Political & Elections

winchester · Guru

RE: Budget: We get to all make Nice.

john doe · Guru

So now the Republicans deny their god - Grover and his directives. Are they going to wait for the **** to crow before doing the right thing?

longprime · Guru

ouch, ouch, ouch

that hurts.

We (R, D, PBO, retirees, wealth managers, Congress) wiil all see how much it hurts by the second week of Jan. And definitely by the end of January. evileye

I hope I've positioned our unprotected retirement funds to weather another recession. disbelief

john doe · Guru

I thought that was the goal - hurt the middle class.

longprime · Guru

The plan B chart looks good. But the limitations on deduction will hurt many in the mddle income. So, what are the words-will the deduction elimination be phased- in or immediate? confuse

john doe · Guru

One of the touted benefits of "Plan B" is that it only raises taxes for those making $1 million or more. As Eric Cantor said this morning, the plan would raise revenue "without hurting many small businesses" or taxpayers.

But a closer look at the tax impacts of Plan B shows that while it raises taxes on most million-plus earners, it also raises takes for many low-income earners.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center found that the average taxpayer earning $1 million or more in cash income would see their taxes go up by an average of $72,000. A small number of those million-plus earners will see a tax cut, due to an anomaly in the Alternative Minimum Tax.

But lower income earners will also see a tax hike. People making between $10,000 to $20,000 will see their taxes go up by an average of $262. People making $20,000 to $30,000 will see their taxes go up by $219. (Read more: How Much Would Taxing the Rich Raise?)

Granted, those are minor increases. But drilling down deeper, you find that some of those low-income earners could see a sizable increase. One in five of Americans who earn less than $20,000 a year will see an increase of $1,070 – a sizeable amount for low-income earners.

Average Tax Change Under Plan B

Annual Cash Income Level	Avg Federal Tax Change
Under $10,000	$127
$10,000 to $20,000	$262
$20,000 to $30,000	$219
$30,000 to $40,000	$158
$40,000 to $50,000	$145
$50,000 to $75,000	$68
$75,000 to $100,000	$73
$100,000 to $200,000	$120
$200,000 to $500,000	-$301
$500,000 to $1 million	-$164
More than $1 million	$72,360

Tax Policy

In fact, the only taxpayers who will get an overall tax cut under Plan B are those who earn between $200,000 and $1 million. People making between $200,000 and $500,000 will see an average tax cut of $301. Those making between $500,000 and $1 million will see their taxes go down by $164.

The reason is that Plan B has two parts – raising taxes on high earners and eliminating deductions for low earners. The plan raises the tax rate for those making $1 million or more to 39.6 percent from its current rate of 35 percent. It would also raise the capital gains and dividend tax rates for those earners to 20 percent from 15 percent.

(Read more: The Five Largest Landowners in America)

Yet Plan B also eliminates many of the Obama-led tax credits that largely benefit low-income earners, including the 2009 enhancements to the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and others. Repealing these credits hurts families with children the hardest, according the Tax Policy Center.

This is not to say that Plan B is good or bad. But its true impact on taxes is broader than many in the House would lead us to believe.

winchester · Guru

The current debate over tax hikes is an empty one built upon a false premise. The debate is whether raising tax rates will address our current crisis. The premise is that it is a lack of taxation that has led to the crisis. Both are hopelessly wrong.

President Obama's proposed tax increases on the top 2% of earners would fund the federal government for about eight days. Even if we taxed Americans earning over $1 million on 100% of their income, we would raise only about $600 billion in revenue.

Taxing citizens at this level is a tyranny even Europe hasn't reached, and still it would only address about one-third of our deficit.

If one actually does the math, "taxing the rich" turns out to be no real solution at all, only fantasyland rhetoric.

Senator Rand Paul, in Investors Business Daily

The only true reason for raising taxes is to increase "spreading the wealth around," the most significant effect of which is to kick the can farther down The Road to Serfdom.

