Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
As we get closer to Christmas, I begin to worry more about the “fiscal cliff” than I do about what gifts to buy.
If we don’t extend the tax cuts for the 98 percent (me), I’ll probably be paying close to $150 a month more in taxes.
I believe I can manage it, although I’ll have to stop eating out monthly. I already cut cable and other monthly bills I can do without. I’m not sure how some of my neighbors who have children will fare.
If the middle-class income is $53,000 in Nevada, that doesn’t leave much wiggle room to make cuts. I hope one day the middle class can be strong enough again to sustain higher taxes, but meanwhile I think it would be devastating to many families.
The rich, or top 2 percent, can afford it. I would love to make $250,000 a year or more even if I got taxed more. I know the rich don’t think it’s fair, but please remember that even with 4 percent less a month, they’re still way better off than most people.
Michelle,
The questions are:
1. Whats does the increase in tax revenue accomplish? Is it to reduce the deficit or more government spending?
2. How will we ever balance our budget with a tax increase that equals only 7% of our total deficit($1,100 billion - $82 billion = $1,018 billion)? We will see red ink on our federal budget forever without either raising taxes on all income earners or cutting federal spending.
3. Without closing tax loopholes, you'll get lower than expected tax revenue receipts. Tax reform is the better way to go. The UK increased its tax rate on top wage earners netting less tax revenue, not more(see link below).
4. Finally, the Tax Foundation reviewed Obama's tax plan and concluded the following:
"The loss in GDP and incomes from the president's tax plan would be widely shared. Every income group would experience at least a 2.6% decrease in after-tax income from reduced wages and earnings on savings. Tax increases on capital formation harm labor by reducing productivity, wages, and employment. Tax decreases on capital raise productivity, wages, and employment.Low-income taxpayers (those earning less than $50,000) are shown to suffer a roughly $75 to $1,100 decrease in after-tax income as a result of the tax program, on a dynamic basis, even though these filers face no initial tax cuts on a static basis. For them, nearly all the reductions in income are due to a weaker economy and lower wages and hours worked."
Michelle, increasing tax rates on top wage earners was good politics during the election season but contributes little to increased tax revenue and, according to the Tax Foundation, lowers our GDP and negatively impacts lower income groups due to lower wages.jobs and hours worked. According to the Tax Foundation, for every $1 the plan would raise, GDP would fall by more than $10 which is a poor trade-off.
One last note. We know you are likely a democratic supporter because some of us read other newspaper website's "letters to the Editors". The link below shows a letter from a Michelle Booth slamming republicans. Could there be more than one Michelle Booth in Las Vegas who writes Letters to the Editors to local Las Vegas newspapers? Sure, but I suspect it's likely the same person.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/harry-reid-s...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/perso...
Being unable to afford Christmas gifts isn't the end of the world. It is a time to get creative. Giving from the heart doesn't cost anything, and it is transforming.
A couple of suggestions...
1) Make Christmas gifts from scratch.
2) Re-purpose anything that had been forgotten.
3) Change the purpose of Christmas for the family and give heart and time to others. Volunteer in some activity that gives/serves those in a worse state financially or with physical disabilities or illness.
4. Those with children can teach them that Christmas is more than receiving. Santa Claus is a model of giving.
5. Buy one present for each person on you list, within your budget.
6. For Christians, it is a time of celebrating the gift of God, giving his Son for the redemption of humanity.
I'm sure you can think of other ways to share Christmas in a meaningful way that doesn't depend on money. This is a golden opportunity to break from the commercialization that Christmas has become for many.
Over the lean years in my life, I have done all the things I suggested and they were the best Christmas' ever.
PS Christmas should be about joy, love and peace, not money or politics. It is up to each individual to find those dispositions within themselves and share them with others.
I agree with the letter writer in theory. Not in reality. If increasing taxes is the real answer, then all should be increased, not just the top 2 percent. But it's not. Can't you see what the President is doing? He wants to get the GOP fingerprints on tax increases NOW so he has them on the line in 2014 for the mid terms along with the Dems. It's pure politics. And Obama is a master at it.
CarmineD
Americans want $10 worth of government but only want to pay $6.50 .
After getting Obama re-elected hopefully non-Fox media will take their kneepads off and ask Obama some tougher questions like:
1) How much will his tax the rich plan help the ease the deficit?
2) Why is he still in campaign mode?
3) Why is he planning on $200 billion more in stimulus spending when he's been telling us for the past 12 months how the economy has been growing?
Well the President does not care
The increase in middle class taxes will fuel more spending by Obama
Obama has no intention to cut spending
House republicans have already put on the table revenue from the rich but Obama will not reduce taxes.
---
Obama and Democrats campaigned for two years on $800 billion in revenue on the back of the 2% of job creators AND $2,400 billion in spending limits for a total of $3.2 trillion. At least that is what Obama knowingly lied about during the debates with Romney, in campaign ads and on the stump.
Now Obama is FAILING AMERICA. Obama and Democrats are RENEGING on their 2012 campaign promise to make a three to one (3-1) spending cuts to revenue increases as part of the balanced approach.
The GOP finds themselves in an uncomfortable position. They are being forced to decide an issue that only benefits 98% of us. And while they are familiar with the economic woes of the 2%, they have shown little empathy for the rest of us. They will need to do some real soul searching here and, as Steven Colbert suggests, they may even find one.
The Democrats find themselves in an uncomfortable position. The are being asked to reduce spending for the good of the country but they are refusing to address SS and Medicare
I agree with both Jim Weber and Future. Dems and Reps are both in precarious political straits. And there are some uncertain factors besides the Americans' opinions NOW on whose right and wrong and whose to blame. They are both [Dems/President and Reps]on slippery slopes if they think the cliff dive is the answer.
CarmineD
Weber lets try this again. How much of the deficit will be cut by taxing the 2%? $83 Billion? Whats Obama going to cut. Where's the 3-1 ratio? Why does he need another stimulous since the economy is doing so good. Come on Jimmy, you voted based on this when does it get implemented or are you just not going to hold your party accountable?
The republicans are destroying the middle class, they are an endangered species.
Michelle Booth,
There are many things we cannot control in Washington. The fiscal cliff issue is one them.
There are certain realities in play that you can expect. (1)The Senate bill extending the Bush Tax Cuts will be voted on by the House of Representatives. The question is when? Either this year (before or on, 12/31/2012) or early next years, 21013, before the first paychecks are cut.
So, even though you have no control, or input, on the fiscal cliff decision makers, expect your taxes not go up, and if tax do go up, taxes will not stay up. If there is no agreement on the fiscal cliff in 2012, there surely will be an agreement early in 2013. All relevant information point to an agreement on extending the Bush Tax Cuts for 98% of Americans. This includes you and your family.
Carmine: Obama is not proposing a tax hike on anyone. The tax hike is automatic and bipartisan. Obama is proposing a tax cut on the first $250k that 100%of Americans earn but not offering that on money over $250k Republic are rejecting this offer because it doesn't extend a new tax cut to the uber rich, whom they are beholden to.
Freeman: Rejecting taxing the wealthy because it doesn't solve the entire problem, only some of it, is like saying stop researching cancer until you come up with a cure.
CreatedEQL,
Unfortunate analogy since I'm currently battling brain cancer. No offense taken, you were just trying to make a point.
If you're happy with $82 billion in increased tax revenue when we require much more to balance the budget then okay.
Here we go again. Whining, wailing and complaining about having to pay your "fair share" so those in the pig sty known as Washington, D.C. can waste it on non-essential drivel like $105 million to Brazil so they can build a swimming pool complex. Or so they can enact more laws restricting our basic freedooms such as "Obamacare." Or add 600,000 to the food stamp rolls in one month. Shame on you, Booth. You're "unpatriotic." Now go stand in the corner!
While campaigning for the presidency in 2000 GW Bush said, if elected, he would cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Why? Because such tax cuts would lead to long term prosperity for the nation as a whole, not just for the lucky one-percenters. Bush believed in the theory called 'supply side' economics.
Now here we are, twelve years and $1.6 trillion later. The rich got their tax break in 2001 and another in 2003. Obama even extended the cuts for two additional years to appease the obstructionist GOPers in Congress.
The theory has been tested -- thoroughly and completely. And it's been a dismal failure by any measure.
Defeated by reality, the GOP argument has changed. No longer do they claim the trickledown tax cuts were about job creators having extra money to expand business and hire new workers. Now the excuse to keep what was planned as a temporary program has been re-branded. It's about 'fairness', not jobs or long term prosperity.
Trickledown voodoo economics is dead. It's only clueless republicans who haven't figured that out yet.
Long laments "There are many things we cannot control in Washington. The fiscal cliff issue is one them"
really?
What is amazing is that Obama signed all the laws that have created the current need to address the fiscal crisis and to increase the debt ceiling.
First - the Bush tax rate extension until Jan 2013 was passed by Reid and Pelosi and signed by Obama Dec 2010.
Second - Obamacare which raise $600 billion in new middle class taxes was passed by Reid and Pelosi and signed by Obama March 2010.
Third - the trillion dollar sequester bill was fostered and then signed by Obama in 2011.
Fourth - Obama begged for and got the payroll tax 2.3% roll back three years in a row costing $120 million per year.
And the original grand bargain deal with the House to raise taxes by $800 billion was nixed by Obama. Now post-election Obama is doubling the revenue demand to $1.6 trillion and still rejecting elimination/capping deductions and loopholes.
---
This is simple to fix
Republicans have given in on revenue
Obama must give in and met his campaign pledge of spending limits in growth including reforming Medicare
This is easy
Republican have committed to not recess until this is done
Where is the Democrats commitment
LastThroes,
We were in recession then AND the savings rate dropped from an average of 8% in the early 90's to 2%-3% in the early 2000's. The Bush tax cut plan originally passed by Republicans were designed to put more money in consumers hands to keep the economy from going into a deeper recession. The Bush tax cuts benefited more lower and middle income wage earners including single mothers and the elderly than the rich.
* 46 million married couples received an average tax cut of $1,716.
* 34 million families with children received from an average tax cut of $1,473.
* 6 million single women with children received an average tax cut of $541.
* 13 million elderly taxpayers received an average tax cut of $1,384.
* 23 million small business owners received tax cuts averaging $2,042.
* 3 million moderate-income families saw their income tax burden eliminated entirely.
Also, the Bush tax cuts brought in more tax revenue, not less.
LastThroes, if the Bush tax cuts didn't help any lower or middle income earners then you would hear Obama say he wants *all* the Bush tax cuts rescinded.
Additionally, there were 136 million Americans working in 2001 and 145 million Americans working in 2008 which is an increase of 9 million jobs before the recession. Bush averaged maintaining 62%-64% of our population working. And Obama? He started with 59.3% and now has only 58.7% of our population working.
LastThroes, you need a better understanding of how jobs are created, the economy and the effects of fiscal policy on each.
Future and Chuck assume facts not in evidence:
"Now Obama is FAILING AMERICA. Obama and Democrats are RENEGING on their 2012 campaign promise to make a three to one (3-1) spending cuts to revenue increases as part of the balanced approach."
and
"Where's the 3-1 ratio? Why does he need another stimulous since the economy is doing so good."
I say:
The election shows that the country is split almost perfectly 50/50. One dollar of cuts for one dollar of revenue is the starting point.
Not sure what sort of scale you use, but what I proposed has BALANCE. One that has 3 dollars for your point of view, but has one dollar for mine seems, you know, UN-balanced. Your side has had their thumbs on the scale for too long, time for real conversation.
If you can PROVE to me that an IMBALANCE is better for America, I'm all Ross Perot. You have shown nothing but shallowness thus far.
"Carmine: Obama is not proposing a tax hike on anyone. The tax hike is automatic and bipartisan. "
@ Created EQL
Poppycock. Not extending current tax rates/payroll tax cuts on a targeted class of taxpayers is a tax hike, pure and simple. To do so [raise taxes on the 2 percent], is neither automatic and/or bipartisan. It's cold calculated Presidential politics in the worst extreme. By a President who said doing so [increasing taxes], just a year ago when growth was better than it is now, would hurt the economy.
CarmineD
How much does the average 50K family pay in taxes. Almost nothing! When they're done writing off their kids, medical expenses, mortgages, sales taxes there is nothing left for the federal government to take.
I wouldn't worry too much about a middle-class tax hike.
