Jump to content

US politics


The Progressive

Recommended Posts

I think it means they are trying to jerk you around with pointless semantics. Tax rates on the vast majority of taxpayers will increase, and I don't think anyone except some political junkies will care whether it was because the Administration increased them, or because it didn't stop the increase. The distinction is meaningless drivel to the people who have to pay those higher taxes.

But I would love to hear the Administration try to explain the increase in rates on that basis.

Pretty much, yeah.

it goes back to the point made earlier that technically, by their logic, any tax increase that results in rates that are less than the historically highest rates would then have to be considered 'not a tax hike'.

Which is.... fascinating....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much, yeah.

it goes back to the point made earlier that technically, by their logic, any tax increase that results in rates that are less than the historically highest rates would then have to be considered 'not a tax hike'.

So the Obama administration will have raised rates to a level higher than they were before 2001?

ETA: yes, that was my Ser Scot imitation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

I think it means they are trying to jerk you around with pointless semantics.

Perhaps lets move it out of a tax context and into a commercial context for a moment then: If a store sells a particular item at, say, $500.00, but it then decides to temporarily reduce the price to $400.00 for a set period of time, would you then refer to it as a price increase once the item returns to $500.00?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

Perhaps lets move it out of a tax context and into a commercial context for a moment then: If a store sells a particular item at, say, $500.00, but it then decides to temporarily reduce the price to $400.00 for a set period of time, would you then refer to it as a price increase once the item returns to $500.00?

If the item were at $400 for ten years, and it went to $500, then yes, i would consider that a price increase.

I don't know what else to call a price increase, other than a price increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much, yeah.

it goes back to the point made earlier that technically, by their logic, any tax increase that results in rates that are less than the historically highest rates would then have to be considered 'not a tax hike'.

Which is.... fascinating....

It's even better than that. In a progressive tax system, any tax increase will be paid for disproportionately by the wealthy. Of course, if you reduce those rates to where they were previously, you'll be accused of "giving money away" to the wealthy. Even though they're not being given them. It's just that less of their money is being taken away.

Of course, if you view all money as belonging to the "community" rather than to individuals, it all makes perfect sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's even better than that. In a progressive tax system, any tax increase will be paid for disproportionately by the wealthy. Of course, if you reduce those rates to where they were previously, you'll be accused of "giving money away" to the wealthy. Even though you're not giving them anything -- you're just taking less away.

Of course, if you view all money as belonging to the "community" rather than to individuals, it all makes perfect sense.

The distinction is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

Perhaps lets move it out of a tax context and into a commercial context for a moment then: If a store sells a particular item at, say, $500.00, but it then decides to temporarily reduce the price to $400.00 for a set period of time, would you then refer to it as a price increase once the item returns to $500.00?

Uh, yes. Because the price increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it means they are trying to jerk you around with pointless semantics. Tax rates on the vast majority of taxpayers will increase, and I don't think anyone except some political junkies will care whether it was because the Administration increased them, or because it didn't stop the increase. The distinction is meaningless drivel to the people who have to pay those higher taxes.

But I would love to hear the Administration try to explain the increase in rates on that basis.

Based on present law, you are correct. Based on the Administration's actual budget, this is not the case. My link

Relative to current law, under which the 2001-2003 tax cuts would virtually all expire after 2010, these proposals would increase income taxes for about 5 percent of all taxpayers with most of the increase toward the upper end of the income distribution. About one-sixth of those in the top quintile and one-fourth of those in the top 1 percent would experience a tax increase.

Now, unless I missed it, Obama's budget hasn't actually passed yet. Nevertheless, I think you're getting ahead of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's even better than that. In a progressive tax system, any tax increase will be paid for disproportionately by the wealthy. Of course, if you reduce those rates to where they were previously, you'll be accused of "giving money away" to the wealthy.

Presumably that would also not qualify as a tax cut, since it would just be 'restoring a previous rate'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably that would also not qualify as a tax cut, since it would just be 'restoring a previous rate'.

Well, it's all the government's money anyway. On a more pleasant note....

Apparently, Justice Kennedy has told folks he's staying on at least through Obama's first term. Heh. Kennedy was a guy who occasionally voted with the liberal wing, but he also happens to be the author of the Citizens United decision, and apparently did not take kindly to getting called out by the President at the State of the Union. So, it looks like he's going to wait until he can be replaced by a Republican President.

