IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New How do you pay for 750B in new programs?
Hillary has come up with some 750billion based on all her conversations so far...how to pay for it??? [link|http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-25-tax-plan_N.htm|Get Rangel to raise taxes by 1 trillion]

Of course, the 90 million at the bottom of the roles (nearly half of which pay no taxes) are going to see reductions, according to Rangel. Interesting how you can reduce taxes on people that don't pay any.

And he cuts the corp tax rate from 35 to 30.5 and tries to pay for it by closing some loopholes. This is really funny..as there are very highly paid corp types out there with more loopholes to use.

This is a hell of a plan. I've seen where its said that it doesn't impact anyone under 500k income...but then read that it adds a 4% tax on anyone earning over 150k...plus letting a couple of the big items from the Bush cuts lapse...like the 1k child credit.

Tax and spend anyone?

I wouldn't mind about half of that tax increase with 0 spend increases. If the Dems get us out of Iraq as promised, a tax increase coupled with that decrease in military spending should help get our financial house in order.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Pulling out of Iraq might help.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Bush thinks pulling out is downright unmanly.
Smile,
Amy
New Use the source, Luke.
That USAToday story is basically a rehash of the [link|http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/Summary%20for%20Distribution.pdf|10 page Summary] (PDF), but its harder to read and has much less detail.

I think the PDF addresses your criticisms.

My addition of the "cost" and "raise" categories have them both at about $1.33 T over 10 years, so if Hillary is hoping to spend $0.75T on new programs, then this bill by Rangel isn't going to pay for it. IOW, this bill is roughly revenue neutral by my math. Republicans jumping up and down calling this a gigantic tax increase are being disingenuous, as usual.

Am I reading you right that you think $670B in new taxes (additional net revenue over 10 years) is a good idea?

Cheers,
Scott.
New Raising the top marginal on people
by 4% plus letting the current tax cuts lapse is a definite increase. Dropping the marginal on corporations is unwise.

And yes, as painful as it is to me I am in support of additional taxes at this point...or at least a drastic reduction in spending. I'd prefer to do it with only spending reductions...but we have to pay down the debt. Right now, China could almost destroy this country without firing a shot.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Point of order.
...letting the current tax cuts lapse is a definite increase.


If nothing is done, [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/washington/12spend.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all|Bush's tax cuts will expire at the end of 2010]. One of the reasons why the Bush tax cuts passed in the first place is that they were [link|http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0121useconomics_gale.aspx|designed to be temporary]:

Is allowing the tax cuts to expire equivalent to a legislated tax increase, as the President and others have claimed? Whatever it is called, it should be noted that this is what supporters of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts voted for. In each case, tax cutters could have obtained smaller immediate cuts that would have been made permanent, but in each case they chose larger short-term cuts that expire.


It's not an "increase" to return to the status quo ante, IMO, because the cut was always understood to be temporary.

Cheers,
Scott.
New The 4 points is an increase regardless.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Not to conservatives.
Any increase in taxes (by a Democrat) constitute an "raisin' my taxes".

BP is out of line anyway, he just doesn't like it when Democrats threaten to fund their programs the same way as Conservatives.
New Not so
The current brand of "conservative" seems to like to cut taxes and increase spending. The dems like to increase spending and taxes both. I want spending to go south and taxes to go slightly north until we gain a measure of fiscal independence. We'll need several years of ACTUAL surplus, not the pretend kind we almost had before we lost them.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New gets rid of the AMT, has hedge fund managers pay tax on
earnings instead of capital gains, since their earnings are essentially commisions that is right. Forces lawyers and accountants to pay social security taxes. I dont see a problem there.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
     How do you pay for 750B in new programs? - (bepatient) - (9)
         Pulling out of Iraq might help. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
             Bush thinks pulling out is downright unmanly. -NT - (imqwerky)
         Use the source, Luke. - (Another Scott) - (5)
             Raising the top marginal on people - (bepatient) - (4)
                 Point of order. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     The 4 points is an increase regardless. -NT - (bepatient)
                     Not to conservatives. - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                         Not so - (bepatient)
         gets rid of the AMT, has hedge fund managers pay tax on - (boxley)

Conical spray... with sesame seeds!
200 ms