Should The GOP Surrender To Obama On Tax Policy?

TeddyBallgame

Time Out
Mar 30, 2012
522
0
16
- in her column on Wednesday, Ann Coulter makes a persuasive argument that the GOP in congress should let Obama have his way in regard to tax policy including allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse at year end for the highest income group that creates 25% of the jobs in American society.

- I remain of two minds on this issue.

- On the one hand I understand Coulter's argument that it is past time to ensure that the voters come to blame Obama for the tepid American economy and that the way to accomplish this is for the GOP in congress to allow the president to continue and extend his disasterous policies and therefore remove any further pretexts however flimsy that could allow Obama to continue into the next millenium to blame Bush, Europe, bad weather, the heartbreak of psoriasis, etc. rather than his own incompetence for the lousy economy. And I would also argue that the president won the election (however dodgy some of the results in some of the inner city precincts were) and so he deserves a chance to continue to implement his program as he described it to the voters during the election campaign.

- But on the other hand, GOP and other congressional members were not sent to Washington as mindless ciphers to robotically voter, North Korean assembly style, for every dictate of Dear Leader no matter how destructive such dictates may be but rather to vote, based upon their consciences and their best judgement, for those policies they believe are best for the country.

- So should the GOP in congress surrender to Obama on tax policy as Coulter recommends?

Economy & Budget
Make the Democrats own the Obama economy

By: Ann Coulter

11/28/2012 06:51 PM


One bright spot of Barack Obama’s re-election was knowing that unemployment rates were about to soar for the precise groups that voted for him — young people, unskilled workers and single women with degrees in gender studies. But now the Democrats are sullying my silver lining by forcing Republicans to block an utterly pointless tax-raising scheme in order to blame the coming economic Armageddon on them.
Democrats are proposing to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for everyone … except “the rich.” (Why do only tax cuts come with an expiration date? Why not tax increases? Why not Obamacare? How about New York City’s “temporary” rent control measures intended for veterans returning from World War II?)
Raising taxes only on the top 2 percent of income earners will do nothing to reduce the deficit. There’s not enough money there — even assuming, contrary to all known history, that the top 2 percent won’t find ways to reduce their taxable income or that the imaginary increased government revenue would be applied to deficit reduction, anyway.
Apart from Obamacare, it’s difficult to think of a more effective method of destroying jobs than raising taxes on “the rich.” This isn’t a wealth tax on useless gigolos like John Kerry — it’s an income tax on people who are currently engaged in some profitable enterprise. Their business profits, which could have been used to hire more employees, will instead be used to pay the government.
But Republicans are over a barrel. Unless Republicans and Democrats reach an agreement, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. By pushing to extend the tax cuts for everyone except “the rich,” Democrats get to look like champions of middle class tax cuts and Republicans can be portrayed as caring only about the rich.
And when the economy tanks, the Non-Fox Media will blame Republicans.
The economy will tank because, as you will recall, Obama is still president. Government rules, regulations, restrictions, forms and inspections are about to drown the productive sector. Obamacare is descending on job creators like a fly swatter on a gnat. Obama has already managed to produce the only “recovery” that is worse than the preceding recession since the Great Depression. And he says, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”
The coming economic collapse is written in the stars, but if Republicans “obstruct” the Democrats by blocking tax hikes on top income earners, they’re going to take 100 percent of the blame for the Obama economy.
You think not? The Non-Fox Media managed to persuade a majority of voters that the last four years of jobless misery was George W. Bush’s fault, having nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.
The media have also managed to brand Republicans as the party of the rich, even as eight of the 10 richest counties voted for Obama. And that doesn’t include pockets of vast wealth in cities — Nob Hill in San Francisco, the North Shore of Chicago, the Upper East Side of Manhattan and the Back Bay of Boston — whose residents invariably vote like welfare recipients. Seven of the 10 richest senators are Democrats. The very richest is the useless gigolo.
Republicans have a PR problem, not an economic theory problem. That doesn’t mean they should cave on everything, but seeming to fight for “tax cuts for the rich” is a little close to the bone, no matter how tremendously counterproductive such taxes are.
Yes, conservatives can try harder to get the truth out, but as UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose has shown, media bias already costs Republicans about 8 to 10 points in elections. Try arguing a year from now that Republicans’ refusal to agree to tax hikes on the top 2 percent of income earners — resulting in an expiration of all the Bush tax cuts — had nothing to do with the inevitable economic disaster.
Republicans have got to make Obama own the economy.
They should spend from now until the end of the congressional calendar reading aloud from Thomas Sowell, Richard Epstein, John Lott and Milton Friedman and explaining why Obama’s high tax, massive regulation agenda spells doom for the nation.
Then some Republicans can say: We think this is a bad idea, but Obama won the election and the media are poised to blame us for whatever happens next, so let’s give his plan a whirl and see how the country likes it.
Republicans need to get absolute, 100 percent intellectual clarity on who bears responsibility for the next big recession. It is more important to win back the Senate in two years than it is to save the Democrats from their own idiotic tax plan. Unless Republicans give them an out, Democrats won’t be able to hide from what they’ve done.
Even Democrats might back away from that deal.
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
It is the representatives duty to carry out their constituents wishes. Other than tea partyers do republicans really wish to destroy the country? Because that is exactly what republicans are doing by blocking legislation and firing employees because they didn't vote to give more to the top 1%.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
It is the representatives duty to carry out their constituents wishes. Other than tea partyers do republicans really wish to destroy the country? Because that is exactly what republicans are doing by blocking legislation and firing employees because they didn't vote to give more to the top 1%.


That's a loaded question... A strong argument can be made that details how the Dems policy is already doing exactly that.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Risk vs Reward.

If the gvt moves to limit the possible rewards, then one should fully expect that fewer and fewer groups will assume the potential risks.

That said, if this body of wealthy investors seek high reward opportunities; they will channel their money to those jurisdictions that don't put a cap on their potential returns; this is simply competition as it relates to the investment sector.... IF this happens, their investment dollars will go to benefiting those communities where the investments are made rather than in America.

The action/reaction relationship on this issue is pretty straight-forward
 

TeddyBallgame

Time Out
Mar 30, 2012
522
0
16
Risk vs Reward.

If the gvt moves to limit the possible rewards, then one should fully expect that fewer and fewer groups will assume the potential risks.

That said, if this body of wealthy investors seek high reward opportunities; they will channel their money to those jurisdictions that don't put a cap on their potential returns; this is simply competition as it relates to the investment sector.... IF this happens, their investment dollars will go to benefiting those communities where the investments are made rather than in America.

The action/reaction relationship on this issue is pretty straight-forward

- Captain ... Your argument seems solid and even unassailable to me so the question is whether or not the GOP in congress should let Obama have his way even though they know that it will negatively impact on new investment and job creation and thereby cause even more suffering, particularly among the disadvantaged groups who naively supported Obama.

- As well, as you suggst here, it is likely that the government will collect much less in net new tax revenues than they are expecting.

- Here is a cautionary tale of what happened in The Kingdom of UK a few years ago when Brown's Labour (socialist) government raised taxes specifically on the rich. Mind you, the Obama increase will have a somewhat more muted impact because it is not of the same magnitude/percentage but nonethless it will hurt an already weak economy and employment situation.

- I'm still unsure whether the GOP should surrender on this or fight it to minimize further economic carnage by the obamination currently in power.

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate
Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed.



By Robert Winnett

6:47PM GMT 27 Nov 2012


In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.




