Obamas tax plan, slams all Americans, not just the wealthy - Page 10 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Oreo · #**136** (**permalink**) 04-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

I'm no economist, but I am having difficulty seeing how this country is going to remain functional much longer, running a deficit but not raising taxes. I hear lots of tortured, convoluted explanations on the news and other places, but nothing that makes much sense to me.

Maybe I am just too simplistic in thinking of things like a checkbook. I don't think there's anything magical to cutting spending and raising taxes to get things back in order. Just like losing weight, it's not going to be easy or fun, but it's not rocket surgery.

There's a piper to be paid for years of hyper-inflated prosperity, and I applaud the realism of owning up to that unpleasant fact.

Thiat is the point of this thread.

To bring revenues into the government, meaning more taxes, the last thing one does is "raise" capital gains tax.

It's been proven that a lower capital gains tax actually brings in more tax revenue. " Meaning more bucks for the government which reduces the deficit".

It's easy to understand this way:

If an American owns shares of AT & T with a 28% capital gains tax, they will stay "married" to that stock forever.

If capital gains tax is at 15%, they may want to sell A T & T & buy Micro-soft. They pay 15% on the sale of A T & T. Then they may sell Micro-soft pay 15% on that sale, & buy another stock they're interested in, & on & on it goes.

This is how a lower capital gains tax, actually brings in more tax revenue.

Something Barack Obama doesn't understand!

Obama made it clear he did not understand it, during the Pennsylvania debate, when questioned about it by Charlie Gibson.

sneddog · #**137** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Still believing in that that old tale, are you? Investing in what? You might want to look at manufacturing jobs lost over the past several years.

Manufacturing jobs are going overseas because leftwing environmental whackos are making it impossible for American manufacturers to compete in a global economy. Our manufacturers have to spend millions and billions in some cases to meet safety and environmental standards that other nations like China and India do not. Not to mention that these nations don't tax their manufacturers out the gazoo like we do in America.

sneddog · #**138** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

I happen to work for two manufacturing companies. One very large company and one very small company. The very large company's shop rate, which is what it needs to get on an hourly basis to break even is $167.00hr. The very small company's shop rate is $75.00hr. This is because of taxes and other government regulations that raise the cost of doing business here in America.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you give businesses some tax breaks that that's going to ecourage investment in better technologies and lean principals which will in turn make our manufacturers more competitive.

Angry American · #**139** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oreo

So you blame the federal government for what your home state taxes are? Every single state in this union taxes differently. Thankfully, I live in a state hat insists on balancing it's own budget every year. Property taxes, take up with your local county government. The federal government does not asess the value of your property, your county does.

Why should the rest of us have to flip the bill for you & your state? Is it that you live in an expensive area of this country, where property taxes are higher than average? If you don't like it, move! Could it be, that YOUR state spends more than what it takes it? Doesn't YOUR complaint have something to do with your STATE legislature, govenor, & county officials--& not the federal government?

You're just another person who feels that the federal government should be responsible for everything, including wipeing your nose.

There's no reason for you to be flippant.

You really don't understand the situation do you? Do you even know what revenue sharing is? Didn't you know that each state receives federal money from tax revenues for health care, education, highways, etc.???

Cuts in state aid, result in higher state and local taxes to help pay for state and local infrastructure.

Are you an isolationist, within our own country? Maybe you don't travel on our roads, or visit our cities, but a lot of other people do.

Sure states and local municipalities are partly to blame, but the sudden loss of hundreds of $billions in state aid hasn't helped matters.

Maybe you'd rather we all go back to riding horses on dirt trails, and pump water into buckets to fight fires.

A little food for thought:

Quote:

Surprise! Some taxes go up.
Robert Zahradnik, a CBPP analyst, says federal tax changes such as cutting estate taxes and other policies will cost states $185 billion between 2002 and 2005. Congress did provide $20 billion in fiscal relief to the states. But many states, also hit by a weak economy, are struggling. Their combined deficits exceeded $100 billion between 2001 and 2003.

Quote:

FEDERAL GRANTS TO STATES AND LOCALITIES
CUT DEEPLY IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 FEDERAL BUDGET
Under the President’s budget, grants to state and local government for all programs other than Medicaid would decline by $6.7 billion or 2.8 percent from fiscal year 2006 to 2007, after adjusting for inflation. This follows a similar decline of 3.1 percent from 2005 to 2006; the fiscal year 2007 request is nearly $14 billion below the fiscal year 2005 level.

Quote:

$2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Cuts Many Programs;
Domestic Spending Falls; Defense, Security Rise
On the domestic side, according to documents, the budget would consolidate 18 community development block grant programs into one Commerce Department program for a savings of $1.8 billion. It would slice law enforcement grants to states from $2.8 billion to $1.5 billion. And it would cut 48 education programs totaling $4.3 billion, including $2.2 billion for high school programs, mostly state grants for vocational education.

The budget would cut $440 million in Safe and Drug-Free School grants, $500 million in education technology state grants, $225 million for the Even Start literacy program, $280 million for Upward Bound programs for inner-city youths and a $150 million talent research program, according to the documents.

Cuts in state aid, also forces states and localities to foot the difference to fund federally mandated programs.

IMHO your view is a little short sided, and deserves a little more reflection.

Angry American · #**140** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

I'd say you are victim of the lack of spending restraint amongst your own, in your state, I don't see how Bushs tax cuts would be held accountable for a rise in your state taxs. Many states like mine have enjoyed higher tax revenue and have pissed it way. Now that we are sliding into a recession and all the bond issues they thought they could by virtue of riding the crest of the wave, and increased spending will suffer, due to lack of intake to sppt. them, they will cry that its the feds fault, no, if they had watched their spending while times were good they would not have to take the pipe, or that is make you take the pipe, well me too.

In part, but you aren't taking into account what state aid pays for. We live in the United States of America, where there is burden sharing. Or would you rather we just drop the United part and become the States of America?

Americano · #**141** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oreo

Thiat is the point of this thread.

To bring revenues into the government, meaning more taxes, the last thing one does is "raise" capital gains tax.

It's been proven that a lower capital gains tax actually brings in more tax revenue. " Meaning more bucks for the government which reduces the deficit".

It's easy to understand this way:

If an American owns shares of AT & T with a 28% capital gains tax, they will stay "married" to that stock forever.

If capital gains tax is at 15%, they may want to sell A T & T & buy Micro-soft. They pay 15% on the sale of A T & T. Then they may sell Micro-soft pay 15% on that sale, & buy another stock they're interested in, & on & on it goes.

This is how a lower capital gains tax, actually brings in more tax revenue.

You didn't bother to look at the federal tax revenues by year that I posted? They dropped with the Bush tax cuts.

Quote:

Something Barack Obama doesn't understand!

Obama made it clear he did not understand it, during the Pennsylvania debate, when questioned about it by Charlie Gibson.

Americano · #**142** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneddog

Manufacturing jobs are going overseas because leftwing environmental whackos are making it impossible for American manufacturers to compete in a global economy. Our manufacturers have to spend millions and billions in some cases to meet safety and environmental standards that other nations like China and India do not. Not to mention that these nations don't tax their manufacturers out the gazoo like we do in America.

Wrong, the primary differences are in labor costs.

Americano · #**143** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneddog

Yes, we are in trouble, but the answer is not raising taxes, but reducing government spending. The government can not be all things to all people, that's not what our founders intended.

We need to put an end to entitlement programs, ear marks, and pork barrel spending. Otherwise our days as a free society are numbered.

What about military spending that dwarfs the rest of the combined developed world?

AkDiesel · #**144** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oreo

Cut spending: It's not the taxes that the government brings in, it's their unwillingness to cut spending. Regardless of how much money they bring in, they will always spend more than what they have.

Both Democrats & Republicans are guilty of overspending.

So then why are we as Americans looking forward to sending a Dem to office or even a Republican?
If both parties over spend why do we send them to DC?

pramjockey · #**145** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Because at least the Dems don't do their spending on credit?

Americano · #**146** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Because at least the Dems don't do their spending on credit?

That's fiscal responsibility and a traditional Republican value, be cautious or you'll confuse many posters who support tax cuts and deficit spending.

AkDiesel · #**147** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Dems are saying that they are going to tax the rich. But who is funding the Dems run for office? the poor?

Oreo · #**148** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneddog

I happen to work for two manufacturing companies. One very large company and one very small company. The very large company's shop rate, which is what it needs to get on an hourly basis to break even is $167.00hr. The very small company's shop rate is $75.00hr. This is because of taxes and other government regulations that raise the cost of doing business here in America.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you give businesses some tax breaks that that's going to ecourage investment in better technologies and lean principals which will in turn make our manufacturers more competitive.

Along those same lines, I understand that Ohio has one of the highest state tax rates in the country. A multi-billion business deal didn't go to Ohio because of that & went to southern state to open up.

To attract new business, lower their tax rates. To keep jobs in this country keep business taxes low. Otherwise, we can expect to see more & more jobs go overseas.

Oreo · #**149** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

There's no reason for you to be flippant.

You really don't understand the situation do you? Do you even know what revenue sharing is? Didn't you know that each state receives federal money from tax revenues for health care, education, highways, etc.???

Cuts in state aid, result in higher state and local taxes to help pay for state and local infrastructure.

Are you an isolationist, within our own country? Maybe you don't travel on our roads, or visit our cities, but a lot of other people do.

Sure states and local municipalities are partly to blame, but the sudden loss of hundreds of $billions in state aid hasn't helped matters.

Maybe you'd rather we all go back to riding horses on dirt trails, and pump water into buckets to fight fires.

A little food for thought:

Cuts in state aid, also forces states and localities to foot the difference to fund federally mandated programs.

IMHO your view is a little short sided, and deserves a little more reflection.

Our federal highways are paid for by the federal government, plus through a 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax, that we all pay. The only time I have seen a state not get these funds, is if they're not doing something the federal government wants. IE: uping the legal drinking age.

FEDERALLY MANDATED programs ARE funded by the federal government, so I have no idea what you're talking about?

State mandated programs are funded by the state.

My daughter is a practicing nurse practitioner. She works in a clinic for lower income people. The money for that, comes from our State & grants that they receive from private sources, NOT the federal government.

I have to ask this. Do you live in California? Where they have been burdened by an influx of an illegal population? Who do drown out your health care system, educational system, etc. Along with a lot of bad spending habits from past & present state administrations. The city of San Francisco has recently stated that their city is a "welcome" sanctuary for illegals. They apparently have no intention of doing anything.

We have illegals in my state too, whom are taken care of by our state medicade program. Again not the federal government. When my state is in a crunch or the economy is bad, they did not ask the federal government for help. They did not ask your state to share in the bill paying responsibility. What they did do in 2000-2001 was cut state expenditures, & put off planned projects that could wait, until the money was in the bank.

I would strongly suggest that you take your complaints to your state, your county & your local city government for the tax relief you desire.

The "rest" of the country does not share in the decisions your state makes. We cannot vote in your state elections, regarding taxes, spending, medical care, etc.. How can you expect the rest of the country to be held responsible for the bills that your state incurs?

SomeMarine · #**150** (**permalink**) 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angry American

Cuts in state aid, also forces states and localities to foot the difference to fund federally mandated programs.

IMHO your view is a little short sided, and deserves a little more reflection.

Not really. What you are forgetting is that the state and .gov get their money for funding from the same place, your pocket, through taxation.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode