Author Topic: debt ceiling  (Read 15333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2013, 07:21:14 AM »
it's never O's fault  :runaway:

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85185
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2013, 07:41:47 AM »
I'm really the only one that knows what's going on. You all have reading comprehension problems and are absolute morons so shut up.   :rolleyes:

 :lol:

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2013, 07:55:50 AM »
True or false:  The deficit is pretty much just the government covering our asses because we import more than we export.

(I know nothing about this, including the relationship between the debt and the deficit.)

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2013, 09:34:55 AM »
Republicans really have Obama over the barrel here. They've passed legislation to spend the money so Obama legally has to spend the money. They say they won't let him borrow the money that they've voted to spend.

So Obama can break the law and not spend money on certain government functions or he can break the law and borrow money to avoid breaking the law.

What Kenya do?

Is this money congress appropriated through the budget Obama signed?

Why are you so hung up on having an omnibus budget? Why is that so important to Republicans? You do realize Congress still has to authorize all spending to be executed by the executive branch right?

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2013, 11:35:16 AM »
Here's something I need someone to explain to me because I probably don't have enough background on this to speak intelligently...

When I hear Conservatives discussing taxes, they say they don't want increased rates, but they want to limit deductions and simplify the tax code.  In theory, I'd rather just know that I'm going to pay X percent of my income at the federal and state level and be done with it.  I get my W2, plug a little data into an online form that would take about five minutes, and then I'd get my return pretty quickly.  Seems efficient.  It would also make me less confused about my own personal finances because I'm always paranoid that making an investment, moving money, etc. is going to trigger some sort of tax or I'm going to miss a deduction.  So, overall, I'm on board with this for the most part.

But what I don't get is how this doesn't fall under a "tax increase".  I get all kinds of deductions and tax credits for certain types of interest rates, having kids, buying green stuff, etc.  But by eliminating deductions, I'm increasing my taxable amount, therefore, I'm paying more in taxes.  My rates may not go up at all, but I'm ultimately paying more, right?  If I pay off all of the interest on my house, and I can't claim a deduction on it, then my taxable dollars go up, and I pay more in taxes.

I'm sure some brain trust somewhere has estimated the revenue difference in eliminating current deductions and credits vs. raising rates, and I'd be interested to see what the numbers are.  But I guess I'm just not understanding how the Grover Norquists of the world are cool with paying more in taxes if the rates are low and deductions and credits are limited/eliminated vs. paying more in taxes via rates but adjusted overall via deductions and credits.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2013, 11:45:51 AM »
Here's something I need someone to explain to me because I probably don't have enough background on this to speak intelligently...

When I hear Conservatives discussing taxes, they say they don't want increased rates, but they want to limit deductions and simplify the tax code.  In theory, I'd rather just know that I'm going to pay X percent of my income at the federal and state level and be done with it.  I get my W2, plug a little data into an online form that would take about five minutes, and then I'd get my return pretty quickly.  Seems efficient.  It would also make me less confused about my own personal finances because I'm always paranoid that making an investment, moving money, etc. is going to trigger some sort of tax or I'm going to miss a deduction.  So, overall, I'm on board with this for the most part.

But what I don't get is how this doesn't fall under a "tax increase".  I get all kinds of deductions and tax credits for certain types of interest rates, having kids, buying green stuff, etc.  But by eliminating deductions, I'm increasing my taxable amount, therefore, I'm paying more in taxes.  My rates may not go up at all, but I'm ultimately paying more, right?  If I pay off all of the interest on my house, and I can't claim a deduction on it, then my taxable dollars go up, and I pay more in taxes.

I'm sure some brain trust somewhere has estimated the revenue difference in eliminating current deductions and credits vs. raising rates, and I'd be interested to see what the numbers are.  But I guess I'm just not understanding how the Grover Norquists of the world are cool with paying more in taxes if the rates are low and deductions and credits are limited/eliminated vs. paying more in taxes via rates but adjusted overall via deductions and credits.

