The fiscal cliff

[KI4MVP]

That's a bit absurd. Someone that makes 250K-500K a year has it much differently than him. A person is allowed to pay voluntary taxes. Why doesn't Buffet cough up a billion and recruit some of his friends if he want's to pay more.


The government has a SPENDING problem. The tax increase is nothing more than a symbol so they can say "we taxed the rich!" It will also quicken the crash of the economy by taking more money away from the people. Instead of coming back to the people and asking for more, they should gut the government of its redundant programs, fraud and waste. Let they people keep THEIR money so they can spend and invest and lead us back to a reovery.

the problem is they need to do both if they are going to actually balance the budget. There's not a trillion/year in redundant programs, fraud and waste. I could agree that the 250k-500k bracket includes people who will have trouble absorbing a tax increase, especially people who live in higher cost of living areas than we do in Ohio. Part of the answer to that is the increase is only in the income above the 250k mark, not on all income. But I'd certainly be open to the idea that the threshold should be higher and that it should be adjusted for inflation each year. Instead of refusing all together, the republicans should counter that the cutoff should be at $500k/year and that the threshold should get indexed to inflation each year and in return for that concession, keep the capital gains and corporate tax rates the same and eliminate the estate tax.

And the Bush tax cuts were always supposed to be temporary. They were passed as temporary and extended as temporary. Obama wants to let them expire for the wealthiest americans and make them permanent for everyone else. Is that a tax increase or a tax cut vs what would happen without passing something new?

 

[MalTalm]

That's a bit absurd. Someone that makes 250K-500K a year has it much differently than him. A person is allowed to pay voluntary taxes. Why doesn't Buffet cough up a billion and recruit some of his friends if he want's to pay more.


The government has a SPENDING problem. The tax increase is nothing more than a symbol so they can say "we taxed the rich!" It will also quicken the crash of the economy by taking more money away from the people. Instead of coming back to the people and asking for more, they should gut the government of its redundant programs, fraud and waste. Let they people keep THEIR money so they can spend and invest and lead us back to a reovery.

There's also an inherent issue with a tax line, being someone making 250K in New York has a significantly lower standard of living than someone making 250K in Sandusky. I'm a bit split on this issue; I'm okay with the taxes in principle, but where is the money going? What, exactly, is it funding? Is there an amount we need to cover before the tax is unnecessary, or is it permanent once in place? (We know the answer to that one, but it's perturbing that it isn't even a question)

In short, where's the accountability? We have a bad habit of throwing money at problems, and when it fails to correct the issue, we quickly decide the answer must be to throw more money at it. If you want a larger tax revenue, fine. But first fix the system, and budget the money appropriately. Time has proven working the issue backwards fails every time.

 

[Maximus]

the problem is they need to do both if they are going to actually balance the budget.

You do realize the economy is slowing, don't you? In my opinion, it is going to be WAYYYY worse than a couple years ago. I hope t-shirts are a recession proof industry, because it's about to get real ugly. Did you see who lead the way in the unemployment report today - surprise - Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Tell me, how is Obama going to stimulate the economy now? How? We're broke! I don't have a flipping clue. Balancing the budget isn't my priority right now, it's avoiding a fullblown freaking depression. The ONLY place that can possibly provide any stimulus is the private sector. That's why taxing them NOW is absurd. Do cuts and close loopholes to avoid the cliff...the GOP said they would do that. I get that the tax cuts are supposed to be temporary. But let them expire when the economy is not on life support....raising them now will flatline us.

I GUARANTEE YOU THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. Taxes will get raised and then THE GOVERNMENT will announce we need more spending stimulus. So what's the damn point of taking it from the rich in the first place if you are just going to turn around and spend it....especially when it's on a bunch of friends and Solyndra's?

Look at all the companies announcing Obamacare surcharges and limit to employees hours this week...that sure isn't going to help the economy either. Still don't think the poor and middle class are paying for Obamacare? It's going to be the deathblow. The government is too fucking big and they can't run anything efficiently. The post office just announced they lost $16B!!!


Years ago it was Barney Frank saying everyone is entitled to be a homeowner, now it's healthcare. In 4 years the Dem nominee will say every alien is entitled to citizenship. IF that isnt enough he'll promise to pay off educational loans. Just win baby! Obama proved that a Presidential election can be bought.

We are so screwed. Mitt would have gotten THE PEOPLE to spend and invest = more revenues & jobs. Obama is going to turn us all into hoarders. This really fucking blows.

 

[Maximus]

In short, where's the accountability? We have a bad habit of throwing money at problems, and when it fails to correct the issue, we quickly decide the answer must be to throw more money at it. If you want a larger tax revenue, fine. But first fix the system, and budget the money appropriately. Time has proven working the issue backwards fails every time.

A week after the election they are already saying they won't have a budget for the 4th straight year...pathetic. Mitt would have run it like a business - shrink the government, eliminate waste, commit to a budget, grow the economy and jobs.

Murray: Can't guarantee 2014 budget

By Erik Wasson - 11/15/12 11:17 AM ET

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) confirmed Thursday that she will seek the chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee next year but told The Hill that she cannot commit to doing a budget.

This opens up the possibility that Senate Democrats will avoiding passing a budget resolution for the fourth year in a row.

 

[Lee]

The only tax cut that needs to expire is the lower ss tax. SS is in serious trouble and needs help. The fact is, ss tax is the most fair in the country. It is 4.2, but will go back up to 6.2. make 10k in a year, you pay $620, make 100k, you pay $6200. It is also capped, so you dont pay in way more than you will make, nor pay in way more than you will get out.

