Tax hike before "fiscal cliff" deal - page 2
President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that Republicans would have to agree to raise taxes on the wealthy as the first step in a budget deal that would prevent a dysfunctional Washington from... Read More
4Dec 30, '12 by Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN Guide
2Dec 30, '12 by TopazLoverI signed a petition for members of Congress to make $75,000. I also suggested they work more, vacation less, and do not get the retirement they currently have. With 535 people that can add up.
2Dec 31, '12 by MunoRNQuote from CrufflerJJI'm all for spending less, and so is the President. Obama proposed $800 Billion in cuts to Boehner in his last proposal to Congress. Boehner on the other hand has not seriously proposed any cuts. The only thing that came close to making to the floor, his plan B, had no spending cuts, none, zilch.Depressed? Moi?
Not so much depressed as pessimistic/sarcastic.
Yes, my country should spend money. My country should spend no more money than we bring in from investments/taxes. If you overspent as an individual, you'd be bankrupted, your possessions seized & sold to pay off your debts, and you'd likely be thrown out of your home. Why should our government see its fiscal responsibilities any differently?
Unfortunately, TRUE fiscal responsibility is not Politically Correct, nor is it rewarding on an individual basis to our elected officials. Their primary job is to get re-elected, rather than address our nation's problems.
Even if we were to establish a 100% tax on those earning $1 Million/yr and up (by this, I mean take every single dollar they earn, leaving them penniless), it would not match our nation's penchant for spending beyond its means.
See: Fox Wins Straw-Man Argument Against Taxing Millionaires At 100 Percent | Research | Media Matters for America
If I, as a nurse, tended to spend my annual income in the first 3-4-5 months of the year, wouldn't that suggest that I have a spending problem?
My government seems to believe that it doesn't have a spending problem, instead, we merely have an income problem.
As to "We have a right to expect that our POTUS and Congress will take care of that bit of business...", maybe in a perfect world. Having seen political reality, however, I have almost no hope (there I go again, Mr. Cheerful!) that my government officials will do what is right for the nation.
2Dec 31, '12 by MunoRNQuote from Spidey's momConsidering how long the topic of the debt ceiling has been around, I'm surprised how poorly we understand it even now. The debt ceiling does not limit our ability spend, what it does is allow us to pay off what we've already spent. It has nothing to do with the sh$t that's already piled up, it's actually what helps us shovel out the sh$t that's already there.
2Dec 31, '12 by tewdlesI guess that I don't understand the argument that the democrats want taxes only when we need spending cuts...
It seems to me that what has been proposed by the POTUS is a mix of revenue and cuts.
2Jan 1, '13 by JolieQuote from MunoRN"Spending cuts" proposed for 3,4...9 or 10 years down the road are not spending cuts at all. The President knows this. Unfortunately, the masses of ill-informed Americans do not. Those cuts will be revised in future budgets, never to take effect. The only true cuts are those that are immediately (this year) put into place. Not only is the President not proposing any immediate meaningful cuts, he is continuing to increase spending, to the great detriment of this nation.I'm all for spending less, and so is the President. Obama proposed $800 Billion in cuts to Boehner in his last proposal to Congress.
1Jan 2, '13 by CrufflerJJfrom: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/politi...iff/?hpt=hp_t1
...It doesn't mention the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling that the United States reached Monday.
It also temporarily delays for two months the so-called sequester, a series of automatic cuts in federal spending......Obama warned Congress that he will not tolerate another act of prolonged brinksmanship."While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up through the laws that they've passed," he said after the Tuesday night vote.
"We can't not pay bills that we've already incurred. If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills in time..."
It's obvious to me that President Obama is looking to use this most recent "crisis" as a tool to distance himself (and past presidents, for that matter) from responsibility for spending...spending...spending. Don'cha know, it's all the fault of that eeeeevil Congress.
Our politicians have taken a year and a half to merely delay action another two months.
4Jan 2, '13 by TopazLoverWell, Congress does have a lot of fault to be found about them. I wonder if the new crop will be any better? They are all owned and will continue to be as long as we have corporations as people. When one is owned by Monsanto, oil companies, GE, etc. we cannot exspect them to represent us, the little guys who only pay their salaries.
I suspect if we had more Bernie Sanders in Congress we would see things change quickly.
3Jan 2, '13 by CrufflerJJQuote from aknottedyarnNope, the new crop won't be any better than the old crop. While newbies may enter politics with all sorts of "new ideas & convictions", they'll be rapidly beat down by US political "reality".Well, Congress does have a lot of fault to be found about them. I wonder if the new crop will be any better? They are all owned and will continue to be as long as we have corporations as people. When one is owned by Monsanto, oil companies, GE, etc. we cannot exspect them to represent us, the little guys who only pay their salaries.
I suspect if we had more Bernie Sanders in Congress we would see things change quickly.
As you said, our political process is owned by lobbyists.
I had to Google Bernie Sanders. Good that he's independent.
1Jan 2, '13 by herring_RN GuideBigger Tax Bite for Most Under Fiscal Pact
Only the most affluent American households will pay higher income taxes this year under the terms of a deal that passed Congress on Tuesday, but most households will face higher payroll taxes because the deal does not extend a two-year-old tax break.
The increases will apply almost exclusively to households making at least half a million dollars, the center estimated in an analysis published Tuesday. But lawmakers' decision not to reverse a scheduled increase in the payroll tax that finances Social Security, while widely expected, still means that about 77 percent of households will pay a larger share of income to the federal government this year, according to the center's analysis.
The tax this year will increase by two percentage points, to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent, on all earned income up to $113,700.
Indeed, for most lower- and middle-income households, the payroll tax increase will most likely equal or exceed the value of the income tax savings. A household earning $50,000 in 2013, roughly the national median, will avoid paying about $1,000 more in income taxes-but pay about $1,000 more in payroll taxes. ...
2Jan 2, '13 by TopazLoverWhat I do not understand is why with salaries and payrolls going up do we continue to limit the Social Security for the slightly over $113,000. Those who are making hundreds of thousands could put in a bit more. We know that people currently get back less than they put into SS. We always pay ahead. No reason why we should expect 100% but there is no reason why those who earn can't help keep it afloat until they can access their part.
2Jan 3, '13 by azhiker96, BSNThe increase in the payroll tax is just letting it return to it's pre-2011 level. 6.2% is what it has been since 1990. It's not realistic to expect it to stay artificially low forever, especially when it funds social security.
2Jan 4, '13 by MunoRNQuote from JolieAs republicans frequently point out, he's already made cuts to medicare. His proposed social security cuts were to start in 2013. But there's also a lot of spending that's essentially already been "spent" for 2013 by December of 2012 and can't be altered."Spending cuts" proposed for 3,4...9 or 10 years down the road are not spending cuts at all. The President knows this. Unfortunately, the masses of ill-informed Americans do not. Those cuts will be revised in future budgets, never to take effect. The only true cuts are those that are immediately (this year) put into place. Not only is the President not proposing any immediate meaningful cuts, he is continuing to increase spending, to the great detriment of this nation.
I'm all for cuts, including whatever the Republicans want to cut, but I haven't heard of anything they want to cut, they've yet to make a single meaningful proposal, I'm not sure they really want to cut anything.