1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

The Fiscal Cliff....or is it more like the Fiscal Meh?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. ralphie250

    ralphie250 Fully Erect Donor

    Location:
    At work..

    And that's per year right? The graph made it more easier for me to understand. Thanks
     
  2. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Yes....per year and unlike income tax that you dont pay until the following year, you will see it in your next paycheck with the payroll tax going back up to 6.2%.

    The lower payroll tax was not sustainable long term for the fiscal integrity of Social Security.

    The Bush tax rates, particularly on the top bracket, were not sustainable for any real long term debt reduction, having already contributed more than $1 trillion to the debt (and other $3 trillion projected over 10 years if the top Bush rate had been made permanent).
     
  3. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Now divide that by 50 to see what is going to per week to see how that will impact you for each paycheck.
    (even though it's not being dealt with until not tax season...)

    $1200/50 = $24

    All this shit, this drama...for the cost of a meal at a restaurant a week. (IF you're bringing in 75K-100K annually)

    And IF you are not counting other write offs and gains...just income.

    What's the avg household income? What is written off? The impact is minimal in relative terms.

    So, people and leaders are throwing down the gauntlet...for what???
     
  4. Freetofly

    Freetofly Diving deep into the abyss

    I saw this in my paycheck this week, but it was more like $54 bucks deducted for two weeks pay, $27 a week.
    What doesn't make sense to me is they deducted this for my last week in Dec and first week of Jan.
    That totally sucks!
     
  5. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    In my opinion, Americans on all steps on the income ladder, don't pay enough taxes. I've always thought this. Over the last 15 years, since the advent of wage stagnation, it hurts the lower and middle class more, but to have the kind of society we want, with the educational system, infrastructure, and safety net our societies should be striving for, we have to realize that the benefits to us in having this kind of society will cost us. All of us.

    Some don't want this sort of communally based society. Some would prefer the US go the rugged individualist route. I don't think these folks understand what life would be like if the governmental services we take for granted, were no longer available.

    No public school system
    No federal subsidies on student loans
    No food, drug, health, safety or product inspection
    No environmental control
    No federal highway maintenance
    No military
    No social security
    No health benefits for the poor and elderly
    No governmental support staff
    No ATF
    No National Guard
    No Forestry Service
    No Justice Dept
    No FBI
    No CIA
    No oversight
    No regulations

    Just corporations...................

    I wouldn't want to live in this country.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    Joniemack, that is exactly the US that many Tea Party types and Libertarians envision. It is a horrifying vision.

    If that were to become a thing in Canada, I would return there tomorrow to fight it... to my last breath.
     
  7. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    The Tea Party does not support anarchy. If we could ever have a serious discussion about the issues, we would make some progress. It is absurd for liberals taking the Tea Party message of wanting to fix the tax code and to control spending to not wanting to educate children.
    --- merged: Jan 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM ---

    The vast majority of the Bush tax cuts are still in place (Democrats and the President have had countless opportunities to put in place their own plan), the new rates on the top bracket are virtually meaningless in terms of the total federal budget and truly meaningless in terms of the national debt - these rates are nothing but a symbolic victory for the President.

    Since you comment on the subject of taxes, I am curious to know why you think the Administration and the Senate failed to put Carried Interest on the table and fix it? Only a select few billionaires/near billionaires can take advantage of this loophole and fixing the loophole would get enough Republican support to pass. this would have been a more significant symbolic gesture than changing the nominal top rates - that real rich people won't pay anyway.

    Could it be that Democrats sold-out to some powerful " campaign contribution bundlers"?
    --- merged: Jan 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM ---
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2013
  8. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    Not absurd at all.

    The natural conclusion of all the rhetoric I read is about privatizing everything and leaving it the, apparently more efficient, public sector.

    It's just a con.
     
  9. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    You're spending too much time following their desires to their natural conclusions. You should just stick with the things they say they want now. The marvelous, vague, plan-free things they want now. You know, freedom from sharia law, and, uh, lower taxes (has anyone ever thought of implementing a flat tax?!), and forcing women to walk around with vag-mounted transvaginal ultrasound wands 24 hours a day to protect their preborn constituents. Stuff like that.
     
  10. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    What a load of crap.

