bush Tax Cuts were removed, the tax hike would start for couples earning $250,000 or more. But the increased taxes only effect the money above that threshold. So, if you earn a bit above that threshold, you are taxed at a higher rate only on a small fraction of your income. So, most of the tax increase will come from people earning MUCH more than the minimum threshold (only if you earn as a household over $500,000 is the majority of your income subject to the tax increase).And what percentage of households would you say earn $250,000 and above? According to Wiki, the number is 1.5%. I understand that $250,000 isn't a ton of money, but I'm comfortable associating the top 1.5% of a country with the rich of that country, especially when the country in question is among the richest major industrial country in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...e_United_StatesSo, I don't know. $250,000 doesn't sound like a lot, but that's because we're spoiled Americans who think you're not rich if you don't have several houses and a boat.
did you notice the income distribution graphs on this link, since 1940 through 2007 the income / spread had remained virtually unchanged...just sayin.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...