Obama meets with Boehner to discuss fiscal cliff

All people need to pay taxes, paying more does not bother me.

So what is your definition of more?

" All people need to pay taxes,"

The premise is not only incorrect, but immoral.

The cliff is just on the road to responsibility. Most people will not "pay" more money. A lot will have to give up on payments. Most people will just pay the 6.2 percent and a dew point marginal tax. The taxes in America are among the lowest in the world. Time to pay up.

@Yuri

How about time for the President to make some serious, serious spending cuts! At least then you can talk about increasing revenue. Because you CAN'T spend your way out of this mess.

Obama’s second-term agenda will be shadowed by budget woes @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-second-term-agenda-will-be-shadowed-by-budget-woes/2012/12/08/ea97e956-4091-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html

What generally happens in these situations is a variation on (if you are old enough to remember) Whimpey from the Popeye cartoons. "I will gladly pay you on Wednesday for a hamburger you buy me today". For politicians, it is usually, "I will gladly cut government spending next year for a tax increase you will pass today." It never happens.

Not to mention that there is usually little relation between the rate of taxation and the amount collected. Rich people can afford to hire tax attorneys, accountants, and the like. They can hide their income from taxation. When taxes rise, they just hire more and better accountants. The gov't doesn't get more money.

The logical way to raise revenue is to close loopholes. The tax break on mortage payments, for example. The cap on payments for social security. Gov't programmes need to be means tested- there is no reason for Warren Buffett or Donald Trump to collect old age pension money. Ditto for Medicare. In addition, the age of eligibility needs to be raised to at least 70.

Those who WANT to pay more taxes can easily do so. Just write a check to the government, courtesy of the Treasury Department. They will gladly take your money.

All of Obama's tax increases, even IF they deliver the revenue as planned, will only be a small fraction of the federal government's yearly deficit. They will do nothing at all to keep the debt from growing year to year.

"Discuss"? Obama is not known for "discussing" anything. He is there to bully the other guy into giving in into more democrat party style tax-borrow-and-spend excess.

Imho, the Republicans should wash their hands off it and let the democrat party voodooh economists run into their predictable train wreck.

All people need to pay taxes, paying more does not bother me.

It may not bother you but what bothers me and based on how Uncle Sam has been handling the public purse up to this point (and that includes the Bush years also) I have pretty much zilch confidence that any more money handed over to him above and beyond what he's getting now is going to resemble anything close to being money well managed or well spent.

What I wonder, is whether the President is even going to bother to put a serious proposal on the table. I mean, not even the Dems would go along with the idiotic proposal sent over by Geithner. From what I can see, its all just playing politics. Planning to have America be weakened by going off the cliff, and then trying to blame Republicans for not going along with his 'plan' to prevent it.

How about time for the President to make some serious, serious spending cuts!

Yeah, like ending corporate welfare to the oil industry, implementing a transaction tax on superfluous finance transactions aimed at gaming the system, etc.

superfluous finance transactions aimed at gaming the system

What is this supposed to mean exactly?

What is this supposed to mean exactly?

Speculating or computer based transactions aimed at exploiting very minuscule margins.

Basically targeting hedge funds and other institutional investors that aren't investing in actual economy related activity, but finance sector-based systemic flaws they attempt to exploit.

You know, that would be the equivalent of the transaction tax they have been trying to introduce in Europe, but facing opposition from London.

You still have not explained your statement very well.

Speculating or computer based transactions aimed at exploiting very minuscule margins.

This is part of investing and is not 'superfluous'. All investors attempt to use the market to make money. They are not doing anything illegal. Your idea of a transaction tax would not hurt large investors very much, probably not at all.

Be careful of what may seem like quick fixes that are just superfluous attempts that actually do nothing.

As to computer based trading, there are various opinions and while there are certainly risks that must be taken into account, there are also benefits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20033065

government study has found no direct evidence computer-based financial trading has led to increased volatility or abuse of the market. It says algorithmic trading, automated systems for buying and selling securities, can be beneficial. And high-frequency trading, when the assets are held for as little as a few seconds, may have modestly improved the functioning of markets.

This is part of investing and is not 'superfluous'. All investors attempt to use the market to make money. They are not doing anything illegal. Your idea of a transaction tax would not hurt large investors very much, probably not at all.

From your response, it would seem that you must be employed by one of these entities.

The first problem is in characterizing these overblown finance sector leviathans brought into existence by deregulation simply as "investors". The vague term "institutional investors" is also misleading.

As far as I'm concerned, they are not investing in anything but a rigged system that they can exploit to siphon marginal profits.

I noted that it was in Europe that the transaction tax was being promoted, with British opposition, because London is the Wall St over there. The article you cite is from a British paper that is obviously miming the line of the finance sector. The jargonistic use of the term "markets" in the sentence

high-frequency trading, when the assets are held for as little as a few seconds, may have modestly improved the functioning of markets

is indicative of the spin being used to support a regulatory regime that not only tolerates but promotes such activity. They have hijacked the term market in order to associate themselves with upholders of the free market system, when what they actually are referring to are so-called "capital markets" that wouldn't exist in the same form if the regulatory regime were sound.

From your response, it would seem that you must be employed by one of these entities.

Perhaps you would have more success with your discussions, if you were to better focus on them rather than creating superfluous conspiracies or delusion mimicking comments.

As far as I'm concerned, they are not investing in anything but a rigged system that they can exploit to siphon marginal profits.

Yes, however it seems we have determined you do not actually know much about how markets actually work and have chosen instead to create a fantastic yarn instead.

The article you cite is from a British paper that is obviously miming the line of the finance sector.

You are attempingt to claim the information is incorrect just because the newspaper is British and are further suggesting that because it is British it would be a mouthpiece for the financial sector. Considering your own record of incorrectness, perhaps you should actually read the article and the information within instead of digging your own hole ever deeper.

is indicative of the spin

Prove it is 'spin'. You have written a lot of words but have failed to include any actual content in your post. It seems to be a habit with you: rhetoric over substance. It really is something you should consider working on.

Oh, and for your edification, the BBC is not a British newspaper.