Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent?

[ugabuga]

According to the nonpartisan?Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years...And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?hp

 

[AndrewG]

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years...And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?hp

You mean the folks that actually hire people to make more money?

 

[Andy A]

You mean the folks that actually hire people to make more money?

Nah. He means all those people that pay over 50% of the taxes.

 

[scooterbug44]

The tax cuts need to expire. We couldn't afford them before, we sure as hell can't afford them now.

 

[Koa]

Yes, that's right. It would go to the people who hire others to make things like big homes, luxury yachts, golf clubs, sail boats, exotic automobiles, etc. In other words, it would be pumped back into the economy, and the taxes are still collected when it goes down the line. Studies have shown that by cutting taxes, the government can actually collect more money, so this argument is false at best. Obama just wants the money redistributed by force. When government takes the money up front, it grows government.

 

[Koa]

Many people tend to think that we need taxes to pay for commonly used things, like parks, roads, defense, etc. However, they often want others to pay for their fair share. Does a wealthy person really use the highway more than a poor person? Do they use the public library, public schools, etc more frequently? Does our military spend more to protect a wealthy person than a poor person?

Last time I checked, it was not illegal to be wealthy, though I bet Jesse Jackson Jr is trying to change that, too. Maybe the government should learn to spend $680,000,000,000 less for the next ten years. By the way, that sounds like a big number but divide it by 300 million Americans and spread it over ten years and that is only $225 more per American per year. Instead, you are suggesting that only 1 % of Americans should come up with additional taxes of $226,666 each! How American is that?

The number will be much greater than $680,000,000,000 if you piss off the top 1% enough that they decide to for one year, park all of their money in non-interest bearing savings accounts. Then, we will really have to change our ways.

 

[Geo]

It fascinates and entertains me to listen to folks who are so vocally opposed to "handouts" berate the unemployed and needy for a sense of entitlement but then shamelessly exhibit their own sense of entitlement for handouts like tax breaks for just the top 1% of earners.

 

[scooterbug44]

Instead, you are suggesting that only 1 % of Americans should come up with additional taxes of $226,666 each! How American is that?

The number will be much greater than $680,000,000,000 if you piss off the top 1% enough that they decide to for one year, park all of their money in non-interest bearing savings accounts. Then, we will really have to change our ways.

1) Will this tax rate still be less than they have paid in the past (yes).
2) Will the amount of taxes they are paying be a mere fraction of what they would lose by putting all of their money in non-interest bearing savings accounts? (hell yes).

 

[Koa]

Geo, if you want to talk tax breaks, how about talking about roughly 50% of Americans getting a 100% tax break? Some even get money back, when they paid zero. How is that for tax breaks? You make it sound like wealthy people don't pay taxes for everyone else.

I don't hear anyone talk about entitlement, except for people not paying taxes. If the government weren't taxing the crap out of businesses, and thus sending them oversees, we wouldn't have the unemployment problems we have today. Unemployment is a good thing, if used temporarily. Food stamps are also good, if used sparingly. No one in America should go without food. There are many wealthy people who donate much money to charities so that the hungry can be fed. Many communities have giving people who provide food and shelter for homeless. Being unemployed or hungry isn't bad -- It sucks. No wealthy person is suggesting it doesn't.

 

[Yarmap]

Let's have a show of hands of all the ones that want to pay more taxes that send the IRS more tax than they currently owe every year. Because we all know our congressmen/women and senators would only pay down the debt with it. Surely they wouldn't use it to buy votes with more giveaway programs.