Paybacks are an MF'er.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_holdin_court_at_73_justice_kennedy_tells_pals_hes_not_retiring_for_years__thats_.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yes. Because the price increased.

So when a store has a sale, at the end of that period it is guilty of a price increase? Interesting...

I mean, sure, from a strictly verbatim point of view, you might be correct, but I think anyone in RL who bitches about how a store increased its prices because a sale ended will be looked at as something of an idiot. People's reactions would probably amount to something like "well, duh! It was a sale, a temporary reduction in the price. You didn't seriously expect it to stay at that reduced level forever, did you?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when a store has a sale, at the end of that period it is guilty of a price increase? Interesting...

I mean, sure, from a strictly verbatim point of view, you might be correct, but I think anyone in RL who bitches about how a store increased its prices because a sale ended will be looked at as something of an idiot. People's reactions would probably amount to something like "well, duh! It was a sale, a temporary reduction in the price. You didn't seriously expect it to stay at that reduced level forever, did you?"

Uh-oh, Ser Reptitious...you're about to be accused of being "rather moot and comically transparent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when a store has a sale, at the end of that period it is guilty of a price increase? Interesting...

Gas prices go up and down all the time. 2 summers ago, it was at 4.50, and today, they're under $3.00. Under your logic, anyone who refers to a change from $2.65 to $2.75 as an "increase" would be an idiot. Because after all, they were higher than that 2 years ago.

I mean, sure, from a strictly verbatim point of view, you might be correct, but I think anyone in RL who bitches about how a store increased its prices because a sale ended will be looked at as something of an idiot. People's reactions would probably amount to something like "well, duh! It was a sale, a temporary reduction in the price. You didn't seriously expect it to stay at that reduced level forever, did you?"

Yes, well, we're not talking about a 3 day sale, are we? And I'm thinking that you arguing with a customer that "our prices didn't go up today -- they're the same as when we overcharged you ten years ago" wouldn't go over so well. But it's a pointless argument that doesn't change the reality either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's even better than that. In a progressive tax system, any tax increase will be paid for disproportionately by the wealthy. Of course, if you reduce those rates to where they were previously, you'll be accused of "giving money away" to the wealthy. Even though they're not being given them. It's just that less of their money is being taken away.

Of course, if you view all money as belonging to the "community" rather than to individuals, it all makes perfect sense.

I don't think that's the argument at all. Rather, the issue is related to the marginal utility of money. To a person earning $250,000 an increase in the marginal tax rate of 5% will collect significantly more income for the state than a marginal tax rate increase of 10% for the person earning $75,000. The argument that those who speak about this make, essentially, is that the rich person, having so much raw income, is less affected by greater net losses of income than the poorer person. This is for the increase side.

For the decrease, the pro-tax group will argue that the kind of spending that the government does with the raw amount outweights any possible benefit to the rich person having that kind of money in hand. I'm aware that you disagree strongly with this point; still, this is the point being made.

It is not at all about $$ belonging to the community (trying to sneak in an accusation of communism via the back door?) but simply about the positive externality from government spending over private saving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, Justice Kennedy has told folks he's staying on at least through Obama's first term. Heh. Kennedy was a guy who occasionally voted with the liberal wing, but he also happens to be the author of the Citizens United decision, and apparently did not take kindly to getting called out by the President at the State of the Union. So, it looks like he's going to wait until he can be replaced by a Republican President.

Paybacks are an MF'er.

Call me jaded, but I doubt that a retirement decision from a Supreme Court judge is really being made over one presidential speech. I have a hard time believing that Kennedy said to himself, "You know, I was all ready to retire in 2011 and let a Democrat name my successor but, by god, that speech has gotten my goat!" I suspect that Kennedy will hang on as long as his health and happiness allow, with the usual eye towards the president who would nominate his replacement...as all justices do.

While we are on the topic, however, I think it is possible that Obama may well replace a third and even a fourth justice should he win two terms. Ginsberg is in her late seventies and not well, and Breyer is 71 and not getting any younger. Kennedy and Scalia are both around 74 and although they will no doubt hang on as long as they can...well, six years is a long time when you are over 70.**

**Note that I am not rooting for anyone to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question to everyone who has a problem with taxes going up (and really, I don't care if they categorized as a tax increase, or tax cuts expiring): Why is this not a good thing? The reason I ask is because virtually everyone who is mad that taxes will increase is also mad that we have a huge deficit. Does anyone on this fucking planet think we can do something about the deficit without taxes going up? Did you see the GOP come to the defense of Medicare like it was the most sacred of sacred cows in all of human history these last few months? If the Republicans will never cut entitlements how in God's name are we going to reduce the deficit without raising taxes?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I keep looking for evidence of a principled opposition. Ok, if you don't want taxes to go up, what spending specifically do you wish to see cut?

