[CNBC] S&P contacts White House to notify about a downgrade coming

This was the huge opportunity missed.

A fundamental change to entitlements (and I think needed) was missed. I think a lot of the far right missed the big picture and threw Obama's offer under the bus without realizing what a big opportunity this was. I have to give the guy credit - he probably would have been considered a "traitor" bymany of his constituents. All because we were unwilling to let some tax cuts expire.

Raising the entitlement age in exchange for some higher tax rates would have been very "fair" in my opinion even under normal circumstances. Considering our budget woes - I think this was a no brainer. Damnit - i think i might vote for him in 2012

 

Higher tax rates are not a no brainer. Nobody is hiring and higher tax rates would only exacerbate that. "Hey we really need you to hire more and by the way we are gonna jack up your taxes. Thanks."

Economic growth and entitlement reform are the only way to shrink the deficit.

 

Barack tried to unite Washington under the banner of Change.

The Republicans decided to catch that banner on fire in act of partisanship and in the process burned down the country's credit rating and ignited the next global recession.

Barack's only mistake was including Republicans.

 

Explain to me how that justifies capital gains tax being at 15% when most financing flows are flowing outward to the most yielding nations and not the United States (ex: Asia)?

Or how the top 1% of Americans pay what is effectively a 18% tax rate?

Or corporations that pay sometimes negative tax rates?

Or corporations that say they'll hire, but will wait it out until the economy turns it around, hoarding resources in liquid reserves that, if taxed and spent, would have turned the economy around?

 

Major, don't you realize that "Balanced" to these people means liberal stalin commie?

Don't you realize that bi-partisan means leftist pig to these folks? I mean, seriously, why do people even engage them anymore, they are just wasting your energy.

I mean, these fools are scaring the middle of the country so let them just do their thing and look like fools.

 

Myth. For the top 1% of wage earners in this country, show me the hiring they are personally doing that they wouldn't do if you removed some of the (extreme) Bush tax cuts. Pls?

 

QFT..

It's quite obvious to anyone paying attention.

 

Where did you get the 18% from? That doesn't sound right.

 

Spoiler

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzner/2011/07/25/the-400-richest-americans-pay-an-18-tax-rate/

 

err, you know 400 richest Americans are not the same as top 1% right, or do you just like to make stuff up?

 

Forreal, there are a little over 3 million people in the top 1% and those other 3 million people probably are taxed at an even lower average rate.

 

fine, replace top 1% with 400, and where does that leave us?

Repeat: The top 400 richest Americans, who own more than 60% of the bottom half of America in terms of net worth, and for all intents and purposes should be considered emblematic of the top 1% who get many of their profits/income taxed at a 15% capital gains tax rate, are paying an effective 18% tax rate.

Do you just like to nitpick?

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/richest-americans-see-income-share-grow

Adjust for the fact that that is 2006 figures, and it keeps on declining, and the fact that it doesn't include various tax breaks---18% is a completely reasonable number.

 

Actually there is very little in common between billionaires and two doctors making 500k w-2 income living in the city. Not nitpicking, they are two very different groups.

 

So instead of stating the facts, now we are making up "reasonable" numbers

 

Not such a big difference if you average it out---comes out to 22.8% in 2006, without tax breaks figured in, and not factoring in yearly declines. For me, that's an effective 18% tax rate across the board.

Now, with that said, I would further specify a split between the top 0.5% of individuals who get their money mostly through financial manipulation and the bottom 0.5% of which would include high-powered, and hard-working doctors and attorneys---workhorses of the top 0.5% who earn their money well.

The numbers say the two groups are paying about the same (maybe obscured partially by the fact that the top 0.5% has so much more than even the bottom 0.5%?), but I have more sympathy for the latter group. That isn't to say however, that I have any less sympathy for the child who has to go without food aid or a properly funded school, or the uninsured patient who dies of an easily cured disease.

In short, everyone needs to suffer a bit to balance a budget. For some, notably the top 0.5%/financial speculators who have had way too much lately, this statement has never applied, and never will, unless people realize what they are getting away with.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

In 2007, it was 19%. Most recent numbers available to my knowledge.

Really, at this point, you're arguing just to argue.

This isn't a doctoral defense. If you have a problem with reasonable extensions of logic, and trends, we can keep it at 19%.

Can you care to explain to me how less shocking it is that the top 1% pay an effective 19% tax rate on their income rather than 18%?

 

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?height=360&embedCode=B5YXhwMjrm98287UODqhAUEG43ssl7lC&video_pcode=k4Nmw6Cri746xA2OsoSlngyrIudg&width=480&deepLinkEmbedCode=B5YXhwMjrm98287UODqhAUEG43ssl7lC"></script>