It's time to see the very rich 2% pay up. They have contributed far less than what they should have contributed over the last 10+ years......
It should be very evident to each & all....tax breaks for the rich has NOT created jobs! "supply side economics" doesn't work!
We can not cut back on the deficit with out the "fat cats" paying more....
I continue to be amazed, no shocked, how the "pay check to pay check" republicans on this board continue to come out against a tax increase for the top 2%.
To me, that's a perfect example of what might be called "voting against one's own best interests."
Maybe Bill Maher was right when he said "there's two kinds of Republicans........the rich one's & the stupid ones."
El Lobo,
The math doesn't add up.
current deficit $1,1 trillion -
New tax revenue from Obama tax plan = $82 billion
Lowers deficit to $1,01 Trillion
Three choices to close or budget deficit.
1. Taxes need to go up on every tax payer
2. Cut government spending
3. Or a combination of 1 & 2
We're still waiting for Obama's details on government spending cuts. You know, the "Balanced Approach".
The 'balanced approach' includes more stimulus spending to the tune of $200 billion. Comical. Must be more losers to pick.
Given our debt, deficit, and prolifigate spending, tax increases are a foregone conclusion no matter which major party gets its way regarding the "fiscal cliff".
The only real questions are will spending be significantly cut in conjunction with the tax increases (or are we going to continue to run up our debt & deficit), and, what are we going to do about reforming the entire system to get government onto a sustainable track?
Obama needs the money to feed the government parasite, There is no end to that in sight.
So far, people criticizing this op-ed have responded with points that aren't really relevant, and in many cases aren't factually correct.
#1 - The question of how much 100 billion dollars in tax revenues will affect the deficit wasn't part of Michelle's point. The point is that tax increases on 98% of Americans will HURT!
#2 - The notion that people making $50K/Yr don't pay taxes anyway is absurd. A single mother of two making $24K/yr will pay $1600 more per year if the tax cuts expire. You see, child deductions will be cut in half. Lower tax brackets will go away. Education tax credits will be reduced..., etc. etc.
This is plain and simple people. CUT TAXES FOR 98% OF AMERICANS... DON'T BE JERKS.
Justin,
Obama is using the Union's go-to tactic of extortion. Obama says he won't sign legislation without a tax hike on the top wage earners. Obama is not a dictator. Extortion is forcing people to give up something or face a painful outcome. The Mafia "protection rackets" are extortion schemes. They tell a shop owner that she needs to pay them $100 a week so they can "protect" the shop owner from criminals who might demolish the shop or hurt the family -- the implication being that the Mafia members themselves are these criminals. Extortion or protection? The mafia made it sound so good, "I'll protect you and your business". In Obama's case it was "Give me higher taxes on top wage earners or I'll hurt the middle class with tax hikes" which nobody wants. Obama lacks negotiating skills and this whole process will likely sour the prospects of bi-partisanship during the rest of Obama's lame duck term.
Michelle.......Very good letter.
YES, you're 100% correct.
The top 2% can easily afford the the Bill Clinton
tax increase.
And the 98% still can't afford the tax increase
yet because greedy republicans sent our good
paying jobs to COMMUNIST CHINA.
WE NEED GOOD PAYING JOBS, JOBS JOBS, TO FIX
THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR MIDDLE CLASS THAT
REPUBLICAN GREED CAUSED.
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
RefNV.........
You republicans lost the election and your
no tax BS.
You fool no one here.
You're out-numbered on this.
THE MAJORITY HAS ALREADY SPOKEN.
TAXES WILL GO UP ON THE TOP 2%.
Your slave-masters will make out just fine.
teamster,
Unions lost in Michigan. Michigan is now a right-to-work state. Now, workers have a right to not pay union dues that end up supporting political candidates a worker doesn't support politically. Unions were outnumbered in Michigan and the majority have spoken. Union dues will drop 40% which means less money for political activities. A real kick in the pants, isn't it?
RefNV.......
Heartless republicans already got their kick in
the pants.
WE DEMOCRATS WON THE WHITE HOUSE AND SENATE.
From this point on, greedy republicans will always
be riding in the back seat, where they belong.
The TEAMSTERS UNION was here before you were born
and will be here after you're gone.
Republican snakes will never run this country
again.