I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85185
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2013, 12:04:40 PM »
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53677
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2013, 12:08:14 PM »
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I know a guy like this. Big time doctor who made big time money.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2013, 12:16:55 PM »
Here's something I need someone to explain to me because I probably don't have enough background on this to speak intelligently...

When I hear Conservatives discussing taxes, they say they don't want increased rates, but they want to limit deductions and simplify the tax code.  In theory, I'd rather just know that I'm going to pay X percent of my income at the federal and state level and be done with it.  I get my W2, plug a little data into an online form that would take about five minutes, and then I'd get my return pretty quickly.  Seems efficient.  It would also make me less confused about my own personal finances because I'm always paranoid that making an investment, moving money, etc. is going to trigger some sort of tax or I'm going to miss a deduction.  So, overall, I'm on board with this for the most part.

But what I don't get is how this doesn't fall under a "tax increase".  I get all kinds of deductions and tax credits for certain types of interest rates, having kids, buying green stuff, etc.  But by eliminating deductions, I'm increasing my taxable amount, therefore, I'm paying more in taxes.  My rates may not go up at all, but I'm ultimately paying more, right?  If I pay off all of the interest on my house, and I can't claim a deduction on it, then my taxable dollars go up, and I pay more in taxes.

I'm sure some brain trust somewhere has estimated the revenue difference in eliminating current deductions and credits vs. raising rates, and I'd be interested to see what the numbers are.  But I guess I'm just not understanding how the Grover Norquists of the world are cool with paying more in taxes if the rates are low and deductions and credits are limited/eliminated vs. paying more in taxes via rates but adjusted overall via deductions and credits.

Because "simplifying the tax code" is a scam. Rates will be lowered and paid for by closing loopholes. People are OK with this because it means higher effective taxes for a year or two before those loopholes start coming back. Reagan simplified the tax code and did away with a bunch of deductions, almost all of them are now back.

The actual tax rate structure is as simple as it can be in a progressive system. It only gets complicated when you try to take advantage of the loopholes. Someone could treat all income as ordinary and could do their taxes quite easily. They'd overpay by a shitload do that though.

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2013, 12:17:59 PM »
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

Yeah, it is pretty incredible how wrong that is, and how widespread that belief is.  I also think it is a belief that many right-wing politicians would like to perpetuate among the stupid.  I can't say that I knew any better until I took an econ class in college.  I just figured that if you made enough to be in tax bracket X, you paid percentage X on all of your income.
:adios:

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2013, 12:20:48 PM »
Can someone tell me why politicians do things like the Bush tax cuts and make it so they expire after 10 years?  Why not just make them "permanent" (as they now supposedly are), with the understanding that they could be changed again in a few years?  Why eff around with an expiration date?  I understand it is basically for political jockeying, but it seems to create a bunch of unnecessary bullshit.
:adios:

Offline 'taterblast

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16725
  • Hi, I'm James McGill.
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2013, 12:31:57 PM »
politicians ... unnecessary bullshit.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2013, 12:34:37 PM »
Can someone tell me why politicians do things like the Bush tax cuts and make it so they expire after 10 years?  Why not just make them "permanent" (as they now supposedly are), with the understanding that they could be changed again in a few years?  Why eff around with an expiration date?  I understand it is basically for political jockeying, but it seems to create a bunch of unnecessary bullshit.

Because of how backloaded the tax cuts were. Without an expiration date the tax cuts blew up the deficit beyond 2010, Republicans didn't want to advertise that so put in a sunset provision believing they they would go back later and quietly extend them after the trickle down worked its magic.

I do laugh at the "permanent" thing as well.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20446
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #38 on: January 10, 2013, 12:50:31 PM »
Can someone tell me why politicians do things like the Bush tax cuts and make it so they expire after 10 years?  Why not just make them "permanent" (as they now supposedly are), with the understanding that they could be changed again in a few years?  Why eff around with an expiration date?  I understand it is basically for political jockeying, but it seems to create a bunch of unnecessary bullshit.

yeah, basically so the CBO score will be more reasonable.

Offline Domino

  • One by One
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2013, 02:04:25 PM »
True or false:  The deficit is pretty much just the government covering our asses because we import more than we export.

(I know nothing about this, including the relationship between the debt and the deficit.)

