Yes, it is true that if we raise taxes we will pull money out of the economy and reduce our growth. But few people seem to buy it, as they believe the rich would not be phased by paying higher taxes.
And many of the rich are saying they would be happy to pay more taxes.
So the Republicans look rather foolish and stubborn. And they appear to be in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor. That is a bad public relations move for the Republicans.
I think, though, I've never heard this actually articulated, that the Republicans are holding the line on higher taxes is both because of the benefits of not taking money out of the economy but also very much to have government cut spending much more quickly than if it is continued to be fed money to support government inefficiencies and noneconomic causes. Of course, both parties are committed to providing sufficient safety nets and safety, but the Republicans are the party standing (too?) strongly for fiscal responsibility.
If the Republicans could strongly reaffirm that, yes, they will protect the citizens no matter what, then people might accept the other argument.
The other argument, as stated above, is that we cannot feed the pig any more taxes and it will continue to be too fat. The reason is not to protect or favor the rich, but to cut spending more quickly and to not pull money out of the economy for government spending.
The confusion by the public is understandable, if the Republicans are not clear - and given that the Democrats are obscuring the issue by accusing the Republicans of being heartless (not giving away things to the people) and of favoring the rich, implying that it is because the rich contribute to their campaigns.
Sanity will probably not be the dominant force in politics, so we need to state clearly the reasons for something so that people can understand and thereby be empowered to make better choices.
What do you think should be done that would be effective in increasing the sanity and the ability to make informed choices?
The Rational NonPolitician
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The "Lie" about the Obama Jobs Plan, Student Loan Plan, and etc.
I am saddened to see non-complete, non-informative, non-truth rhetoric from the President.
He blames the Republicans for not wanting people to have jobs, which, is, of course, preposterous. He fails to mention that the non-starter, which he knew was a fixed position, was the increase in taxes that the Republicans would not accept.
Instead of funding the jobs bill with expenditure cuts elsewhere in order to keep balance, he chose the unworkable route of more taxes. The effect of adding a 5.6% tax for the over million dollars a year group would be $45 billion a year, which, in the "new math", would amount to $450 billion over 10 years, which is the amount of the cost of the jobs bill.
So, this would mean the deficit is increased by $405 billion this year, since that amount will be coming in over the remaining nine years. Undisclosed fact - and I am saddened by this modus operandi - not angered, but tremendously disappointed in the lack of true leadership, of which I think truth-telling is a major element.
His beneficence on shortening the time before student debts are forgiven simply allows for not having that money paid back to the federal government, which creates a hole that must be filled by passing the burden on to future taxpayers. (See Student Loan discussion.)
His 'Mortgage Relief' beneficence in allowing people who are up to date on underwater mortgage loans passes a burden to taxpayers, as there is no free lunch. This burden is not obvious, though it is logical. To have a new lower interest loan an old loan must be cancelled, which causes a loss. In this case, the loss is to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which will result in adding to the bailout costs, largely not discussed, which are estimated to be the biggest of any in history. The estimated costs will be between $450 billion to well over a trillion dollars.
When we relieve Americans of paying payroll taxes for Social Security, guess what happens. The Social Security fund is then short by that amount. And that means that future generations must make up the difference.
And we don't see these discrepancies in the pitches that are being made, as they are being made without proper and complete disclosure. The irony is that this government is pushing for better consumer disclosure and other disclosures - but it is being out of integrity with its own disclosures.
A culture of responsibility is the only solution, rather than a culture of sales pitches and being irresponsible for the consequences that will inevitably, predictably occur.
And I am saddened and disappointed by all of this - and I stand for picking leaders who will face the responsibility with full integrity. We do not have a leader who is doing that...
Yours for rational choices,
The Rational NonPolitician
He blames the Republicans for not wanting people to have jobs, which, is, of course, preposterous. He fails to mention that the non-starter, which he knew was a fixed position, was the increase in taxes that the Republicans would not accept.
Instead of funding the jobs bill with expenditure cuts elsewhere in order to keep balance, he chose the unworkable route of more taxes. The effect of adding a 5.6% tax for the over million dollars a year group would be $45 billion a year, which, in the "new math", would amount to $450 billion over 10 years, which is the amount of the cost of the jobs bill.
So, this would mean the deficit is increased by $405 billion this year, since that amount will be coming in over the remaining nine years. Undisclosed fact - and I am saddened by this modus operandi - not angered, but tremendously disappointed in the lack of true leadership, of which I think truth-telling is a major element.
His beneficence on shortening the time before student debts are forgiven simply allows for not having that money paid back to the federal government, which creates a hole that must be filled by passing the burden on to future taxpayers. (See Student Loan discussion.)
His 'Mortgage Relief' beneficence in allowing people who are up to date on underwater mortgage loans passes a burden to taxpayers, as there is no free lunch. This burden is not obvious, though it is logical. To have a new lower interest loan an old loan must be cancelled, which causes a loss. In this case, the loss is to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which will result in adding to the bailout costs, largely not discussed, which are estimated to be the biggest of any in history. The estimated costs will be between $450 billion to well over a trillion dollars.
When we relieve Americans of paying payroll taxes for Social Security, guess what happens. The Social Security fund is then short by that amount. And that means that future generations must make up the difference.
And we don't see these discrepancies in the pitches that are being made, as they are being made without proper and complete disclosure. The irony is that this government is pushing for better consumer disclosure and other disclosures - but it is being out of integrity with its own disclosures.
A culture of responsibility is the only solution, rather than a culture of sales pitches and being irresponsible for the consequences that will inevitably, predictably occur.
And I am saddened and disappointed by all of this - and I stand for picking leaders who will face the responsibility with full integrity. We do not have a leader who is doing that...
Yours for rational choices,
The Rational NonPolitician
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Already in law: 4.7% extra tax for over $200,000
The Affordable Health Care Act has a number of provisions to make it "balance", in addition to taking $500 billion from Medicare [which of course must be paid for later; a bogus non-source of spending reduction!!!].
The President is currently lobbying for charging more taxes to the ultra rich.
If he is successful, he will add to the already-in-law taxes added via the health act, to start in 2013. Singles with income above $200,000 and marrieds above $250,000 must pay an additional 3.8% of income taxes above that level, plus they must pay an additional extra Medicare tax of .9%.
That's a 4.7% increase in tax rates - and not just to the ultra-rich!
Despite the arguments on both sides, I thought it reasonable to point these facts out for the people in the US.
The Rational NonPolitician
The President is currently lobbying for charging more taxes to the ultra rich.
If he is successful, he will add to the already-in-law taxes added via the health act, to start in 2013. Singles with income above $200,000 and marrieds above $250,000 must pay an additional 3.8% of income taxes above that level, plus they must pay an additional extra Medicare tax of .9%.
That's a 4.7% increase in tax rates - and not just to the ultra-rich!
Despite the arguments on both sides, I thought it reasonable to point these facts out for the people in the US.
The Rational NonPolitician
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Obama And The Great Tax Compromise
Obama recognized the needs to stabilize the economy, to settle uncertainty. He also cleverly worked in some stimulative monies plus covering the unemployed for an extended period. Though raising the amount of debt is counter to one of our key priorities, his attempt at stimulative spending seems to be wise, as it is imperative that the economy grow and stabilize, so that there is a sufficiently large pie to make things work and to pay down the debt. Allowing the economy to go down is something we cannot afford. Hats off to Obama for this part.
However, calling the Republicans "hostage takers" (in a victimlike manner) and saying he will "fight" causes me, using the criteria for rating on a previous post, to lower his rating, as adversarial behavior is not productive (unless in actual war).
The Republicans, no matter how justified their position, needed to propose less than a $5 million dollar exemption for estate tax, at a 35% rate above that. Continuing it at the current exemption in 2010 might be reasonable, but to overextend beyond that is counterproductive - and it has resulted in extreme opposition.
The Dems might consider, however, that this is a very small portion of revenue involved and definitely not worth doing harm in a bigger way overall.
Most of the Dems appear to be violating all the criteria for rating of leaders (see rating post), reacting in anger and dug in heels, offended because they weren't include earlier (ego getting in the way of the greater good) - all behavior that is counterproductive. In caucus, they even went into a chant of "just say no" - productive adult behavior?
It's sad. We should be able to have a "grown up conversation" if we want to have a greater overall solution.
Is such behavior productive (which is our criteria)? Other suggestions? (Hopefully, all comments would be based on reasoning, facts, and productiveness and not anger and labeling or immediate prejudice and being closed.)
The Rational Problem Solver
However, calling the Republicans "hostage takers" (in a victimlike manner) and saying he will "fight" causes me, using the criteria for rating on a previous post, to lower his rating, as adversarial behavior is not productive (unless in actual war).
The Republicans, no matter how justified their position, needed to propose less than a $5 million dollar exemption for estate tax, at a 35% rate above that. Continuing it at the current exemption in 2010 might be reasonable, but to overextend beyond that is counterproductive - and it has resulted in extreme opposition.
The Dems might consider, however, that this is a very small portion of revenue involved and definitely not worth doing harm in a bigger way overall.
Most of the Dems appear to be violating all the criteria for rating of leaders (see rating post), reacting in anger and dug in heels, offended because they weren't include earlier (ego getting in the way of the greater good) - all behavior that is counterproductive. In caucus, they even went into a chant of "just say no" - productive adult behavior?
It's sad. We should be able to have a "grown up conversation" if we want to have a greater overall solution.
Is such behavior productive (which is our criteria)? Other suggestions? (Hopefully, all comments would be based on reasoning, facts, and productiveness and not anger and labeling or immediate prejudice and being closed.)
The Rational Problem Solver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)