Hillary Clinton will increase taxes for the middle class

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On a personal level what would be the responsible thing to do if you racked up huge debts where you were in danger of just being able to pay the interest without being able to pay down the principal?

So you are saying the economy has to suffer some in order to deal with the debt of the country first? In other words, we are in a pretty bad situation...?

Is living within your means suffering?

The responsible thing to do would to find another source of income so you can make some headway on the principal.

Along with cutting expenses. In fact the first thing you do is cut expenses. Unfortunately neither party is willing to do that. So were does the government find another source of income?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On a personal level what would be the responsible thing to do if you racked up huge debts where you were in danger of just being able to pay the interest without being able to pay down the principal?

yoSou are saying the economy has to suffer some in order to deal with the debt of the country first? In other words, we are in a pretty bad situation...?

Is living within your means suffering?

We are talking about the economy, not individuals. It is fine for individuals to live within their means, but how this applies to companies and jobs and the stock market and all that other stuff.. well, that is much different. Individuals can cut back.. but if companies have to cut back due to lack of income.. then what?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On a personal level what would be the responsible thing to do if you racked up huge debts where you were in danger of just being able to pay the interest without being able to pay down the principal?

So you are saying the economy has to suffer some in order to deal with the debt of the country first? In other words, we are in a pretty bad situation...?

Is living within your means suffering?

The responsible thing to do would to find another source of income so you can make some headway on the principal.

Along with cutting expenses. In fact the first thing you do is cut expenses. Unfortunately neither party is willing to do that. So were does the government find another source of income?

Who says the dems aren't willing to cut expenses? The number of federal workers were cut a lot under the Clinton administration; see Gore's commission on government efficiency.

You don't think the dems can find some cuts in the bloated, corrupt military budget, just for one area? I think they can.

 

[spittledip]

NASA needs to get some cuts too. Screw outer space for now- we have too many problems at home.

 

[AnnonUSA]

I would have no problem being taxed more if the Government would stop wasting, misappropriating and giving money to foreign countries that do not deserve it. Oh, but that's right, if they did that they wouldn't need to raise taxes....

 

[StageLeft]

That sounds pretty extreme.

In any case, taxes have to be raised unless there is a major spending slash. You don't go to war and cut back taxes at the same time. The national debt HAS to be taken under control and the longer we wait, the worse it will be. Democrats don't cut spending, they increase taxes. Republicans increase spending with a tax cut, which is worse.

Ah, thanks much for the link and info. Very nice chart! It seems like Hilary hasn't much foresight- if she takes this much money out of each individual/family's pockets, isn't that so much less that will go into our economy? Won't a tax increase be a bad thing for our economy right now?

Thinking long term, the debt has to be reigned in.

NASA needs to get some cuts too. Screw outer space for now- we have too many problems at home.

I agree, it's a black hole of spending

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

The responsible thing to do would to find another source of income so you can make some headway on the principal.

Along with cutting expenses. In fact the first thing you do is cut expenses. Unfortunately neither party is willing to do that.

True as far as it goes, but it would be more accurate to say we are not willing to elect members of any party who are willing to do that (cut spending or, for that matter, raise taxes). We as a nation are happy in our personal finances to live on credit cards and debt, without regard for future consequences, and we've elected a gov't to reflect the same. The gov't and the parties only reflect our own flaws.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On a personal level what would be the responsible thing to do if you racked up huge debts where you were in danger of just being able to pay the interest without being able to pay down the principal?

So you are saying the economy has to suffer some in order to deal with the debt of the country first? In other words, we are in a pretty bad situation...?

Is living within your means suffering?

The responsible thing to do would to find another source of income so you can make some headway on the principal.

Along with cutting expenses. In fact the first thing you do is cut expenses. Unfortunately neither party is willing to do that. So were does the government find another source of income?

Who says the dems aren't willing to cut expenses? The number of federal workers were cut a lot under the Clinton administration; see Gore's commission on government efficiency.

Many of the 'cuts' in federal workers were achieved by contracting out the jobs, not cutting them. For example, I worked for VA during the Clinton years, and they simply shifted tons of work (such as compensation exams) to private physician contractors. No real money was saved.

You don't think the dems can find some cuts in the bloated, corrupt military budget, just for one area? I think they can.

But they won't. A Democratically-controlled Congress hasn't passed a balanced budget since 1969, and aren't likely to do so again in my lifetime.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: spittledip
So what income brackets will be affected by this return to 1999 tax levels? Any links?

Hard to get an exact answer.

But here is a great chart link
The Bush tax cuts went fully into place in 2003 so you can look at 2008 and compare the rates to 2001 to see how going back to those rates would effect people.

Unless they pass a law to keep the 25% rate where it is at anyone making over $32,000 would see a tax increase.

Here is a guess at what you would see:
$32,000 would see their rate go from 25 to 27.5
$78,000 would see their rate go from 28 to 30.5
$164,500 would see their rate go from 33 to 35.5
over $357,000 would see their rate from from 35 to 39.1

The OP claims to have a gross $85,000 which puts him in the current 28% range.
So he would see his rate go to 30.5% a 2.5% increase.

2.5% of $85,000 is an increase of $2125

Ah, thanks much for the link and info. Very nice chart! It seems like Hilary hasn't much foresight- if she takes this much money out of each individual/family's pockets, isn't that so much less that will go into our economy? Won't a tax increase be a bad thing for our economy right now?

No it would not, and secondly, it wouldn't be right now since it would expire in 2010.
It would be a return to the same tax rates we had in the 90s, which had proven to be just fine for the economy.

Please explain why it would not be bad for the present economy to put tax rates back to where they wee in 1999. I do not have a great grasp of economics, and have heard various things about the relationship of raising taxes and the economy which some do not believe to be true. It seems to make sense to me that if people have less to spend (put back into the economy) that the economy will suffer some. Why or why is this not true? And if it is true, isn't it a bad idea to raise taxes at this time? And if it isn't, why isn't it?

You've been hearing those things from self serving think tanks, but reality is that economy was booming with the tax rates we had in the 90s. There is no getting around it.
Also, if the government is borrowing money to bridge the gap between taxes collected and spending, that's so much less money available for businesses to borrow and/or inflation created. So simply collecting taxes to pay for what we are already spending will be offset by the positive effect of running a balanced budget and the government not competing with business for borrowing. The proof is in the results. In the 90s we had booming economy with Clinton tax rates, now we are going into recession with the Bush tax rates, which we were told were there to stimulate the economy by the same people you are hearing from, to the point where the government now wants to hand out money to people to keep the economy afloat.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: spittledip
Ah, thanks much for the link and info. Very nice chart! It seems like Hilary hasn't much foresight- if she takes this much money out of each individual/family's pockets, isn't that so much less that will go into our economy? Won't a tax increase be a bad thing for our economy right now?

A tax increase is always a bad thing for an economy. It removes the incentives of business, and encourages the movement of money out of the USA.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

What are you going to do if a Republican wins the presidency this year? Swear off the American people as bunch of idiots?

And to the OP, you don't really need that vacation. That money would be better spent buying a flat screen TV for some unemployed woman with 6 kids... who voted for Hillary. Refer to my sig. The government is smarter than you, and knows about more things than you. You're not smart enough to spend your own money.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

Go ahead, push for higher taxes, since they're "too low". I guess the lessons of 1994 have escaped you.

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: spittledip
Ah, thanks much for the link and info. Very nice chart! It seems like Hilary hasn't much foresight- if she takes this much money out of each individual/family's pockets, isn't that so much less that will go into our economy? Won't a tax increase be a bad thing for our economy right now?

A tax increase is always a bad thing for an economy. It removes the incentives of business, and encourages the movement of money out of the USA.

Disagree. A tax increase on the wealthiest few percent is AWESOME for the economy as long as it's coupled with a tax decrease for the working classes - those who are most likely to spend most of their income. This strategy would keep the $$ flowing and the economy healthy. Think about it - a tax increase on the wealthy means that less money will go into their sons and dauther's bloated trust funds and drug habits.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

What are you going to do if a Republican wins the presidency this year? Swear off the American people as bunch of idiots?

No, because the only Republican with a chance to win, McCain, voted against the Bush tax cuts.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

Go ahead, push for higher taxes, since they're "too low". I guess the lessons of 1994 have escaped you.

The lesson of 1994 is that tax hikes by Clinton not only didn't hurt the economy, but lead to a huge economic expansion. That's what happens when the government gets its house in order and gets out of the borrowing business.

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

What are you going to do if a Republican wins the presidency this year? Swear off the American people as bunch of idiots?

And to the OP, you don't really need that vacation. That money would be better spent buying a flat screen TV for some unemployed woman with 6 kids... who voted for Hillary. Refer to my sig. The government is smarter than you, and knows about more things than you. You're not smart enough to spend your own money.

It did appear that the voters were either very uninformed or just naive about the economy. Or maybe the economy just wasn't the main issue on their minds. The republican party since the 80's has been very good at selling themselves as fiscally responsible and all about cutting spending AND taxes.

Unfortunately, while they've talked up a good game they refuse to follow through on these promises. Reagan grew the national debt enormously by spending money we didn't have while cutting taxes on "the rich." We've also seen the federal government grow by leaps and bounds under the Bush Jr years.

