Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

Life isn't fair.

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.

[ASTalumna06]

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.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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.

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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?

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

However, our President can't simply spend and spend and spend.

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

Originally Posted by adpimiz

Life isn't fair.

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?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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.)