|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
nogods 
Group: Members
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 03 2012, 6:08 pm |
|
   |
It sounds like everyone in Washington is against going over the fiscal cliff.
That may be reason enough to do just the opposite.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Gabby
Group: Members
Posts: 5492
Joined: Jun. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 03 2012, 6:49 pm |
|
 |
My thought too.
If I was in the White House right now (fat chance, huh?), I'd simply announce that, without Congressional action, I was going to let the provisions of the "fiscal cliff" go into effect, then push some targeted tax relief in some other form to fully put the responsibility on Congress' shoulders.
Given the current fragile condition of the US economy, there would definitely be some need to make other changes afterward.
Of course, such a move would hand the Republicans the opportunity to blame the entire resulting debacle which is sure to come (because of the immediate tax rate increase on the middle class, as well as the payroll tax increase) on my action, but, if Congress failed to take action on a subsequent tax relief package for the middle class, I'd claim they were at fault for the entire thing in a political counterattack.
I doubt much would be changed by such a gambit (or any other, for that matter), but it's so much fun to play the game, isn't it?
--------------
"I wouldn't even know how to begin to find the 'peyote lady', even if I thought it was possible in this incarnation...I'm completely tripped out on everyday life."
"By the way: where am I?"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23917
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 03 2012, 7:24 pm |
|
|
Should we be selling our stocks before the stampede off the cliff -- then buy back later and make a killing?
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
nogods
Group: Members
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 03 2012, 8:10 pm |
|
|
I'm all for applying the George Costanza opposite theory. Do the opposite of what you think should be done and things work out better.
Let's go over that cliff.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Gabby
Group: Members
Posts: 5492
Joined: Jun. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 03 2012, 11:09 pm |
|
|
Obama has the advantage in this situation because, should he decide to announce that it would be better to simply go over the "fiscal cliff", the Republicans would almost certainly decide to take the other side immediately.
--------------
"I wouldn't even know how to begin to find the 'peyote lady', even if I thought it was possible in this incarnation...I'm completely tripped out on everyday life."
"By the way: where am I?"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4060
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 11:28 am |
|
|
LOL The sad thing is, that would/will probably happen.
The Pubbies know that they will be blamed because they have established themselves so firmly as the Party of NO that they will cave before the clock strikes midnight.
Sure will be fun to watch The Daily Show summarize the Fox reaction to that!!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
dnlskier
Group: Members
Posts: 1180
Joined: Jun. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 12:12 pm |
|
|
Why not go over the cliff? What is the consequences? We all know the repubs will be blamed - that has been the story for 4+ years now...
EVERYBODY, even the poor, get tax increases, EVERYBODY!! Lets say we raise 1.6 trillion, then lets cut 1.6 trillions. Seems like a easy decision to me. I will pay my fair share, but EVERY citizen of the US of A should pay as well. The so called "rich" and the so called "poor."
Last time I checked we are the ball these @-holes in Washington are playing with - won't hurt them.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
big_load
Group: Members
Posts: 21834
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 12:31 pm |
|
|
There are two whole years until the next election. It's the most time they'll ever have for people to forget what they've done. They already took the heat for creating the time bomb. They'll either get a majority of what they want or they'll blow it up.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 1:14 pm |
|
|
Some in GOP are not supporting Boehner....maybe playing the 'Bad Cop' while Boehner is the 'Good Cop' in a negotiating ploy?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs....on.html
WASHINGTON—South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, as well as other conservatives, just gave Democrats a shiny new talking point.
The tea party-backed senator on Tuesday slammed House Republican leaders for the fiscal cliff proposal they offered earlier this week.
"Speaker [John] Boehner's $800 billion tax hike will destroy American jobs and allow politicians in Washington to spend even more, while not reducing our $16 trillion debt by a single penny," DeMint said in a statement. "This isn't rocket science. Everyone knows that when you take money out of the economy, it destroys jobs, and everyone knows that when you give politicians more money, they spend it. This is why Republicans must oppose tax increases and insist on real spending reductions that shrink the size of government and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money."
