|
Obama's 2015 Budget May End Sequester
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-20 13:20:11
All this speculation points to a collapse of the USD during the next bubble bursts (2017-2018). Everyone seems content with just letting things collapse. If you have some magical way to prevent American greed creating another bubble that will inevitably burst, please let the world know. The federal budget isn't going to do *** about Wall Street *** over everyone but the top 1% for the 10,000th time since its inception, though.
[+]
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-04-20 13:24:34
I wanted to make some quip about how the last time there was a wealth gap this oppressive it was France circa 1789. But who am I kidding? The slacktavist mentality means it's fun to ***, but if doing something means missing Game of Thrones tonight, *** that.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-04-20 13:24:36
All this speculation points to a collapse of the USD during the next bubble bursts (2017-2018). Everyone seems content with just letting things collapse. If you have some magical way to prevent American greed creating another bubble that will inevitably burst, please let the world know. The federal budget isn't going to do *** about Wall Street *** over everyone but the top 1% for the 10,000th time since its inception, though. Ain't no magic way, unless you consider making everyone understand the importance of fiscal responsibility magic.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-04-20 13:25:45
Hell I've been buying a lot of gold and silver for the past year, but I'm old fashion like that. >:D
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-04-20 13:44:30
To be fair though most of my money is safely stored at the PBOC.
I would have never even guessed that would happen 3 or 4 years ago. Just the way the world turns.
Shiva.Dwyte
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 128
By Shiva.Dwyte 2014-04-20 13:45:36
Should the rich be persecuted for being rich by raising taxes on them though? It's not persecution, it's paying their share for the society they take part in.
Pay your share, so really everyone should be taxed the same, so that regardless of how much you make you still pay your share. Just because someone is successful doesn't mean they should pay half their check when someone that wants to be lazy and not work as hard pays hardly any. If everyone was taxed the same everyone then would be adding their share of what they make.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-20 13:50:59
Should the rich be persecuted for being rich by raising taxes on them though? It's not persecution, it's paying their share for the society they take part in.
Pay your share, so really everyone should be taxed the same, so that regardless of how much you make you still pay your share. Just because someone is successful doesn't mean they should pay half their check when someone that wants to be lazy and not work as hard pays hardly any. If everyone was taxed the same everyone then would be adding their share of what they make.
I imagine the concept of capital gains tax eludes you, or the fact that the wealthy make their money off the backs of those who aren't, but try to keep up.
Also nice "lazy" myth, try harder next time.
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-04-20 13:52:48
Pay your share, so really everyone should be taxed the same, so that regardless of how much you make you still pay your share. Just because someone is successful doesn't mean they should pay half their check when someone that wants to be lazy and not work as hard pays hardly any. If everyone was taxed the same everyone then would be adding their share of what they make. *facepalm*
[+]
Shiva.Dwyte
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 128
By Shiva.Dwyte 2014-04-20 13:59:37
Should the rich be persecuted for being rich by raising taxes on them though? It's not persecution, it's paying their share for the society they take part in.
Pay your share, so really everyone should be taxed the same, so that regardless of how much you make you still pay your share. Just because someone is successful doesn't mean they should pay half their check when someone that wants to be lazy and not work as hard pays hardly any. If everyone was taxed the same everyone then would be adding their share of what they make.
I imagine the concept of capital gains tax eludes you, or the fact that the wealthy make their money off the backs of those who aren't, but try to keep up.
Also nice "lazy" myth, try harder next time.
Oh no I know sometimes life doesn't play out to be fair and people get dealt crappy hands. But for example my buddies dad is a lawyer, and according to the government are apart of the top 10% of America because of how much he makes, but he has five kids and barely lives paycheck to paycheck because of how much he's taxed, they don't drive fancy cars or anything, their cars are 10 years old and live next to my family that makes a lot less than them. I don't see how it's fair that really the top "10%" talked about is really only 0.5%. It's easy to cry out about how the rich have all this stuff and I struggle, but really a lot of them struggle too. And my dad's a teacher and mom works a part time job. Life ain't fair plain and simple but the government will do what they can to keep themselves rich and not care about anything else. I fully understand everything being talked about. But regardless of what we think, the people making the decisions won't listen and keep themselves rich.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-20 14:06:55
Yeah, 5 kids is nothing, he's living way beyond his means. Don't talk about the woes of the top 10% you're only going to be laughed at.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-04-20 14:07:40
It's more like the top .01%
By Jetackuu 2014-04-20 14:11:45
It's more like the top .01% According to 2011 #'s, to be in the top 10% of income earners (taxable income, not really capital gains, which is a while different ball game) you'd have to make at least 120k, I'm sorry but 120k is nothing to gawk at, and really easy to live a comfortable life on even 1/3 of that.