    The Tea Party is not about fixing the tax code, but is all about eliminating government as much as possible and as indiscriminately as possible, not caring at all about the economic and social impact.
    --- merged: Jan 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM ---
    Grover Norquist:
    "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

    This is the guiding force of the Judson Phillips and Dick Armeys
    --- merged: Jan 6, 2013 at 11:19 AM ---
    Along with their highly selective interpretation of the Constitution....getting govt out of private lives except when it is in their personal interests to have govt in their lives.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2013
  11. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    You're attributing all the problems of uncertainty being caused by government and being felt by businesses. It's not so in either case. Do you honestly think weak demand is primarily due to business uncertainty? The middle and lower classes are still reeling after the fallout of 2007-2008 and you think it's all about the businesses? Not everyone is unemployed. Those who are employed don't want to spend because they're uncertain. Americans, uncharacteristic of recent trends, are shedding debt. It means they're not spending as was usual before the recession. You know what will make this worse? Cuts to government spending that go too deep. Cuts that go too deep will place more of a financial burden on the biggest group of spenders in the country. It will literally take money out of the economy.

    Concerns of uncertainty aren't merely concerns of the business community.

    You think regulations had more of an impact then they really did. This is what I mentioned earlier. Regulations had an impact, but the problems were more due to the actions of the financial sector otherwise. The problem wasn't that the industry was too heavily regulated. It was due to it not being actively regulated leading up to 2007. Regulations fell behind. The industry was deregulated, the industry changed, not enough changes in the regulatory environment occurred, and now many are wondering whether they should emulate models of regulation such as that in Canada (something that likely appalls the right for all its "Big Government bullying").

    No. It's not a matter of perspective. It's matter of facts. You're doing two things here: 1) You're making assumptions based on false views (e.g., that Canada doesn't currently develop and monetize its resources and that the U.S. and Russia have no further opportunities for developing natural resources), and 2) You're ignoring facts (e.g., Russia is by far the world's leading exporter of natural resources, followed by Saudi Arabia; while Canada exports slightly more than the U.S., the U.S. uses far more domestically than Canada due to having nearly ten times the population).

    The only situation that is unique about Canada, really, is the one in the tar sands. It's not just an opportunity, however, it's a challenge. Developing the tar sands was unfeasible until oil prices hit a certain threshold. If oil prices drop too far (a risk that has concerned many recently), opportunities for revenue will dry up.

    But both the U.S. and Russia have unique opportunities as well. The U.S. is sitting on an embarrassment of riches in natural gas. What's lacking is an infrastructure. As a result of global warming, Russia is contemplating extracting a hell of a lot of oil out of the arctic shelf. Furthermore, it may get easier for them to extract more resources from the rather inaccessible but resource-rich Ural Mountains.

    All of this, of course, depends on how the global economy recovers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2013
  12. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    First you suggest that the carried interest was off the table to get Republican support...then you suggest it was a sell-out to "campaign contribution bundlers"

    I think it was the former.

    But in either case, it was the best short term deal available to ensure that the middle class were not hit immediately with the double whammy of higher rates AND the end of the payroll tax holiday.

    Obama offered Boehner a larger deal before Christmas-- $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and tax increases, including a chained-CPI for Social Security (with much opposition from the left).

    Boehner walked away from the deal, only to then see his own Plan B (higher taxes only on $1 million+) fail to the Tea Party insurrection, with McConnell having to rescue the Republicans from complete failure to act.

    And since then, more and more right-leaning business groups like the Business Roundtable are moving away from the extremists in the Republican Party who want to hold the debt limit hostage.
     
  13. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This is the worst aspect of American conservatives, whether they be a Tea Partier or a pseudolibertarian.

    Anyone capable of critical thought can see how these people cherry-pick their ideas. Out of one side of their mouths they cry out how the constitutional is unconstitutional and out of the other side of their mouths they weasel their way towards assuming the unconstitutional is constitutional.

    At the onset, on the surface, and at a glance, the Tea Party seemed like a pretty sensible thing: keep taxes low, keep spending low. I'm sure many liked that idea the first time when it was called fiscal conservatism, an artform long lost on Republicans since before Reagan. (By the by, my favourite fiscal conservatives are Democratic President Bill Clinton, and Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.)

    The Tea Party movement, it is obvious, is something other than fiscal conservatism. It's an astroturf movement that seeks unrealistic goals that would do little more than cripple the economy.

    The Tea Party movement is the worst thing to happen to American politics since George W. Bush.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    The only thing that would be worse would be if the Libertarians actually managed to get traction.
     
  15. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    The problem is the goals are based on abstracts and vague ideals.

    Leaders should be brave enough and intelligent enough to deal in cold hard facts and needs.

    But they are pandering to the lobbyists and the base, covering their ass...and wrapping themselves in flags and catch-phrases.
     
  16. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto