The Fiscal Cliff thread.

[Larry]

Uh, yes, I'll certainly agree that 50 years ago, lots of middle class people didn't have air conditioning.

(I REALLY want to see some support for your claim that those people "saved 10%").

But do you really want to try to position yourself to claim that the middle class aren't being hit, as long as they still have air conditioning?

[chipwhich]

This thread isn't really going to turn into a discussion on American gluttony. Our poor are richer than a high percentage of the world.

[Jumbo]

I almost mentioned the Butt sisters, too. Hopefully, the young'uns here are scurrying to google & youtube.

[grhqofb5]

We have to increase tax revenue somewhere and since corporations aren't bringing the jobs back.....something has to give.

Gotta bring in more of those tax-payin illegal immigrant types.

[The Sisko]

Maybe a good start would be not allowing any registered democrats or republicans to vote in the next election. :pfft:

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Sometimes it's just people buying the nice things they can, because really nice things are far more expensive.

Yeah, nice things like health insurance and a decent retirement.

I'm old and don't eat dog food. Although the occasional can of Dinty Moore slips by when I'm alone and lazy. Not sure there's much difference except DM has more liquid.

...and less meat.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Gotta bring in more of those tax-payin illegal immigrant types.

If I could hear your tone and inflection I would know which way you meant this....as it is....

[Son of Gadsden]

Why again is everyone so okay with taxing the upper class. "**** the upper class, we just care about ourselves!" I just don't get it. It's not my money, it's not my place to say what happens to it. Where does all this hatred for the upper class spawn from!? Yeah, there are rich douchebags out there. Hell, I've met plenty of poor people that were more stuck up. There are also GOOD MEN that have money that got there from working their asses off. If the Dems are for robbing the rich and giving to the poor, why are all the rich, douchebag actors DEMS!? The richest, most overpaid people in this country are Dems. Hell, Romney himself could run for the Dems if he wanted to.

I just don't buy, or even remotely understand all this class warfare crap, just seems like an illusion to keep us all distracted to me. We're all on the same team, it's a chain...and the more rich people there are, the better off we all are. It's called opportunity. If you're in sales, don't you want ridiculously rich people coming in your store to blow money left and right and get you your commission!? Or we could just spend all day coveting what they have and punishing success. When did capitalism become the bad guy? Okay, rant over, my bad. Didn't realize it was happening.

Anyway, how in the hell are the politicians we elected using us as the hostages? Aren't we supposed to be ruled by the people? Guess these are all rhetorical questions. Whatever. No matter how you slice it or what side you're on, this is bull****. The people need to take back this country. Listen to more Rage Against the Machine or something, I don't know what to tell you.

---------- Post added July-17th-2012 at 07:16 AM ----------

Maybe a good start would be not allowing any registered democrats or republicans to vote in the next election. :pfft:

Jumbo, you are now my favorite mod ever.

[No Excuses]

Why again is everyone so okay with taxing the upper class. "**** the upper class, we just care about ourselves!" I just don't get it. It's not my money, it's not my place to say what happens to it. Where does all this hatred for the upper class spawn from!? Yeah, there are rich douchebags out there. Hell, I've met plenty of poor people that were more stuck up. There are also GOOD MEN that have money that got there from working their asses off. If the Dems are for robbing the rich and giving to the poor, why are all the rich, douchebag actors DEMS!? The richest, most overpaid people in this country are Dems. Hell, Romney himself could run for the Dems if he wanted to.

I just don't buy, or even remotely understand all this class warfare crap, just seems like an illusion to keep us all distracted to me. We're all on the same team, it's a chain...and the more rich people there are, the better off we all are. It's called opportunity. If you're in sales, don't you want ridiculously rich people coming in your store to blow money left and right and get you your commission!? Or we could just spend all day coveting what they have and punishing success. When did capitalism become the bad guy? Okay, rant over, my bad. Didn't realize it was happening.

Anyway, how in the hell are the politicians we elected using us as the hostages? Aren't we supposed to be ruled by the people? Guess these are all rhetorical questions. Whatever. No matter how you slice it or what side you're on, this is bull****. The people need to take back this country. Listen to more Rage Against the Machine or something, I don't know what to tell you.

Asking to close tax loopholes and creating a more balanced tax code does not mean that the Dems are intentionally trying to victimize the rich. This is a bunch of baloney spread around by the right wing media that the Dems don't favor capitalism and want to penalize the rich for being successful. 'Class warfare' is practiced by politicians on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans do it by convincing people that asking a reform in the tax code that might even hint towards creating it more balanced across income levels equals demonizing of the rich and destroying capitalist ideals.

As far as your second paragraph, considering the percentage of wealth in the top bracket has risen by a godly percentage over the last few decades, it would have shown that the middle class and lower class have benefited just as much. Except they haven't. A tiny percentage of the population has seen its wealth go up by as much as 275%, while the rest have barely noticed any significant difference. Why?

[Henry]

Why again is everyone so okay with taxing the upper class. "**** the upper class, we just care about ourselves!" I just don't get it. It's not my money, it's not my place to say what happens to it. Where does all this hatred for the upper class spawn from!? Yeah, there are rich douchebags out there. Hell, I've met plenty of poor people that were more stuck up. There are also GOOD MEN that have money that got there from working their asses off. If the Dems are for robbing the rich and giving to the poor, why are all the rich, douchebag actors DEMS!? The richest, most overpaid people in this country are Dems. Hell, Romney himself could run for the Dems if he wanted to.

I just don't buy, or even remotely understand all this class warfare crap, just seems like an illusion to keep us all distracted to me. We're all on the same team, it's a chain...and the more rich people there are, the better off we all are. It's called opportunity. If you're in sales, don't you want ridiculously rich people coming in your store to blow money left and right and get you your commission!? Or we could just spend all day coveting what they have and punishing success. When did capitalism become the bad guy? Okay, rant over, my bad. Didn't realize it was happening.

Anyway, how in the hell are the politicians we elected using us as the hostages? Aren't we supposed to be ruled by the people? Guess these are all rhetorical questions. Whatever. No matter how you slice it or what side you're on, this is bull****. The people need to take back this country. Listen to more Rage Against the Machine or something, I don't know what to tell you.

This isn't about hating the upper class. It's not about deciding the upper class is undeserving of their status, or that everyone should have the same amount of money or anything else.

It's about being in a recession. You don't balance the budget during a recession. You can't raise taxes across the board. History has shown taking those actions only makes things worse ... much worse. What you do is you artificially prop up the economy with government spending until the recession ends and THEN you worry about the deficit. (if you are a Keynesian that's what you do. If you're not that's a debate for another thread.)

So, if you need to increase spending, temporarily, to help the economy work past the recession, and you've just unnecessarily blown up the deficit during the previous decade fighting wars while simultaneously lowering taxes (as someone said earlier, a colossally stupid thing to do) and you want to mitigate your debt while avoiding crippling the economy further by taxing everyone to hell, one solution is to tax only the people who can currently afford it. That would be the upper class. Then, when the economy stabilizes, you can raise taxes on the middle class as well, or lower the taxes on the upper class again. Or decrease spending. Or all three. Whatever.

Now opponents to a Keynesian approach will paint this as an attack on the rich and the job creators. That liberals are blaming the rich for their problems and that the only solution is to cut spending, or raise taxes across the board, because that's fair, and that's capitalism ... or something. Anything else is re-distribution of wealth and therefore communism.

I happen to think history proves that utterly incorrect. But whatever. The point is, calling this policy an attack on the rich is a deflection. It's not about the rich. It's about what to do while the economy is in the tank. So far we've done nothing and the economy is still sputtering while the deficit continues to skyrocket, so I don't think that's a great plan.

[Teller]

I'm surprised to see the name of the thread starter attached to something like this. IMO, this is what the Tailgate needs. More honest criticism of our "own" side. Respect.

[pointyfootball]

Wouldn't this hurt Obama's reelection chances? Seems to me the only thing Romney needs to run on is the economy, and if this idea was pushed, it would affect everyone.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I have to challenge the premise of this entire thing: if the Bush tax cuts expire, we fall of an economic cliff? Since when? I'm not saying its GOOD for the economy to raise taxes at this time, but why is that the same thing as the debt ceiling.

I just don't equate the US government defaulting on its debt - thus causing its bonds to become less valuable and interest rates to go through the roof, etc. etc. - with taxes being raised a couple percentage points.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I have to challenge the premise of this entire thing: if the Bush tax cuts expire, we fall of an economic cliff? Since when? I'm not saying its GOOD for the economy to raise taxes at this time, but why is that the same thing as the debt ceiling.

I just don't equate the US government defaulting on its debt - thus causing its bonds to become less valuable and interest rates to go through the roof, etc. etc. - with taxes being raised a couple percentage points.

When the 10 percent low tax bracket goes away, the child tax credits, SSI goes back to 6.2 percent up from 4.2 percent, you are going to see a huge negative jolt to people with lower incomes in particular.

The upper income folks will be just fine, really the danger here is anyone making under 1 M (which I beleive should be the threshold, not 250k) getting absolutley annahilated.

Going back to 1990s level taxation with 2012 cost of living is a recipe for disaster for many many people

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Why again is everyone so okay with taxing the upper class. "**** the upper class, we just care about ourselves!" I just don't get it. It's not my money, it's not my place to say what happens to it. Where does all this hatred for the upper class spawn from!? Yeah, there are rich douchebags out there. Hell, I've met plenty of poor people that were more stuck up. There are also GOOD MEN that have money that got there from working their asses off. If the Dems are for robbing the rich and giving to the poor, why are all the rich, douchebag actors DEMS!? The richest, most overpaid people in this country are Dems. Hell, Romney himself could run for the Dems if he wanted to.