What F.A. Hayek saw, and what most all his contemporaries missed, was that every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship--and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to freedom.

Nazism, he wrote, is not different in kind from Communism. Further, he showed that the very forms of government that England and America were supposedly fighting abroad were being enacted at home, if under a different guise. Further steps down this road, he said, can only end in the abolition of effective liberty for everyone.

Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.

longprime · Guru

Boehner's got movement. I guess that since he's on the pot that he might as well make an effort.

PBO on the pot too. He reciprocated with a like. Gratifing. But both still got that constipated look.

Pretty sure that Boehner had to push more than PBO. Probably not eating as many greens and playing PBOball.

Hey, we all do know that Politiics, smells. Don't we?

evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 18th of December 2012 01:52:03 PM

winchester · Guru

In the name of "care" through redistribution the short sighted, small minded, thinking (sic) of liberalism is killing the essential core of what made this country great. Libs have run out of other people's money so now they are cannibalizing their own - the "little guy" they pretend to protect. Ha. What a sad, tragic joke that is. And anyone who tries to point this out and/or rally against this mindless profligate taxing and spending is "mean" or "extremist" or heartless or bigoted against the poor and less fortunate or simply racist. It's sick.

Andre DiMino has been running medical device company ADM Tronics since his father, who founded the decades-old firm, died in 2001. He's never laid off anybody.

"These people are like family with us," he said.

The boss might not be able to hold out much longer. Come Jan. 1, an ObamaCare-tied tax specific to his industry is expected to go into effect. Though the Obama administration has downplayed the impact, DiMino calls it "devastating."

"I think after all of these decades of not laying people off, I think we may have to face that," DiMino told FoxNews.com. He predicted he might have to immediately lay off three people in his manufacturing division and possibly more after that.

DiMino, whose Bergen County, N.J., business currently employs 20 workers, is one of hundreds of CEOs across the country clamoring for Washington's attention, urging lawmakers to kill the tax before it kills jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/13/medical-companies-brace-for-devastating-obamacare-tax-prepare-for-layoffs/

-- Edited by winchester on Friday 14th of December 2012 06:06:48 AM

Razorsharp · Guru

Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich but continue spending a trillion dollars per year borrowed from our children. Once taxes on everyone go up there will be such a cry from the public that Obama will get taxes reduced for everyone but the rich. He then looks like a hero. He has no incentive to avert the fiscal cliff.

soccerguy315 · Guru

maybe it shouldn't be healthy people's job to pay for old sick people to live an extra couple months at huge expense...

john doe · Guru

That is one wonderful plot. But this is the bottom line, you are going to pay more whether it is through tax increases or not, 10 years from now even more, your kids are going to pay even more than that. Curtailing federal spending is not going to change demographics. If health costs aren't paid by tax increases, it will be paid directly out of your pocket. The population is getting older, living longer and will be sicker longer. It will come out of your pocket now matter what. Medical expenses will continue to go up unless more people die through war or pestilence, unless that happens, get use to it. It is a problem that sooner or later every country on the face of the earth will encounter. The more developed countries sooner. So all the bitching and moaning on this site is just a lot of hot air.

longprime · Guru

oh, BTW,

the R's proposal of delaying Medicare to 65+1 and SS to 67+1, doesn't make them popular to 55yo and lesser, especially when these groups are underwater on their home, IRA/401k/pension tanked, and their kids with high student loans. So many tender spots that the R's continually want to remind us. doh

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 13th of December 2012 09:49:04 PM

longprime · Guru

I've come to same conclusion as Razorsharp, who if I remember is not kind to bleeding D's.

So did the R's placed themselves in this position of their own making more than PBO's strategm.? ... I think the TP's, disgusted with the R's weak budget attitude (W's years) forced mainstream Republicans to be hardline rather than finding a softer solution.

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 13th of December 2012 07:42:13 PM

winchester · Guru

Obama's pleas for everyone paying their "fair share" is just a smoke screen for more redistribution of wealth.

winchester · Guru

longprime · Guru

Nice work by our tax dollars.

Looks like the same graph I saw from OMB/Treasury/AARP/Democrats/Republicans in 2001 & 2004 & 2008 & 2010.

Looks like the same as what Ross Perot presented and W's Conptroller 2004-2008. Gotta admire TP's and these guys for trying. For some reason, I can't pull up any memories of BC reduction visuals when he was the only one to actually solve this problem and while in severe duress. confuse

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 13th of December 2012 01:52:25 PM

catahoula · Guru

I can't remember how many times I've quoted this, longprime, but I do recall it's never made a bit of difference as to how O's supporters think. It does tend to change the conversation, though.

In a passage from his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," he sounds like a Republican complaining about the stimulus. "Genuine bipartisanship," he wrote, "assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.

"If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'

"For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"

Now, that's our president speaking, back when he was talking about a happier place for us all, back when he was just a gleam in MSNBC's eye. I can't express how profoundly disappointed I am - not in him, but - in all those who professed to believe in the happy place but were just blowing smoke. \

A little google search brings up no end of cries for "bipartisanship" but I can't hear anything but crickets now that the WH is driving it on home.

longprime · Guru

"The Dems are not letting this crisis go to waste, are they? It's a grand opportunity for them to take even more, and they're seizing it. "

1. Why not?.

2. Last stand hurrah for the Republicans?

winchester · Guru

truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich.

Change "everybody" to "nobody" and he's exactly right.

The Dems are not letting this crisis go to waste, are they? It's a grand opportunity for them to take even more, and they're seizing it.

And don't give me any crap about how it's so bad this time around that we "have to" raise taxes. That's the same argument every time, and it's partly how we got into this mess in the first place.

Stop it.

The problem is not revenue, the problem is spending. Period.

catahoula · Guru

So Dean admits what anyone with two brain cells to rub together already knows - that Obama and his: "it's a big ol' mess Bush left us, but nothing that skinning the billionaires won't fix.." was, is, and always will be, bull****.

As much as this is bound to be a big surprise to all who voted for him, I wonder if maybe it isn't a bigger surprise to our president and the media he couldn't possibly have misled himself without.

john doe · Guru

"Rush Limbaugh will look even more stupid"

Is that possible??

john doe · Guru

Not really - Howard Dean's view has been consistent - that we should go over the fiscal cliff. It will take care of the deficit and we would have limited pain from a recession.

catahoula · Guru

Amazing.

HOWARD DEAN: The only problem is -- and this is initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive is -- the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. And it's a good start. But we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don't do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more.

A six martini lunch or did they have his privates wired to a house circuit?

longprime · Guru

And if we go over that Cliff, we may discover that a smaller and less intrusive Government is good, the Deficit is solved, the Debt gets reduced, and the Wealthier gets itself taxed; Even though the lower taxed people will be impacted, the <=25% tax brackets can say we did out part in shared sacrifice but the wealthy only did so because we the poorer gave more. Credits going to the "Leadership" of PBO. The R's will be marginalize, again.

The Republicans need a solution before New Year's more than the D's and the Nation. TeaParty gets what it wants. Mainstream Republicans lose big for being upstaged and outmaneauvered on their own field in their own game.

Rush Limbaugh will look even more stupid.

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 6th of December 2012 02:01:40 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 6th of December 2012 02:04:47 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 6th of December 2012 02:07:12 PM

john doe · Guru

The job creators:

Citigroup plans to slash 11,000 jobs and close branches worldwide as part of a broad restructuring effort it hopes will save about $1.1 billion in expenses, the bank announced on Wednesday.

The moves, which the company said will result in a pre-tax charge of $1 billion against its fourth quarter earnings, comes as the mega bank tries to address structural problems that have resulted in a loss of confidence among investors, and precipitated the abrupt departure of former CEO Vikram Pandit in October.

