Please justify holding hostage $13 billion of UE benefits VS $700 billion tax break for wealthy

Both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of extending the UE benefits.

Republicans are simply saying: "We will not simply pile

on another 13 billion to our credit card bill (interest payable to China). If you want to extend the benefits, you must make some kind of cut to another government program/budget...then we'll gladly join in to your vote.

Democrats are simply saying: "You heartless, immoral bastards. Just vote for the UE extension today and we'll pass on the cost to the youth today and the generation coming up. By then, we'll be dead and won't have to hear

their complaints about how selfish we were in 2010."

Because conservatives care only about the top 2%. The rest of us are cannon fodder or are, in their twisted little minds, only fit to wash their yachts.

Remember Bush's line from that speech he gave:

"You're The HAVE-MORES...you're my base"

I've been disgusted at BOTH parties at various times, but these water-carriers-for-the-wealthy make me want to take a shower just seeing them on TV.

McConnell reminds me of a ventriloquists' dummy.

No, revenues rose handsomely from capital gains and dividends after the Bush tax rate reductions. Bush's rebates, credits and such are not tax rate reductions, which affect incentives, but disguised forms of government spending, which do nothing for economic growth and reduce revenues.

kaitainen wrote:

steve22222 wrote:

The numbers have taken that into account.

i don't understand what you are saying.

my point is that much, if not most, of the $3 trillion number is going to people above the middle class.

you initially said democrats are fine with a cut for the middle class that costs $3 trillion.

help me understand your point if i'm getting it wrong.

The numbers have not been disputed, it takes into account what you wrote.

The Repubs(I think that is what you meant) are all for this, they just don't want to leave out the upper income. The rich will still be paying higher marginal rates on higher income. They still will be paying more.

Really, I am unemployed. I am not rich, I just logically think they deserve to keep more of what they make than you do. I think 35% if fine when I pay less than 20%. Thank you rich for paying more! I don't care much about them, they can take care of themselves but I don't think going after them is really going to help, and may hurt a bit. I do have some concerns with income distribution and tax breaks, but I think these issues are blown out of proportion and we have many bigger problems that I would really like to see addressed. They are not being addressed because of this stupid issue.

It is interesting to note that the very wealthy now earn and control more of our capital assets than any time since l927. And we all know what that led to. We need to pay attention to this. The masses will tolerate this for only so long before they catch on that they are being taken advantage of. We may not like what we get.

The Bush tax cuts did nothing for the country, we just continued to sink into the greatest depression since the late l920s and l930s. Go figure.

You have a poor understanding of how the current tax system works (pun intended). Realize that income tax rates are marginal. Also realize that capital gains rates are much lower than 35%. Try to understand that under any scenario of tax cut extensions the Treasury will need to borrow more from capital markets to pay for them. An extension will be financed by more borrowing no matter who it goes to - by your own statistics it will go to the top 47% of income earners. Foolishness.

steve22222 wrote:

I am not rich, I just logically think they deserve to keep more of what they make than you do. I think 35% if fine when I pay less than 20%. Thank you rich for paying more!

53 Seconds Off Any Pace wrote:

The argument is being made that there isn't money to pay for:

$13 billion of unemployment benefits affecting 2 million people

but there is money for $700 billion (that is unfunded) benefiting mostly millionaires and even some billionaires

Reagan's own people and other conservatives have said unemployment benefits are more stimulative

How is it that conservatives are able to morally justify this?

I really am curious.

You could just as easily ask why it is moral to raise rates on anyone, rich or poor (because letting the "cuts" expire represents an increase over the last 7-10 years) who earns income and pays taxes, in order to fund an extension of benefits for people who in some cases have not worked in 99 weeks.

It's a question of premises.

Answer is simple. Unemployment insurance is a scam; it always has been. I've paid into it all my life and never had occasion to use it; I'm in my 50's(BTW I assume you understand the 'employer pays' line is a fiction, as any reputable financial analyst can confirm).

I have known construction workers who know the eligibility rules inside out and always collect the max UI they can. They refer to it as 'vacation.'

If you really can't find a job at a McDonald's after 99 weeks, maybe it's time to move to Nebraska, South Dakota, or North Dakota, where unemployment is still around 5%, which is virtually full employment.

Tax cuts, even 'for the rich,' on the other hand is no scam. It's just letting people keep money they have earned. No scam there.

steve22222 wrote:

The numbers have not been disputed, it takes into account what you wrote.

The Repubs(I think that is what you meant) are all for this, they just don't want to leave out the upper income. The rich will still be paying higher marginal rates on higher income. They still will be paying more.

again, my point is that "the rich" are not at all left out of the democratic/obama plan. their tax rates will remain lower on the first $200k/$250k of income than they were before the bush tax cuts. this is a tax cut for them and is part of the $3 trillion number. it is even a large portion of the $3 trillion number.

I understand how the tax system works. I did reference the marginal rates before. The cap gain rate is 0% for lower income people. We have been talking income rates, not cap gain. There are real negatives to raising the cap gain rate too. Are you going to want to risk your money knowing that a large portion of your gains are going to go to taxes. You lose gov doesn't you win gov does. I all ready addressed the deficit issue by saying taxes should be enough to pay the bills, I just think everyone is going to have to pay and that the rich alone will not be able to be taxed enough to pay for the deficit. Focusing on them is counter productive to what we need to accomplish.

breakeven wrote:

You have a poor understanding of how the current tax system works (pun intended). Realize that income tax rates are marginal. Also realize that capital gains rates are much lower than 35%. Try to understand that under any scenario of tax cut extensions the Treasury will need to borrow more from capital markets to pay for them. An extension will be financed by more borrowing no matter who it goes to - by your own statistics it will go to the top 47% of income earners. Foolishness.

steve22222 wrote:

I am not rich, I just logically think they deserve to keep more of what they make than you do. I think 35% if fine when I pay less than 20%. Thank you rich for paying more!

steve22222 wrote:

It goes to the 47% who don't pays any for any of our federal spending. When we spend so much we need to raise taxes, we want to get everything from the rich? What about the 47%? Should they pay something? These entitlement programs you speak of are the problem. They benefit the middle and lower incomes, yet we want to tax only the rich to pay for them?

it is tough to keep up with all of your misinformation.

your statement refers solely to the percentage of filers who have no federal income tax liability. it says nothing about corporate tax, excise taxes and, most importantly, payroll taxes. payroll taxes are precisely the taxes that pay for the entitlements you refer to in your post. payroll taxes apply to the first dollar of wages and are paid by nearly every worker.

check out these tables from the CBO (pages 6 and 7):

it shows the distribution of the federal tax burden by income quintile as well as the average tax rates by income quintile. it also shows pre and post tax income distribution by quintile.

as the tables show you, while it is true that the bottom 60% of households pay very little in federal income tax, such households pay over 30% of all payroll taxes and nearly 15% of all federal taxes overall.

such households receive only about 25% of all pre-tax income. so 25% of pre-tax income, 15% of federal taxes.

in contrast, the top 1% of households receive a whopping 18.8% of all income and pay a similarly large 28% of all federal taxes.

another comparison, households between the 81st percentile and the 95th percentile - what i think many would think about as upper middle class (roughly speaking about $110,000 to $200,000 for a household with 2 people) - receive 23.8% of all income and pay 24.6% of all federal taxes.

to recap - the bottom 80% of households in income distribution pay less in federal taxes than their share of income. the next 15% of households pay about the same amount in federal taxes as their share of income. the top 5% of households pay more in federal taxes than their share of income. but their share of income is rather outsized, and the extra tax burden is not all that large in comparison.

I do know know about the payroll tax and all that, I deliberate used the term federal spending to try to specify that I was talking abut our general government spending. I don't think you should say that because lower incomes pay for a separate retirement plan that they should not contribute to GENERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Trying to to keep the discussion on topic is not misinformation. SS is not what we have been talking about, adding it in doesn't help. The payroll tax does not pay for our government services.

Your numbers also show that the higher incomes pay a larger percentageof their income than the lower incomes. All the tax breaks they get are not what people believe. If 60% only pay 15% then 40% pay 85% of all our taxes FOR GENERAL SPENDING.

The SS I don't consider a tax. Higher income people don't pay tax on SS beyond something like 120K. This is because their benefits are also capped.

Not to be a pest and pick on you Steve but a lot of what you're arguing doesn't reflect reality. Cap gains rates for those in the bottom two brackets is 0% for long term gains, and 10% or 15% for short term gains. How many low income people do you know though that are bringing in significant income from selling securities? Dividends? Counter that with how the very wealthy earn their income, generally not through wages. A large portion of their income is distributed through qualified dividends, redemption of stock & stock options, the sale of direct interests and equity in companies, the sale of property. At current rates most of this is taxed at 15% unless they guy/gal is foolish enough not to have an accountant. My man Bill Gates does not receives a W-2. An argument over equality is going to be subjective but for the most part, in this debate, tax equality is a smokescreen for wealthy interests.

steve22222 wrote:

I do know know about the payroll tax and all that, I deliberate used the term federal spending to try to specify that I was talking abut our general government spending. I don't think you should say that because lower incomes pay for a separate retirement plan that they should not contribute to GENERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Trying to to keep the discussion on topic is not misinformation. SS is not what we have been talking about, adding it in doesn't help. The payroll tax does not pay for our government services.

you said "These entitlement programs you speak of are the problem. They benefit the middle and lower incomes, yet we want to tax only the rich to pay for them?"

what do you think "entitlement programs" means? the largest entitlement programs are medicare and social security. payroll taxes are largely medicare and social security taxes.

additionally, social security has generated substantial surpluses every year for the last 30 or so years. what do you think that money is used for? the annual federal government deficit (and the few surpluses in the late '90s) includes the social security surplus.

the only reason there is any concern at all about social security funding for the next 25 years, at least, is because we already spent the surplus!! in other words, social security taxes have been funding general government programs.

moreover, if you exclude medicare and social security from your definition of "federal spending", you've auto-magically eliminated nearly all of the long-term structure deficit. congratulations!!

and lastly, it very much is "misinformation" to state, as you did, 47% of people don't pay anything for federal spending.

Does it really matter? The Ponzi schemes of entitlements and actuarially unsound defined benefit pension plans are unraveling before your very eyes.

Go ahead. Rearrange the deck chairs. Like it really matters.

I think you should consider the moral argument that the 13 billion involves taking from someone to give to someone else whereas the the 700 billion simply involves not taking from someone. I guess it depends who has the property rights. If it is your opinion that the government owns everyone's income anyway then the two are equivocal- not taking the money that they "own" is the same as giving money to other people. In that sense all income is a gift from the government because they choose not to take it from you (in the same way that unemployment insurance is a "gift" from the government). However, if you think that income is the property of whoever makes it and that it is not to be taken from someone lightly, than you might be more inclined to think long and hard about how much money you are taking from people.

I still think that the tax cut should end and unemployment insurance should be extended for a little while longer, but I always think its important to consider that the first person with a right to the income, is the person who actually makes it (my opinion of course).

Your are right, I didn't bring up cap gain rates and only through out the 0% in response. I do think some of the issues you raise could be looked at. I know hedge fund managers get the low dividend and cap gain rates on money they manage, but to them it is un-risked money. I think they should be taxed as ordinary income.

I do see where corp execs get some unfair benefits and it should be looked at. It should be out of fairness, but it is not going to change what we have to do as a country to get out of the deficit. Everyone is going to have to pay more, and getting a little more from the rich might make you feel better, but it is not going to add up to enough to make much of a difference.

Taxing the rich is not going to be a solution, we focus on it at our own peril.

Yes, I was talking about SS, my understanding is, is that the SS surplus is being invested in the Gov for a return. So if I am recalling correctly SS funds are paying for our general government in the same way that the Chinese are. Just a source to loan money to. This means that saying SS funds are paying for it is really wrong. Linking the two doesn't make sense to your argument. The surpluses you speak of are going to end. Really another topic though. But it does show the problems in how one topic can get sidetracked. The federal budget is separate from our SS funds and only linked through investment of our SS money. SS money is retirement money and these contributions are not taxes to our federal spending. Linking the two obscures the issue on general taxation.