Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
The democrats are getting to roll out a $1 trillion dollar plan. The republicans are going to call it a tax increase. and to an extent they'd be right.
The democrats are going to say it's just an offset plan, and to an extent they'd be right too.
The issue is the 'Alternative Minimum Tax' that is about to shaft millions of middle class taxpayers due to bracket creep. Both the democrats and republicans agree that this has to be taken care of (ie. eliminated). However, the democrats insist on offsetting the lose of revenues with new taxes. The leaked plan calls for the rich, single taxpayers with incomes over $100k and married taxpayers with incomes over $200k to be hit with a 4% pre-tax surcharge. All well and good and perfectly in keeping with the democratic policy of 'sticking it to the rich.' This is computed to recover $100 billion/year over the next 10 years.
And this is where it gets sticky. IF the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, which they will if a democrat wins the white house in '08, only $300 billion need be recovered. So this is, in reality, a $700 billion tax hike. The republicans have a point. But, because it is intended to offset 'lost' revenues, the democrats can argue that point with equal force.
The real problem is that the Bush tax cuts have given the collection of tax revenues a shot in the arm far beyond expectations. But this has been known for years. Tax cuts, up to a point, have always led to increased tax receipts. And the deficit is shrinking faster than originally projected even in the face of the Iraq expenses.
And tax increases have always led to a slow down in the economy and consequently tax receipts.
Congress, both democrats and republicans, seem to be so addicted to spending that the thought of just making the AMT go away hasn't crossed their minds. It seems to be beyond their grasp that a reduction in spending is just as effective as increasing taxes when it comes to deficit control.
It also hasn't occured to them that as inflation continues to erode the value of the dollar that their solution only sets a new threshold to be dealt with when a married couple making $200k a year is only mid-middle class. I'm sure that those numbers may seem like heady stuff to the youngsters on the board, but those numbers are within your future.
And the whole 'stick it to the rich' mantra may sound like a good idea today, but may not have as sweet a sound in your future.
Ishmael
The democrats are going to say it's just an offset plan, and to an extent they'd be right too.
The issue is the 'Alternative Minimum Tax' that is about to shaft millions of middle class taxpayers due to bracket creep. Both the democrats and republicans agree that this has to be taken care of (ie. eliminated). However, the democrats insist on offsetting the lose of revenues with new taxes. The leaked plan calls for the rich, single taxpayers with incomes over $100k and married taxpayers with incomes over $200k to be hit with a 4% pre-tax surcharge. All well and good and perfectly in keeping with the democratic policy of 'sticking it to the rich.' This is computed to recover $100 billion/year over the next 10 years.
And this is where it gets sticky. IF the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, which they will if a democrat wins the white house in '08, only $300 billion need be recovered. So this is, in reality, a $700 billion tax hike. The republicans have a point. But, because it is intended to offset 'lost' revenues, the democrats can argue that point with equal force.
The real problem is that the Bush tax cuts have given the collection of tax revenues a shot in the arm far beyond expectations. But this has been known for years. Tax cuts, up to a point, have always led to increased tax receipts. And the deficit is shrinking faster than originally projected even in the face of the Iraq expenses.
And tax increases have always led to a slow down in the economy and consequently tax receipts.
Congress, both democrats and republicans, seem to be so addicted to spending that the thought of just making the AMT go away hasn't crossed their minds. It seems to be beyond their grasp that a reduction in spending is just as effective as increasing taxes when it comes to deficit control.
It also hasn't occured to them that as inflation continues to erode the value of the dollar that their solution only sets a new threshold to be dealt with when a married couple making $200k a year is only mid-middle class. I'm sure that those numbers may seem like heady stuff to the youngsters on the board, but those numbers are within your future.
And the whole 'stick it to the rich' mantra may sound like a good idea today, but may not have as sweet a sound in your future.
Ishmael
I don't mind paying a LITTLE more than my share but it's getting ridiculous to expect me to pay that much more.