However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.
Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.
Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.
“Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax and come clean about whether they would reintroduce this failed policy if they were in power.”
Mr Osborne argued earlier this year that the 50p rate was deterring entrepreneurs from coming to Britain.
The Chancellor wanted to scrap the top rate altogether for those earning more than £150,000 a year – and return to the previous system of a basic and top rate of tax.
This was blocked by the Liberal Democrats without a new mansion tax being introduced.
Labour will hold a parliamentary debate today to criticise the decision to reduce the top rate, which Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has described as a “tax cut for millionaires”.
Senior Coalition figures are locked in negotiations over next Wednesday’s Autumn Statement which will set out government tax policies for next year.
The Tories wish to freeze out-of-work benefits. The handouts usually rise in line with inflation, which has meant that the unemployed are likely to receive a higher rise than most workers can expect.
It is understood that the Lib Dems will only allow the benefits freeze if taxes on the rich are increased.
The Lib Dems have long cherished an increase in taxes for multi-million pound properties. David Cameron has ruled out changes to council tax.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,362
14,510
113
Low Earth Orbit
Taxes or wait for investments to cash in? Which is best for the US economy? There are less and less options as the months and years roll by as they squabble. It's going to take soild investment, taxes and huge spending cuts. When you're ****ed, you're ****ed and ONLY sacrifice will turn things around.

I don't think the "we're ****ed" aspect has fully sunk in yet in America.
 

TeddyBallgame

Time Out
Mar 30, 2012
522
0
16
It is the representatives duty to carry out their constituents wishes. Other than tea partyers do republicans really wish to destroy the country? Because that is exactly what republicans are doing by blocking legislation and firing employees because they didn't vote to give more to the top 1%.

- TS ... One school of thought is that it is the representatives' duty to carry out their constituents' wishes in which case elected GOP representatives must oppose Obama's tax increase because this is what they ran and were elected on. The other Lockian school of thought is that a representative owes his constituents not just his industry but his wisdom, knowedge, experience and judgement and should vote according to these dictates.

- While I hold no brief for The Tea Party and believe they unwittingly succeeded in handing the election to Obama, it is ridiculous to suggest that a voluntary political movement formed to restore the country to its basic constitutional, political and financial principles wants to destroy the country.

- Your understanding of what is at stake seems faulty to me. First of all it is not the top 1% but the top 3% of income earners, secondly this top 3% creates and employs 24-25% of American workers, thirdly it is not a matter of giving more to the top 3% but of allowing these folks to continue to pay the same rates they have been paying since Bush put these cuts into effect and fourthly the economy is already teetering on the brink.

- Perhaps you can answer a question for me that Obama dodged in his first debate with Romney (you may remember Mitt the hard hearted, cold blooded, predatory, vulturous capitalist prick who paid no taxes for ten years, killed the wives of factory workers in plants he callously closed, etc., etc., etc. ... he's the guy Obama has invited to a private lunch today in the White House dining room). Romney quoted Obama from just two years before explaining why he did not then allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse for the top 3% (i.e. those with family incomes above $250,000) by saying that in a slow economy it is not the time to raise ANYBODY'S taxes. Then, Mitt asked Obama why now was a good time to do this since the economy and employment were recovering weaker this year than last year and last year recovered weaker than the year before when Obama made his no tax increases statement. Could you take that one on behalf of Barry? Thank you in advance.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,946
2,773
113
New Brunswick
That you take Coulter's opinion on anything as valid raises the actual question of just how ignorant are you?

In any event, if the GOP do sit back and let Obama do whatever he wants to me that's more like children sulking after their tantrum (ie, losing the vote). Both sides need to work together to solve the issues.

Honestly I don't expect a majority of Republicans to play nice at all but rather stamp their feet, hold their breaths, sulk, and do any other manner of childish behaviors just so they can ruin America.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
- Captain ... Your argument seems solid and even unassailable to me so the question is whether or not the GOP in congress should let Obama have his way even though they know that it will negatively impact on new investment and job creation and thereby cause even more suffering, particularly among the disadvantaged groups who naively supported Obama.

In many respects, it doesn't matter who the leader is or which party is in power - all that matters are the economic policies they pursue... As it happens, I fully disagree with the policies outlined by Obama and the Democrats.

