Dear Speaker Boehner, I’d like to purchase a new refrigerator. Would you please help me understand your logic on this issue?
First, I need a job, a second job. There are those who make more than $250,000 per year and perhaps one of those would hire me so that I could buy that appliance. If taxes increase on the middle class next year, my $2,000 share will help balance the federal budget, but will it help me buy that appliance and will it help encourage someone to hire me? No, of course it will not.
I speculate that there are others in my same situation. Are you saying that if the individual who might have to pay 35 percent on income over $250,000 instead of 19 percent would not make enough money to interest them in hiring me and others and therefore they will not launch some new venture? Or are you saying that if they can save the difference between 35 percent and 19 percent (here, let’s say 16 percent on $100,000) they can hire someone to make that refrigerator in the US and not in China? 65 percent on $100,000 is plenty enough to stimulate me! Why not them?
Seems to me that the problem is not stimulating people earning more than $250,000 to hire and invest. Sure they would have a bit less available if they paid more taxes. But the problem is that I can’t purchase the new appliance in my current situation. It’s not a supply side problem that we face.
There are plenty of refrigerators.
Dale Whiting
CHANDLER
downtownresident posted at 10:04 am on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
Dale,
I wouldn't expect any help from the Beener, unless you're on his list of major contributors
Everyone hoping for the shutdown stands to gain in some way or is so rich it will have no effect on them.
You could give the top 5% of tax payers another tax break and it still would not stimulate the economy. The extra money would just go to the bank and sit.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:21 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
Dale,
What you don't want to pay your fair share? If all our taxes go up would that not be according to the rule of equality according to our constitution?
sockratties posted at 12:37 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
The increase in taxes on those who earn more than $250k is an income tax. If the money is invested, thus maybe creating jobs, it will not be subject to income tax. The tax should actually encourage investment by the wealthy. That's why some of our more prosperous periods, such as the Clinton era, have been when income taxes on the wealthiest were highest.
truth posted at 3:19 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
Dale.Your facts are farthest from the truth. I ask you to try to recall President Obama who earned somewhere around $800,000.00 paid just under 20% in federal taxes. Twit Romney who earned around $20,000,000.00 paid under 8% federal taxes. The Caymen Islands is the worlds sixth largest financial center, with $1.6 trillion in officially booked international assets. Numerous private equity and hedge funds haver their normal headquarters there in order to avoid U.S. taxes and financial disclosure regulations.
truth posted at 3:25 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
Tax payers reporting less than $50,000.00 in income provide 19% of the money given to charity, but receive only 5% of tax write-offs for donations according to the Congressional Budget Office. About 70% of Americans do not have enough deductions to itemize on their returns, so the vast majority of charitable deductions go to the wealthy. The Washington Post
Dale Why don't you try to deduct a $90,000.00 deduction for your wifes pleasurable riding horse, as Twitt Romney was able to.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:52 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
So it would appear that we all agree!
John Boehner if full of crock. Let's stop voting for Neoconservatives! We moderate, old time conservatives have had it up to here with the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party maniacs! Where is Theodore Roosevelt when we need him. We all still benefit from and enjoy his dam on the Salt River east of Apache Junction. Let's bring back his politics.
P.S. It's it amazing that in this Red State, the poll on whose fiscal cliff avoidance plan is best is neck and neck? Who'd have ever thought it!
Dale Whiting posted at 3:54 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
P.P.S. Guys, My original piece was too long to be accepted. So I had to leave your ideas off. Thanks for chiming in, though.
Rich posted at 6:21 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
Are you saying that if the individual who might have to pay 35 percent on income over $250,000 instead of 19 percent would not make enough money to interest them in hiring me and others and therefore they will not launch some new venture? Given the circumstances, yes that's pretty much it. If over the last four years Obama had built some stability into things, it might be different, but he hasn't and no one bets into such a massive uncertainty as he represents.
Or are you saying that if they can save the difference between 35 percent and 19 percent (here, let’s say 16 percent on $100,000) they can hire someone to make that refrigerator in the US and not in China? Actually, until Obamacare has taken full effect, and it can be gauged, nobody in their right mind is going to do that.
As to the financial cliff, falling off it is best and that choice isn't there. Both plans are economic slow death, and the whole 'cliff' scenario is just a ploy to frighten the sheeple. We need to rein things in before the situation is irrecoverable, and both parties want to spend our way out of it declaring apres moi. It's easy to call something a dead heat when you only list the place horses.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:05 pm on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
No, Rich, it's much simpler.
Trickle down economics has been thoroughly disproven. It may have worked in the 1980's when the only place money could be invested safely was in the US. But now any trickling down is likely to float boats moored in harbors in China or India, or even Vietnam. Boehner's argument is a thinly disguised rehashing of trickle down, supply side economics. Reaganomics was created by my Econ Prof, Murray Weidenbaum of Washington University in St. Louis. I got an A from Murray, but challenged his theories. I was proven correct, while Murray was proven wrong. And Boehner is just sounding off as he is paid to sound off by the Koch’s.
Rich posted at 7:44 am on Mon, Dec 17, 2012.
Dale,
Nothing in economics has been either thoroughly proven, or disproven. Trickle down, statistically worked well for longer than anything else ever has. And you've changed the subject again, as you so often do when facing something that breaks down your argument.
Basically let me try again. Taxes smaxes, the Obama administration has created too great an instability in our economic system for any intelligent investor to invest in this country.
VofReason posted at 3:34 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.
The premise here is that if the Government get's more of anyone's money then all problems will be erased? Why, because they have proven at any time that they spend money wisely? That the next dollar they get will go to paying down the debt? What exacly do you think raising taxes on anyone is going to do well for the economy or the debt? Liberals, sorry old moderate conservatives that only side with Democrats and the far Left Presdient, always tell us why rich people are so bad for wanting to keep more of their money, but never can quite explain what will happen with the additional taxes. Especially in light of the fact that even if they could get everything they want in tax increases, we are still 1.2 trillion in deficit yearly and the Obama administration want to spend more?
VofReason posted at 3:35 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.
Or is it just to punish evil rich people?
Cerulean posted at 6:17 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.
I recently read on one of these posts something like “When the unemployment rate goes above 7% then tax on the wealthy should increase. When the unemployment rate drops below 5% then the tax rate should drop.”
I can’t find the post again but who ever said it, I think you are wise.
Dale, I think you are wise too.
Accuracy posted at 12:07 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Dale Whiting’s question: “Are you saying that if the individual who might have to pay 35 percent on income over $250,000 instead of 19 percent would not make enough money to interest them in hiring me and others and therefore they will not launch some new venture?”
--------------------------------------------
No, read House Speaker John Boehner’s proposal again . . . It is to allow the Bush tax rates to expire for those making more than $1 million a year – legislation that would raise tax rates on household income above $1 million a year – but keep tax rates status quo for everyone else.
Boehner’s answer to the News Media: “Making sure we protect 99.81% of Americans from a tax hike.”