Fiscal Cliff: Write your Reps

[smoothoperator]

Why would anybody trust a man who says to give him what he wants and he will discuss potential cuts later?

[Beiruty]

Federal Budget should always, always adjusted as percentage of GDP. 21% of GDP as income and 18% (+ 3% of GDP as a buffer for bad hair days) for spending. This is what Canada did and how they came out of 50% of GDP deficit (10% pf GDP as it is the case now in US) in less than 10yrs.

Have a look here:

[XinTX]

I'm not opposed to letting them have a piece of the pie so long as I get most of what I want too.

It's this attitude that has us in so much trouble. "I don't mind someone else paying more taxes so long as I get a slice of the pie". It's easy to keep your hand clean when you want someone else to take money from a complete stranger in order to provide yourself a goodie. It's up to each of us to make our own way. Not for government to hand us something so we can skip on down the yellow brick road.

[snatchel]

I'm not opposed to letting them have a piece of the pie so long as I get most of what I want too.

It's this attitude that has us in so much trouble. "I don't mind someone else paying more taxes so long as I get a slice of the pie". It's easy to keep your hand clean when you want someone else to take money from a complete stranger in order to provide yourself a goodie.

Let's be serious, XinTX. There is always going to be someone at the bottom of the totem pole. Someone is always going to get the short end of the stick.. every time. There is no such thing as the utopian idea of every one getting a piece of the pie and doing well..... So i'm not overly concerned about that.

Maybe I'm an elitist... or a jerk..... but that's reality.

I have been labeled an elitest before... I get it all the time in class. If looking out for myself and my wife makes me an elitist, selfish, or whatever else--so be it.

Maybe I'm an elitist... or a jerk..... but that's reality.

TAM, thanks for clearing that up. Maybe my frustration is getting the best of me. I don't blame the republicans.... i blame the democrats. But no matter, I'm still annoyed that for the past 4 years we have accomplished NOTHING financially... and it just seems like everyone in Congress is standing around a room pointing fingers instead of actually working together to accomplish something. Much of this, I think, has to do with representatives being more concerned about their seat than their constituents.

LIke many of you have said.... maybe it's time that we hit rock bottom and just let this thing happen. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already... and without Obama & his handouts, and his borrowing money to just postpone the inevitable... only to make matters worse for the next Generation, I think we would have hit bottom a few years ago.

Truth be told, I don't think that Obama really believes that all this borrowing and bailing out is actually going to have a positive effect on the economy long term. He preaches that, but I'm doubtful. I think Obama knows that the only way to keep his reputation intact, and America's head above water, is to keep doing what he has been doing: Borrowing to pay debt that we can keep up with. I'm pretty sure that he knows the deal. He knows that this can only keep up for a few more years before it all comes crashing down, and he's counting on it to last until his second term is over.

In any case, I am not going to sit here and act like I understand economics, taxes, etc. I've said it already. What I do know is that there IS a problem and that it MUST be addressed. I'm just curious as to how serious our representatives are about this problem, and how genuine their "dedication and hard work to fix our economy," is.

[stroo]

I don't know where to begin on this other than to say I have already written my Congressman and told him it is better to go over the cliff than to accept Obama's deal.

Having said that, first Obama is not negotiating in good faith. He could have had a deal two years ago then at the last minute he substantially increase the amount of taxes needed and killed the deal. This time around he has been preaching an $800 billion increase in taxed, but then after the election, suddenly bumps it up to $1.6 trillion. Again, a person does that if they really don't want a deal, but they want the other party to be the one that walks away.

Second, the thing that is killing our economy right now is government spending. Whether the Feds get money through taxing or borrowing, every dollar the Feds spend is a dollar that is not available for investment by the people. And the people do a much better job of making investment and spending decisions than the Fed do. So we need to emphasize real reductions spending not increases in tax revenues.

Third, while Government spending is the big issue, tax rates can drive investment decisions thereby driving the creation of jobs. We already have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, i.e. the rich paying the highest share. If you increase rates on the rich, you will reduce their incentive to invest and create jobs. So if you need a job, increasing rates on the rich is the best way to kill your chances to get a job. You are not suggesting giving up someone else's piece of the pie, you are suggesting giving up your piece of the pie.

Finally, I heard an interesting bit of information today. During Obama's term the number of households having less that $10,000 in asset has risen from 29% to 37% of the population while the wealth held by the top 1% has grown. That's what happens when you follow socialist policies; everyone gets poorer except the super wealthy.

[snatchel]

You are not suggesting giving up someone else's piece of the pie, you are suggesting giving up your piece of the pie.

I'm not sure if this is directed to me or not..... I think there might be some confusion though.

For the record-I support the Republican plan. I do not agree with tax raises for the rich. To be quite honest with you, so long as I am paying the same taxes I am accustomed to, and making my measly $50K a year, I don't care how much money the rich bring in. I don't care what they pay in taxes. I don't even care how they invest it, store it, shelter it, or anything else. If keeping the rich happy means I get to be happy too, so be it.

That's another problem I have with liberals. I have no idea when it became criminal to be rich. This might take the discussion off-topic....
i'll start another thread.

[chasfm11]

]During Obama's term the number of households having less that $10,000 in asset has risen from 29% to 37% of the population while the wealth held by the top 1% has grown. That's what happens when you follow socialist policies; everyone gets poorer except the Elite and politically connected.

There, I fixed it for you.

Unfortunately, this has been the trend for a much longer time that the current administration. I'm not one of the "tax the rich" types but examples like Bon Jovi's honeybee ploy
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/reale ... .html?_r=0are the reason that the tax codes are as complex as they are. The greatest wealth gains in recent years are among US Congressional leaders in both parties. Combine that with the Feds working overtime to pick winners and loosers in the marketplace and it is hard for the rest of us to break even, let alone get ahead.

Let's look at our current situation. The actions of Fannie and Freddie cratered the housing industry. Though a lot of people made money until the sub-prime debacle crashed, the rest of us have lost value (maybe even significant value) in our homes. Through QE, the Fed has crushed any chance of earning interest on our money outside of the stock market. By not prosecuting MF Global and others who damaged investors for the benefit of their management teams, the message has been sent that such tactics are acceptable. With the coming tax hikes, I expect another major recession if not a depression and the likelihood of another major stock market "pullback", further eroding the portfolios of retired people. In order words, the combination of these pretty much assures that demise of the middle class which, I believe, is exactly their intent. This is Agenda 21 on steroids. It is not only a Democrat issue. Like the class warfare, the contention created between the parties is just another diversion from the actual intent.

The Steve Jobs of the world deserve the riches that they have earned. Soros and others who have manipulated governments or used governmental power for their wealth do not. Jack Welch made General Electric great. Jeff Immelt made GE a function of the government.

This fiscal cliff nonsense is about political power and trying to influence the next election. The real fiscal cliff is when the Federal government runs out of people to lend it money or has been downgraded so far the entire Federal income will be needed to pay the interest on the debt. QE cannot last forever.

[bizarrenormality]

I don't like the liberal agenda any more than anyone else here. That said, I'm not opposed to letting them have a piece of the pie so long as I get most of what I want too. Maybe I am the only one, but I voiced this to my congressman. Anyway. Just wanted to encourage everyone to be active in this.

As a person paying for the pie, I am opposed to both of you getting a piece.


BUY or bake YOUR OWN FLIPPIN PIE!

[snatchel]

Jeez...


Does everyone understand that "the pie," does not represent money? Or handouts... or anything. "The Pie," I was referring to is whatever Liberals/Conservatives put in a bill..

I'm not looking to take any handouts or anything, my gosh.

[apostate]

When was the last time they passed a law that didn't cost somebody money?

[snatchel]

When was the last time they passed a law that didn't cost somebody money?

Ha. As soon as I typed that I knew someone was going to say... "Right.... so the money that goes into the bill."

Ayy. Tough crowd LOL.

[The Annoyed Man]

Snatchel, here is an excellent article explaining the absolute myth that democrats spout about how we had the best boom times with a 91% top tax rate after WW2, and it IS a myth:

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate
A liberal article of faith that confiscatory taxes fed the postwar boom turns out to be an Edsel of an economic idea.
Wall Street Journal
December 6, 2012, 7:02 p.m. ET

Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

The author goes on to give more numbers explaining this myth, but the next time one of your liberal friends brings this chestnut up, hand him a printed copy of the article. Numbers don't lie. Democrats lie all the time. You can tell because their lips are moving.

[chasfm11]

Snatchel, here is an excellent article explaining the absolute myth that democrats spout about how we had the best boom times with a 91% top tax rate after WW2, and it IS a myth:

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate
A liberal article of faith that confiscatory taxes fed the postwar boom turns out to be an Edsel of an economic idea.
Wall Street Journal
December 6, 2012, 7:02 p.m. ET

Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

The author goes on to give more numbers explaining this myth, but the next time one of your liberal friends brings this chestnut up, hand him a printed copy of the article. Numbers don't lie. Democrats lie all the time. You can tell because their lips are moving.

TAM, thanks very much for sharing this. You won't have to if we had a media that was doing its job. Why is that only the Wall Street Journal can publish this kind of information? Oh, I forgot - the others put ideology above truth.

[Ericstac]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8927376" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


NEW YORK -- Confronted with a revolt among the rank and file, House Republicans abruptly put off a vote Thursday night on legislation allowing tax rates to rise for households earning $1 million and up, complicating attempts to avoid a year-end fiscal cliff that threatens to send the economy into recession.

[Purplehood]

Obama has absolutely nothing to lose by not signing off on a Tax-compromise of any sort.

He gets additional tax revenue and he gets to point the finger at the Republican boogey-man. That more than makes up for the cuts that are triggered.