As you pointed-out in the experience that the UK went through; the capital fled the country when the policy to raise taxes on one select group were handed down.

The Americans should look to the tax changes that France's President has invoked... Crushing taxes on those that make in excess of 1 million Euros. In fact, I was reading in yesterday's newspaper that the world's largest steel mfgr will be shutting down one of their plants in Northern France. Hollande has stepped in to stop it, but it is looking more and more like the plant will have to be nationalized in order to make that happen. If the French gvt can't make it happen, it will devastate that local economy

The message here is that there is a finite point wherein the private sector will look for greener pastures elsewhere.

That said, should the GOP bow-down on this?

I don't have an answer... By giving-in, they run the risk of expediting the fleeing of capital out of the country; but by digging in their heels, they act only to prolong the situation.

Obama seems to being not interested in giving in at all (so much for working together), so the decision is in the hands of the Reps.


Taxes or wait for investments to cash in? Which is best for the US economy? There are less and less options as the months and years roll by as they squabble. It's going to take soild investment, taxes and huge spending cuts. When you're ****ed, you're ****ed and ONLY sacrifice will turn things around.

I don't think the "we're ****ed" aspect has fully sunk in yet in America.

The reality that over 1/2 of the US working population don't pay fed income taxes still exists as the elephant in the room.

No doubt that taxes need to be raised AND spending programs cut - but raising taxes on teh group that is contributing the most to the revenue base is playing a game of chicken.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,362
14,510
113
Low Earth Orbit
Why is Coulter concerned about single women who have degrees in Gender Studies?

Tired of being prodded, poked at and observed as a confusing case study?

If she has all the answers, why didn't she run for office?

The reality that over 1/2 of the US working population don't pay fed income taxes still exists as the elephant in the room.

No doubt that taxes need to be raised AND spending programs cut - but raising taxes on teh group that is contributing the most to the revenue base is playing a game of chicken.

They need a GST. Plain and simple. Fed flat taxes have saved more economies than not.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Deep cuts in entitlements is what is needed. Even if they tax the wealthy at a higher rate it still won't be enough.

Are the Democrats willing to cut entitlements (real cuts) to their base? We shall see but I am doubtful.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Deep cuts in entitlements is what is needed. Even if they tax the wealthy at a higher rate it still won't be enough.

Are the Democrats willing to cut entitlements (real cuts) to their base? We shall see but I am doubtful.

Well in the past the Democrats claimed to be willing to make spending cuts to attack the deficit/debt as long as the GOP was willing to accept tax hikes. The GOP has a chance to see if the Dems were bluffing or not.

Honestly at this point they need both but the Tea Party in particular seems to believe the rhetoric that Americans pay too many taxes already and are more highly taxed than any of their democratic compatriots (which they are not).
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I am a senior and if some government started or ended or passed it off in idle conversation that
they were going to cut pension benefits, they would not even have me consider them for a vote.
In Canada we have Old Age Pension and CPP Canadian Pension Plan. the CPP I paid for on
my payroll taxes and on my own. No way in hell would I take a cut. As for seniors pension, no
I wouldn't take kindly to that being cut either.
In America they are being sold nonsense. They were sold a bag of goods when Ronnie Reagan
began his tax cuts and deregulation. The rich got the benefit and everyone else paid. Taxes
were kept low and in time the bridges the roads and other infrastructure fell apart along with the
programs that people wanted. Now is the time to belly up to the bar and pay tax increases to
pay for the free ride they have had. If you increase taxes as you go and pay in current time
dollars its cheaper than waiting twenty years and trying to do catch up.
Entitlements are usually for the middle class and below so many want these people to take the
hit for either what they paid for or what they are paying for now. Cut the military, cut the
incentives for people to ship jobs off shore, increase taxes where applicable and end the loopholes
on current tax breaks where possible. Also put regulations into place to police credit card companies
from throwing cards out to people who can catch them but not pay them
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
- TS ... One school of thought is that it is the representatives' duty to carry out their constituents' wishes in which case elected GOP representatives must oppose Obama's tax increase because this is what they ran and were elected on. The other Lockian school of thought is that a representative owes his constituents not just his industry but his wisdom, knowedge, experience and judgement and should vote according to these dictates.