The bulk of the layoffs, some 6,200 positions, are expected to come from global consumer banking -- an area in which the bank had recently invested money as part of an effort to create new efficiencies. (Read more: Inside Citigroup's Strategy to Become Global Consumer Bank.)

Citigroup said it expects about $900 million in cost savings next year, and annual expense savings of more than $1.1 billion beginning in 2014. It also expects to take $100 million of related charges in the first half of 2013.

"These actions are logical next steps in Citi's transformation.While we are committed to — and our strategy continues to leverage — our unparalleled global network and footprint, we have identified areas and products where our scale does not provide for meaningful returns," Michael Corbat, Citi's chief executive officer, said in a statement.

"And we will further increase our operating efficiency by reducing excess capacity and expenses, whether they center on technology, real estate or simplifying our operations," he added.

Corbat -- a veteran of the bank's investment and commercial banking operations -- assumed the reins of the troubled mega bank in October.Analysts have widely expected him to begin shaking up operations at Citi, which continues to suffer from an overhang of troubles that are in part a legacy of the 2008 financial crisis.

Citigroup Inc

	Name	Price		Change	%Change	Volume
C	Citigroup Inc	36.425		2.135	6.23%	43210134

After nearly collapsing during the financial meltdown, Citi has come under withering pressure from investors and critics. This summer,former CEO Sandy Weill called for an end to the financial supermarket concept he helped to pioneer while at Citi. Last month, a group of minority shareholders called for the bank to consider a more dramatic revamp, or an outright break up. (Read more: Wall Street Legend Sandy Weill: Break Up the Big Banks.)

Investors reacted to the news by bidding up Citi's shares. The company's stock surged by nearly five percent in late morning dealings on the New York Stock Exchange.

soccerguy315 · Guru

If we were spending the same amount (adjusted for inflation) that we were at the end of Clinton's time in office (99-00), we wouldn't have a deficit at all...

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

A nice visual.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/13-ways-to-help-you-visualize-the-fiscal-cliff-debacle/

busdriver11 · Guru

I think they'll look a lot worse if they cave on everything and just let Obama raise taxes like crazy, and increase instead of decrease spending. They'll look like suckers. They have to stick to their "no tax hikes unless there are significant cuts" premise. If we go off the cliff, Obama can blame them all he wants, but I honestly don't think anyone who is watching the news buys that. Seems obvious that the Republicans are willing to deal, and Obama is running his victory lap and overreaching like he did last time. These guys never learn.

longprime · Guru

IMO:

PBO has taken a tough stance in the budget/taxes. He has been marketing his positions to the point of actually daring the House to either put-up or take their lumps come 02 Jan '13. I guess that PBO would be out pushing his agenda even harder if it were not developments in the mid-east.

The problem is if the House R's come together and make a proposal of no to going back to 2000 tax rates for higher income people, they will look like the bad guys. The R's can't make even a reasonable counter offer because of their steadfast pledges and ideology. They are willing to go against the without blindfolds. cry

-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 1st of December 2012 11:34:21 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

Wow, samurai, that is insane. 9.3% on income over 50K? With the cost of living in California, how can anyone afford to live there? I admit, the sun is nice, but at a difference of 25K/yr, you could go on plenty of trips to Hawaii over the winter and still be ahead!

longprime · Guru

And if you can pay cash in Oregon, you get to avoid Washington's sales tax.

Gasoline is also cheaper up here.

You will have to pay for higher heating but not much for cooling.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ca.html Absolutely fascinating. California income tax is 9.3 for the 50,000 to 100,000 salary bracket. According to the link at bottom of that page, plugging in our current salaries and a place we are thinking of relocating to, we would have (according to their calculator) 25,000 more in disposable Income, even with 8.5 % less income. Our state opted to raise special taxes for years and on super wealthy...allegedly to fund schools. Yet, Gov Brown said, yeah, we need to pay other bills first. And fund a bullet train to Bakersfield over several fault lines. Idiots. Things are spiralling the drain here and not getting better.