I just don't buy, or even remotely understand all this class warfare crap, just seems like an illusion to keep us all distracted to me. We're all on the same team, it's a chain...and the more rich people there are, the better off we all are. It's called opportunity. If you're in sales, don't you want ridiculously rich people coming in your store to blow money left and right and get you your commission!? Or we could just spend all day coveting what they have and punishing success. When did capitalism become the bad guy? Okay, rant over, my bad. Didn't realize it was happening.

Anyway, how in the hell are the politicians we elected using us as the hostages? Aren't we supposed to be ruled by the people? Guess these are all rhetorical questions. Whatever. No matter how you slice it or what side you're on, this is bull****. The people need to take back this country. Listen to more Rage Against the Machine or something, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't hate the upper class at all. I guess technically, I am in the upper class though I don't really feel like it. But what you are ignoring is that those with the money make the rules. And what I do hate is the upper class acting as if they have been oppressed by the government or will be oppressed or "tread on" if their taxes go up. These are the people - in fact, I am a person - who donates to campaigns to get legislation that I want. I can't realistically say that I am being taken advantage of, and neither can any of the upper class.

Its like half of America just ignores the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

---------- Post added July-17th-2012 at 09:58 AM ----------

When the 10 percent low tax bracket goes away, the child tax credits, SSI goes back to 6.2 percent up from 4.2 percent, you are going to see a huge negative jolt to people with lower incomes in particular.

The upper income folks will be just fine, really the danger here is anyone making under 1 M (which I beleive should be the threshold, not 250k) getting absolutley annahilated.

Going back to 1990s level taxation with 2012 cost of living is a recipe for disaster for many many people

Is that the same thing as the US government defaulting on its debt?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Is that the same thing as the US government defaulting on its debt?

Sure when GDP contracts and you have far more people seeking public assistance because their take home pay is 5 percent less in 2013 then it was in 2012.

5 percent on a family of 4 making 50k is a huge hit

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Sure when GDP contracts and you have far more people seeking public assistance because their take home pay is 5 percent less in 2013 then it was in 2012.

5 percent on a family of 4 making 50k is a huge hit

C'mon... you have no idea what taxes going up those small percentage points are going to mean to people. You're telling me if taxes go up, people aren't going to cut back on their expenses, but instead are going to apply for public assistance?

Actually, here's a better one... you're telling me that people who are eligible for public assistance right now, aren't applying for it because their taxes are down? These people who see their taxes go up that you are talking about aren't automatically going to be eligible for benefits that they were never eligible for previously just because their taxes went up.

I'm sorry, the US gov defaulting on its debt is not the same thing as taxes going up.

[SkinsHokieFan]

C'mon... you have no idea what taxes going up those small percentage points are going to mean to people. You're telling me if taxes go up, people aren't going to cut back on their expenses, but instead are going to apply for public assistance?

Actually, here's a better one... you're telling me that people who are eligible for public assistance right now, aren't applying for it because their taxes are down? These people who see their taxes go up that you are talking about aren't automatically going to be eligible for benefits that they were never eligible for previously just because their taxes went up.

I'm sorry, the US gov defaulting on its debt is not the same thing as taxes going up.

I am saying people will have less money, and therefore there will be downward pressure on their spending power, which will lead to public assistance.

Again, the upper income brackets will be fine with taxes going up 3 percent. Its the lower incomes that will take huge hits with so many credits going away, SSI going back up and things just being that much more expensive.

People in these income brackets CAN'T cut back on their expenses because their expenses are the basics right now. A family of 4 making 50k a year isn't exactly taking vacations to Disney World every year

Simply put, if the fiscal cliff occurs the economy WILL contract and people in lower income brackets will take home less money. There is no doubt about those two assumptions

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I am saying people will have less money, and therefore there will be downward pressure on their spending power, which will lead to public assistance.

Again, the upper income brackets will be fine with taxes going up 3 percent. Its the lower incomes that will take huge hits with so many credits going away, SSI going back up and things just being that much more expensive.

People in these income brackets CAN'T cut back on their expenses because their expenses are the basics right now. A family of 4 making 50k a year isn't exactly taking vacations to Disney World every year

Simply put, if the fiscal cliff occurs the economy WILL contract and people in lower income brackets will take home less money. There is no doubt about those two assumptions

How does that first sentence work? How does people having less spending power put more people on public assistance?