- While I hold no brief for The Tea Party and believe they unwittingly succeeded in handing the election to Obama, it is ridiculous to suggest that a voluntary political movement formed to restore the country to its basic constitutional, political and financial principles wants to destroy the country.

- Your understanding of what is at stake seems faulty to me. First of all it is not the top 1% but the top 3% of income earners, secondly this top 3% creates and employs 24-25% of American workers, thirdly it is not a matter of giving more to the top 3% but of allowing these folks to continue to pay the same rates they have been paying since Bush put these cuts into effect and fourthly the economy is already teetering on the brink.

- Perhaps you can answer a question for me that Obama dodged in his first debate with Romney (you may remember Mitt the hard hearted, cold blooded, predatory, vulturous capitalist prick who paid no taxes for ten years, killed the wives of factory workers in plants he callously closed, etc., etc., etc. ... he's the guy Obama has invited to a private lunch today in the White House dining room). Romney quoted Obama from just two years before explaining why he did not then allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse for the top 3% (i.e. those with family incomes above $250,000) by saying that in a slow economy it is not the time to raise ANYBODY'S taxes. Then, Mitt asked Obama why now was a good time to do this since the economy and employment were recovering weaker this year than last year and last year recovered weaker than the year before when Obama made his no tax increases statement. Could you take that one on behalf of Barry? Thank you in advance.

TO start with I think it was foolish of george the lesser to give the rich tax cuts. IMO it was just a payoff for votes. Next: The US is not really much better off than Greece and sacrafices are going to have to be made. Most probably small tax increases all down the line except for the very bottom of the economic ladder. Either that or higher sales taxes of some kind. On top of this there MUST be significant spending cuts. Many of these cuts will involve military spending at some point.
Even governments cannot keep spending beyond their means. Taking a cash advance on one maxxed out credit card to make the minimium payment on another maxxed out card is no way to run an economy.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Surrender??? I didn't realize that the Dems had the Reps at gun point. Things are much more heated than I thought down there. :lol:
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have never and will never work for the benefit of society. Only the wealthy elite benefits from that. After 30 years, this truth has finally become evident to the majority of Americans. The wonder is, why did it take so long for people to realize this truth???
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I sure do get a kick out of everyone that leans on the notion of 'tax cuts to the rich' as if as if paying 48% in combined income tax is a huge savings from paying 50% previously.... In the end, it's still a sh*tty deal that leverages one tiny % of the population to pay through the nose for political promises for the 50+% of the pop that pays no fed income taxes at all.

... And gopher, before you point at guys like Buffet that paid less taxes than his secretary - ask if the secretary donated a few billion to charity as an offset against their income. Despite the various loopholes and capital gains bennies, offsetting donations against income is the biggest 'trick/loophole' that is used to give to a charitable org rather than gvt.

I'm guessing that the secretary probably didn't kick 10 figures into their favorite charity
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have never and will never work for the benefit of society. Only the wealthy elite benefits from that. After 30 years, this truth has finally become evident to the majority of Americans. The wonder is, why did it take so long for people to realize this truth???

That is not necessarily true. It now costs less for me to phone to Europe than it did to call Vancouver in the 60's. Plane fares are also much lower than they were.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
That is not necessarily true. It now costs less for me to phone to Europe than it did to call Vancouver in the 60's. Plane fares are also much lower than they were.

Whether we like it or not, there was a time that the only debt facilities available to the general public were home mortgages... Now, you can finance the purchase of an iPhone if you need to... Hell, people would save for a long time in order just to purchase a car, now anyone can go out with a few hundred dollars in their jeans and (with proof of income) finance a new vehicle.

That said, this is also one of the reasons that costs have escalated.