"Fiscal cliff" talks stalled for now but progress possible

Comments (8)
UnPartisan wrote:

It is possible, but it is unlikely. The Fiscal Cliff is really a grand compromise. Both parties get what they want, and they can blame the other party for the increased taxes or cuts in spending. They get what is necessary with none of the blame.

Nov 25, 2012 1:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Tea ‘Republicans … are at an impasse with the president’s wish to raise income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.’ End of Line.
We can balance Federal, State and Municipality budgets with a Nationalized Income Tax that lowers the rate on the lower quintile, does not tax sustenance wages, and eliminates all other taxes to include business taxes. What more could we do to rejuvenate the economy. The Federal budget is 1/3rd the total of the states and municipalities, the ice we see above the water is a 1/3rd fraction of the total problem. The wealth is concentrated at the top, with half of the income in the top quintile of Americans, the aristocracy rules. We absolutely must increase taxes on the 250K and up to 80%, which is less than the 1960′s 91.5% top rate, this would immediately balance the budgets. Any republic that does not rule the aristocracy through taxation is a slave nation, a banana republic. While nationalization of taxes requires all states to pass a amendment, this could be wholly executed at the Federal Level, with each state joining in over time. It cannot be done at each state level first because of the Federalized monetary system. Honorable POTUS, step up the the plate not for a single, but a grand slam please. This is not a tax increase, it is a pay forward on international indebtedness that must be paid as a real and virtual taxation. Put this issue to bed please.

Nov 25, 2012 7:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

morbas…Is this the Jack Daniels plan? The plan you came up with after drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels? We currently have a $1T annual deficit…while you haven’t given any hard numbers….let me see if I’ve got this straight…without cutting ANY spending you can balance the budget by raising $1T more a year in tax revenue by lowering the taxes for those in the lower “quintile” (1/5 of the population?), no sustenance wage taxes, eliminate all other business taxes and then tax everyone making $250K or more at an 80% tax rate. You do realize that no one ACTUALLY paid taxes of 91.5% of their total income in the 1960′s…right? Did you ever attend a class in government (assuming you got a formal education)…separation of powers, the Constitution, the roles of each of the branches of government (any of this ringing a bell?)…Presidents do not write legislation. Per our Constitution only Congress can do that. Tax Legislation originates in the House of Representatives. Do you have any idea what percent of Congressman make more than $250K per year? Or how many are millionaires? So your plan is to get Congress to write and pass NEW TAX legislation that will tax themselves (and everyone else who makes $250k or more) at an 80% tax rate and lower taxes on everyone else THEN send it to the President for his signature….AND it will generate $1T more in Tax Revenue. Good luck with that.

Nov 25, 2012 10:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

The data supports this solution. On occasion I have included references to the data. Summing total incomes of all 49 states yields $12.98 trillion. Summing budgets federal, state and municipality yields $6.55 trillion, or 50% of total USA incomes. With spread sheet in hand, the solution of 0-$20K at 0%, $20K to $200K at 25%, and $200K+ at 80% provides 110% of $6.55 trillion revenue ($7.028 trillion).
You should be careful to not fabricate (effective rate of) assertion of 80% at $250K. The effective rate at $250K is 35%. The effective rate at $1,000,000 is 68%. If you would please notice, the summation of budgets equals %50 of the summation of incomes. Thus a thumb nail check supports the excel spread sheet calculations. Secondly, I have the right to submit legislation through any congressional member, so does the president. Thirdly, please refrain from character assassination as this is an invalid form of argument and could be viewed as slander. I pledge to refrain, rest easy.

You should be careful to not fabricate (effective rate of) assertion of 80% at $250K. The effective rate at $250K is 35%. The effective rate at $1,000,000 is 68%. If you would please notice, the summation of budgets equals %50 of the summation of incomes. Thus a thumb nail check supports the excel spread sheet calculations. Secondly, I have the right to submit legislation through any congressional member, so does the president. Thirdly, please refrain from character assasination as this is an invalid form or arguement.

Nov 26, 2012 1:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

errata 50 states

Nov 26, 2012 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

morbas….with a house home income of around $170,000 after you add in Medicare and Social Security taxes your plan would almost double the amount of taxes I pay each year. This is a HUGE tax increase. Good luck getting enough support to get a crazy plan like this even introduced. It has zero chance of passing. How about a sensible tax increase and bigger spending cuts. There is tons of waste in government spending. How about eliminating the Department of Homeland Security. Approved in 2002 and now has 240,000 employees and an annual budget of over $60B.

Nov 26, 2012 5:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

morbas..you are correct, any one can submit an outline to Congress for proposed legislation. But only Congress can write, introduce and vote on legislation. Obama did just that with the American Jobs Act. Which by virtually every economist would have created 1 to 2 million new jobs, increase GDP by 2% and it was funded (paid for). The Republicans in the House have refused to write and introduce it. No doubt, tripling the amount of tax revenue would certainly solve all of our problems…but do you have any idea what impact it would have on the economy. To take that much money out of the hands of the people would create massive unemployment. Economies need consumers buying good and services to grow. In the end you wouldn’t collect as much revenue as you are projecting just for that reason. Your solution is no solution at all…it would be a disaster.

Nov 26, 2012 5:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

@xyz2055,”with a house home income of around $170,000″ no sir, all other taxes are not allowed. Executing the program => $170,000 rate is effectively 22.06% ($37.5k). (This includes all state, municipal taxes and the business taxes that were incorporated in the product cost. All other taxes are history!). Does not include service taxes (power, water, garbage etc.). All for less than the present federal income tax rate.
Business, industry and corporations are not taxed at all, that tax relief will provide a job growth bonanza. Remember, all other forms of taxation are eliminated. The sum total of all budgets (federal, state, and municipality) is $6.6 trillion.

Nov 26, 2012 7:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.