Share
Just to get things straight — it is really not a fiscal cliff; it is more of a slope. The entity of the tax breaks and the spending cuts will not fully expire until ten years from Dec. 31.
Even though it is all over the news, I am not worried. I am not a “jumper,” but I do not think going over it would be the worst thing our country has ever endured.
I obviously would like to avoid the $600 million in tax increases and spending cuts, but if Congress does not resolve the issue before we ring in 2013, the members should come to a decision shortly after. This is an issue our leaders will not leave looming.
If we do go over the cliff, I am confident America can survive. Our economy is extremely resilient.
While it is not ideal, we can bear it for a month or two while the nation’s lawmakers argue it out — the economy will not be permanently crippled. Our economy is constantly taking hits, from Hurricane Sandy, 9/11 and other recessions, but we have managed to come back into the black after each snag.
With a $16 trillion debt, such a shock might be what America needs to finally adopt fiscal discipline. But the weight of our deficit should not be on the shoulders of the lower tax bracket citizens; those making $388,350 or more annually can afford to bear more on their shoulders.
While the entire country is involved in the fiscal cliff, and everyone will undoubtedly be affected, it is the republicans of Congress who will be the deciding factor.
If republicans decide to put country before party, the fiscal cliff will not be triggered. If our Congressmen could reach a bipartisan compromise and not be as concerned with popularity and re-election, creating a plan that’s good for America would be achievable.
The president is taking a hard line by asking for $1.6 trillion in his negotiations. Even though we might go over the fiscal cliff and disrupt the economy, I think President Obama will continue to fight for higher taxes for the wealthy and keep the middle class in mind after that.
The Buffet Rule is a plausible option. The rule — invented by Warren Buffet, billionaire founder of Berkshire Hathaway, a Fortune 500 company — would force anyone making $1 million or more annually to pay at least a 30 percent tax rate.
It also includes a clause for the ultra-rich, meaning taxes would be progressive. In other words, the more you make, the more you pay. Less affluent Americans would pay less in taxes, allowing them more funds for necessities.
It is inconceivable that millionaires should pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans. Those in the highest tax bracket can afford to give more, while those falling into lower categories do not have such high incomes to pay the same high tax rates and still have money to live off of and invest.
If we expect the economy to improve, the millionaires of America will have to be a big part of it.
Since spending cuts need to be made, entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare should be revisited and overhauled.
Wealthy individuals that do not require the funds granted from Social Security and Medicare should receive a lesser amount. The amount of money received each month should be given on a needs basis. The United States would save a bundle by not handing out money to the upper class when they do not require it.
A version of this article appeared in the Dec 6 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 27 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
You are arguing that one of the world's most progressive tax structures become even more so. The high earners in this country already pay the vast majority of the taxes, while those in the bottom half pay very little (if any).
By the way, Mr. Buffet pays the same tax rate as his secretary on the same earnings, then he pays higher rates on any earned income above that threshold. You are confusing earned income with capital gains, which are taxed at a lesser rate (which makes sense as those earnings are already taxed at other levels). This nonsense that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary is a pure apples to oranges comparison.
I'm just a bit tired of "fairness" being defined as those already shouldering a disproportionate share of tax burden being forced to take on even more. Seems to me like the definition of "unfair."
Reply to this Top
A progressive income tax is fair because a marginal dollar has much more value to poor people than the wealthy.
Reply to this Top
A dollar is worth a dollar, regardless of your lot in life. If you want to sit here and claim that a millionaire doesn't NEED the extra dollar, then I will counter that someone who can afford to smoke, doesn't NEED food stamps.
And do I understand correctly that the suthor is arguing for the withholding of social security payments to those who don't "need" them? I suppose they don't "need" their IRA, 401K, savings accounts, or cash stuffed in mattresses either. After all, it's not like they have paid into that system with the expectation of a future benefit. That suggestion is nothing but promotion of theft....pure and and simple.
Reply to this Top
"A dollar is worth a dollar, regardless of your lot in life."
It's impossible to argue with that kind of stupidity. Just be glad people like Hokie01 have no actual say in the tax policies of this country.
Reply to this Top
well....if that is "stupid".....please explain to me when a dollar is not worth a "dollar"....pretty sure it buy an item off the value menu no matter whose hand it passes through. I assume you think the "unfair" part of that is that some people have worked harder, risked more, and have become successful enough that they no longer have to eat off that menu. How dare they? Punish them!
Thanks for the name-calling though - last resort of somene who has lost an arguement (well, that and the race card)
Top
Since you seem to be having difficulty, let's look at an example. To someone who is making $30,000 a year, an extra $3,000 makes a huge amount of difference. It changes weather they can afford basic things like a refrigerator, or a car, or a computer. But to someone who is making $250,000, an extra $25,000 dollars doesn't change the quality of life of that person that much even though it's the exact same percentage of income. It might change whether they buy a BMW or a Honda for instance. Any rational person who looks at evidence objectively can see that the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns. But if it makes you feel better to swallow your ayn randian inspired dogma then by all means, continue to think that you've "won" the argument.
Reply to this Top
Thanks for the explanation....now it's abundantly clear to me that a little bit of money means a lot to someone that doesn't have much....I never would have figured that out without your very complex analysis.
I guess my biggest problem is the use of the word "fairness." Apparently a large segment of the population(a majority even, as recently exhibited) believes that it means stealing from some to give to others. If you believe that is just, fine (though you are horribly wrong) - just don't use the "f" word to describe your plunder. Call it was it is - theft.
If theft is defined as "fairness" - then we are lost. I'm sorry if that truth stirs some scary memory of reading the philosphy of a certain mid-20th-century author, but truth it is.
Reply to this Top
"Any rational person who looks at evidence objectively can see that the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns"
So... who gets to decide the ideal income level for everyone.
What if I've worked so hard through the military, two engineering degrees, and graduate school because I feel I want the quality of life that allows for a BMW?
Who are you to say that I need to instead drive a Honda so I can pay more taxes?
Reply to this Top
"What if I've worked so hard through the military, two engineering degrees, and graduate school because I feel I want the quality of life that allows for a BMW?
Who are you to say that I need to instead drive a Honda so I can pay more taxes?"
Someone doesn't understand how progressive taxes work. If you really think the proposed changes are going to affect you so much that you have to buy a Honda instead of a BMW, then chances are you aren't intelligent enough to be in the position of buying a BMW in the first place.
Top
"Someone doesn't understand how progressive taxes work. If you really think the proposed changes are going to affect you so much that you have to buy a Honda instead of a BMW, then chances are you aren't intelligent enough to be in the position of buying a BMW in the first place."
versus
"It might change whether they buy a BMW or a Honda for instance."
Clearly you are not this person.
My post was instead directed at the person that seems to think marginalization of others achievements is justification for some type of so-called "fairness" or "equality"
Top
By definition, theft is without consent.
Reply to this Top
By definition 'theft' is without consent.
Reply to this Top
"Stupidity" is not name calling. Name-calling would be if I said something like "Hokie01 is a lead-paint eating retard that seems to have about the same intelligence as a lobotomized pig rolling around in its own feces".
I hope I cleared up that little misconception for you. You may now return to your self-appointed job of defending "the rich" on an internet forum. I am sure one day they will reward you for your efforts with a nice shiny nicke.
Reply to this Top
That last word should have been "nickel". Clearly one of those devious poor people STOLE my "l". This dastardly theft will not go unpunished.
Reply to this Top
Well that's better! But it really isn't my position that requires defense. Taking money (or any other property, freedom, etc.) from someone requires some justification. That is the difficult position to defend. I suppose however that you are one of the many in this country that believe that if someone has money, then they must have obtained it at the expesne of someone else. If that is your justification, then your premise is incorrect, and your position cannot be defended.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
Well there it is. If I think it is unfair that the tax code become even MORE progressive than it already is, then I must not be "intelligent" enough to understand the complexity of it.
You are missing the point. Rational people (actual rational people, not the ones noted in a previous post...who are by definition "irrational") are appalled when someone claims to know better than they do how to spend THEIR money.
Reply to this Top
I hate to break it to you buddy, but you are not the person who gets to declare which side of the 'argument' is rational or how so-called rational people think.
Reply to this Top
"Rational people ... are appalled when someone claims to know better than they do how to spend THEIR money." Actually most people generally agree that it's in the public's best interest for the government to provide services like a public education, a police force, regulations on pollution, a military and so on. That's the other reason it's not 'theft,' because you're getting something in return. But if you think that the government isn't using your money effectively, you can try to democratically change how money is spent. Or you can move to a different country. I think you'll find that most first-world countries have some kind of tax system that provide those kinds of things though.
Reply to this Top
I'm just going to throw this out there, but I don't believe Hokie01 thinks that public education, security, and some regulations aren't things the government should provide. As it turns out the government spends money on more than just common goods. In fact some people actually earn money in their tax returns ... that to me is appalling and goes straight to the earlier points of taxing somebody else more to give it to somebody with less. You as a citizen can also "earn money" from other people by making medicare claims and social security claims. Even some percentage of the common goods government provides are often over supported just so politicians can claim they're creating jobs and boosting the economy.
Reply to this Top
I'm not advocating the elimination of the tax system. I'm simply pointing out that this editorial is advancing the ridiculous notion that a smaller percentage of the population take on an even larger portion of the burden (it as already horribly disproportionate). I'm keenly aware of the need for effective (though limited) government. I just have a hard time buying into the notion that the funding of such a government is the responsibility of the minority (we are already there). That simply encourages the already unburdened majority to "democratically" shift it even further.
Even worse, the author advocates the elimination of payments SS payments to those who in their estimation do not "need" the money (if you can't see why that is offensive, then there is no hope for you). Those recipients are simply collecting payment from what is a government equivalent of a defined-benefit retirement plan (which they probably over-funded). Withholding those payments would certainly be theft.
I've heard the "pay their fair-share" demand for the better part of decade now....and I couldn't agree more....it's time for everyone to pay income taxes.....maybe then there would be more people who care how the moeny is spent.
Reply to this Top
Indeed.
When everyone pays their fair share, they'll be more likely to be concerned about frivolous spending and porkulus bills.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
Recently, I did not give a great deal of consideration to leaving feedback on blog page posts and also have positioned comments even substantially much less. Zehring http://worldtranslation.org/news/82-allfa-romeo-giulietta-sportiva.html
Reply to this Top
uxrdptbn <a href="http://www.timberlandschuhede.eu/22-womens-timberland-14inch-stiefel/" title="Frauen Timberland 14inch Stiefel">Frauen Timberland 14inch Stiefel</a>
Reply to this Top