[chipwhich]

People in these income brackets CAN'T cut back on their expenses because their expenses are the basics right now. A family of 4 making 50k a year isn't exactly taking vacations to Disney World every year

Simply put, if the fiscal cliff occurs the economy WILL contract and people in lower income brackets will take home less money. There is no doubt about those two assumptions

Funny how perceptions are when people are living in an area where things are unlike most of america. My cousin in Tennessee makes a pittance of an hourly wage working what I would consider a non career job. They just bought a new boat, a new truck. They have 5 cars, a family of four with 3 licensed drivers. They have a house and a mortgage. The family of four making under 50K isn't necessarily what you think it is.

[SkinsHokieFan]

How does that first sentence work? How does people having less spending power put more people on public assistance?

Easily, you can't afford the food you were eating, you may have trouble with your mortgage or rent now, you might not be able to afford day care.

Most public assistance is based on net, NOT gross income. Your take home pay is analyzed to see if you qualify. The take home pay of everyone will go down, and it will hurt more in lower income brackets because of the double whammy of the 10 percent bracket going up to 15 percent and SSI going from 4.2 to 6.2 percent. That is huge

[JMS]

How does that first sentence work? How does people having less spending power put more people on public assistance?

Because people with "less spending" leads to lower sales, which lead to lower production, which lead to fewer jobs; which lead to more people on public assistance.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Funny how perceptions are when people are living in an area where things are unlike most of america. My cousin in Tennessee makes a pittance of an hourly wage working what I would consider a non career job. They just bought a new boat, a new truck. They have 5 cars, a family of four with 3 licensed drivers. They have a house and a mortgage. The family of four making under 50K isn't necessarily what you think it is.

In TN my example would probably be 20k

But I do agree, my view of expenses is based on living in this area and becoming an adult in post bubble years

At my old company we had an office in Ft Worth Texas. The guys in that office made comprable to what I made.

They had 3,500 SQ ft homes with pools, 5 acres and 2 cars, no problem. Each of them told me if our VP asked them to move to DC, they'd need their salaries doubled.

---------- Post added July-17th-2012 at 10:21 AM ----------

Because people with "less spending" leads to lower sales, which lead to lower production, which lead to fewer jobs; which lead to more people on public assistance.

Said it much better then I could have

[JMS]

Look we have historic low income tax on the wealthy. Mitt Romney's paid 14.9% taxes on more than 100 million in earnings. Warren Buffet famously published that he paid a lower percentage of his income on a few billion in earnings than his secretary. Both of which are insane from a fiscal responsibility stance.

Given there is no formula where spending cuts alone will allow us to significantly impact the deficit; It only seems reasonable that we compromise and do a little bit of both. Cut the Defense budget significantly... Perhaps return to the days when we only spent as much as the next leading 16 world powers. We also raise taxes a little, and we trim a few social programs....

Ultimately what I would aim for is cutting the deficite maybe in half over the next few years, while reprioritizing spending upon infrastructure to enhance the economy. Then hopefully we can grow our way out of the rest of this economic cravas.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Look we have historic low income tax on the wealthy. Mitt Romney's paid 14.9% taxes on more than 100 million in earnings. Warren Buffet famously published that he paid a lower percentage of his income on a few billion in earnings than his secretary. Both of which are insane from a fiscal responsibility stance.

Given there is no formula where spending cuts alone will allow us to significantly impact the deficit; It only seems reasonable that we compromise and do a little bit of both. Cut the Defense budget significantly... Perhaps return to the days when we only spent as much as the next leading 16 world powers. We also raise taxes a little, and we trim a few social programs....

Ultimately what I would aim for is cutting the deficite maybe in half over the next few years, while reprioritizing spending upon infrastructure to enhance the economy. Then hopefully we can grow our way out of the rest of this economic cravas.

Agree. It is a simple matter of math and the math doesn't work without devestating consequences (i.e major across the board cuts or major tax hikes)

Simply gotta prevent the deficit from rising any higher on a GDP % and yea hope that we are able to grow out of it. It will be tough without some major technological innovation though

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Easily, you can't afford the food you were eating, you may have trouble with your mortgage or rent now, you might not be able to afford day care.

Most public assistance is based on net, NOT gross income. Your take home pay is analyzed to see if you qualify. The take home pay of everyone will go down, and it will hurt more in lower income brackets because of the double whammy of the 10 percent bracket going up to 15 percent and SSI going from 4.2 to 6.2 percent. That is huge

Because people with "less spending" leads to lower sales, which lead to lower production, which lead to fewer jobs; which lead to more people on public assistance.

I guess what I don't do is look at tax rates go up a few points, and then make the jump to more people on public assistance. I see the theory and logic behind what you are both saying, but each of those jumps from more taxes to less spending, from less spending to lower sales, from lower sales to lower production, from lower production to fewer jobs, and from fewer jobs to more people on public assistance is a very tenuous leap to me.

Again, I'm not saying raising taxes at this stage is a good thing, but to equate it to the government defaulting on its debt, or even playing the game of allowing the government to default on its debt is comparing apples to HUGE ORANGES.