***I wish my car was a 2004...
edit: most people are talking about the 1% though, not the 10%, and in that same graph, you'd have to make at least 388k a year, and I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous amount of money for a single person to make, their disposable income is going to be insane, and they can easily afford to pay more in taxes, oh boohoo they can afford 1 less summer home...
again: that's not even taking into account capital gains, at least as far as I can tell based on this data...
so I don't really want to hear how people who benefit the most from society shouldn't pay the most back to the society.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-04-20 14:15:08
It's more like the top .01%
basically this, it's not the people making 100-250K that aren't paying their share, it's the people making 10M+, especially if they don't count that as "income" but rather "capital gains" from increasing value of investments. If you put 20M in investments that yield 2% (lower than average, but for example), you're effectively making 200K per year, even though you're being taxed at a much lower rate than someone who actually draws a paycheck for that amount. That's where the issue lies, the ultra wealthy generally pay a far smaller percentage of their income because it's not wages.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-20 14:18:05
Then there's the part about the capital gains, which is really what people are bitching about, not income taxes.
Basically people are taxed based on their disposable income (at least that's kind of the point of certain tax breaks) not so much on their gross income, although that's the bracket they fall into.
It could use a lot of tweaking to close certain holes, and to really give a break to those families who need it. But hey...
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-04-20 14:23:31
Then there's the part about the capital gains, which is really what people are bitching about, not income taxes.
Basically people are taxed based on their disposable income (at least that's kind of the point of certain tax breaks) not so much on their gross income, although that's the bracket they fall into.
It could use a lot of tweaking to close certain holes, and to really give a break to those families who need it. But hey...
People on the other end are ripping the system as well, though, EITC is a negative balance for the government, considering many people are able to receive more in returns than they pay. Even if you are eligible for double the tax credit that you pay in, you should never be able to return more than you paid, period.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-20 14:29:26
Then there's the part about the capital gains, which is really what people are bitching about, not income taxes.
Basically people are taxed based on their disposable income (at least that's kind of the point of certain tax breaks) not so much on their gross income, although that's the bracket they fall into.
It could use a lot of tweaking to close certain holes, and to really give a break to those families who need it. But hey...
People on the other end are ripping the system as well, though, EITC is a negative balance for the government, considering many people are able to receive more in returns than they pay. Even if you are eligible for double the tax credit that you pay in, you should never be able to return more than you paid, period. As far as taxes are concerned, I'd agree.
The system is borked, yet most are too worried about partisan crap to fix it, and so many people realize this, but yet can't do anything as we're the silent majority.
[+]
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-20 15:02:05
Then there's the part about the capital gains, which is really what people are bitching about, not income taxes.
Basically people are taxed based on their disposable income (at least that's kind of the point of certain tax breaks) not so much on their gross income, although that's the bracket they fall into.
It could use a lot of tweaking to close certain holes, and to really give a break to those families who need it. But hey...
People on the other end are ripping the system as well, though, EITC is a negative balance for the government, considering many people are able to receive more in returns than they pay. Even if you are eligible for double the tax credit that you pay in, you should never be able to return more than you paid, period. I'd be inclined to agree, except that I start paying my taxes to the feds on January 1 of 2014 and I won't get those taxes back 'til March or April of 2015. I'm effectively floating an interest-free loan for several months. It doesn't amount to much individually, but when, say, 100,000,000 are doing it, it's what keeps the government running.
EITC is basically just an interest payment. What ought to happen is to remove EITC eligibility from anyone who opts not to have taxes taken out every pay period. I'm no tax accountant (but I know which one will show up), but I doubt very many people who qualify for EITC are doing that, not least because most of us are living hand-to-mouth and wouldn't be prepared to foot a tax bill in April (which is, of course, a big part of why they take it out with every check).
By Jetackuu 2014-04-20 15:14:28
I typically take 0 deductions out so I get a bigger check when taxes come back, mostly due to that it makes a nice check that I can use to catch up on bills and such, or put back for unexpected car repairs or the like. That and I'm not the greatest when it comes to budgeting, and I'd probably squander the extra bit each month...
I used a good chunk of this years to lower my CC debt.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-04-21 08:40:23
I typically take 0 deductions out so I get a bigger check when taxes come back, mostly due to that it makes a nice check that I can use to catch up on bills and such, or put back for unexpected car repairs or the like. That and I'm not the greatest when it comes to budgeting, and I'd probably squander the extra bit each month...
