Obama tax plan that will be signed into Law.. any breakdown on this?

[R_P_A_S]

Can anyone here offer some breakdowns and or links to someone who can? I'm trying to grasp this thing and how it's bad or not so bad.. thank you.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12015672

[Broletariat]

The bourgeoisie are passing laws with hardly any working class presence anywhere. You can be assured it's probably bad

[R_P_A_S]

The bourgeoisie are passing laws with hardly any working class presence anywhere. You can be assured it's probably bad

Yeah. I can imagine.. I been reading about it more and more. I just want more info from different people and any additional links I might be missing.

[Red Commissar]

The reasoning behind the taxcuts that the Republicans pitched and Obama and his crew went along with was that it would put back more money in to the middle-class. The people at the top will be motivated to hire more. That's how they sold it. The real problem is what it would be doing with those at the top who are already making it fine and will continue to do so.

As these cuts continue from their old ones, the rich will simply continue concentrating more into themselves, as they have done for the past few decades. In the long run it will be even worse for the pay of those working under them really, as it has been anyways.

And to compound this is another issue; At current levels the US government is already running a deficit and is in debt- how will cutting sources of revenue even help that? The only end result is the social programs and infrastructure projects falling into even more problems and allowing for even more of a "reason" for them to be phased out and privatized.

[R_P_A_S]

The reasoning behind the taxcuts that the Republicans pitched and Obama and his crew went along with was that it would put back more money in to the middle-class. The people at the top will be motivated to hire more. That's how they sold it. The real problem is what it would be doing with those at the top who are already making it fine and will continue to do so.

As these cuts continue from their old ones, the rich will simply continue concentrating more into themselves, as they have done for the past few decades. In the long run it will be even worse for the pay of those working under them really, as it has been anyways.

And to compound this is another issue; At current levels the US government is already running a deficit and is in debt- how will cutting sources of revenue even help that? The only end result is the social programs and infrastructure projects falling into even more problems and allowing for even more of a "reason" for them to be phased out and privatized.

Thanks for your input on this. What about the extension of unemployment benefits. I'm on unemployment and this helps me I guess.. But I the compromise is probably not worth it.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's somewhat amusing how the growth of state debt leads to the greater subjection of the state to capital, and yet the state may only ultimately alleviate this debt through taking from capital.

[Catma]

There are at least two other things of note the bill does. The estate tax was reduced from 55% to 45% under the Bush tax cuts, and was scheduled to go down to zero and then expire (go to 55%). The bill keeps it at 45%. Politically the idea was that once it went to zero it would never come back. That's probably right, since the bill keeping it at 45% has already been criticized as a tax hike. Unbelievable.

It also imposes a partial payroll tax holiday on social security. The difference is supposed to be made up with the general budget. This creates two problems - first, that any restoration of previous tax rates will be billed as a tax hike, so the idea of a "tax holiday" is stupid. It's more likely a permanent cut. Secondly, for the first time ever the funding of social security will add to the deficit. This puts the entire program on dangerous ground, and finally allows social security opponents' wet dream of being able to cut the program.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here's an alternative (and leftist) video analysis of this:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=651

Here's a shorter vesion of the above:

vFdN2zbXbKk

[R_P_A_S]

Here's an alternative (and leftist) video analysis of this:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=651

Here's a shorter vesion of the above:

vFdN2zbXbKk

thanks for the video rosa! this is the stuff i enjoy because I can share with friends.

thanks to all also for their inputs.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Here my view on the subject, Obama has always been on the right-wing, from the very start. But had to play a left wing card in order to be elected. Over time more of his ture color are begin to show. Let look at the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. $288 B out of $787 B went to tax cuts 3^.5% of the bill, next $144 B went to state's who tax could pay for themselfs, even thought the right point out at ever turn to give power to the state. Next there was $111 for thing like the super grid, so power companies can charge us for using energy on lines we supplied to them. Then there was the Health Care bill with out the public option. And now more tax cuts for the rich. At this point I think any one will see that Obama has never been on the left.

[bcbm]

51 million, mostly lower income, will do worse under new tax law (http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/12/50-million-households-will-do-worse-less-money-new-tax-bill-poor-take-making-work-pay-credit-expire-.html)

[Impulse97]

Here my view on the subject, Obama has always been on the right-wing, from the very start. Then there was the Health Care bill with out the public option. And now more tax cuts for the rich. At this point I think any one will see that Obama has never been on the left.

No Democrat is on the left. They are by the world standard, main stream conservative. It's only in the historically Right-Wing American politics that they're considered 'Liberal' or 'Leftist' or god forbid...'Socialist'! (Eeeek! Terrorfying!).

I don't like it. There are too many tax cuts for the wealthy in it. Plus, how does cutting income when you need every dime you can get (and have 13T in debt) make sense?:hammersickle::trotski::hammersickle:

[Klaatu]

What has happened to the real Left? Here we hide, in the shadows. WE are the ones who "are in the right" (no pun intended) on social and economic issues :mad: not almost all Democrats, w/few exceptions

I am sad to find that Obama is in the pocket of the monied class of this country. That's obvious. Well at least he played a part in ending the discrimination policy of DADT (which he actually thrust upon congress - rather than executive order - which he had full power to do himself)

[Comrade_Stalin]

No Democrat is on the left. They are by the world standard, main stream conservative. It's only in the historically Right-Wing American politics that they're considered 'Liberal' or 'Leftist' or god forbid...'Socialist'! (Eeeek! Terrorfying!).

I don't like it. There are too many tax cuts for the wealthy in it. Plus, how does cutting income when you need every dime you can get (and have 13T in debt) make sense?:hammersickle::trotski::hammersickle:

Very ture, No Democrat is on the left. The only reason that the right is against tax cuts for the poor, is so they have a reason to cut governmenet job. You know the ones that pay real well and have good benefits. Jobs like teachers and firefighters.

[Comrade_Stalin]

What has happened to the real Left? Here we hide, in the shadows. WE are the ones who "are in the right" (no pun intended) on social and economic issues :mad: not almost all Democrats, w/few exceptions

I am sad to find that Obama is in the pocket of the monied class of this country. That's obvious. Well at least he played a part in ending the discrimination policy of DADT (which he actually thrust upon congress - rather than executive order - which he had full power to do himself)

DADT would of come to a end in this country sooner or later, just like no voting rights for women came to an end. It was never a question of if, only when.