Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[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?

[ASTalumna06]

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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.

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.)

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.
.

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.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DGTess

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.