Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Tax cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tax cuts

    For or against? Discuss.
    Married to a peds surgeon attending

  • #2
    I haven't been keeping up much, but for the most part, I think we need to focus on reducing our debt, which I think could be best done by a flat tax with very, very few people exempt and cutting government services.
    Laurie
    My team: DH (anesthesiologist), DS (9), DD (8)

    Comment


    • #3
      The Bush tax cuts need to go, especially for upper incomes. I kind of wish the Obama plan to replace them with other tax programs was going to go into effect (Marriage Penalty relief, indexing the AMT, etc.), but if that isn't going to happen I'm fine with it. I'd rather pay the extra $8K or so and see government programs continue to receive funding.
      Alison

      Comment


      • #4
        I think we need an entirely new tax code.

        I'm also 100% in agreement with Alison. the tax cuts just need to go away.

        J.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think if the tax cuts go away, it should be across the board. We need to all be invested in the financial future of our country. There could be exceptions, but a small increase across the board is in order. I dint see any reason why someone earning 125k shouldn't shell out another 2k/yr.

          Not increasing across the board is a bad idea IMO

          Kris
          ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
          ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

          Comment


          • #6
            The reason why I posed this is because last night a good childhood friend posted this as his FB status:

            "Time to pay up Richies, and stop being so whiny about tax increases. Get over yourselves!"

            This sparked a huge debate on his thread, and made me wonder what you all think about it.

            I think it really depends on a lot of things: COL were you live, your state's tax code (for instance, I am in Oregon where income taxes are really high; my friend lives in Washington with no income taxes), etc. I tried to ask him how he defined "rich", and he refused to answer me. Honestly, a $250,000 income does NOT make you "rich" when other things are factored in. It just really angers me when people throw out the word "rich" and then refuse to define it. IMO, "rich" would be someone who makes millions per year. Yes, of course they can afford a huge tax increase. But when HALF of your income is already going to taxes? It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't think this country has a cash flow problem, but more a management problem. The last few administrations have butchered the budget; I don't think the taxpayers should be penalized for that.
            Married to a peds surgeon attending

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm deeply ambivalent. On the one hand, the deficit is scary. We are all going to have to make some sacrifices, both in the form of spending cuts and tax increases, to balance the budget. Extending the Bush tax cuts for anyone at this time seems very counterproductive.

              On the other hand, the tenuous state of our economic recovery gives me some pause. This may not be the ideal time to allow the tax cuts to expire. Unfortunately, I don't think even our best economists can accurately predict whether expiration or extension will make a difference. It does seem more likely that taxpayers in lower income brackets will spend any tax cut money and continue the economic stimulus. That justification for not doing away with the cuts across the board makes sense to me. The argument for extending tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000/year seems harder to make, but maybe there is some risk of upsetting recovery efforts there too.

              Comment


              • #8
                I agree with Jenn. A new tax code is in order. I'm not opposed to letting the tax cuts expire. In fact, I think it would be the sensible thing to do. If there is truly a temporary economic concern about the affect of the increased tax load, I think that would primarely affect the lower tax brackets retail spending. I'd imagine that higher tax bracket raised tax rates would have a greater effect on the stock market since that extra cash usually goes to retirements accounts or investment and not Walmart.

                It was my understanding that these historically low tax rates were enacted during the Bush years to spur the economy during the recession in his term as president. They were set to expire because they were billed as a temporary measure needed at the time for stimulus -- instead of a big stimulus package. That didn't seem to work over the long term since our economy is in worse shape NOW than during that recession. So, now, we don't want to let them go and act as if these tax rates were permanent. Why? If we had all been receiving a tax credit of 1000 bucks a year for the last ten years as "stimulus" would we also think we should keep it? I can see why a politician would want to pass a spending bill or credit bill for stimulus instead of giving tax cuts -- because once you've granted them, you will never be able to justify getting that income stream back from the citizens. It's our money - I agree - but we have reduced our payment to the government over time and we have not cut spending at all. We've increased it and we expect the government to make good on promises made at a higher tax rate, too.

                I don't see how we can have there schizoid ideas that we can lower the deficit like in the Clinton years, keep the tax cuts of the Bush years, keep the Medicare Plan D drug benefit from the Bush years, keep social security the same and just cut discretionary spending, like education and NIH research budgets and have a balanced budget. We are delusional. I've always said that I'd like to see what happens when entitlements changed over from welfare moms to grandma...well, now I will. SS, Medicare and pensions are going to hit the wall with life expectancies so much higher than they have ever been. That, and Medicaid pays for long term nursing home care for those that can't afford it. That will be a HUGE balloon in the next decade, too. How will we care for our elderly that didn't get LTC insurance and didn't save anything or enough for retirement? Will we have the same "you made your bed" rhetoric that we had with welfare moms?


                Obviously, I'm a bit fired up over this. My younger brother was just told that due to the elections, he will not be paid for the next 3 months because the University isn't sure his funded grant will actually be funded under the new budget in January. So, research funding once again decreases to less than 11% of grants submitted...while we bail out investment bankers pulling down 500 K a year for driving the economy off the cliff with the "innovation" of synthetic CDOs.


