November 23, 201015 yr I think, shockingly, that we've gotten off track. To me the issue to debate is the claim made by Warren Buffet that "rich folk" should be paying more taxes. This coincides with the debate about extending the "Bush tax cuts" to all . CBO says that extending to all would result in the economy only getting back between 10 cents and 40 cents for every dollar of lost tax revenue. They go onto say that that most "cost effective" of the options is to let the cuts for the top earners expire but to extend the cuts to the others for one year. The Tea Party and others like them say we should be able to pay for any cost or expense enacted. It doesn't seem like extending the tax cuts to all accomplishes that. One common claim is that tax cuts to upper-income business owners would allow them to hire more. CBO says that's not true especially when those owners still have the challenge of actually SELLING THINGS in this economy. Seems to be logical. So if we're interested in true debate and good discussion I vote we use these stated opinions and analysis generic theory.
November 23, 201015 yr So we are going to take the chance of them" actually selling" their product away from them. As Spock would say "that is not logical." Extending the cuts is not a "cost or expense" for we are allowing individuals to keep their own money. This is another form of illogical thinking that those envious of the rich have made up. Government needs to spend less. Start by not supporting ethanol in our gas. Get rid of the Departments of Education and Energy.
November 23, 201015 yr So we are going to take the chance of them" actually selling" their product away from them. As Spock would say "that is not logical." Extending the cuts is not a "cost or expense" for we are allowing individuals to keep their own money. This is another form of illogical thinking that those envious of the rich have made up. Government needs to spend less. Start by not supporting ethanol in our gas. Get rid of the Departments of Education and Energy. It's not a matter of chance, bb. CBO is saying that just because they have more money in their pocket does not mean they'll be able to sell their widgets and , therefore, will not hire more people. You are incorrect in your point about cutting taxes not being an expense or cost. If the revenue is not coming into the govt then there is less money coming in. You can argue that there should be or should not be less revenue coming in but you can't argue that the money that is not coming in is a cost/loss/expense to the govt. Your last two points probably deserve their own thread.
November 23, 201015 yr It's not a matter of chance, bb. CBO is saying that just because they have more money in their pocket does not mean they'll be able to sell their widgets and , therefore, will not hire more people. You are incorrect in your point about cutting taxes not being an expense or cost. If the revenue is not coming into the govt then there is less money coming in. You can argue that there should be or should not be less revenue coming in but you can't argue that the money that is not coming in is a cost/loss/expense to the govt. Your last two points probably deserve their own thread. If the money is not coming in, then you spend less by cutting. There are legitimate functions of the Federal Government and none of the 3 I mentioned are in the Constitution.
November 23, 201015 yr If the money is not coming in, then you spend less by cutting. There are legitimate functions of the Federal Government and none of the 3 I mentioned are in the Constitution. Your argument, which needs to be considered, is irrelevant to this topic. The specific issue is in regards to tax cuts for those that "have." I've presented the results of the study done by the CBO. Your thoughts on them?
November 23, 201015 yr I think, shockingly, that we've gotten off track. To me the issue to debate is the claim made by Warren Buffet that "rich folk" should be paying more taxes. This coincides with the debate about extending the "Bush tax cuts" to all . CBO says that extending to all would result in the economy only getting back between 10 cents and 40 cents for every dollar of lost tax revenue. They go onto say that that most "cost effective" of the options is to let the cuts for the top earners expire but to extend the cuts to the others for one year. The Tea Party and others like them say we should be able to pay for any cost or expense enacted. It doesn't seem like extending the tax cuts to all accomplishes that. One common claim is that tax cuts to upper-income business owners would allow them to hire more. CBO says that's not true especially when those owners still have the challenge of actually SELLING THINGS in this economy. Seems to be logical. So if we're interested in true debate and good discussion I vote we use these stated opinions and analysis generic theory. Why weed through all of that rhetoric when it boils down to this.... Let me know if I have this right? Rich should: 1) Pay more taxes 2) Increase the pay and benefits to employees 3) Keep jobs here at a much higher cost 4) Not raise their prices to cover these much higher costs, otherwise the consumers who love this country will buy from competitors at a lower cost because their products ARE made out of the country 75 has it pegged pretty good, IMHO.
November 23, 201015 yr Why weed through all of that rhetoric when it boils down to this.... . The CBO puts out "rhetoric?"
November 23, 201015 yr To be fair, Warren Buffet is on the extreme end of the richness scale he speaks of, as is Bill Gates, who was also mentioned in the article. A little easier for guys who are worth $50 billion to advocate tax hikes for the rich. The Bush tax cuts have to be extended for the middle-class. The upper-crust could probably expire, IF the numbers are redefined. Instead of the often-referenced $250k, the "rich" should be defined by $1 million. Someone else mentioned this in another thread & I thought it made good sense. Seems to me that the $250-$500k number would adversely impact a number of small businesses.
November 23, 201015 yr Your argument, which needs to be considered, is irrelevant to this topic. The specific issue is in regards to tax cuts for those that "have." I've presented the results of the study done by the CBO. First, they are not tax cuts. Those were passed 10 years ago. Renewing the bill allows the earners of the money to keep what is theirs. That is what this is all about to me. The earners keep and do what they want with their money. Do not give it to the government with all the bureaurcy and waste.
November 24, 201015 yr First, they are not tax cuts. Those were passed 10 years ago. Renewing the bill allows the earners of the money to keep what is theirs. That is what this is all about to me. The earners keep and do what they want with their money. Do not give it to the government with all the bureaurcy and waste. So you're saying you choose to not participate in the discussion. Semantics aside do you agree with the CBO points? If not, why? If so, why? We all get we pay too much in taxes.
November 24, 201015 yr The CBO puts out "rhetoric?"A government agency analyzing government financing? Isn't your question rhetorical?
November 24, 201015 yr So you're saying you choose to not participate in the discussion. Semantics aside do you agree with the CBO points? If not, why? If so, why? We all get we pay too much in taxes. My point is that they are wrong.
November 24, 201015 yr So you're saying you choose to not participate in the discussion. Semantics aside do you agree with the CBO points? If not, why? If so, why? We all get we pay too much in taxes. What is the CBO's track record for being right? Or even close?
November 24, 201015 yr What is the CBO's track record for being right? Or even close? No clue. Do you?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.