Social Security is unfairly whined about. Until Bush put it into the general fund, it was actually doing just fine. Even with the recent changes and discounts, it still has 10+ years before defunct. Lets put SS back, stop messing with it and fix all the other programs we dont need.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

72% of those exit polled election night are in favor of this. Instead, we get this

Here is my issue with this, if the top 1% pay the majority of taxes, then I expect the bottom 99% to think the 1% should pay more. This is like asking a Michigan fan if tOSU should have got hit harder then they did, of course they do, they are BIAS against tOSU and want them to go down. Its a oxymoron to ask the "poor" to see if they think the "rich" should pay more.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

The only tax cut that needs to expire is the lower ss tax. SS is in serious trouble and needs help. The fact is, ss tax is the most fair in the country. It is 4.2, but will go back up to 6.2. make 10k in a year, you pay $620, make 100k, you pay $6200. It is also capped, so you dont pay in way more than you will make, nor pay in way more than you will get out.

Social Security is unfairly whined about. Until Bush put it into the general fund, it was actually doing just fine. Even with the recent changes and discounts, it still has 10+ years before defunct. Lets put SS back, stop messing with it and fix all the other programs we dont need.

I agree, we pay SS tax to get a pension when we retire. IF we pay less into SS, then we should expect less out. Personalty this is one of the stupidest tax cuts we have could have initiated. I look at SS tax as the government forcing me to save for retirement, as I expect to get this money back. (FYI - NOT A FAN OF SS).

 

[MRMsix6]

on raising taxes on the wealthy

"Never in 60 years of managing money have I come up with an idea and had someone say 'I'd do it but the tax rates are too high'." - Warren Buffet

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/investing/buffett-fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Tax rates absolutely affect investment decisions. Working in real estate investment I see it first hand nearly every day. People are scrambling to lock in capital gains before the end of the year and going to great lengths to avoid paying the inevitably higher rates. This will dramatically alter peoples' declared incomes in the next year. It especially matters when you're dealing with the people in the $250k-$500k income range, not guys like Buffet who are pulling in $10mil+. Billionaires like Buffet are saying "I can afford to pay more!" while the guy making $300k says, "Really? fuck you". All we're doing is robbing these people to pay for a government that is drunk on spending with no end in sight. I can't emphasize this enough: The government cannot spend and invest these peoples' money better than they can themselves. Congress has some huge fucking balls to demand more money from people when they can't even pass a budget. Think about that. They just keep passing spending bills as they come to them without a thought given to any kind of yearly budget restraints. That is insanity.

 

[RonG]

The only tax cut that needs to expire is the lower ss tax. SS is in serious trouble and needs help. The fact is, ss tax is the most fair in the country. It is 4.2, but will go back up to 6.2. make 10k in a year, you pay $620, make 100k, you pay $6200. It is also capped, so you dont pay in way more than you will make, nor pay in way more than you will get out.

Social Security is unfairly whined about. Until Bush put it into the general fund, it was actually doing just fine. Even with the recent changes and discounts, it still has 10+ years before defunct. Lets put SS back, stop messing with it and fix all the other programs we dont need.

I had to go look just for shits and grins..

(See also, MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 1)



MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves a series of questions about the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Questions:

Q1: Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Q3: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Q4: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

Q5: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?


THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.



Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A2: There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)



Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.



Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

 

[Surge]

Listen, we had a nice run as a country.

When this whole thing goes kaboom, I will be moving to the Klondike and starting a gold mine. I'll need 4 or 5 people, and you'll get 10% of the profit.

LMK

 

[The Oi]

I will be starting another gold mine across the street. I will then put my straw in Fla's gold mine and drink it up. I will drink his milkshake.

 

[southernflyer]

Listen, we had a nice run as a country.

When this whole thing goes kaboom, I will be moving to the Klondike and starting a gold mine. I'll need 4 or 5 people, and you'll get 10% of the profit.

LMK

With the amount of gold rush shows on the Discovery Channel, you might be too late by the time it happens.

 

[Soda]

So, should I or should I not put my money under a mattress?

 

[Maximus]

FHA Sets Stage for Taxpayer Subsidy With 2012 Deficit

By Clea Benson - Nov 16, 2012 12:01 AM ET.

The Federal Housing Administration said mounting losses from defaults on loans it backed during the housing bubble left its insurance fund with a $16.3 billion deficit for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

A report by an independent actuary that will be released today sets the table for a possible taxpayer subsidy for the government mortgage insurer for the first time in its 78-year history. It shows that the fund’s assets aren’t enough to cover projected losses on the $1.1 trillion portfolio of mortgages the agency insures.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

FHA Sets Stage for Taxpayer Subsidy With 2012 Deficit

By Clea Benson - Nov 16, 2012 12:01 AM ET.

The Federal Housing Administration said mounting losses from defaults on loans it backed during the housing bubble left its insurance fund with a $16.3 billion deficit for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

A report by an independent actuary that will be released today sets the table for a possible taxpayer subsidy for the government mortgage insurer for the first time in its 78-year history. It shows that the fund’s assets aren’t enough to cover projected losses on the $1.1 trillion portfolio of mortgages the agency insures.

The bad part about this program is that it encourages people who have no business owning a home, to go out any buy one. It should be a program designed to help those who don't have the money for a 10% or 20% but have good credit to be able to get a loan.

I bought my first home under FHA in 2009. I went to refi my loan to take advantage of these low rates, but with the new fees with FHA loans, my payment would have gone up! It is a joke, I was approved for a new loan for almost 3X my current mortgage, and yet got denied to refi my house to take advantage of the new low rates.