                And another thing: As medical families, we should be careful what we wish for .. because we may keep the money from the high end bracket tax cut now, but end up with deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments to docs due to a shattered budget. I'd rather take the money out of my pocket AND the CEO's pocket and keep payment to our "middle class" physicians steady.
                Last edited by Sheherezade; 12-06-2010, 04:19 PM.
                Angie
                Gyn-Onc fellowship survivor - 10 years out of the training years; reluctant suburbanite
                Mom to DS (18) and DD (15) (and many many pets)

                "Where are we going - and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  I agree a new tax code is in order but I also agree with Jamie in that "rich" in one area is totally not in another. There are so many aspects that need to be revamped but its never going to happen - looks like they're going to extend them for now and fix it later which is what they always try to do.
                  Wife to NSG out of training, mom to 2, 10 & 8, and a beagle with wings.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm all about completely rewriting the tax code, like that's going to happen.

                    Just a minor point... it's a graduated tax system. If they extend the "middle class" tax cuts but not the top bracket ones, it still benefits the top bracket because they keep the rate on the first $250,000. It's not like as soon as you cross the $250K threshold all your income is taxed at the higher rate.
                    Julia - legislative process lover and general government nerd, married to a PICU & Medical Ethics attending, raising a toddler son and expecting a baby daughter Oct '16.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Higher taxes do not result in higher tax revenues. You employ higher taxes for the purposes of achieving greater wealth redistribution. The issue is whether you want this.

                      God, Obama is on the news right now, trying to make himself out to be the hero here. And the big, bad Republicans are just being unreasonable and impervious to his brilliance. **Barf** The magic is gone, baby. Most people have grown tired of the condescension. Please, please stop.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think, for me it is a question of investment in our country. I don't have a problem with paying more as long as it will go towards the debt and to getting America back on her feet. By getting America back on her feet though, I don't mean that my neighbor with 2 4-wheelers and a boat gets help from the govt because he is unable to pay his mortgage. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I have really been struggling a lot this past year or two with the idea that being a responsible member of society is punishable in some way.

                        When I am in a conversation about this topic with people who are earning nice incomes ... of 100-250k, for example, they are all about raising the taxes above 250k in a sort of "let the rich bastards pay more" sort of a frenzy. When I suggest that we raise taxes for all ... 2% across the board for everyone they freak. Don't you know how much I pay in student loans, I work hard for my money and I'm not paying in another dime (let the richies do it) blah, blah, blah. I find that we have developed an entitlement mentality in this country and that we want a lot of services as long as someone else floats the bill. Why NOT make sure that every tax payer is actually paying and isn't getting it all refunded at the end of the year? Why not close tax loopholes for corporations who are going offshore? Why don't we all pitch in?

                        Frankly, I'm not impressed with the "historically low" argument. Taxes might be at a historical low, but with the economy what it is, I imagine that we want people to be able to afford nice homes and cars to keep our struggling building industry going. We will do our last hoorah for the foreseeable future by fixing our floors next month. It will be our last and final contribution to our local economy ... though the govt. can feel free to distribute the extra tax dollars to the builder once he goes out of business or is about to.

                        I don't understand what is so wrong with working hard to earn a nice income. It isn't like Thomas is a contractor and he has incorporated and pay us a salary and we have offshore accounts (though I suppose I can mention this as a possibility!). We aren't funneling large sums of money from corporations. Changing the taxes at this point will definitely mean no more discretionary spending and may mean that we simply can't keep Andrew in his school for his junior and senior years. That's our problem, right? I mean, seriously, how dare we take our money out of the mouths of the unemployed, right? Wrong. This year, 3 teachers were let ago at the upper school (high school) because of low enrollment numbers and tuition went up nearly $2000k. Who loses their jobs when another 1 or 2 parents can't afford it now?

                        For sure, we won't be donating next year like we have every year. We will consider Thomas' medicare work to be the donations of his time. It sucks. It sounds terrible. We don't have a money tree. The increase in taxes will mean just that chunk of money that we would be able to use for these endeavors.

                        The funny thing is ... we don't take outrageously fun Baha vacations, buy expensive furniture or live large. Our home is nice, but it isn't a McMansion. We do have 5 children, but we will anticipate paying for their college or letting them take out loans. They won't be eligible for grant money. We don't get free healthcare or subsidized healthcare. We have an annual deductible of $6000 before the insurance kicks in. We actually canceled some work we were going to get done this year after Aidan had his MRI. We had to pay in full for it. The individual who was going to do the work is on MNCare and gets free care. He absolutely did NOT believe us for a second that we had to pay for the MRI "but your husband is a doctor. You have Blue Cross Blue Shield". yup.

                        I'm all for a little more fairness. In other countries where the tax rates are higher, you are eligible for the same benefits as everyone else ... free (or almost free college), free (or almost free healthcare) ... Here, the better off pay and don't get any part of what they are paying in to when it comes to services.



                        Kris
                        ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
                        ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X