Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent?

[Andy A]

wars + stimulus + bailouts + tax cuts.

Easy to overspend when you are just shipping pallets of cash overseas. :roll:

Its not just "pallets of cash" overseas. Have you bothered to look at what some of the stimulus and earmark money is being spent for lately? I really don't need my tax dollars spent to study the sexual habits of the fruit fly and how it affects the production of peaches. You get my drift, I'm sure.

 

[scooterbug44]

No, we literally shipped $12 BILLION worth of plastic wrapped pallets of $100 bills to Iraq.

And in a shocking twist, some of the 363 tons of cash sent to a war zone disappeared. :roll:

 

[ugabuga]

Many posters seem to think that tax cuts for the rich will help the poor & middle class.

If the rich get extra $ & spend extra $, maybe so.

BUT...William Gale, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center argues just about anything that government can do with the extra money -- extended unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects, aid to states and local governments -- is going to stimulate more economic activity than putting it in the pockets of the wealthiest taxpayers who he argues would save rather than spend the money.

Will 'tax the rich' save the economy? - CNN Money | Media | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

 

[30ashopper]

Many posters seem to think that tax cuts for the rich will help the poor & middle class.

If the rich get extra $ & spend extra $, maybe so.

BUT...William Gale, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center argues just about anything that government can do with the extra money -- extended unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects, aid to states and local governments -- is going to stimulate more economic activity than putting it in the pockets of the wealthiest taxpayers who he argues would save rather than spend the money.

Will 'tax the rich' save the economy? - CNN Money | Media | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

I think you're misinterpreting things. The general consensus is that the revenue generated will be minimal, and that tax increases in general during major economic downturns rarely (if ever?) have a positive impact on economic growth.

 

[beachFool]

Its not disingenous at all, unless you happen to love paying taxes. It is about income tax and it is true that people who pay in nothing often receive checks from the government and you damn well know it. No one is ignoring the other taxes and we all pay those because if we didn't we couldn't use, own or participate in the things they support. I am not anti tax but I am really getting tired of paying as much as I pay for as little as I get in return while others end up playing the system and getting away with it. I want a system where everybody pays something and right now we don't have it. I'm talking about income not the other garbage we have no choice abourt. Maybe we should work out a system where we ignore the 30 points UGA put up. It would be no more unfair than the one we operate under now. If you can argue with the fact that our tax system needs a complete overhaul, be my guest.

The orginal poster said they pay no taxes and that's simply not true.

You think at 30-40% national sales tax is an improvement and I happen to disagree.

If y'all ignore what is NOT a tax, then I should be able to choose what is a tax.

I choose health insurance premiums and ours have gone up 20% each of the last two years.

It depends on what you call a tax.

It's still money out of your pocket and if you send it to Uncle Sam or Humana, it's still out of your pocket.

And not near as tasty as 23 year old rum

 

[Koa]

This is a disingenous arguement but popular on Fox.

What you are omitting are FICA taxes., Medicare taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes on booze, gas, real estate taxes, transfer taxes, etc.
...

Careful with the fast typing or else we will think the dogs don't teach spelling in Athens. :roll:

Many wealthy people also pay those same taxes, plus many more. The people on unemployment, welfare, and food stamps aren't paying many of those taxes, including FICA, Medicare, liquor tax, gas, real estate, transfer taxes, etc.

 

[Koa]

...
BUT...William Gale, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center argues just about anything that government can do with the extra money -- extended unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects, aid to states and local governments -- is going to stimulate more economic activity than putting it in the pockets of the wealthiest taxpayers who he argues would save rather than spend the money.

Do you really think that the wealthy just park the cash in a savings account? True that they are not spending it all on luxury items, but please tell me what you think they do with the money which "they are saving." Or, if you don't have any of your own thoughts on the subject, maybe you can google it.

 

[Koa]

...
If y'all ignore what is NOT a tax, then I should be able to choose what is a tax.

I choose health insurance premiums and ours have gone up 20% each of the last two years.

It depends on what you call a tax.

It's still money out of your pocket and if you send it to Uncle Sam or Humana, it's still out of your pocket.

And not near as tasty as 23 year old rum

Health Insurance (currently) is not a tax, whether or not you want to think it is. Many people choose not to buy health insurance, and they (currently) don't get thrown in jail for not doing so.

By your definition, a tax is your cost of living.

 

[Mango]

Interesting how these tax cuts for the wealthy have been in place all along but we still have record unemployment; even more interesting is how the wealthy have had the teabagger movement doing doing their bidding by using government handouts as the crux of their argument.

But, most interesting though, President Clinton produced 23.5 million jobs in 1993 after raising taxes on the top 2%.

How can anyone make the argument against NOT raising taxes, especially after seeing figures like these?: "Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years" (see Figure 1).

 

[30ashopper]

Interesting how these tax cuts for the wealthy have been in place all along but we still have record unemployment; even more interesting is how the wealthy have had the teabagger movement doing doing their bidding by using government handouts as the crux of their argument.

But, most interesting though, President Clinton produced 23.5 million jobs in 1993 after raising taxes on the top 2%.

How can anyone make the argument against NOT raising taxes, especially after seeing figures like these?: "Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years" (see Figure 1).

Well then let them expire. Bear in mind, you're talking about tax increases that affect a lot more than the top 2% of earners. It's also interesting to note, the vast majority of these cuts were supported by democrats in 2001. Will they let their own tax decreases expire, or balk and renue them? This decision will not be made by the republican minority.

Most of the policies scheduled to expire December 31 were enacted in the bipartisan 2001 tax law. The only significant expiring changes from the Republican-only 2003 tax law are the lower rates on capital gains and dividends. The marginal income tax rate cuts, the new 10% income tax bracket, the estate tax repeal, and the marriage penalty reliefwere part of the 2001 law supported by current Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, sitting Democratic Senators Carnahan, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Ben Nelson, as well as twenty-eight House Democrats. You never hear anyone arguing against ?extending the Baucus-Feinstein-Landrieu-Lincoln-Nelson tax cuts.?

Responding to Dr. Krugman?s column on tax cuts for the rich?|?KeithHennessey.com

Setting aside the President?s AMT policy for a moment, and using Dr. Krugman?s language with Treasury?s numbers, he also could have written that ?the Obama proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the rich would cost the federal government $3.1 trillion over the next 10 years.?