myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
PROOF: Obama IS the end of the free world
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 395, 396, 397 ... 407, 408, 409  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1802
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
Now NW30, let me ask you, do you really think that Rep. Boehner's offer was a good one? You know, if someone gave me a smoke and mirrors offer that lacked crucial details, I wouldn't accept it. Furthermore, with such a lousy counter offer from Boehner, why on earth would I budge at all on my original offer.

When you think about it, by Boehner's suggestion that he's willing generate revenue through cutting unidentified deductions and loopholes, he's effectively blowing off Grover Norquist's pledge. So one wonders why he just doesn't accept President Obama's offer to raise the tax rate from 35 to 39.6% on those making in excess of $200-250K. Or, if he thinks that a 4.6% tax increase on wealthier folks is just too much to bear, he could counter with maybe a 37% rate, to include a possible cap the mortgage interest rate at maybe $50K. Another possibility would be to increase the $200-250K bracket up to $500-600K.

What's Boehner's plan going to be to address the AMT? At this point, it appears that he's ignoring it completely.

Let me ask you again NW30, you think that Boehner has made a serious counter offer?

Yes, he's trying to stick up with the idiology of his party (though not very good, in my opinion, with the loophole talk), it is what it is. Where as the stuff you just spewed is the idiolgy of your party.
If there is an agreement that raises the taxes on the rich, thru rates or closing loopholes, but there is no spending cuts, then Boehner looses, he's done, and his leadership will be in jeopardy.
He'd be falling a sword to avoid the cliff, BHO wins.
But actually BHO is sitting pretty, he's thinking he can't loose either way, we'll see how that works out.

Spending cuts also, or BHO ownes the cliff w/ no deal.
Done.

And one more thing, maybe a bit of a hidden secret, if we go over the cliff, BHO thinks that Obamacare will be easier to afford.
You don't hear that in the MSM do ya?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4229

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems like the millionaires and billionaires are fleeing California. It is easy to see that even with higher tax rates, revenues will be lower.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/dec/8/california-state-revenue-misses-projection-almost-/

Nevada will reap the rewards..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1961
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read that article from the Moon family paper. Its contents never mentioned people leaving California, only that the expected revenues to the State may return lower than projected and blamed that on Facebook.

I wonder if the writer of your source might have put in a bit more effort before deadline? Or perhaps you might have dedicated a greater effort in research prior to your post?

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5891

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Come on Bard, you and I live in some of the best real estate in California, if not the world. Do you really think that the rich folks that live around us will go somewhere else? I think not. Things just aren't as simple as some folks on the right want to suggest. It's always about living the good life in the right spot. That never changes, regardless of tax rates. Believe me, the rich can afford what they want. If they can't handle it, there's always someone else that can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5891

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW30, I think most thoughtful folks know that Rep. Boehner is corralled by extreme right wing representatives in his party. President Obama isn't really asking for too much. I think we all know that Obama's negotiation stance isn't that untoward in avoiding the main impact of the "fiscal cliff". Hopefully, Boehner understands what needs to happen by the end of the year, and what can be further negotiated afterward. Republicans need to learn that their old talking points and tired strategies need to be revised to succeed. Spending can be reeled in, but only through practical ways. I wonder whether Republicans are smart enough to know where they can win and gain real leverage over time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4229

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chandler, they will keep their home here, but incorporate in Nevada, film or develop their businesses in Utah or Canada, and spend winters in Tahoe. They aren't stupid, and many are Democrats as well as Republicans who know where the cockroaches run when the lights come on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5363

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ideology. Lose. You seem to have trouble with the facts as well. But you know how to make an impression. Head first into the fender. Not necessarily a good impression.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1802
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well we may as well just throw this into the mix, seeings how everything is so peachy out here in Cali.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Californians could face ‘double taxation’ with state, federal carbon taxes

Last month, environmentalists cheered as California launched a cap-and-trade program, but talks of a federal carbon tax raised concerns about double taxation.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that while the chances of a federal tax on carbon emissions being adopted are still remote, California state officials are worried enough to have started discussing the prospect.

“We are aware that it is a possibility, and we have been considering it as of late,” said California Air Resources Board spokesman Stanley Young. “We want to make sure that California companies continue to transition into the program without any sort of disadvantage.”

“We promote the possibility of the federal government addressing climate change,” he said. “And on our part, we’re prepared to align our program in a way that allows California to move forward.”

One potential solution would be for Congress to exempt California companies that already participate in the state cap-and-trade program from a carbon tax. California officials have also indicated they could tweak their system to harmonize it with the possible federal tax.

“You either have one or the other — you don’t have them both,” said climate economist Jasmin Ansar with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group. “You’d have the danger of, in effect, double taxation.”

According to the Brookings Institution, a $20 per ton carbon tax that rises 4 percent annually would raise $150 billion per year over ten years and reduce carbon emissions 20 percent below 2006 levels by 2050.

However, a study from the Institute for Energy Research’s Robert Murphy found that a carbon tax would make the tax code more convoluted and hinder economic growth.

Nationally, there has been talk of a growing consensus among lawmakers who support a carbon tax. There are even indications that support for the tax is growing among conservatives as a way to address climate change without having to have as many costly regulations.

Last month, the American Enterprise Institute co-hosted an event with the Brookings Institution, the International Monetary Fund, and Resources for the Future about the economics of carbon taxes that included a keynote speaker from the Obama Treasury Department.

The Chronicle also notes that conservative economist Arthur Laffer and former George W. Bush economic adviser Gregory Mankiw both support putting a price on carbon.

However, a carbon tax would violate the Americans for Tax Reform pledge signed by most Republicans in Congress.

“The creation of any new tax such as a VAT or energy tax — even if originally passed with offsetting tax reductions elsewhere — would inevitably lead to higher taxes as two taxes would be at the disposal of politicians to increase taxes,” said ATR President Grover Norquist. “There is no conceivable way to add an energy or VAT tax to the burdens American taxpayers face that would not violate the pledge over time.”

Yet some say that both systems can work to complement one another, and that lawmakers will make sure companies aren’t double taxed.

“What Congress could do and probably would do, given the strength of California’s delegation, is say, ‘OK, if you’re participating in the (cap-and-trade system), you don’t have to pay the tax,’” said Florida State University law professor and author of the book “The Case for a Carbon Tax,” Shi-Ling Hsu. “For sure, they’re not going to make those companies double pay.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/09/californians-could-face-double-taxation-with-state-federal-carbon-taxes/#ixzz2EiuFKUFl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5363

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW--your post would be funny if it weren't so sad. You appear to have graduated from high school in America without any conception of how the Federal and State governments work. Then you've stewed in Glen Beck type paranoia. You apparently missed a discussion on the global warming thread in this forum, where it belongs, on the differences between cap and trade and carbon taxation. Let me see if I can explain what you missed in high school.

The Federal government is the supreme authority in this country--sometimes called the sovereign. We adopted a Constitution and fought a civil war to establish that principle. The Federal government, acting through the Congress, can completely occupy the field of authority, or it can establish a role for the states, even at times giving the state a role in Federal processes. There are multiple examples of these different concepts. But if the Federal government wishes, it can, under the Commerce clause, have the sole authority over something like carbon regulation.

Now those of you who don't accept the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of issues like abortion and regulation of pollution may not remember that EPA's authority to regulate green house gasses was challenged by environmental groups under the Bush administration that insisted the Clean Air Act didn't simply give EPA that authority--it required EPA to act. They won--one of many cases where the Bush administration's approach flaunted established law. Then the Re-thugs tried to block every attempt by EPA to regulate green house gasses. And that President who "couldn't lead" managed to get new fuel efficiency standards adopted and supported by the auto industry.

Now comes the State of California to step into the vaccuum where the Re-thugs in the Congress have tried to thwart reasonable regulation of greenhouse gasses at the behest of the carbon industries. The Clean Air Act is one of those laws that relies on the State governments as the first string in regulating air pollutants, so the State is well within their authority. But in the event that we finally establish some type of national program--whether it is cap and trade or the more efficient carbon tax--Congress will almost certainly declare it to be the Federal program, and establish that it will replace any state programs that are not consistent. Of course much of this was in the article you cited--if you had bothered to read it for comprehension rather than just post what you thought was another "gotcha." There is no chance, none, of double taxation of carbon.

You might try reading some sources not recommended by Glen Beck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14321

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
Yet some say that both systems can work to complement one another, and that lawmakers will make sure companies aren’t double taxed.

“What Congress could do and probably would do, given the strength of California’s delegation, is say, ‘OK, if you’re participating in the (cap-and-trade system), you don’t have to pay the tax,’” said Florida State University law professor and author of the book “The Case for a Carbon Tax,” Shi-Ling Hsu. “For sure, they’re not going to make those companies double pay.”

What company, pray tell, has ever paid any taxes (that weren't, by definition, ultimately passed on to the consumer)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 395, 396, 397 ... 407, 408, 409  Next
Page 396 of 409

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group