longprime · Guru

I think that's it, BD11. Its not the rate but what is taxed.. . working wage people get taxed heavily no matter what they make. But the truly wealthy, can adjust their income sources to fit their necessary needs: Capital gains=15%, Dividends =0%, Interest=marginal rate. Then we have deductions at marginal rates and carry foward losses.

busdriver11 · Guru

"Yes, I agree that people who make significantly over 400 - 500,000 per year adjusted income would pay more. They would get "slammed" all the way back to paying way less than they would have paid any time in the last umpteen years, until the Bush tax cuts. And my example more accurately describes the issue of an upper middle class couple in an expensive urban area. Once you get to the levels you're talking about, you're talking about people with very material levels of discretionary income."

The Obama plan is to raise taxes on the income over 200K for single people, and 250K for famiy income. It is not on, "People who make significantly over 400-500K per year adjusted income." And even on your 400-500K level, these are not necessarily very material levels of discretionary income, especially for those who live in high cost of living areas. Many of these people are already paying the 35% tax rate on much of this income, plus medicare tax of 2.9%, plus sometimes over 10% income tax. So you have a very substantial amount that might be taxed at around 48% already for some people, for others with no state tax, it's getting taxed at 37.9%. That is A LOT of tax, and when you start talking about taxing them in a substantial way above that (ie raise rates 4.6% plus take away many deductions), it is significant, and people will do what they can to avoid it.

"Of the middle and upper middle class that bears the brunt of the taxes, they are paying an increasingly higher percent of their income in taxes, while the rich are paying a lower and lower amount every year."

See that paragraph I wrote above? That IS the upper middle class that bears a large brunt of the taxes. And these are the people who are getting slammed. Obama and company (and the Republicans) are NOT proposing raising taxes significantly on the rich. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessing about raising income taxes on working people who are already paying a ton. They would be raising capital gains tax rate to the same rate as ordinary income, which is often how wealthy people get their income.

But the truly wealthy have far better lobbyists than the working class. Funny though, that will all the blah blah about raising the taxes on the rich, they apparently bought off the Obama administration too.

longprime · Guru

I'm going to buy Taxguy's book. biggrin

hayden · Senior Member

Yes, I agree that people who make significantly over 400 - 500,000 per year adjusted income would pay more. They would get "slammed" all the way back to paying way less than they would have paid any time in the last umpteen years, until the Bush tax cuts. And my example more accurately describes the issue of an upper middle class couple in an expensive urban area. Once you get to the levels you're talking about, you're talking about people with very material levels of discretionary income. Looking at it from the economy's standpoint, additional taxes on the income level you're now referencng has not historically resulted in different spending habits.

Part of the problem I have with all this is that we used to have the concept of a progressive tax system. What happened to that? What happened to our support, as a nation, for taxing the higher income levels at higher rates? It's now the reverse: the more you make, the more tax loopholes you have to take advantage of, with the result that the bell curve has moved way down. Of the middle and upper middle class that bears the brunt of the taxes, they are paying an increasingly higher percent of their income in taxes, while the rich are paying a lower and lower amount every year.

People are always saying how complicated the tax code is. Sure, but for most of America, only 2 or 3 pages actually apply. The rest of the hundreds of pages of tax code is written to reduce taxes on the wealthy.

busdriver11 · Guru

""Are people going to start getting tax divorces now, because they are both high income, and will get slammed with taxes if they are above the 250K rate? Or maybe they'll just not get married. Or hey honey, you need to stay home and not work. "

busdriver, if this couple makes 250,000, they wouldn't be affected. And don't forget the higher percentage applies to adjusted income, not gross income. So let's say you might see something like this:

Example 1 - each spouse draws a salary of 125,000. They take the standard deduction. They also have a mortgage. The top tax rate goes up by 3%. They pay no increased tax, because their adjusted gross income is not over 250K.

Example 2 - each spouse draws a salary, and after their standard deductions and mortgage deduction, their adjusted income is 300,000. The top tax rate for earners over 250,000 goes up by 3%. This couple who earn 300,000 after deductions, would pay an additional $1,500.

Now, if there is a couple out there who would get a divorce, or if one of them would quit their job, all in order to avoid paying an additional $1,500, then they are pretty math-challenged !!"

Actually my example was for people who make above the 250K rate, not at it. For example, what if they each made 250K? Or a better example would be what if they both made 200K? Not going to get taxed more if each individual was making 200K, but once they hit the 250K rate together, they get slammed in higher taxes on that extra 150K.

So we're talking a lot more money there.

busdriver11 · Guru

Can't wait, samurai!

Plus jobs, in the industries you're looking for.

Hurry up and come take a look!!

longprime · Guru

We figure that it takes ~30-50% more income to live in Bay Area than it does in Seattle.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

My family is seriously considering a move to Washington State. Lower sales tax, high gas taxes, no state income taxes.

hayden · Senior Member

Are people going to start getting tax divorces now, because they are both high income, and will get slammed with taxes if they are above the 250K rate? Or maybe they'll just not get married. Or hey honey, you need to stay home and not work.

busdriver, if this couple makes 250,000, they wouldn't be affected. And don't forget the higher percentage applies to adjusted income, not gross income. So let's say you might see something like this:

Example 1 - each spouse draws a salary of 125,000. They take the standard deduction. They also have a mortgage. The top tax rate goes up by 3%. They pay no increased tax, because their adjusted gross income is not over 250K.

Example 2 - each spouse draws a salary, and after their standard deductions and mortgage deduction, their adjusted income is 300,000. The top tax rate for earners over 250,000 goes up by 3%. This couple who earn 300,000 after deductions, would pay an additional $1,500.

Now, if there is a couple out there who would get a divorce, or if one of them would quit their job, all in order to avoid paying an additional $1,500, then they are pretty math-challenged !!

john doe · Guru

Look out Republicans, your god has spoken:

(CNN) - Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said Monday that his group, Americans for Tax Reform, would work to unseat Republicans who break their pledge to never vote for higher taxes.

His vow came after prominent GOP lawmakers said over the weekend they would consider breaking the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in order to reach a deal with Democrats and President Barack Obama to avoid tumbling over the fiscal cliff – the combination of sweeping spending cuts and tax increases that would go into effect at the end of the year if negotiators can't reach a deal on reducing the federal debt.

Norquist said his group would "certainly highlight who has kept their commitment and who hasn't" when it comes time for lawmakers like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Peter King to run for re-election, though Norquist claimed voters generally decide on their own to oust elected officials who vote to raise taxes.

"Historically the people who lose do so because the people in their state have figured that out," Norquist said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."

On Sunday, Graham and King joined other Republican lawmakers, including Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, in publicly breaking from Norquist, whose pledge stipulates signers will "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses" and will "oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Both Graham and Chambliss will be up for re-election in 2014.

Graham said on ABC he'd be willing to break the pledge if Democrats are willing to help pass spending reforms on government programs like Social Security and Medicare. That combination of revenue and spending cuts is in line with what a majority (52%) of Republicans prefer, according to a CNN/ORC poll out Monday.

"I'm willing to generate revenue," Graham said on ABC. "It's fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table. We're below historic averages."

Norquist shot down Graham's suggestion Monday, saying it was impossible to imagine a situation where Democrats would agree to Graham's conditions.

"He lists this incredible list of reforms and entitlements that the Democrats would never give him," Norquist said, describing the demand for entitlement reforms akin to a "pink unicorn that doesn't exist."

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, sided with Graham Sunday, saying on NBC a pledge signed decades ago shouldn't be considered relevant today, and that "everything should be on the table."

"A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress," King said. "For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed the declaration of war against Japan. I'm not going to attack Japan today. The world has changed. The economic situation is different."

Norquist challenged that assertion, saying the pledge was good for the length of a lawmaker's time in office.

"Peter King knows full well the pledge he signed, and others have signed, it's for while you're in Congress, it's not for a two-year period," he said.

