Compromise on Taxes?

[Openmind]

Does this include eliminating all the Bush tax cuts that targeted the middle class, and actually made their overall percentage of taxes paid go down?

I believe that all Bush tax cuts should have been eliminated in last December. In fact, Obama's compromise on that issue (although I understand it as an effort to help the poor and the unemployed as well as the economy) is one of the decisions I totally disagree with him about.

He should NOT have compromised. . .he should have let ALL Bush tax cuts expired. ..even if later he reinstated some Obama tax cuts for income under $250,000.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe that all Bush tax cuts should have been eliminated in last December. In fact, Obama's compromise on that issue (although I understand it as an effort to help the poor and the unemployed as well as the economy) is one of the decisions I totally disagree with him about.

As I tried to point out... That would have resulted in shifting the tax burden away from the rich, you would be increasing the tax burden on the middle class and forcing millions of "poor" people to once again start paying taxes.

 

[BigRob]

I believe that all Bush tax cuts should have been eliminated in last December. In fact, Obama's compromise on that issue (although I understand it as an effort to help the poor and the unemployed as well as the economy) is one of the decisions I totally disagree with him about.

He should NOT have compromised. . .he should have let ALL Bush tax cuts expired. ..even if later he reinstated some Obama tax cuts for income under $250,000.

He didn't compromise...his campaign was based on "cutting taxes for 95% of working Americans", and that means extending the Bush Tax Cuts.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

He didn't compromise...his campaign was based on "cutting taxes for 95% of working Americans", and that means extending the Bush Tax Cuts.

It does not mean extending all of them...he never planned to drop all, but he planned to to drop the tax cuts for the richest...but he let that go so that your side would not force tons of Unemployed people into the streets.

we bargained for the people in need, you protected the rich and wealthy....

 

[BigRob]

It does not mean extending all of them...he never planned to drop all, but he planned to to drop the tax cuts for the richest...but he let that go so that your side would not force tons of Unemployed people into the streets.

we bargained for the people in need, you protected the rich and wealthy....

Talk about a total mischaracterization. In your opinion years of unemployment benefits is not enough? At what point does the line get drawn? When those on benefits have found a job?

And then this idea that losing your unemployment (if you were on the full time) means you are out on the street is laughable. If I was living in a $5,000 a month house and lost my income, I probably had some form of savings and could move to a far less expensive living scenario.

I would wager if you presented me with a dollar amount, I could come up with a budget to have a roof and food to eat with ease.

 

[Dr.Who]

Part of my training, and a great part of my job as a case manager for these populations was to access EVERY resource available, whether private or public, whether Federal (like IHSS, or HUD), State (like group homes for people with disabilities, State hospitals, and Medicaid eligibility), or County and totally private. The fact is that, while the private charities provide a nice "icing on the cake" which is not ALWAY monetary, by the way, but can be voluntering one's services also, it is absolutely clear that the diverse "public" resources offer the overwhelming bulk of the assistance, and that without it, these populations would be absolutely left to suffer.

My experiences are not all that different though my conclusions are.

The private charities are not at present able to offer large enough services but that is precisely because gov welfare has relegated them to the back burner. They COULD provide the services of the gov did not first take all the money away from people in the form of taxes and then compete on an uneven playing field as gov always does.

The fact is that before gov programs existed the needy of all types were cared for to the best of our techlogical ability and would be again. Gov thought it could do better and since has lagely driven away the private sector. But gov has done no better but it operates by first stealing funds.

 

[Openmind]

My experiences are not all that different though my conclusions are.

The private charities are not at present able to offer large enough services but that is precisely because gov welfare has relegated them to the back burner. They COULD provide the services of the gov did not first take all the money away from people in the form of taxes and then compete on an uneven playing field as gov always does.

The fact is that before gov programs existed the needy of all types were cared for to the best of our techlogical ability and would be again. Gov thought it could do better and since has lagely driven away the private sector. But gov has done no better but it operates by first stealing funds.

Sure, Let's go back to the "charitable" times of the early 20th century! It appears that the "poor house" and children orphanages were a wonderful place to raise a family!

By the way. . our tax system is VERY FAR from taking every penny we make! We currently have the lowest tax rates for decades, and it certainly hasn't help to increase the participation of charitable organizations in assuring that poverty diminishes!

All it has done is to make the top 1% wealthier, increase the number of poor people, and shrink the middle class. Not the trend I would prefer to see.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sure, Let's go back to the "charitable" times of the early 20th century! It appears that the "poor house" and children orphanages were a wonderful place to raise a family!

When I mentioned technological advances I assumed you would understand that because progress has been made we would do things better this time.

You do understand that, right?

By the way. . our tax system is VERY FAR from taking every penny we make! We currently have the lowest tax rates for decades, and it certainly hasn't help to increase the participation of charitable organizations in assuring that poverty diminishes!

Not all. But enough to discourage charitable giving.

Why would a person give a dollar to a charity when it only lowers his tax bill by 30 cents? Well, a lot of people do anyway but they know they are being taken advantage of. A dollar for dollar deduction would increase charitable giving by a lot.

(I have been thinking recently that it would be better to give $3 to reduce my taxes by $1 if it meant starving the beast.)