Shared publicly  - 
 
The bill approved in Congress to avert the "fiscal cliff" would bring the first major tax increase on high earners in 20 years. http://on.wsj.com/Vjurxg
288
88
Omar Khan's profile photoAndrew Wippler's profile photoRandy Joubert's profile photoDalip Gaur's profile photo
65 comments
Brad G
+
1
7
8
7
 
It also ended the payroll tax holiday, a tax increase on lower- and middle-class earners.
 
When are we going to start seeing headlines like "The bill approved in Congress eliminated deficit spending for the first time ever"?

It seems to me that our lawmakers are utterly incapable of any degree of fiscal self-control and as a result the only solution is to make people pay more in taxes.

After all, if you've got the power it's a lot easier to control others than yourself. 
 
I don't see how this is a bad thing...
 
until the green bar is taller than the red, there is no increase.  no wonder wall street fails
 
It's bitter when I am paying more taxes to fund programs I don't agree with and people that choose not to work for themselves and instead work the system.
 
no.. People are the only reason you have money, you have high profits because you starve your workers, you have no wealth without the state.  you clowns aren't fooling anybody.  the fraction of your complaint are people who don't read these comments.  We Do.  And we are slowly becoming the Ruling-Intellectual-Force.  More and More you are going to see the politics of this country pull away from your expectations +Chuck Kimball 
 
+Kenneth Trent Not any time soon.  I wonder if this will be reminiscent of the tax increases agreed to by Reagan, when Tip O'Neal's House promised to decrease spending in the future.  It never happened.

I'm not super upset to see revenue increases, but I hope (a faint hope certainly) the February talks hit the spending side pretty hard as well.

There was a disturbing Washington Post survey on this topic about 2 weeks ago that showed Americans overwhelmingly want spending cuts along with revenue increases but overwhelmingly don't want spending cuts, when those cuts are mentioned specifically.  A terminal case of NIMBY if I've ever seen it.  This is gonna hurt, folks!  Now or later.
 
You can't spend yourself rich! Government needs to cut spending. And you need to do something about the freeloaders out their who suck the life out of us working stiff's. I do like WorkFair, NOT Welfare.
Allan S
+
1
2
3
2
 
Yeah well, remember when there was a 1.2 trillion dollar surplus?  Gore wanted to take that money and end the deficit.  Bush took that money and gave the largest tax cut ever to the ultra rich. 
John G
+
9
10
9
 
This article fails to mention that roughly 80% of the working individuals will see an increase in their social security tax. This is because while they did extend most of the Bush tax breaks, social security tax or FICA breaks expired. So 90% of us are paying higher taxes, about $800 a year
 
+Allan S Actually, he gave that money to everyone.  It just benefited the rich more than the poor, which kinda makes sense since the rich pay more in taxes.  The problem wasn't that it was cuts for the rich.  The problem was taking the surplus money and doing a large tax cut... period.  The tax cut stimulated the economy much less than other measures would have done, and frankly, we could have absorbed the increase defense expenditures pretty well had we not decided to drain the Treasury at the same time.

...and Gore wasn't as pristine in his goals as you imply.  He had a boat load of social programs he wanted to implement and increase.  It may have been a better use of the money (up for debate), but it certainly would not have all gone to deficit reduction.
 
We should all note as well that if spending cuts are done correctly, we will all suffer some, too.  We can't all be for spending cuts then cringe when a specific cut touches our lives.  It's gonna happen, or it's not going to make the difference needed to reduce the deficit.  Even then, the cuts being considered won't impact the deficit all that much.  They will mostly just keep it from going up as a percent of GDP.
Allan S
 
+Eric Henry I agree, mostly, but I would say that rather than we will all 'suffering some', we will all return closer to what we were paying 10 years ago.
 
So 100% of the taxpayer's get an increase in oother words. Bho lied again.
 
Do not think for one minute that they forgot the middle class. Check your pay voucher when the Obama tax plan kicks in Your paycheck will be short. Read the voucher why.
 
If they tax it, lets hope they use it well. What would the taxpayer do with the money if they had a tax cut or rebate? In any case I think a gradual tax increase should improve the economy in the long term. The thing to watch are the programs that utilise the revenue, and the cost-effectiveness of the programs. Everyone dislikes austerity but is constant stimulus able to revive an ailing economy. 
 
Payroll tax reverting to normal solves funding social security. Plus no one noticed when it was reduced, no one will notice when it reverts back. It isn't a tax anyway, it is a trust fund paid for by workers and owed back to the same workers. It is not a deficit item.
 
Ddude there is no trust fund for social security. It's a ponzi scheme that gen y is going to get stuck holding the bag. The pension tax in France is like 30% now and they have 1/3 the baby boomers as USA
Allan S
+
1
2
1
 
+Richard Grassano If by BHO you mean Boehner's Hick-filled Organization, I agree.
Don't forget that it was the 'conservatives' defense of the rich that put the G-NO-P in the position that if they voted down Obama's plan they were essentially voting to increase income taxes for the middle class.

In oother words by mindlessly defending the tax breaks of the ultra-rich, no coherent and intelligent alternative plan could be presented. (Boehner's Plan B was scuttled by... the Republican party)

So much for that 'never raising taxes' loyalty oath to Grover Norquist.

It was the Tea-tards and the idiots they sent to Congress that once again @#$#ed America over.
 
I never understood the thinking of liberals here.

If you own a business and the government takes 40% of your profit and then gives a small percentage of that money to the pot smoking guy next door who then might spend a small part of his stolen money in your business - how exactly does that grow your business? 
 
Great, guess if I could get Obama to raise taxes to 100% I would be rolling in money. 
 
<sarcasm>Yeah. Right. This is really going to affect high earners.</sarcasm>

Something people tend to forget. High earners are rich for one major reason - they know how to make their money work for them. They can hire people to help them understand how to protect their assets (cash and otherwise). They can fund the politicians who will help them get the laws they would like passed in office (and, don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with a systemic problem that won't be solved). For anybody who really thinks that this tax hike will really hit the upper class...you're going to be in for a big surprise.

What will really happen is that the high wage-earners will, for a time, scramble to figure out how to solve the problem of them paying so much more. When they figure it out (not if), then someone is going to have to foot the bill, or the government is going to have to go more into debt. If someone has to foot the bill, let me ask you who you think that someone will be. (Hint: Not the folks with the plethora of cash.) (And, again, I want to point out that none of this is corruption or anything of the like. The system is setup to cause this to happen. It's very similar to what happened with derivatives and the lack of banking regulation to cause the 2008 financial problems that we're still feeling today.)

There are two ways to balance a budget. One is to increase income. That is the decision our politicians made because it is most popular. Since our system does not place term limits on Congress, our representatives (again, not corruption, but a systemic problem) must do, more often than not, what is popular for their voters. That is not necessarily what is always right for the country.

The other way to balance the budget is to cut spending. This would be the right decision. Not an easy one. Not a popular one. But it would be the right one. It only takes a little bit of reading to realize how much money we dump and waste on a regular basis. But, again, systemic issues will prevent this from happening which makes me sad and makes me worried for our country's future since today's power is not military might (which America has in spades), but it's instead economic might. Yet, we're making short-term, poor choices to appease the talking heads and "the polls" instead of making the decisions that are right, even if they're not popular.
 
Repeal and replace all federal taxes with a national sales tax.

That way, everyone in America would be reminded every day how much it costs to run the government and any new government program would show up as an increase immediately. 
Derek M
+
4
5
4
 
That's great. I didn't need the money anyway. Yea right. I thought I didn't increase for middle income Americans. All you lefto losers can have it. Yours is coming. 
 
You can never tax high income earners. They are usually the people who own businesses and just pass the tax increase along to the middle-class and lower-class citizens via the products they sell.
 
When are we going to see spending cuts?
 
+Steven Jandreau actually, not in most cases. If you raise taxes on people they change their behavior. They will defer income or invest more overseas and bring less money into the US, etc. What we need is the McDonald's approach. Make a very little profit from each burger but all a billion burgers. The government needs to take a smaller amount of taxes from each person but move millions from welfare to work. 
 
+Chuck Kimball what programs don't you agree with? I'm sure many of those programs are in place to give people a hand up, not a hand out. We all agree waste fraud and abuse is bad, but not social safety net programs. 
 
We need to try n over throw our govt.Its coming, how much more can the american people take. State, federal,school, property tax our govt is way out of control. Repubicans really do suck..NY sucks its the worse state u can possibly live in. 
 
the America dollar is going down these days now
 
We're only just beginning to undo the Bush-era damage.  Have a look at the 90's (very prosperous times under President Clinton).

+Chuck Kimball People 'working the system' as you call it, include myself.  Thanks to government grants, I was able to graduate college and find a job in software development.  Thanks to the WA food stamp and WIC programs, my family of 4 continued to eat healthy meals while I attended classes.

I've established a career that I would not have been able to have without government assistance.  If I need to pay some more in taxes to give other people the opportunities that I had, I'm happy to.
 
Is this fair or good for
average americans ?
 
Taxes are used to finance wars and subsidies for big corporations, not to help people.
Who has to pay more or less Is not the question. You should ask, "why do I have to pay taxes at all?"
 
Well, let's be realistic, +Florian Roth.  No taxes means no public school system, no firefighters, no police, no libraries, no public colleges, no roads, bridges, railways, public parks, water or food.

The only non-government option to providing those things is to privatize them, and look at how well that's treating us in the medical sector.  Americans receive lesser quality healthcare for more money than other industrialized countries that provide healthcare through tax funds.
 
I can see loopholes already. I will never understand why raise taxes. Here is a new concept each where the money goes. If every tax payer would actually investigate where their money goes, I think they would upset to find out how much waste there really is.
 
You can see what kinda people these "high earners" are getting mad about tax increases. Taste your own medicine & you dont like it huh?? You have bundles of money that you blow anyway. Yet your mad that that our government is actually looking out for the little guys & a lot of people who actually make your everyday life easier...... 
Translate
 
Maybe one day we will look back on all this crap and think...man we were so stupid we allowed our government to be bipartisan,tried to save a failing monetary economy all the while blaming this person or that person.... Maybe just maybe we can find a way to cooperate 
 
Just as I have benefited from a book recommendation from another forum, I shall do the same in this forum.  The book in question is "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

Chapters relevant to the topics arising from this post and its comments are: "Taxes Discourage Production", "Credit Diverts Production", "Minimum Wage Laws", and "Do Unions Really Raise Wages?".

Hazlitt discusses these topics in a balanced manner, focusing on both positives and negatives.  For instance, he acknowledges the usefulness of unions (p.144), while also the discussing the issues.

Enjoy!
Translate
 
they are doing what ever they can in order to save the country, but, for future this could bring a devastating effect over middle and low class, the majority sum in the economy, I suggest that the huges billionaires and millionaires of US, they should inject the money and then governebt can repay in "favors" lets said free taxes to their companies for "X" amount of years, just suggesting...
 
So, they were too stupid to also cut spending? Or did they do that too?
 
cry me a river,
and then build a bridge, and get over it!
 
This will not stop the US from reaching the debt ceiling again in under 60 days (Feb 2013)
 
+Ben Davis The medical sector is not private sector. It has government stink all through it, every facet. 
 
+J. Rae Chip the american dream is to be able to let your kids reap the benefits of your hard work..are you saying my kids don't deserve what I've worked hard for? That my funds should be taken from me and given to irresponsible people? I should have a choice to be charitable in the land of the free.
 
No matter that Congress writes the laws and the President signs them into action, we will call this "Obama era tax hikes", the same way we say, "Bush era tax cuts".
No, I don't like everything my taxes go to fund/pay for, but I am an American and this is how the system works for all of us. We have the right to complain. If we have issues, we should talk to our Representatives to make changes. Otherwise, leave. See how it works somewhere else. 
N Kham
 
Increase for child
 
+Ben Davis - "We're only just beginning to undo the Bush-era damage.  Have a look at the 90's (very prosperous times under President Clinton)."

You are right. We did have a prosperous time under President Clinton. However, if you read your history, you'll notice that when Clinton entered office, he made very sure that Wall Street liked him and knew he was on their side. (Historically, Democrats are not "pro-Wall Street.") As a result, Clinton (as well as many others in his administration) failed to enact regulations surrounding derivatives (even though regulations were enacted across almost all other major assets). Because of this, the trading of derivatives skyrocketed (because, it made sense to...they weren't being regulated, so better deals could be made). And, where was one of the major areas that derivatives were traded in - mortgage derivatives.

For many years, times were prosperous (particularly on Wall Street). Money was flowing freely, investments were up, etc, etc.

Fast-forward to 2008, and derivatives were out of control. They had been oversold, the risk had been understated, and the market collapsed in on itself. (Note: None of this was planned corruption. It all made sense for banks to take on more risk to appease shareholders. However, when all those banks took on risk, it hurt the overall economic system due to something that economists know as externalities.)

Did Clinton cause that to happen? Well...with such a big problem as the Great Recession in 2008, it's no one, single factor. However, he most definitely did not help. You can't blame our current economic state on one particular president or one particular Congress. Big issues are caused by a myriad of events leading up to those problems. So, to just blame Bush, is being very simplistic. He's just one problem in this whole mess. Clinton played his part as well.
 
Now if they better manage the crappy welfare and unemployment systems. Stop giving tax money to lazy people and only give it to those that actually need it. 
 
+Ludwing Herrera the problem with the welfare system is the same as porn. You might know it when you see it, but trying to make a codified legal description is difficult.

Charities can use the human approach - is this person needy or lazy and help accordingly. The government systems has to follow rigid rules which the welfare cheats know better than those working for the system. They know to the penny how much they can earn. They know exactly what answers are required. So the cheaters get help and the needy do not.

We need to return common sense to providing help - and that means take it away from governments. 
 
let's raise taxes even more so the government can spend more money and jam in more pork and special interest concessions into legitimate laws that are needed. WHERE IS GOOD OLD FASHIONED "ACCOUNTABILITY"?
Add a comment...