I used a good chunk of this years to lower my CC debt. Do what you gotta do that works for you.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-04-21 09:23:21
This is a pretty dishonest portrayal by some people, manufacturing jobs have increased, but they are almost exclusively either temp/contract or very low level assembly jobs that pay half of what the jobs they're replacing did. In fact, there is also a marked decrease in the number of union jobs and supervisory jobs. Honest question: you seem to largely hew to conservative fiscal policy (so do I, so don't read that confrontationally) yet appear to support unions. How does that work out? I don't particularly support unions, I support collective bargaining as it's often the only method to resolve grievances between employers and their employees. Most states have passed legislation in the last 40 years that effectively outlaw collective bargaining and that creates a real need for unions in those areas. Let's be clear, though, unions have expanded far beyond the scope of their use and choke companies to death with exponentially increasing legacy costs and generally result in a less productive workforce. But, if you look at the places where unions are non-existent, workers are generally MUCH more unhappy and companies are increasingly eliminating skilled positions and forcing less people to do more work for less money while paying executives millions in bonuses.
My feelings as well. I dislike the politicized groups unions have become (including mine). But state governments are hell bent on destroying collective bargaining. It's really, really bad for the middle class if this happens.
Really bad.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-04-21 09:30:03
Quote: but he has five kids and
In this day and age, having five kids is a luxury. He's lucky that we tax for public schools on a flat rate in most places and not a per-child basis.
Inversely, if he's paying for private school for those five children, he's got zero room to ***.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-21 09:32:43
This is a pretty dishonest portrayal by some people, manufacturing jobs have increased, but they are almost exclusively either temp/contract or very low level assembly jobs that pay half of what the jobs they're replacing did. In fact, there is also a marked decrease in the number of union jobs and supervisory jobs. Honest question: you seem to largely hew to conservative fiscal policy (so do I, so don't read that confrontationally) yet appear to support unions. How does that work out? I don't particularly support unions, I support collective bargaining as it's often the only method to resolve grievances between employers and their employees. Most states have passed legislation in the last 40 years that effectively outlaw collective bargaining and that creates a real need for unions in those areas. Let's be clear, though, unions have expanded far beyond the scope of their use and choke companies to death with exponentially increasing legacy costs and generally result in a less productive workforce. But, if you look at the places where unions are non-existent, workers are generally MUCH more unhappy and companies are increasingly eliminating skilled positions and forcing less people to do more work for less money while paying executives millions in bonuses. My feelings as well. I dislike the politicized groups unions have become (including mine). But state governments are hell bent on destroying collective bargaining. It's really, really bad for the middle class if this happens.
Really bad. It's been happening, and I think we'll all agree that we don't particularly like unions. If only the government put in some regulations instead of the politicians being in the pockets of the corporations...
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-04-21 09:35:44
This is a pretty dishonest portrayal by some people, manufacturing jobs have increased, but they are almost exclusively either temp/contract or very low level assembly jobs that pay half of what the jobs they're replacing did. In fact, there is also a marked decrease in the number of union jobs and supervisory jobs. Honest question: you seem to largely hew to conservative fiscal policy (so do I, so don't read that confrontationally) yet appear to support unions. How does that work out? I don't particularly support unions, I support collective bargaining as it's often the only method to resolve grievances between employers and their employees. Most states have passed legislation in the last 40 years that effectively outlaw collective bargaining and that creates a real need for unions in those areas. Let's be clear, though, unions have expanded far beyond the scope of their use and choke companies to death with exponentially increasing legacy costs and generally result in a less productive workforce. But, if you look at the places where unions are non-existent, workers are generally MUCH more unhappy and companies are increasingly eliminating skilled positions and forcing less people to do more work for less money while paying executives millions in bonuses. My feelings as well. I dislike the politicized groups unions have become (including mine). But state governments are hell bent on destroying collective bargaining. It's really, really bad for the middle class if this happens. Really bad. It's been happening, and I think we'll all agree that we don't particularly like unions. If only the government put in some regulations instead of the politicians being in the pockets of the corporations...
Exactly.
Take the situation in Pennsylvania. The governor is solidly in the pocket of industry, and the bloated state government (one of the only full-time state legislatures in the country), keeps trying to cut down education, public employees and collective bargaining as a whole in the state, all the while providing tax breaks to drilling and mineral extraction companies, and those companies in turn don't even create jobs for state citizens. They bring in their own traveling workers who move out again as soon as a well's run dry.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-21 09:39:59
I don't want to even get into fracking...
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-04-21 10:02:16
I don't want to even get into fracking...
Yeah, well. Neither did a lot of us that live here.
[+]
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXIV
Posts: 259
By Terrah Crystal 2014-04-21 10:43:27
start taxing 'non-taxed' groups like the NCAA and NFL. That'll help the national budget as well.... How the hell can the NFL get tax-free status. They make $9 BILLION dollars every year
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-04-21 10:53:56
start taxing 'non-taxed' groups like the NCAA and NFL. That'll help the national budget as well.... How the hell can the NFL get tax-free status. They make $9 BILLION dollars every year The teams themselves are taxed. It depends on how the entities that are the teams are formed (if they are an LLC/LP or Corporation). That determines how they are taxed, but they are taxed regardless.
The NFL is considered an "union" and because of union lobbies, they are considered "tax exempt" IRC 501(a) entities.
themoreyouknow.jpg
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-04-21 11:22:50
Quote: but he has five kids and
In this day and age, having five kids is a luxury. He's lucky that we tax for public schools on a flat rate in most places and not a per-child basis.
Inversely, if he's paying for private school for those five children, he's got zero room to ***. My +'s, have all of them.
People really don't realize that passing on your DNA is a luxury nowadays, something that you need to afford in order to be able to do.
Also, a 2004 car? Most people are lucky to have one that's even 20 years old, and even then it can barely make it to and from work.
It could be a LOT worse.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-04-21 11:32:18
My car is a 92 with 300k+ miles, and I don't even drive right now...
Leviathan.Andret
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1000
By Leviathan.Andret 2014-04-21 12:13:18
If you have a small group of people swimming in millions of $$$ and a big group trying to make ends meet then you need a good tax system. Your tax system need to put the guys swimming in millions into bath tubs of $$$ instead of swimming pools and give the the bottom feeder a tax cut so they can actually save money. Of course, try to keep the majority of the tax for other public goods like education, poverty reduction, infrastructures.
It is fair to the rich? No, but they are swimming in $$$ and they refuse to share properly.
It's a decisive election year, so you know what that means? Budget talks!
Quote: President Barack Obama's fiscal 2015 budget request would boost U.S. tax revenue by nearly $1.4 trillion over 10 years if fully enacted, cutting deficits by $1.05 trillion while funding new spending, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.
The current administration goes on to say:
Quote: It proposes to boost revenue by limiting tax breaks for wealthy Americans and businesses, imposing a new tax on millionaires, raising tobacco taxes, and restoring estate and gift taxes to their previously higher, 2009 levels.
At the same time, it would boost spending by expanding cash tax credits for low-income Americans, canceling the "sequester" automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs, and increasing funds for job training programs, among other changes. Source
However the Congressional Budget Office has voiced concern over this budget:
Quote: There is virtually no chance that Congress will advance Obama's plan in its entirety. But the CBO's latest analysis will feed campaign messaging by both Democrats and Republicans ahead of congressional elections in November.
The analysis compares Obama's request to a new "baseline" estimate that CBO released last week that assumes no changes to current tax and spending laws.
Republicans though are focused on cutting spending:
Quote: Republicans, who last week in the House of Representatives passed an austere, 10-year balanced budget plan with deep domestic spending cuts and no tax increases, will focus their criticism on tax hikes in Obama's plan. Democrats, who are basing their re-election campaigns on efforts to reduce the gap between rich and poor, are expected to highlight Obama's proposals to aid the middle class and the poor.
The CBO analysis shows that Obama's budget plan would increase deficits slightly relative to current law in fiscal 2014 and 2015, with deficits just above $500 billion in both years. Source
So in a way both the CBO and House Republicans agree that this new budget will only further increase the national deficit (and consequently the national debt).
However, it was stated in the previous article:
Quote: Obama's budget plan is loaded with new policy changes, including an assumption that sweeping immigration reforms are enacted, producing a net 10-year deficit reduction of $158 billion.
But Republicans are trying to do just that:
Quote: House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican leadership team are telling donors and industry groups that they want to pass immigration legislation this year, despite the reluctance of other party members to tackle the divisive issue before the November elections.
Many lawmakers and activists have assumed the issue was off the table in an election year. But Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a recent Las Vegas fundraiser that he was "hell-bent on getting this done this year," two people in the room told The Wall Street Journal. Source
So that begs the question: Will any of this work? Or is it just talk for an election year in which nothing will get done once the elections are over with?
Is this just a round about way of increasing military spending, while simultaneously projecting the notion of reducing military spending at the same time?
Thoughts?
|
|