I would welcome a regime change and have moderate Democrats in charge for a while so that we can reduce the trend of government growth, out of control spending on pet projects for the corporate kings, and the destruction of the middle class.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
WTF are you talking about? She says that she'll just let your God's tax cut expire, nice spin.

Edit: Oh wait, you'd rather people like ME financing your vacation? Sure, hop on comrade.

You think it makes a difference to the average taxpayer whether his taxes go up because tax cuts expired as opposed to taxes being raised? He doesnt give two shits what spin Washington put on it, he just knows there is less money in his paycheck.

Second, how the hell do his tax cuts come out of your pocket?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've been "taxed" incredibly since this administration decided to go to war. The price I pay is at the pump.

 

[FoBoT]

yes, both Obama and Clinton specifically said on the debate last night that they WILL raise taxes

now they said "only on the rich" , but their definition of rich , to me, includes upper middle class

and besides, i don't believe screwing over "the rich" is the right thing to do anyway

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Mail5398

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, it's called responsibility; I do believe some of my tax dollars do actually help upholding this freaking country that we're living in. Some of those might be misspent, but I do see roads being fixed, public utilities and facilities and programs that help unfortunate people, etc... Those I don't use any of it, but I understand the cause behind taxation. If anyone should be bitching, it's people like me, not you.

You don't see me with four kids (which would grant me all these "tax credits" and "deductions") and come on to an internet forum spreading FUD and spinning what's a presidential candidate said.

It's not my fault you are so ugly you can't find anyone.


Money isn't being spent on roads, check out the latest stories on bridge inspections, it is being spent fighting a war we will never win.

LFMAO!!!

Here you are again proving that you're the masster of assumption. But, let's not talk about my philandering life or looks for a minute and shine a spot light on you for a second yeah? How old are you? And why do you have four kids? Is it because it's a trap that you couldn't get out of, or is it because... uh oh... you have to? If you had a choice, you wouldn't have four kids and be married.

Aside from that, your understanding of what's going on in the country, let alone the world is minimal. The money that we're spending needlessly on the war is borrowed money, i.e. on credit (something you're probably used to).

What I don't understand is that while you, a bigger burden to society is taxed less than me, a more productive and a bigger contributor to society is taxed more. Care to explain that? I'd like to see more of your FUD logics.

So you consider someone having kids to be placing a burden on society? Jesus, you are a fucking moron. All your productivity is owed to your parents deciding to keep your sorry ass rather than aborting you. We're importing illegal aliens because not enough people are having kids. Also, how the hell do you know you are more productive than he is?

 

[jonks]

Sigh, Obama wants to do the same thing, but god forbid anyone mention that. Please don't let me disturb your Hillary bashing.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: spittledip
Ah, thanks much for the link and info. Very nice chart! It seems like Hilary hasn't much foresight- if she takes this much money out of each individual/family's pockets, isn't that so much less that will go into our economy? Won't a tax increase be a bad thing for our economy right now?

A tax increase is always a bad thing for an economy. It removes the incentives of business, and encourages the movement of money out of the USA.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfa...esulted_in_higher.html
Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?
A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.
This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called ?voodoo economics.? We called it ?supply-side spin? when we wrote about Republican presidential contender John McCain?s claim that President George W. Bush?s tax cuts had increased federal revenues. We found that a slew of administration economists ? from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House?s Council of Economic Advisers ? all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn?t been enacted.
The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don't say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush?s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

Corporate income taxes, however, may be an exception. There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. However, one of the authors, Kevin A. Hassett, told FactCheck.org that small countries, such as Ireland, had the most success and that "it may or may not be correct" to apply the study's results to the United States.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Sigh, Obama wants to do the same thing, but god forbid anyone mention that. Please don't let me disturb your Hillary bashing.

yes, they both clearly stated they will raise taxes, especially on the "rich" , and of course they can define "the rich" however they want and change the definition to suit their political needs

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need to raise taxes, we are running huge deficits courtesy of Dub.

This is why the Dems lose guaranteed elections like 2004. But go ahead, get your message out there, let the middle class know that you will be raising their taxes, I'm sure Hillary will appreciate that. Just make sure you work extra hard before super Tuesday, thanks.

2004 was not a guaranteed election, Americans were still ignorant enough to give Bush a 50% approval rating. As far as taxes, it's a non-issue, especially in the Democratic primary. In fact a lot of Democrats are sick of these structural deficits we are running and think taxes are too low.

Go ahead, push for higher taxes, since they're "too low". I guess the lessons of 1994 have escaped you.

The lesson of 1994 is that tax hikes by Clinton not only didn't hurt the economy, but lead to a huge economic expansion. That's what happens when the government gets its house in order and gets out of the borrowing business.

You could just as easily correlate the rise of alternative music with the huge economic expansion.