![]() |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.