100 Days Until Taxmageddon

[Atomic Playboy]

Republicans: 47% PAY NO TAXES. FREELOADERS!

All right, we'll increase the population that pays income tax.

Republicans: MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKES! AHHHHHH!

Fine, where do you think these increased revenues should come from?

Republicans: TAXES BAD. FREELOADERS. AMERICA. FREEDOM.

I hear the same shit year after year; taxes are always bad, tax the poor more, tax the rich less, don't tax anyone.... Look, no one likes paying taxes. But it's required to have a functioning government. We have an enormously wasteful government right now, so some massive cuts to the budget would be helpful. But we can't exist as a country without raising some form of revenue. Republicans seem to be in complete denial on that point. They'll completely flip-flop their position, saying everyone should pay in to the system, then complaining when taxes get raised on a group that was paying less before. It's just absurd. You have a better idea for raising revenue? Glad to hear it. But just clinging to this belief that every tax is a bad tax... all I hear when someone says that is "I don't like America enough to want to pay anything for the privilege of living here."

 

[jackstar7]

Troll poll?

 

[Darwin333]

We need to CUT taxes not raise them

Have you noticed the deficit lately?

 

[Lithium381]

Have you noticed the deficit lately?

Have you noticed the spending lately?

 

[Engineer]

At least some of the 47% will now be paying taxes.

 

[boomerang]

Still looking for something that will make life harder for me. I don't mind paying slightly higher taxes for the good of the country

Where would you like the money to be spent? I ask because you'll have no input.

 

[boomerang]

There should have a been a poll option for "If Obama thinks I need to pay more, who am I to question him?"

 

[CrackRabbit]

Troll poll?

When has something by PJABBER not been a troll post?

 

[jackstar7]

When has something by PJABBER not been a troll post?

You guys predate me by a while... so I felt it best to ask rather than assert.

 

[monovillage]

Notice that the lefty/Democrats aren't even disputing it's Taxmaggedon?

Sunday will mark the start of the 100-day countdown to “Taxmageddon” – the date the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2013:

 

[bfdd]

Why is that?

Because taxes are stealing and stealing is wrong. IMO it's because the Federal Government is far to huge and spends far to much money. Shrinking the amount they actually take in would shrink the amount they actually do, which would shrink the amount others are able to exploit and take control of it from us. It's really shitty this whole thing, imo neither the Dems or Reps want to fix anything because they're the ones who have created this system and situation. They want to prolong it for as long as they can, hoping to die well before it falls out below them.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Notice that the lefty/Democrats aren't even disputing it's Taxmaggedon?

I don't see conservatives disputing that Romney's election will create a "Hitlertopia." Why is that? Oh, because it's a completely baseless and stupid term designed to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational one? Gotcha.

 

[Darwin333]

Have you noticed the spending lately?

I absolutely have, hence the deficit that I mentioned, its sort of hard to have one without the other. One does not lower revenue before expenditures when they are already damn near a third in the red. Furthermore, I argue that it is flat out politically impossible to lower expenditures to current revenue which makes lowering taxes across the board even more fiscally retarded.

 

[Darwin333]

At least some of the 47% will now be paying taxes.

I would bet the EITC has way more to do with that than actual tax rates and I didn't see anything about that being changed.

 

[Fern]

I don't see conservatives disputing that Romney's election will create a "Hitlertopia." Why is that? Oh, because it's a completely baseless and stupid term designed to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational one? Gotcha.

"Hitlertopia" is not relevant, there is no such thing.

"Taxmaggedon" is a term in widespread use. Google it and you'll see all sorts of non-political publications employing it.

"Taxmaggedon" is not a partisan creation/use designed to evoke emotion. It's designed to convey the severe economic impact as estimated by the non-partisan CBO.

Following the release of the CBO estimate, there is really no point to try to deny it anyway.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

"Hitlertopia" is not relevant, there is no such thing.

"Taxmaggedon" is a term in widespread use. Google it and you'll see all sorts of non-political publications employing it.

"Taxmaggedon" is not a partisan creation/use designed to evoke emotion. It's designed to convey the severe economic impact as estimated by the non-partisan CBO.

Following the release of the CBO estimate, there is really no point to try to deny it anyway.

Fern

Hitlertopia isn't a thing because I was the first person to say it. Taxmageddon isn't a thing just because conservative bloggers have started to use the term. A Google search returns a top result from the Heritage Foundation, hardly the most unbiased of entities, and numerous other conservative sites such as the Americans for Tax Reform, RealClearPolitics, American Spectator and the like... It's a politically loaded term designed to inspire us to think of an armageddon of taxes. Surely no one could survive an armageddon of taxes... We'll all be killed! But it's just pandering to the lowest common denominator. Find something you're against, give it a scary sounding name and people will instinctively know to be against it. That's why we know Hitlertopia is a bad thing; if it's a utopia for Hitler, and Hitler is bad, a Hitlertopia would be even worse! It's meaningless, but it conveys a pretty clear message.

If you want to engage in honest discussion with people, the first thing you have to do is stop resorting to cheap tricks like calling something "Taxmageddon" when it's basically a return to tax rates we saw under Clinton, one of the most prosperous periods in American history. Using pandering language does nothing to progress the conversation, it just forces people to pick a side and then scream insults at each other.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hitlertopia isn't a thing because I was the first person to say it. Taxmageddon isn't a thing just because conservative bloggers have started to use the term. A Google search returns a top result from the Heritage Foundation, hardly the most unbiased of entities, and numerous other conservative sites such as the Americans for Tax Reform, RealClearPolitics, American Spectator and the like... It's a politically loaded term designed to inspire us to think of an armageddon of taxes. Surely no one could survive an armageddon of taxes... We'll all be killed! But it's just pandering to the lowest common denominator. Find something you're against, give it a scary sounding name and people will instinctively know to be against it. That's why we know Hitlertopia is a bad thing; if it's a utopia for Hitler, and Hitler is bad, a Hitlertopia would be even worse! It's meaningless, but it conveys a pretty clear message.

If you want to engage in honest discussion with people, the first thing you have to do is stop resorting to cheap tricks like calling something "Taxmageddon" when it's basically a return to tax rates we saw under Clinton, one of the most prosperous periods in American history. Using pandering language does nothing to progress the conversation, it just forces people to pick a side and then scream insults at each other.

Right wing echo chamber, part Duh!

We'll see if Repubs hold true to form- if the true Bush constituency can't keep their tax cuts, then nobody can!

They act like raising taxes at the top will cause widespread suffering, when that's obviously not true. It's not like the invasion of Poland, honest.

 

[Moonbeam]

Notice that the lefty/Democrats aren't even disputing it's Taxmaggedon?

No, the fact that it will be undone retroactively isn't disputing that. Right!

 

[Darwin333]

Right wing echo chamber, part Duh!

We'll see if Repubs hold true to form- if the true Bush constituency can't keep their tax cuts, then nobody can!

They act like raising taxes at the top will cause widespread suffering, when that's obviously not true. It's not like the invasion of Poland, honest.

I so wish the retarded Republicans would have allowed the tax cuts for the rich to expire so both the retarded left and the retarded right would lose this bullshit point of contention.

Sure the slightly increased revenue is better than nothing but its pennies on the dollar of our deficit. Hopefully yall can tax the fuck out of the rich so that we can move on to having an actual adult conversation about how to fix this mess we are in versus arguing about shit that, in the scheme of things, has virtually no affect on its own.

I haven't ran the numbers but I am positive the 36ish (or is it 38?) billion a year that the CBO estimates we will get from allowing the tax cuts for just the rich to expire will even cover the 9% increase we will see on medicare/medicaid spending next year. Hose them for fucking double and per the CBOs estimate you MIGHT cover next years increase but not the year after that (ain't compounding a bitch).

 

[Darwin333]

No, the fact that it will be undone retroactively isn't disputing that. Right!

LOL! Ding ding ding. Neither side will allow this to happen. Anyone wanna put some money on this? Hell, I'll give you 20-1 if all of the points listed in the OP are actually in place and enforced come tax day.

 

[PJABBER]

No, the fact that it will be undone retroactively isn't disputing that. Right!

We should not be so confident of this. This election, unlike the one in 2010, will likely be a close result and that means no one should be confident of how it will turn out.

Sure, if Romney and the Congressional Rs win, it will be revised in some way, if not reversed entirely.

But if Obama wins his second term and the Congress remains at parity with a divided House and Senate, why would we expect any reversal at all?

The fact is that the Democrats want to raise as many taxes as they can get away with so that they can pay for as many entitlement programs as they can. Call it redistribution or "fairness," those who earn money will see more of that money being taken away and offered up to those who do not.

Look at what programs are funded by these increases. Obamacare is entirely dependent on more taxes for funding. Oh, and the Medicare cuts, too. We can't forget those.

Does anyone seriously think that these increases would be reversed and Obamacare left to flounder by the Democrats?

The taxes of Taxmageddon are not the only ones that will be imposed. These are just the proximate ones. There will be even more further down the pike, impacting further down the income scales.

 

[Jhhnn]

I so wish the retarded Republicans would have allowed the tax cuts for the rich to expire so both the retarded left and the retarded right would lose this bullshit point of contention.

Sure the slightly increased revenue is better than nothing but its pennies on the dollar of our deficit. Hopefully yall can tax the fuck out of the rich so that we can move on to having an actual adult conversation about how to fix this mess we are in versus arguing about shit that, in the scheme of things, has virtually no affect on its own.

I haven't ran the numbers but I am positive the 36ish (or is it 38?) billion a year that the CBO estimates we will get from allowing the tax cuts for just the rich to expire will even cover the 9% increase we will see on medicare/medicaid spending next year. Hose them for fucking double and per the CBOs estimate you MIGHT cover next years increase but not the year after that (ain't compounding a bitch).

Allowing the Bush cuts to expire for the top 2% looks more like $70B/yr-

Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html?_r=1

It's a start at closing the budget gap, and a start at closing the inequality gap as well.

In order to be politically palatable, tax increases need to start at the top, reach down into lower incomes only as absolutely required. In order to be fair & reasonable, tax increases need to leave out Romney's 47% entirely.

Yes- taxes need to go up, but not for segments of the population whose share of national income has shrunk & who are being asked to sacrifice in different ways.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

lol > $1M estate = middle class. It's nice that 50% of america has at least a $1M estate. I credit Obama with this progress.

So my CA house is $2 million. My parents work paycheck to paycheck to pay mortgage. What happens if they pass away? I have to pay the mortgage which I cannot afford AND a death tax.

GG.

I'm forced to sell the home. I'd rather not, but oh well.

 

[BD2003]

So my CA house is $2 million. My parents work paycheck to paycheck to pay mortgage. What happens if they pass away? I have to pay the mortgage which I cannot afford AND a death tax.

GG.

I'm forced to sell the home. I'd rather not, but oh well.

Talk about a problem I'd love to have.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

lol > $1M estate = middle class. It's nice that 50% of america has at least a $1M estate. I credit Obama with this progress.

This statement demonstrates the lack of understanding and class warfare inherent in your own world view.

Middle-class people who own a home who properly funded their retirement will have at least 1 million dollars in assets after they retire. Especially if they owned their own business.