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
EastieTrekker
Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 1:24 pm |
|
|
(dnlskier @ Dec. 04 2012, 12:12 pm)
QUOTE Why not go over the cliff? What is the consequences?
There's a very real possibility that if we go over the "fiscal cliff" the economy could very well find its way back into a recession. You have to consider that while sequestration would certainly cut spending significantly, the cuts are going to result in significant loss of jobs (both directly cutting public jobs and industries that support the public sector - like the high tech defense industry in MA).
Plus, if we do go over this "cliff", in the days leading up to the deadline to come up with an alternative, the markets will surely begin to crack at the unknown outcome. Indeed, there are already signs of a slight pulling back in business investment (compounded by the fact that business investment always slows down in the 4th quarter).
So as much as I'd like to let it happen and pin it on the inaction of the Repubs, it's probably not in the best interest of the country. Personally, I'd like to see a solution sooner than later...
--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5302
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 2:02 pm |
|
|
I don't think letting the tax cuts expire for everyone would in and of itself do much to hurt the economy; after all, those are the same rates we had during the propsperous 1990's.
Cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and other social safety net programs will place a greater hardship on people who can least afford it -- people who pretty much spend all their disposable income.
Any significant reduction in consumer spending could lead us back into recession -- which means more unemployment, a greater burden on unemployment insurance & other safety net programs, and reduced revenue -- a negative feedback loop that does not bode well for economic recovery or for budget deficits.
Aside from tangible economic number crunching, going over the "fiscal cliff" carries with it some very negative intangibles that could hurt the economy -- because it will affect how people perceive the economy. Wall Street can be like a frightened flock of sheep, changing direction over perceived calamity and thereby becoming the instrument of bringing about the calamity.
Much debate over the fiscal cliff has centered on partisan political gamesmanship and specualtion over which party would be hurt more in the 2014 midterm elections if a budget agreement to avert the "cliff" is not reached.
I agree Obama and the Dems should not cave to Republican intrasigence on a tax increase for the rich, but let's at least be clear on what the priority should be -- good policy that will help the economy and the American people.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Lamebeaver
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Group: Members
Posts: 16226
Joined: Aug. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 2:14 pm |
|
|
The question is not if, but when they avoid making any difficult decisions by kicking that can down the road........again!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39578
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 3:36 pm |
|
|
(dnlskier @ Dec. 04 2012, 9:12 am)
QUOTE Why not go over the cliff? What is the consequences? We all know the repubs will be blamed - that has been the story for 4+ years now...
EVERYBODY, even the poor, get tax increases, EVERYBODY!! Lets say we raise 1.6 trillion, then lets cut 1.6 trillions. Seems like a easy decision to me. I will pay my fair share, but EVERY citizen of the US of A should pay as well. The so called "rich" and the so called "poor."
Last time I checked we are the ball these @-holes in Washington are playing with - won't hurt them.
Across the board, per the legislative language, nine percent cut in defense spending, 8.2 percent cut in National Institutes of Health effective with the money for January 2, 2013 on forward, immediately with similar cuts in following fiscal years out to 2021. Plus similar sized additional cuts to other programs in there discretionary side of the budget i.e. not what's mandated by law such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and debt payments.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites....ort.pdf
On the tax side the "Bush" tax cuts expire along with the SS tax reduction.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10797
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 7:08 pm |
|
|
I just read today in a newspaper left in the airport, that the 2 largest deductions we can close to create the most income for the gov't, is the business deduction for health insurance, $100 B, and the Home mortgage interest deduction, $90 B. To go along with those 2, we should also tax all income for SS and Medicare. All of it, cap gains, dividends, and any other income. Just my opinion.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Lamebeaver
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Group: Members
Posts: 16226
Joined: Aug. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 7:40 pm |
|
|
dividends (except on gvt and municipal bonds) are already taxed as regular income.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10797
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2012, 8:24 pm |
|
|
Not SS and medicare taxes, which is what I was referring to.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 05 2012, 6:25 am |
|
|
(Drift Woody @ Dec. 04 2012, 2:02 pm)
QUOTE I don't think letting the tax cuts expire for everyone would in and of itself do much to hurt the economy; after all, those are the same rates we had during the propsperous 1990's.
...
Any significant reduction in consumer spending could lead us back into recession -- which means more unemployment, a greater burden on unemployment insurance & other safety net programs, and reduced revenue -- a negative feedback loop that does not bode well for economic recovery or for budget deficits.
__
Aside from tangible economic number crunching, going over the "fiscal cliff" carries with it some very negative intangibles that could hurt the economy -- because it will affect how people perceive the economy. Wall Street can be like a frightened flock of sheep, changing direction over perceived calamity and thereby becoming the instrument of bringing about the calamity.
Much debate over the fiscal cliff has centered on partisan political gamesmanship and specualtion over which party would be hurt more in the 2014 midterm elections if a budget agreement to avert the "cliff" is not reached.
I agree Obama and the Dems should not cave to Republican intrasigence on a tax increase for the rich, but let's at least be clear on what the priority should be -- good policy that will help the economy and the American people.
A few thoughts here DW if I may...
I agree with your belief as outlined in the second paragraph. However, I disagree with your first paragraph BECAUSE of the second one which I've left in. I tend to think that allowing taxes to rise back to the level of the 90's WILL cause people to spend less. They'd have to, they'll have less money to spend. Just my thought on that.
As to the section I seperated under the line, I agree with you for the most part. While I personally LOATHE taxes, I do understand their role and the need to find a balance between taxes and eliminating unnessesary spending. I suspect that an eventual repeal of the Bush tax cuts may be needed, but I think it would be better to do a rolling roll back over a few years than a sudden "increase".
As to your final paragraph, I have a question. I may be wrong, but I think it was Buffet that testified that he paid a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Would raising his income taxes actually really make that much of a difference or do we really need to focus more on deductions and investments where most of these guys make their real money as opposed to their "income"? I don't know the answer, that's an honest question on my part.
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5302
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 05 2012, 7:10 am |
|
|
(JimInMD @ Dec. 05 2012, 5:25 am)
QUOTE
(Drift Woody @ Dec. 04 2012, 2:02 pm)
QUOTE I don't think letting the tax cuts expire for everyone would in and of itself do much to hurt the economy; after all, those are the same rates we had during the propsperous 1990's.
...
Any significant reduction in consumer spending could lead us back into recession -- which means more unemployment, a greater burden on unemployment insurance & other safety net programs, and reduced revenue -- a negative feedback loop that does not bode well for economic recovery or for budget deficits.
__
Aside from tangible economic number crunching, going over the "fiscal cliff" carries with it some very negative intangibles that could hurt the economy -- because it will affect how people perceive the economy. Wall Street can be like a frightened flock of sheep, changing direction over perceived calamity and thereby becoming the instrument of bringing about the calamity.
Much debate over the fiscal cliff has centered on partisan political gamesmanship and specualtion over which party would be hurt more in the 2014 midterm elections if a budget agreement to avert the "cliff" is not reached.
I agree Obama and the Dems should not cave to Republican intrasigence on a tax increase for the rich, but let's at least be clear on what the priority should be -- good policy that will help the economy and the American people. A few thoughts here DW if I may... I agree with your belief as outlined in the second paragraph. However, I disagree with your first paragraph BECAUSE of the second one which I've left in. I tend to think that allowing taxes to rise back to the level of the 90's WILL cause people to spend less. They'd have to, they'll have less money to spend. Just my thought on that. As to the section I seperated under the line, I agree with you for the most part. While I personally LOATHE taxes, I do understand their role and the need to find a balance between taxes and eliminating unnessesary spending. I suspect that an eventual repeal of the Bush tax cuts may be needed, but I think it would be better to do a rolling roll back over a few years than a sudden "increase". As to your final paragraph, I have a question. I may be wrong, but I think it was Buffet that testified that he paid a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Would raising his income taxes actually really make that much of a difference or do we really need to focus more on deductions and investments where most of these guys make their real money as opposed to their "income"? I don't know the answer, that's an honest question on my part.
Yes, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for people at the lower end who still pay income taxes could result in a decrease in consumer spending. Even though the yearly increase for many would be quite small, they might perceive the need to change their spending habits -- even though, like I said, they'd be paying the same rates as the prosperous 1990's. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. (well, not quite, but I think you get my "drift"  ).
BTW, I'm not actually in favor of letting tax cuts expire for incomes under $200-250 k because of the possible negative effect of the economy, but personally I'm willing to do my share to reduce the deficit and I wouldn't alter my spending habits.
Regarding Warren Buffet and other Patriotic Millionaires who advocate for having their taxes raised, I'm all for raising their taxes beyond a simple expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and I say tax capital gains the same as regular income. 15% for piles of cash compounding on itself with little or no "work" is ridiculous, and the effect of taking money out of circulation by sequestering it in Cayman Islands tax havens is the opposite "job creation."
As for eliminating deductions, which deductions and who will be affected the most? If the Republican proposal primarily impacts the middle class and the working poor I would not be the least surprised, and the effect would certainly be reduced consumer spending and economic recession.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
nogods
Group: Members
Posts: 5425
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 8:11 pm |
|
|
(JimInMD @ Dec. 05 2012, 7:26 am)
QUOTE
(Drift Woody @ Dec. 05 2012, 7:10 am)
QUOTE As for eliminating deductions, which deductions and who will be affected the most? I think that's a very fair question. I'm obviously not a "finance guy", so I'm probably nto really qualified to offer much of an opinion on which deductions are out there and which ones will impact which brackets, other than the ones that hit me. I do believe that eliminating the deduction for home mortgage interest would hurt the middle class, as would cuts to the child tax credit. A loss of student loan offsets would absolutly have an impact and put college even further out of reach for people that need an education the most to improve their opportunities. Beyond that, I think the AMT needs to be fixed or eliminated as it's obviously not doing what it was intended to and winds up be ing "fixed" every year.
Flat tax on gross income, graduated rates, no tax on a minimum amount per person.
Our tax law became a mess when we started using it to alter behavior instead of for raising revenue.
Raise taxes. give grants to people who need an interest subsidy to buy a home. Give financial aid to students who can't afford college.
Economist refer to deductions as "tax expenditures." While any one such "tax expenditure" might be an efficient way to achieve a non-tax purpose, once you start down that road you end up with the complexity and idiocy we have now.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 31 2012, 8:51 pm |
|
|
Several of you guys have pointed this out already:
http://news.yahoo.com/analysi....03.html
"....Going over the "fiscal cliff" may seem irresponsible and self-destructive for the nation as a whole, but it's a politically logical, self-preserving step for many individual lawmakers.
They come from districts where ideological voters abhor tax hikes, or spending cuts, that any bipartisan compromise must include. Many of these voters detest compromise itself, telling elected officials to stick to partisan ideals or be gone...."
"....For the scores of representatives from solidly conservative districts — or solidly liberal ones — the only realistic way to lose the next election is by losing a primary contest to a harder-core partisan from the same party. The notion of "being primaried" strikes more fear in many lawmakers' hearts than does the prospect of falling stock markets, pundits' outrage or a smudge on their national party's reputation......"
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10797
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 01 2013, 4:57 pm |
|
|
Let's see. House can do nothing to create their own bill, even among the R's only, so they kick the responsibility upstairs to the Senate. Senate manages to create a bill that makes no one happy, thus meaning it is a compromise with which no single party can claim victory. 89-8 is the vote. Now, those same 89 Senators will be leaning on their state's Representatives to secure enough votes to pass this legislation. House Leader already said he would bring any Senate bill to a vote, let's see if he has the standing to do so.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