Partially, but it's not the main driver. Tax rates were overall much higher in the past, which helped quite a bit. Further, we export $1.8 trillion while importing $2.2 trillion.

Also, the 60s were the greatest decade of growth in terms of the economy. Some people who don't follow politics that much are really surprised when I tell them this.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2013, 03:24:17 PM »
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.

Offline Rams

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3384
  • Worst poster on this board by far
    • View Profile
Re: Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2013, 04:01:55 PM »
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.
someone should tell your sister in law that she's not paying any income taxes. that should cheer her up.
"Son. This is why we are wildcats. Hard work, pride, the heart of this country. And if that's not enough for you, you can just move to California with your punk friends."

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2013, 04:05:00 PM »
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.
someone should tell your sister in law that she's not paying any income taxes. that should cheer her up.

I've almost done that a few times, but I was slightly worried that they might actually be paying like 1% or something and that could come back to bite me. Also, I'm a very nice person in real life, so I try to just ignore her. It's not like she would believe me if I told her that, anyway.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2013, 04:25:01 PM »
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.

Assuming they take the standard deduction and claim the kids their effective tax rate is about 5.3 percent. This assumes they don't have health insurance, aren't contributing to a retirement plan, have no other deductions because they're poor etc.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2013, 07:14:17 PM »
This might be the lowest iq thread ever in the history of goEMAW (and I didn't even look at the cartoon).

NK, 06, Domino, other like minded (read ignorant or thoughtless) morons, you should know that the anecdotal hearsay you've provided to denigrate your own "kin" will likely serve as someone else's anecdote about how clueless the average Joe and/or democrat is on this topic. The only difference is that someone else might actually have a chance of understanding what the hell they are criticizing.

Pease stop. I feel like I'm reading a blog on how to avoid bankruptcy authored by MC Hammer. You're humiliating yourselves. Go read a book, or learn how to dig a trench or something.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2013, 07:24:43 PM »
This might be the lowest iq thread ever in the history of goEMAW (and I didn't even look at the cartoon).

NK, 06, Domino, other like minded (read ignorant or thoughtless) morons, you should know that the anecdotal hearsay you've provided to denigrate your own "kin" will likely serve as someone else's anecdote about how clueless the average Joe and/or democrat is on this topic. The only difference is that someone else might actually have a chance of understanding what the hell they are criticizing.

Pease stop. I feel like I'm reading a blog on how to avoid bankruptcy authored by MC Hammer. You're humiliating yourselves. Go read a book, or learn how to dig a trench or something.

What economics books have you read?  What are some examples of fundamental mistakes people are making?  (Keep it short and simple since these are fundamental mistakes.)

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2013, 07:31:08 PM »
This might be the lowest iq thread ever in the history of goEMAW (and I didn't even look at the cartoon).

NK, 06, Domino, other like minded (read ignorant or thoughtless) morons, you should know that the anecdotal hearsay you've provided to denigrate your own "kin" will likely serve as someone else's anecdote about how clueless the average Joe and/or democrat is on this topic. The only difference is that someone else might actually have a chance of understanding what the hell they are criticizing.

Pease stop. I feel like I'm reading a blog on how to avoid bankruptcy authored by MC Hammer. You're humiliating yourselves. Go read a book, or learn how to dig a trench or something.

What economics books have you read?  What are some examples of fundamental mistakes people are making?  (Keep it short and simple since these are fundamental mistakes.)

 :excited:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2013, 07:47:38 PM »
I'm currently breezing through "The Economics of 2 - 4 = No Problem; why my Cousin Might be a Red Neck" by Jeff Foxworthy
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2013, 08:08:38 PM »
I'm currently breezing through "The Economics of 2 - 4 = No Problem; why my Cousin Might be a Red Neck" by Jeff Foxworthy

I have no idea whether or not this is a serious answer.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: debt ceiling
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2013, 08:13:56 PM »
I'm currently breezing through "The Economics of 2 - 4 = No Problem; why my Cousin Might be a Red Neck" by Jeff Foxworthy

sounds like a tool of the liberal media.
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite