Republicans call proposed middle class tax cut a tax hike

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/democrats-call-dibs-on-the-middle-class/384460/

Republicans, as expected, trashed the proposal. "Just as the sun rises in the east, Washington Democrats propose another massive tax increase," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Representative Paul Ryan

I guess the republicans only judge whether it's a tax increase or not based on how it effects the wealthy.

 

[dismal]

Let me ask you this:

If I had a plan to send every person in the USA a check for $500 is that a tax cut or a spending increase?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You are right, better to send that money to an oil firm with enormous profits.

 

[HelixSpiral]

He said tax increase not spending increase.

 

[fromderinside]

He said tax increase not spending increase.

Here comes a bubba sez.... wait ...... here it comes ...... bubba sez..... "Uh" ..... wait ........ bubba sez ...... "Give me another billy" ....... wait ......... here it comes ....... guvnamint givin' money to pour ...... wait ........ tax'nspend ........ eyup, its a tax increase. Howrah for bubba.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/democrats-call-dibs-on-the-middle-class/384460/

Republicans, as expected, trashed the proposal. "Just as the sun rises in the east, Washington Democrats propose another massive tax increase," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Representative Paul Ryan

I guess the republicans only judge whether it's a tax increase or not based on how it effects the wealthy.

If it raises the taxes on some it's a tax hike.

It's quite possible for a measure to be both a tax cut and a tax hike at the same time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is great news! Our deficit must be gone if they are going to cut taxes some more.

A tax hike on the rich and high frequency stock market traders. I'm all for targeting high frequency traders, especially the super fast trading that makes value from extremely small changes in stock value, but high quantity of stock.

Getting rid of the tax break for the top group makes sense, though, I'd like to create that extra tier where income over $10,000,000 is taxed differently than $400,000.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Smart money's on absolutely nothing happening. Then after that, I predict more proposals. Proposals from here. Proposals from there. All proposals going absolutely nowhere.
And so it goes.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Let me ask you this:

If I had a plan to send every person in the USA a check for $500 is that a tax cut or a spending increase?

What the fuck do you think a tax cut is?

 

[laughing dog]

A reduction in tax liabilities for the middle class that is funded by an increase in tax liabilities for the rich can be termed a "tax cut" or a "tax increase". I have not seen whether this proposal means an overall reduction or increase in expected tax liabilities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A reduction in tax liabilities for the middle class that is funded by an increase in tax liabilities for the rich can be termed a "tax cut" or a "tax increase". I have not seen whether this proposal means an overall reduction or increase in expected tax liabilities.

Based on the article, it seems implied that it will be tax revenue neutral, ie cuts = increases, ignoring economic consequences of the change.

 

[Togo]

The article heavily implies it is revenue-neutral. The tax cut for the middle class is paid for by undoing some of the previous GOP tax cuts for the rich, and putting a tax on high frequency trading, and changing some elements of the corporate tax code.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A reduction in tax liabilities for the middle class that is funded by an increase in tax liabilities for the rich can be termed a "tax cut" or a "tax increase". I have not seen whether this proposal means an overall reduction or increase in expected tax liabilities.

Based on the article, it seems implied that it will be tax revenue neutral, ie cuts = increases, ignoring economic consequences of the change.

If this passed, my tax rate would likely be cut in half. I don't make oodles of money, but I'm not poor either. I'd say my tax burden would be a bit low at that point. $2,000 credit to a married couple making less than $200k? Based on the current fiscal course of the nation, I don't know if this is the best idea. Would it not be better to put that money into spending on things we've already passed in legislation but don't actually have the cash to pay for?

 

[Underseer]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/democrats-call-dibs-on-the-middle-class/384460/

Republicans, as expected, trashed the proposal. "Just as the sun rises in the east, Washington Democrats propose another massive tax increase," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Representative Paul Ryan

I guess the republicans only judge whether it's a tax increase or not based on how it effects the wealthy.

If it helps commoners, then it harms the aristocracy, and is therefore bad like a tax hike, therefore it is a tax hike. QEDuh.

 

[Axulus]

He said tax increase not spending increase.

There are proposed tax increases to fund the spending - hence tax increase

 

[ksen]

He said tax increase not spending increase.

There are proposed tax increases to fund the spending - hence tax increase

If it's revenue neutral then as far as the economy cares it's not a tax increase.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's a tax hike on the richest of the disgustingly rich, and pretty much nobody else. It's not a 'tax hike' for anyone else. Saying it's a tax hike on a broad level is not accurate because it is not a tax hike for the audience they can be reasonably sure they will reach.

You could list the names of people or organizations for whom it IS a tax hike on a single sheet of printer paper. I think the harder issue is that the revenue from it will not be as advertised: people will scale back on high volume day trading that this targets and use other similar but untaxed methods instead.

 

[Axulus]

There are proposed tax increases to fund the spending - hence tax increase

If it's revenue neutral then as far as the economy cares it's not a tax increase.

That would be incorrect - it's a tax increase to pay for additional spending, and will have effects on the economy as a result.

 

[Underseer]

It's a tax hike on the richest of the disgustingly rich, and pretty much nobody else. It's not a 'tax hike' for anyone else. Saying it's a tax hike on a broad level is not accurate because it is not a tax hike for the audience they can be reasonably sure they will reach.

[...]

You forget that in the minds of conservatives and libertarians (who are completely different things! honest!) that the very wealthy are the only ones that matter. Therefore, if taxes are raised for the very wealthy but lowered for everyone else, it's a "tax hike." If taxes are lowered for the very wealthy but raised for everyone else, it's a "tax cut."

Your problem is that you think anyone other than the aristocracy matters, and that's why communist freedom-haters like us make patriotic Real Americans^TM so angry.

 

[Axulus]

It's a tax hike on the richest of the disgustingly rich, and pretty much nobody else. It's not a 'tax hike' for anyone else. Saying it's a tax hike on a broad level is not accurate because it is not a tax hike for the audience they can be reasonably sure they will reach.

You could list the names of people or organizations for whom it IS a tax hike on a single sheet of printer paper. I think the harder issue is that the revenue from it will not be as advertised: people will scale back on high volume day trading that this targets and use other similar but untaxed methods instead.

It will have liquidity effects as well as applying to people who buy stock through their 401ks. Generally, less liquidity will increase the spread between the bid and the ask (meaning that the market makers earn a higher profit per trade, a hidden tax of sorts) and generally increase price volatility due to less supply of orders on the market (meaning any particularly large order will affect price by more than it does currently).