phuqueue wrote: Austerity is terrible policy in a weak economy (see: Europe's experience over the past three years), but if we're tripping over ourselves to pass it anyway, our priorities in so doing should make sense.
Geez, the one time Republicans want to follow Europe's lead, and it makes no sense. Austerity has worked great in Europe! Let's tackle the deficit while so many are still out of work!
but it is really difficult to find deductions of significance to close down without hurting the middle class and effectively raising taxes on a portion of them
Hate to disappoint you but raising taxes on the rich plus expenditure cuts plus growing the economy still, in the long run, will not be enough to get the job done. Sooner or later the middle class will be hit with tax rate increases and loss of deductions/credits. That is if anyone truly wants a balanced budget.
I agree with you, but this is the difference between short term and long term solutions. Finding a bit of revenue now is a way to placate those with a lust for reducing our debt (or slowing its growth) and to discourage sitting idly by. It is a way to be more responsible than we have been without stalling our recovery. In the long run, taxes and ending of deductions for all will have to be put on the table, but now is just not the time to let our debt drive our economic policy.
If middle class is to be below $250,000 then here are a few tax increases that go into affect 1/1/13 that affect the middle class.
Income max for Social Security tax raised from $110,100 to $113,700.
Allowance for medical deductions raised from 7.5% to 10%.
Flexible spending accounts maxed at $2,500 instead of a higher amount that might be $5,000.
A new 3.8% income tax on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000.
An increase of .9% on the Medicare payroll tax for individuals making more than $200,000.
but it is really difficult to find deductions of significance to close down without hurting the middle class and effectively raising taxes on a portion of them
Hate to disappoint you but raising taxes on the rich plus expenditure cuts plus growing the economy still, in the long run, will not be enough to get the job done. Sooner or later the middle class will be hit with tax rate increases and loss of deductions/credits. That is if anyone truly wants a balanced budget.
I agree with you, but this is the difference between short term and long term solutions. Finding a bit of revenue now is a way to placate those with a lust for reducing our debt (or slowing its growth) and to discourage sitting idly by. It is a way to be more responsible than we have been without stalling our recovery. In the long run, taxes and ending of deductions for all will have to be put on the table, but now is just not the time to let our debt drive our economic policy.
I don't think anyone truly wants a balanced budget. The best we can hope for is changing the trajectory of the budget from unsustainable to sustainable. Once we get gdp growth back to normal and not due to whatever the next bubble is going to be, the middle class taxes will start to revert to 1990's levels, either through tax rates or eliminating deductions. I don't think that will happen for 10 years.
Has anyone ever seen this video, i guess its banned from the Ted Website for being to political. This guy is basically saying the Middle Class Consumer is the job creator and not the rich people
Highlander wrote:Not to deviate to much from the topic at hand but has anyone here seen "Lincoln"?
I think those that do will find politics today (and probably other points in our history) are eerily similar to what they were back in 1865.
Saw the movie this afternoon. It is interesting to see how politics is played and how a president can use his powers, in this case" the end justifies the means".
Here’s an even more disturbing thought – scientists currently believe that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old because radioactive substances decay at generally stable rates. Accordingly, by observing how much of a radioactive substance has decayed, scientists are able to determine how old that substance is. However, if the Earth is only 9,000 years old, then radioactive decay rates are unstable and subject to rapid acceleration under completely unknown circumstances. This poses an enormous danger to the country’s nuclear power plants, which could undergo an unanticipated meltdown at any time due to currently unpredictable circumstances. Likewise, accelerated decay could lead to the detonation of our nuclear weapons, and cause injuries and death to people undergoing radioactive treatments in hospitals. Any of these circumstances would obviously have a large economic impact.
