Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House
 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ote/?hpt=hp_t1

As a Republican, I'm okay with the bill. I'm against higher taxes for the wealthy, but I was very against it when the cutoff was $250,000. I thought that was too low.

Hopefully later on some spending cuts can be made. Just raising taxes on some Americans is not enough.

Not that I want to start an intense debate...but I'd like conversation....

Why are Republicans against higher taxes for the wealthy? I'm sorry, someone who is making 500,000 a year shouldn't be paying the same amount of taxes that I pay at 57,000 a year, because mine are considerably lower. Nor, should someone who is making 500,000 a year be paying LESS than me in taxes.

Don't get me wrong, spending cuts need to be made across the board, but as a teacher I am sooooo beyond tired of the first thing that they cut is to education. Yet, they keep putting all these damn pressures on states and teachers to "excel".

I don't know the budget of the United States and all the departments (and good god, I would probably get a headache looking at it all), but I'm sure there are places that the budget could be cut, but quite honestly I think our senators and representatives are more interested in THEIR bottom line not the country as a whole's bottom line.

I disagree ... I think EVERYONE should pay the same *percentage* - and that means the wealthy are going to be paying significantly more. What needs to happen is to cut out every loophole and most deductions. WHY should the government give you a tax break to buy a house or have kids? WHY give tax breaks for not farming, or for "being a good little boy" according to some politician's definition. (However, EVERY tax credit that was discussed during debates last year was retained in the tax code.)

I have spent most of my career in government. There are LOTS of places that can be cut, but leaders are promoted based on increasing their influence -- money and people. You don't get ahead by cutting your budget or doing more with less.

Everyone paying the same percentage is regressive. That means that the poor are hit the hardest because they have no money left over after paying for essentials. The percentage of their budget is more onerous. In my budget, taking an additional percentage over the amount most people make is a way to raise funds without taking food from my table. I have excess. The poor do not. I can still work hard and make more money and profit. The extra taxes do NOT take away that incentive since I am only taxed on my income ABOVE a set level.

Personally, I think everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes, which means that the wealthy would clearly pay more. I don't think it's right for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage in taxes because in my opinion, your money is your money. If you worked for it, you have the right to enjoy it. I don't believe it's the responsibility of the wealthy to get our country out of debt.

What I had against the 250,000 cutoff is that I don't think someone who makes that as a married couple is not necessary "wealthy", depending on how many children you have and where you live. If you make that where I live (Southern Illinois), yeah, you're making a good amount of money because the cost of living here is extremely cheap. If you're making that as a married couple living in San Francisco with five kids? Not as wealthy. I'm fine with the current cutoff. I think that at that amount, it's obvious that you have the money to spare no matter where you live or what your expenses are.

However, our President can't simply spend and spend and spend. We HAVE to make spending cuts. Everyone could have extremely high taxes and it wouldn't get rid of our debt. Spending cuts have to be made. It's immoral for us to pass this debt onto our children.

Why? There's a lot of talk about the deficit, but very little talk of any ACTUAL negative consequences associated with it.

The biggest negative consequence, in my opinion, in the short-term is the interest on the debt. Interest rates are currently quite low. If interest rates were to rise, people wouldn't even be contributing to the debt with their taxes - they'd simply being paying off the interest.

I've heard some projections that state if we keep on the current spending streak that a decade from now we wouldn't even be able to afford to pay the interest. Personally I would have liked to see a dollar for dollar tax increase/spending cut measure but both parties would rather continue to kick this can down the road to Greece. I'm also for a flat 15-20% tax rate for everybody, even the poor and middle class. Good enough for Europe, good enough for us, right? ;)

While I agree with your point, it's not fair to blame the President since be doesn't control the purse. Congress does that.

and why is this a problem?

I MIGHT be able to get on board with taxing the "rich" a slightly higher percentage IF the government actually held all Americans accountable and made everyone pay their taxes. However, I have a real problem increasing percentages for some people when nearly half the people in this country don't pay their taxes at all.

If *everyone* paid the percentage, it wouldn't be 20% (well, unless we keep the same Congress, which keeps spending beyond what revenue projects), but something much, much less. Why should someone benefit from something to which they don't contribute?

The $250,000 level being quoted was for single income not married. They have always stated higher levels for married income. The difference in income at this level is insignificant for people at this income level, too. I can expect $4000 more a year in taxes with the actual changes which is a much higher cutoff than what you are quoting. That doesn't effect me one bit. For someone else in a lower income bracket, that's more than a month's income and could bankrupt them. People need to stop worrying so much about the people at the top. We'll survive just fine. We got where we are because of the greatness of this country and the opportunities afforded to us just as much as the effort of our own hands. Is it the responsibility of the wealthy to get the country out of debt? It is just as much as it is any other American's, but at least we have the means.

It wouldn't be much, much less. Probably in the teens which is still too much for many poor people.

Life isn't fair.

This is an interesting website that explains that statistic which gets tossed around a lot.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

From that web site:
Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

I agree with you on the tax breaks for NOT farming. I do think that you need to provide deductions for kids and home mortgage interest. $250,000.00 for a single person is very different than $250,000.00 for a family of 4. If you eliminate kids, then are you eliminating spouses who are not working also? Why would you NOT use household income per capita and instead only count income per person who is working? That doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, a lot more people would not be able to afford a house if the mortgage interest deductions were eliminated. The housing market is plenty unstable already. We don't need to add to that problem at this point in its very slow recovery.

The real problem is that the very rich have all kinds of loopholes and the poor have none. Because of those loopholes, they typically pay a lower percentage than the middle class families do.

I agree with AOII Angel. The higher percentage doesn't affect the wealthy as it does those who make much less.

DGTess: Someone should benefit from something to which they don't contribute because we take care of each other as human beings. As noted above, most who do not contribute are a) Students who WILL contribute someday, b) the elderly, who DID contribute for many years and c) the disabled, who we should take care of because we are moral human beings, not "survival of the fittest" monsters.

This argument could be used the other way around too. You have more so you pay more and you deal with it because life isn't fair.

Editing, because I don't want to triple post...lol. Several of my Republican friends are griping on Facebook about the 2% increase in pay roll taxes. Apparently they don't remember that the stimulus package, which the Republicans were against, reduced the Social Security payroll tax by 2%. That is now being reinstated. They should be happy because they didn't want the ARRA in the first place.

I guess I just don't see the logic in taxing certain people more when half the people don't pay (AT ALL), and the government spends millions and billions of dollars every year without batting an eye or thinking about the consequences.

How can you justify hiking tax percentages on the responsible people who are already paying taxes in this country?

It makes no sense.

How about you make the "poor", who have contributed nothing, pay only for the percentage that was just raised on the rich?

If you continue to "punish" the people making money, how can you expect anyone to make more (or want to make more), and throw that money back into the economy? Let me tell you... if I was making $390,000/year, I would try my hardest to do the bare minimum and never get a raise.

I agree. My problem with extra taxes on the wealthy is because those are the people who create jobs. For instance - take someone who owns a car dealership. If they have to pay extra in taxes, they may have to lay people off in order to do so. That leaves people unemployed.

Taxes on the wealthy will barely even make a dent in our current debt situation. Spending cuts are what we need.

They don't pay because they don't have income! I know when I was a college student, I didn't have to pay any federal income taxes. That article goes on to say that lower income people contribute a larger share of their income to social security and medicare than wealthier people do.

If you're living on the $1300 a month you're getting from Social Security after paying federal income tax your whole life, don't you think you've paid your share already? If you took 20% of that income for a flat tax, as some propose, you're asking them to live on $1040 a month. Add $500/month in prescriptions and medicare premiums and they're making $540/month. (My mom's actual figures before she passed away).

I agree with your statement about income being different for a family of four vs. a single person.

I also think that cost of living needs to be taken into account. For instance, my house in Southern Illinois (a modest, two story home) would be probably four times as expensive in somewhere such as San Francisco or Chicago. My grandparents, who live in a Chicago suburb, have a smaller house than us and paid over triple than what we did. $250,000 is a lot different for a family living in an area such as Southern Illinois and a family living in a big city or expensive area.

Where are you getting the idea that low income = no income?

I'm not saying that a flat tax is the answer. But everyone should pay SOMETHING.

If you make $40,000/year, you don't have to pay anything, but if I make over $400,000, I have to pay for you and your entire family?

Uh, no thanks. Everyone should contribute. Otherwise, the whole system falls apart. Because if I was a business owner, and I was taxed at an extremely high percentage, I wouldn't hire additional workers at $40,000... and then you're making nothing.

ETA: Cut the flipping spending!!!

You do have to pay if you're making $40K. You don't make $40K as a student, on disability or from social security.

No you wouldn't. That would shoot yourself in the foot. They don't take all your money over $390,000 so why would you say no to more? That shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the way taxes work. I make over that cutoff and will be asking my bosses for more money even though it will mean I pay more in taxes. Why? Because it will also mean I will keep more at home. I will only be taxed a percentage of the income OVER $450,000. The money below that level is taxed at the same rate it was before. It's not like getting a raise means I'm working for free. You'll never get someone to turn down $10 because they have to give $2 to someone else if the alternative is $0. That's just dumb.

So every family making a total of $ 40,000 is paying taxes?

Ok.....

I never said you'd be working for free.. but where's the incentive to work twice as hard if you're not being compensated accordingly?

If a married couple is making $40K, they have to have 6 kids or extreme medical bills or some other bizarre circumstance to not pay any federal income tax.

Realistically, every family is paying taxes, be it state income tax, state sales tax, federal taxes on gas, cigarettes, alcohol, social security and medicare pay roll taxes, local property taxes, city income tax, etc.

You really can't ever say "every family making xxx is paying taxes". There are people making hundreds of thousands who aren't paying taxes because they have the ability to use every loophole in the tax code. A family making $40K is barely making it in most geographic regions, unless someone has given them a free house (inheritance, gift from parents, etc.) But yes, the vast majority of people of making $40K are paying federal income tax.

Dee, there is no use arguing with people who have been indoctrinated with "people don't pay their taxes" and "why would you work hard if they'll just take you money" even though they are ridiculous statements. The Republican Party has done a great job convincing people that someday they will magically be in the 1% and want to protect their "hard earned money" from the government. It's a fallacy. It cracks me up when my mother worries more about what my tax burden will be than her own. Seriously?

As Vito pointed out, no, he can't. Congress, not the president, controls spending.


An interesting approach for arguing that taxes should be fair.

Anyway, life may indeed not be fair, but there can be consequences to taxing those with lower income to the point that they can't pay for essentials. That increases the chance that those people will need government assistance like food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

I think the tax system needs an overhaul, but I think simple answers are not likely to be effective ones. Everyone paying the same percentage may sound appealing on the surface, but if the effect of a system like that is to increase the burden on the government for social services, then is it really effective? Is it preferable to have structured rates that encourage more self-sufficiency for those with lower incomes?

You don't have to talk about me like I'm not here and/or stupid. Im realistic about my potential earnings, I know I'll most likely never be in the 1%, and the Republican party hasn't brainwashed me into thinking that I will be one day.

I can think for myself and form an opinion on my own.. just like you.

This kind of discussion, and the idea that the poor should pay more and the wealthy should pay less, always reminds me of this:

Under every Congress there are stories of the President being forced to fund programs that he doesn't support. In some aspects I think this can be a good thing, within reason of course. I also support the concept of a line-item veto, which I think can do a lot to reduce the use of riders. *shrugs* I'm also possibly in a minority in thinking that we should transition to a parliamentary republic. (Actually I would even support a constitution monarchy on the slightly older British model.)

This is the fundamental difference, I think, in the world views on this thread. The idea that working hard leads to high pay. That just isn't true for huge swaths of this country.

I don't think the government should be in the business of validating people's choices. Those who choose to have families on incomes of $15K or of $250K make choices. Taxes are paid on income, not on how one chooses to spend it.

Likewise housing. While I believe access to adequate housing is a right, I don't think home ownership is a right, and don't think the government should reward me more than the couple next door who has been renting their house for 35 years, by their choice.

On principle, I agree, but it would require a very slow phase-out, and CERTAINLY not right now, while the housing market is what it is.

Thank you for saying this more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.

Is it that person's income? Or the family's income? I have never thought of my income as just mine. That money belongs to me and my children, not just me. I don't think many stay at home moms would be happy to say that the money their husband makes working outside of the home belongs to their spouses. I guess this is a major philosophical difference about you think about a family unit.

Home ownership is a huge boon for our economy. The building, selling and buying of homes creates jobs. All of the people with those jobs then pay taxes. It's all a big flow chart and the taxes paid by all of those people add up to far more than the tax savings of the mortgage interest.

I'm of the mindset that if it is good for society for as a whole, I'm willing to ante up more money to pay for it. That would include education, defense, health care, roads/transportation, medical research, etc. I do feel like there is a lot of waste in our government but I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. We all heard reports of the government paying outrageous amounts for toilet seats, for example. I do think there is too much wealth in this country to tolerate people dying for lack of health insurance, lack of food, lack of heat or shelter... in short, lack of compassion. I know people who work the system and I know people who need help but can't get it from anywhere. I can't even believe they haven't approved spending to help the people suffering damage from Sandy, for example.

I have a feeling the biggest issue is corruption, but where that corruption is, I don't know. And whether ending that corruption would really help the deficit in the long run, I don't know.

It is family income, no doubt. The wage earner, however, CHOSE to marry and/or have a family. Why should the government validate or reward that choice?

OK, we disagree.

I don't think it's corruption.

In my 30+ years in government, I've come to believe we could do what needs to be done with 40% fewer people. Here are just some examples why I say 40% - it may be more or less, but ...
- a person full-time from November to January working on Combined Federal Campaign - from each directorate of each agency
- most government employees I saw spend as much time in idle chit-chat as they do working on any given day. Buying a house, selling puppies, (not)selling cookies/candy/giftwrap for the kids (by simply putting out an order sheet, and waiting for coworkers to ask, the more chitchat, all take place on government time.
- Don't like the way another office with which you work does/documents their job? No problem. Just have one of our people do/document it "our way".
- Duplicate information because computer systems can't talk to one another - in the name of "security" (theater) or "privacy".
- And as I said, every person who wants to make his mark must grow his program - whether that means making new regulations to enforce, sticking his nose somewhere else, or any of a gazillion different things ... what gets rewarded gets done.

I was actually thinking "fraud, waste and abuse", which would encompass those kinds of things you're talking about. Then again, if we lay off 40% of government employees, that's more people getting entitlements. Seems like a vicious cycle that we can't get out of. Cuts in spending always means cuts in jobs too.

I certainly don't make $500K a year, but the simple answer here is that if you're both taxed at say 30%, then the $500K person IS paying more than you are at $57K.

If education is cut, it's at the state and local level, not the Feds.

You don't know how brainwashed you are. You pay taxes now don't you? You don't just sit home and throw up your hands because the government takes out a percentage? If the Bush tax cuts were not renewed, and your rates went up to the original levels, would you do everything you could to reduce your salary so that you could get to the rate level that you were previously at even if it meant you were at a lower take home pay? Probably not. That is what you think the 1% are going to do because of this tax increase. It doesn't make any sense.