Ultimately, Norquist downplayed the talk from Graham and King on breaking the pledge as just that – talk.

"No pledge taker has voted for a tax increase. You've had some people discussing impure thoughts on national television," he said

longprime · Guru

For DIPs, S, DIWKs, moving to a state that doesn't have income tax, would make better sense. But most people are math challenged when you talk taxes. It is by choice, you know. evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 26th of November 2012 11:34:49 AM

soccerguy315 · Guru

Why don't they repeal all the tax cuts they give to Hollywood. Surely they are not hurting for money.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

^ Yes. (yes, I know it was rhetorical. Just wanted to throw it in.)

busdriver11 · Guru

Well, on that we agree.

So I wonder why they are not pushing to raise it to the same as ordinary income. Why might that be? Perhaps because the truly wealthy do have Congress in their pockets, on both sides?

john doe · Guru

Yes I would support raising the capital gains tax. It makes absolutely no sense to me why it shouldn't be the same as regular income.

john doe · Guru

Why We’re Headed Over the Fiscal Cliff

By Francis Wilkinson Nov 16, 2012 10:51 AM ET

Left to their own devices, President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehnerwould surely be able to cut a deal on the fiscal cliff. They are both reasonable men. Senators of both parties also appear eager for a deal.

There is just one sticking point: House Republicans are every bit as loopy today as they were in 2011, when they decided it would be a good idea to drive the economy into a ditch rather than raise the debt ceiling. (They ultimately did raise the debt limit, but only by creating the current crisis -- the combination of tax hikes and spending cuts knows as the fiscal cliff -- in the process. Great work, guys.)

Michele Bachmann's still a member of the House. Allen West lost his re- election (though, naturally, he disputes that), but he'll be haunting the Capitol hallways until they exorcise him in January. Louie Gohmert's in the green room at Fox News (or at MSNBC, whenever the hosts want a clown on air to make conservatives look stupid). Most of the fools, knaves, ideologues and know- nothings who made the House a spectacle of stupidity over the past two years are back. And what they learned from their re-election is that there is no penalty whatsoever for irresponsibility.

"If both sides agree that we can get more revenue through economic growth, then we can agree," Representative Tim Huelskamp tells the Washington Post. Ah yes, the magic of growth. Boehner's problem is that you cannot cut a tax deal involving real dollars with people who trade in magic dollars. Huelskamp went on to explain that if Boehner tries to address the deficit with real dollars -- that is, actual revenue -- it's bound to "split the party wide open."

"Compromise has a very small constituency," Republican Representative Trey Gowdy said. "Very small."

Given the peculiar nature of his troops, the only way Boehner can deliver a deal with Obama is to cleave his caucus in two, with a rump of realist Republicans joining Democrats to vote for higher tax revenue. What are the chances of that? Even smaller than the constituency for compromise.

longprime · Guru

W's tax cuts of 2001 and 2002 were temporary, for 10 years. Which I thought then was too long.

I imagine that cap gains was a way to encourage wealthy people to invest and get a much reduced taxations (15% vs 20%) for taking that risk plus get capital losses at their marginal rates (getting the cake and the presents)

For us who have retirement IRA and 401k, pensions, tax qualified products- we get taxed at marginal rates what ever that is but probably at 15-22%.

The tax disparaty is so bad that I have advised DS to fund Roth IRA before funding 401k, and 401k only to the match. There after his excess funds is to go into a private trading accouint because the taxation is better and so are the fees. Dividends are taxed at 0% if security held for 1yr+1day. In addition if DS should ever need money for a house purchase, funds taken from a 401k maybe penalized and taxed at the new marginal rate.

-- Edited by longprime on Sunday 18th of November 2012 06:22:58 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Sunday 18th of November 2012 06:25:23 PM

Political & Elections

Why 'Plan B' Would Actually Raise Taxes on Low Earners

Average Tax Change Under Plan B

Why We’re Headed Over the Fiscal Cliff