Moreover, which is the greater issue to Conservatives - The deficit or that your taxes might go up? If the Tea Party was formed due to outrage over the deficit, I'm sympathetic (though less so of the majority in that group who believe taxes have already gone up under Obama when they've actually gone down.) But I just keep seeing generalities tossed around about the evils of big government and socialism without very little practical to reduce the deficit. Seems like a desire to go from one extreme (Higher taxes and higher spending) to another (lower taxes and lower spending) without anyone actually tackling the issue at hand. If you're against deficits show me how. Because you might disagree with letting those tax cuts expire but at least it's one principled means to reducing the deficit which everyone on the Right claims they're for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question to everyone who has a problem with taxes going up (and really, I don't care if they categorized as a tax increase, or tax cuts expiring):

Thank God....

Why is this not a good thing? The reason I ask is because virtually everyone who is mad that taxes will increase is also mad that we have a huge deficit. Does anyone on this fucking planet think we can do something about the deficit without taxes going up?

Yes. And here's the real problem -- I think if you could get a concrete pledge that this tax increase would be it, and the rest would be done by spending cuts, you might be able to get a grumbling acceptance. But I think people correctly understand that the increasing taxes will eventually result in higher spending. Shit, even now, the Administration is talking about the need for even more government spending.

Did you see the GOP come to the defense of Medicare like it was the most sacred of sacred cows in all of human history these last few months? If the Republicans will never cut entitlements how in God's name are we going to reduce the deficit without raising taxes?

I think that's a fair point, one that some Republicans have raised themselves. The problem was that the Medicare cuts were not used to reduce the cost of entitlements in general. Instead, they were part of a package to finance an additional entitlement program, and to further increase taxes. I said early on that one of the worst things about this whole health care bill was that it would force spending-conscious people who normally would support Medicare cuts to demagogue the issue to try to sink an even greater spending program. If you recall, Bush did try stand-alone Medicare cuts, and was blasted by democrats for that. The GOP even supported such cuts early in 2009. But when those cuts were paired with a new entitlement program, the GOP properly did its best to sink that new entitlement program. Unfortunately, they failed.

I think we badly need reform of both Medicare and Social Security. But if such reforms just become a budgetary trick to enact even greater spending, I'd sink those "reforms" any way I could.

Moreover, which is the greater issue to Conservatives - The deficit or that your taxes might go up?

Depends. Liberals always want to talk just about the deficit, as if no amount of spending is bad as long as they can extort enough tax revenue to finance it. Conservatives care about both, and don't think you should have to choose. Cut the damn spending, and you won't have to raise either taxes or the deficit.

You can just as easily flip it around. What is more important to liberals - the deficit or spending more on programs that you like? And from my experience, you want to have your cake and eat it too. We'll take lower deficits and more spending, and we'll finance it via higher taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be really interesting if Obama wins reelection. If this is really Kennedy's motivation, can he hold out for a 2nd term?

Here's my question to everyone who has a problem with taxes going up (and really, I don't care if they categorized as a tax increase, or tax cuts expiring): Why is this not a good thing? The reason I ask is because virtually everyone who is mad that taxes will increase is also mad that we have a huge deficit. Does anyone on this fucking planet think we can do something about the deficit without taxes going up? Did you see the GOP come to the defense of Medicare like it was the most sacred of sacred cows in all of human history these last few months? If the Republicans will never cut entitlements how in God's name are we going to reduce the deficit without raising taxes?

Hint: Tort reform is not going to do it for you

Raising taxes MAY be necessary to control the deficit, but only as part of a plan that also includes controlling spending and responsible budgeting.

Painting tax increases as a means to addressing the deficit is a non starter unless you are showing me a comprehensive plan.

The feds can come and talk to me about raising taxes when they get the rest of their budgetary ducks in a row and not before.

Simple throwing more money at them and hoping for the best does not strike me as the kind of reasoned approach to handling the deficit that is required.

edit: redacted first sentence due to lazy wordsmithing by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...