Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Seriously? You think that rolling back a tax break on 120,000 taxpayers is going to cause this current hiring spree idontno to jolt to a halt?

You should read David Stockman's (you know, Reaganomics architect David Stockman, supply-side, trickle-down guru David Stockman) take on the current love affair with the uber wealthy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1

Quote from Stockman:


And Matt Taibbi's commentary on it:

David Stockman and the GOP Welfare State -- RollingStone.com

Quote from Taibbi:

We are madly, madly in love with the uberwealthy and must protect them at all cost.

Honestly, how many of the business people who are actually driving the American economy do you believe belong to this top group of 120,000? I doubt seriously that the contractors, small manufacturers, software development company owners belong to this group.

This uber group is the hedge fund managers, the investment bankers, who by the way have already moved all of their money to the Far East.

I secretly hope the dems push through this tax hike. It'll slow the recovery somewhat, which will help republicans in 2012.

What recovery? The jobless one? The one where home sales and prices fluctuate like a poker hand? The one where the stock market goes up and down madly and every two days the experts have a new explanation why we are seeing this "boom" or "bust"? The one where one whole whopping month of increased home resales or unemployment rate reduction causes the pundits to declare the recession over, until the next month's numbers hit and they are dismal?

Oh, you mean the one where the bankies get their big bonuses again. That's the only one happening right now. The one where some ridiculous percentage of our GNP is now due to shuffling papers back and forth until the government steps in and buys them.

I secretly hope the dems push through this tax hike. It'll slow the recovery somewhat, which will help republicans in 2012.

I think the "messiah" as the lib. media love to call him, has done enough to help the repubs. back in office in 2012. But we have to get through this Nov. first. We can only pray the fence rider independents, moderates, progressives, whatever they call themselves today have had their eyes opened to this anti-American administrations agenda.

Just a sad sad shame to see what is happening in this Great country.

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..

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.

So if you ignore all of those, you are correct, sir.

Using your logic GA Tech could ignore those 30 points UGA put on them last year and Tech wins the game.

"I'm a ramblin' wreck...."

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.

I read all your words- 5 times. I'm not buying it.

If you have an issue with the progressive tax system then let's work together to change it. But don't argue to keep a temporary tax break in place for the top 1% of earners under the guise that the whole tax structure is flawed.

I'm fed up with folks who claim they are so genuinely concerned with the fiscal state of the country raise an eyebrow to spending on items like unemployment but yet they keep a straight face and insist that cutting defense spending and letting temporary tax breaks expire as written in law is off limits.

Big business has you fooled into believing that they outsource or relocate primarily because of taxes elsewhere. It's not that simple. Other factors include cheap labor, lack of regulation, etc.

You saying that current tax levels caused the high unemployment is absolutely disingenuous because you are well aware that it just ain't true.

The fact that wealthy people donate to the poor/needy is irrelevant to your argument. Middle class people donate as well. Should we use this fact as the basis of an argument for providing them with a tax cut?

Quite frankly, I wish we could get real and do the unthinkable and raise taxes (while cutting spending). If the citizens (rich or poor) want to protest this by throwing tea in the river or by putting their cash into low interest accounts- so be it.

What recovery? The jobless one? The one where home sales and prices fluctuate like a poker hand? The one where the stock market goes up and down madly and every two days the experts have a new explanation why we are seeing this "boom" or "bust"? The one where one whole whopping month of increased home resales or unemployment rate reduction causes the pundits to declare the recession over, until the next month's numbers hit and they are dismal?

Oh, you mean the one where the bankies get their big bonuses again. That's the only one happening right now. The one where some ridiculous percentage of our GNP is now due to shuffling papers back and forth until the government steps in and buys them.

You'll get little argument from me, I agree things are pretty messed up.

I read all your words- 5 times. I'm not buying it.

If you have an issue with the progressive tax system then let's work together to change it. But don't argue to keep a temporary tax break in place for the top 1% of earners under the guise that the whole tax structure is flawed.

I'm fed up with folks who claim they are so genuinely concerned with the fiscal state of the country raise an eyebrow to spending on items like unemployment but yet they keep a straight face and insist that cutting defense spending and letting temporary tax breaks expire as written in law is off limits.

Big business has you fooled into believing that they outsource or relocate primarily because of taxes elsewhere. It's not that simple. Other factors include cheap labor, lack of regulation, etc.

You saying that current tax levels caused the high unemployment is absolutely disingenuous because you are well aware that it just ain't true.

The fact that wealthy people donate to the poor/needy is irrelevant to your argument. Middle class people donate as well. Should we use this fact as the basis of an argument for providing them with a tax cut?

Quite frankly, I wish we could get real and do the unthinkable and raise taxes (while cutting spending). If the citizens (rich or poor) want to protest this by throwing tea in the river or by putting their cash into low interest accounts- so be it.

With a 1.5 trillion dollar annual shortfall, you're going to have to raise a lot of taxes, and cut a lot of spending. Consider that the feds take in about 1.2 trillion through federal income taxes. To cover the shortfall, everyone would have to have their tax totals doubled. After that, we'd still have to shave another 300 billion someplace.

I honestly do not understand how we got into such an ugly mess. If you look back, federal revenue haven't changed that much. In 2006 for example, revenues were 2.2 trillion, and expenditures were 2.7 trillion. In 2010 we have revenues of 2.4 trillion, with expenditures of 3.6 trillion.

wars + stimulus + bailouts + tax cuts.

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

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.

So if you ignore all of those, you are correct, sir.

Using your logic GA Tech could ignore those 30 points UGA put on them last year and Tech wins the game.

"I'm a ramblin' wreck...."

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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

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.