http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politi...tml?hpt=hp_bn3Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.
Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.
The statements reflected how negotiations on the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to occur on January 1 -- the fiscal cliff -- have evolved since Obama's re-election last month.
Republicans once opposed to any new revenue in their quest to shrink government now realize Obama's victory and public support for the president's campaign theme of higher taxes on the wealthy leave them with little negotiating leverage.
Less than four weeks from the fiscal cliff, GOP leaders face a choice: Agreeing to Obama's demand to hold down tax rates on most Americans while allowing higher rates on top earners, or being blamed for everyone's taxes going up in 2013.
The major unresolved question of negotiations involving the White House and congressional leaders is whether eliminating tax deductions and loopholes -- as proposed by House Republicans -- can raise enough revenue without hitting middle-class Americans too hard.
They should just raise them on everyone who voted for Obama, it's about time people start feeling the consequences of their actions. It's easy to vote to raise someone else's taxes, but I doubt many of them have the stones to vote to raise their own.
Perseverance of the Saints
It would change a lot of people's voting tendencies if they were required to pay the higher rate they were trying to push on others.
Imagine how different our government might look if it were a "a la carte" in which each voter only paid for the programs he supported. How many would suddenly become advocates of smaller government?
If poor people would spend as much time working hard as they do complaining about how much in taxes people like myself pays they might not have to pay as much in taxes themselves. It's so easy for the handout class to whine about how much in taxes the rich pay. Just how much should we have to pay? Should we have to pay 20% because we make so much money? Go ahead with that plan and see what happens to your jobs. I guarantee companies will do just like I did and begin laying people off because they're sick of being taxed to death simply because they create jobs and offer services to the public. Services that YOU NEED. Now you're out of a job, then what? You're not that smart to begin with so what do you do with yourselves? Now the unemployment rate is REALLY high because companies are scaling back. They'll find ways to outsource even more jobs. And the dummy class will then complain about the lack of jobs in the country and how they've had to take minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. Meanwhile, the rich are still rich because they're smart and plan with their money.
Buffett was willing to walk away from a deal because the taxes would have taken too much of a bite out of it. Fortunately for him, the board gave in and allowed him to structure the deal that he liked, saving him from his own Norquistian response.
That's not the only time that taxes played a major role on Buffett's decisions, as recounted by Schroeder. Later in the book (pp. 533-534), she recounts how Buffett chose to structure his investments under Berkshire Hathaway's corporate umbrella, rather than as part of his hedge fund's general portfolio, precisely because of the tax advantages.
"Taxes for thee, not for me."
Finally, a sober moment.