Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[adpimiz]

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.

[ASUADPi]

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.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

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.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

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.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

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?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

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.

and why is this a problem?

[Psi U MC Vito]

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.

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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

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.

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.

[AnchorAlum]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

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 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.

[DGTess]

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.

[AOII Angel]

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.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DGTess

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?

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

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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

Life isn't fair.