-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
10 Dec 2012, 10:00 am
Fate; the definition of negotiation is "Discussion to bring about some result".
What you think is negotiation might more clearly be defined as "give and take", which can be part of negotiation, but need not be part of negotiation.
Obama doesn't have to resort to "give and take" because the repercussions for failing to accept his proposals are likely to be far more serious politically for the republicans. He knows it, and the republicans know it. Therefore he can wait.
Based on the numbers of republicans who've publicly stated that the tax increase is going to have to be accepted, its likely he's going to get what he wants. That's a successful negotiation.
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
10 Dec 2012, 10:52 am
So this brings it to what I had said earlier. There are two possibilities at this point:
Republicans can agree with the President, and go against their base; or
Republicans can abstain, and let the Dems have their way.
Either way, it will be the Presidents plan apparently. (My way or the Highway)
As for me, I choose the highway...
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
10 Dec 2012, 11:52 am
rickyp wrote:Fate; the definition of negotiation is "Discussion to bring about some result".
What you think is negotiation might more clearly be defined as "give and take", which can be part of negotiation, but need not be part of negotiation.
Obama doesn't have to resort to "give and take" because the repercussions for failing to accept his proposals are likely to be far more serious politically for the republicans. He knows it, and the republicans know it. Therefore he can wait.
I hope he listens to you. I really do. Nothing says "leadership" like failing to make any offer or do anything but dismiss the opposition. That's been his MO and I don't think he's capable of changing.
A new poll conducted by Politico/GWU/Battleground finds that 76 percent of Americans favor "Cutting government spending across the board."
Fifty-nine percent of Americans registered to vote strongly favor the "across the board" cuts and 17 percent "somewhat" favor the cuts. Only 13 percent strongly oppose "across the board" spending cuts, and 10 percent "somewhat" oppose the cuts. Two percent are unsure.
The President supports virtually no cuts. So, if anyone is at odds with the American people, it's him.
Based on the numbers of republicans who've publicly stated that the tax increase is going to have to be accepted, its likely he's going to get what he wants. That's a successful negotiation.
It's got to carry the House. Senators don't vote there--so Graham, Corker, etc., can say whatever they want.
We have a President determined to spend us into oblivion. Great news!
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
10 Dec 2012, 12:56 pm
Actually, some of the greatest leaders were those noted for not compromising. Churchill and Thatcher spring to mind. If 'leadership' is just about compromising or following popular whim, then anyone can do it (and few of them would actually be effective military leaders).
Despite Brad's fetish for them, 'across the board cuts' are attractive but only until people see the effect. Most people don't actually realise what the effect would be on themselves, as they assume that they do all the paying and none of the getting. The 'getting' is indirect often. Cuts should be carefully targeted and made with a view to avoiding a hit to GDP or an increase to unemployment.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
10 Dec 2012, 2:37 pm
danivon wrote:Actually, some of the greatest leaders were those noted for not compromising. Churchill and Thatcher spring to mind. If 'leadership' is just about compromising or following popular whim, then anyone can do it (and few of them would actually be effective military leaders).
True.
Dictators often don't compromise either. He fancies himself above the law, so I'm not surprised. He seems more than willing to decimate the economy.
Cuts should be carefully targeted and made with a view to avoiding a hit to GDP or an increase to unemployment.
I'd be up for that, if the tax increases would also be so carefully considered. Instead, what the President warned against two years ago is suddenly the salvation of the economy.
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
21 Mar 2013, 2:17 pm
In my annual attempt to get people to personalize the policies of the country: it's tax time again. Anybody done? How'd you do? Did you pay your fair share, or were you robbed?
-
- Archduke Russell John
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
21 Mar 2013, 7:06 pm
Got a refund. Not sure what my % was.
See Bill Maher was crying about his taxes being too high.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
21 Mar 2013, 7:20 pm
Archduke Russell John wrote:Got a refund. Not sure what my % was.
See Bill Maher was crying about his taxes being too high.
It's wonderful when taxes go up on others, eh Mr. Maher?
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
21 Mar 2013, 8:57 pm
Archduke Russell John wrote:Got a refund. Not sure what my % was.
I used to be like that. Not anymore. Educating myself about taxes--how much I pay, how much other pay, how much I used to pay--has done a lot to shape my views, in addition to saving me a bunch of money.
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
22 Mar 2013, 12:20 pm
Being self employed with a home office and some other stuff going on, they sure are way more complicated than they need to be. That being said, my share is fair because like you I've learned the rules and try to tax plan as much as possible.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
22 Mar 2013, 1:05 pm
Blimey! I've got another 6 months before I will do my tax return. It may become more complex than before because I'm going to be back in the upper band for Income Tax. But I expect it will still be straightforward and simply a bunch of form pages on the HMRC website
I don't 'tax plan', and I'm pretty happy that what I pay is fair. Of more immediate concern to me at the moment is that today I found that I am paid a lot less than my colleagues (we all do the same job, they have some more experience, but not enough to justify such a massive disparity, especially as I have a relevant qualification that they don't).
-
- GMTom
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 11284
- Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am
22 Mar 2013, 1:26 pm
I got a healthy refund again this year but it is due to my kids college expenses that are now at an end. Next year I need to pay a LOT more and in fact had to deduct more from my paycheck so I do not have to owe an estimated $1500 to the Federal Govt next year! That's $1500 MORE than they already take out and I claim zero dependents as well as have some extra taken out already! While I had a good refund a few years in a row, I am not happy about what I am paying between the State and Federal Government, throw in local taxes and sales taxes and fees and health insurance and it's crazy expensive here in New York State! WELLLL more than half my pay, with insurance it's close to 3/4
-
- Archduke Russell John
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
25 Mar 2013, 12:10 pm
geojanes wrote:Archduke Russell John wrote:Got a refund. Not sure what my % was.
I used to be like that. Not anymore. Educating myself about taxes--how much I pay, how much other pay, how much I used to pay--has done a lot to shape my views, in addition to saving me a bunch of money.
Normally I would but I spent 8 month of 2012 unemployeed so I didn't worry some much this year because it wouldn't be very representative. It was 9.8% in 2011 when I spent 9 months in unemployment so I figured it would be similar. I'll pay more attention for 2013 when I have (hopefully) been employed for a full year.
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
26 Mar 2013, 12:30 pm
There was an excellent debate on this topic recently where thinkers on the right and the left debated the statement: The Rich Are Taxed Enough.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/775-the-rich-are-taxed-enoughArt Laffer used Warren Buffett to explain why the tax rates aren't the problem, but tax reform is:
Is the system, as it is now, at tax rates that exist now, is it fair? Art Laffer.
Arthur Laffer:
No, it's not. It's totally not. And let me use an example if I may, Warren Buffett. He was sitting there asking my friends and I need to have higher tax rates, and I looked at his letter to the New York Times, and he said he paid a little less than 7 million in taxes, and he said his tax rate was 17.4 percent, which I did the math. He had adjusted gross income of $40 million in that year.
I then went to Forbes. His wealth increased from 40 billion to 50 billion. I went to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and what you found there is he gave 1.75 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, not counting his sons’ foundations or his daughter's foundation. Now, as a definition of "income," to me income is what you spend, what you give away, and your increase in your wealth. It's called the Simon definition of income. If you look at Warren Buffett, his income that year was $12 billion, and he paid 7 million in taxes. That is a tax rate of six 1/100th of 1 percent on his true income. That is obnoxious. But it's not because of any rates raising would change that tax. You've got to broaden the tax base by getting rid of all these exclusions, deductions, eliminations, and tax true income at low rates.
And that is what's fair. The guys who play the game, and you look at the Forbes 500 and you see all of them with their tax exemptions, look at all the 501c3s, all the loopholes. That's what we've got to go after, not raising tax rates on the last three people who actually pay it.
While this was the first time I heard this argument, it was like an light bulb. Forget the rates: it's a complete red herring to get people to argue about an issue that doesn't matter. It's the concept of realizing gains that's the problem. If your holding period is "forever," as Buffett likes to say, those gains are not realized in your lifetime, and with excellent estate planning, never realized, so never taxed. A tax rate of of six 1/100th of 1 percent sounds pretty tiny, especially when juxtaposed against the Archduke who spent most of the year on unemployment, yet paid a rate 163 times this new Buffett rate.
Last edited by
geojanes on 26 Mar 2013, 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
26 Mar 2013, 12:43 pm
Archduke Russell John wrote:It was 9.8% in 2011 when I spent 9 months in unemployment so I figured it would be similar. I'll pay more attention for 2013 when I have (hopefully) been employed for a full year.
Btw, I'm angry about this. Don't you realize you denied the country economic benefits by getting off unemployment early? According to Pelosi and other Democrats, unemployment is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy.
You should be ashamed of yourself!
