Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent?

...
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.

...
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.

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).

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.?

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

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.?

Hennessey doesn't prove statistically that the marginal tax rate cuts, the new bracket, the repeal of the estate tax and marriage penalty relief would have drastically changed our current deficit. You would have thought he would have at least attempted that, being an Economist and all, to prove his argument. Instead his whole argument is partisan which doesn't accomplish much.

The numbers I posted above yours do specifically show how much revenue we lost and how much we could gain, though. I also would love to see someone statistically show all the new jobs that have been created or kept in the work force DUE to the tax cuts. They haven't and they can't.

I dislike taxes as much as the next person and I don't like taking money from hard working individuals. I dislike the thought of paying for those whose goal in life is milking the system, fraud and deception. But to me, it seems so unAmerican to live in this Country that has no barriers to wealth, then sit like a fat cat whining and hoarding what's theirs and not gives a rat's arse about the future of this Country domestically and defense wise; not to mention it's youth. Th whole argument of donations on their own behalf doesn't hold much weight when it has been proven that it is the average Joe that donates much more statistically, especially during catastrophes.

Too bad that Washington doesn't care about paying back our debts. If they did, they would have balanced the budget long ago, and we wouldn't be asking how to pay for all the bills. I think Washington could care less about if the debt is repaid. All they have to do is print more money. As someone earlier said, it isn't like government will actually use the additional tax revenues to pay the debt. They will use it to create new programs, give new incentives, etc, just to say that they "created" jobs and "created" programs which get them re-elected. Nothing more.

I recall when when Clinton used to talk about having a surplus, but that was only because they claimed that social security funds were actually the government's money, and that is what made up the "surplus." Now, that money is long gone, and they need Peter to pay Paul.

...
I dislike taxes as much as the next person and I don't like taking money from hard working individuals. I dislike the thought of paying for those whose goal in life is milking the system, fraud and deception. But to me, it seems so unAmerican to live in this Country that has no barriers to wealth, then sit like a fat cat whining and hoarding what's theirs and not gives a rat's arse about the future of this Country domestically and defense wise; not to mention it's youth. Th whole argument of donations on their own behalf doesn't hold much weight when it has been proven that it is the average Joe that donates much more statistically, especially during catastrophes.

You seem to be lumping every wealthy person into one category of people -- greedy, and that is about like saying that all Muslims are evil.

There are some "fat cats" who obtained their wealthy illegally. There are some that walked the gray line to get their fortunes. Then, there are some who through honest labor made theirs.

Did you guys overlook this article from the Washington Times:
Billionaires to give away fortunes
Half of money will go to charity

"...They have answered a call from investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to give 50 percent or more of their fortunes to charity, either during their lifetimes or upon their deaths.

The announcement of the 40 names ? which ranged from filmmaker George Lucas to pizza maven Thomas Monaghan to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg ? was made Wednesday, just six weeks after Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates launched the Giving Pledge.

"We've really just started, but already we've had a terrific response," Mr. Buffett said in a press release issued after the announcement. "At its core, the Giving Pledge is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their wealth and how it will be used. We're delighted that people are doing just that ? and that so many have decided to not only take this pledge but also to commit to sums far greater than the 50 percent minimum level....

None of the notes mentioned such obvious examples of crash-and-burn legacy kids as Paris Hilton or Casey Johnson. Nevertheless, the specter of such cases was cited by Melinda French Gates, wife of the Microsoft icon, as one reason to give away money of this magnitude.

"We do not want to give excessive wealth to our progeny. Giving wealth to young and future unborn children, in our opinion, reduces or eliminates the character-building challenges ahead of them in life that they would otherwise face," she said....

The Gates established the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 1994, which is the world's largest philanthropic foundation, to which they have since donated $28 billion.

In 2006, Mr. Buffett announced his intention to give 99 percent of his fortune to philanthropic foundations, including $6.4 billion to the Gates foundation...."" (full story)

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.

Taxes are a portion of your cost of living they are on the debit of the ledger.

My point is that the statement "50% of taxpayers pay no taxes" is misleading and economic demagogery.

It is true that approximately 50% of taxpayers pay no federal income taxes but they pay a host of other taxes.

No one likes to pay taxes but there is one thing worse...not making any money. I have done both and not making money is WAY worse than paying taxes.

Just saying.

Koa - you have to choose - either the top 2% is going to pitch a hissy fit and take away money/jobs to teach us a lesson about taxing them, or they are so altruistic that they are giving away their fortunes. :roll:

Koa - you have to choose - either the top 2% is going to pitch a hissy fit and take away money/jobs to teach us a lesson about taxing them, or they are so altruistic that they are giving away their fortunes. :roll:

.
Thanks! ..There certainly was a disconnect there.


.

Hennessey doesn't prove statistically that the marginal tax rate cuts, the new bracket, the repeal of the estate tax and marriage penalty relief would have drastically changed our current deficit. You would have thought he would have at least attempted that, being an Economist and all, to prove his argument. Instead his whole argument is partisan which doesn't accomplish much.

The numbers I posted above yours do specifically show how much revenue we lost and how much we could gain, though. I also would love to see someone statistically show all the new jobs that have been created or kept in the work force DUE to the tax cuts. They haven't and they can't.

I dislike taxes as much as the next person and I don't like taking money from hard working individuals. I dislike the thought of paying for those whose goal in life is milking the system, fraud and deception. But to me, it seems so unAmerican to live in this Country that has no barriers to wealth, then sit like a fat cat whining and hoarding what's theirs and not gives a rat's arse about the future of this Country domestically and defense wise; not to mention it's youth. Th whole argument of donations on their own behalf doesn't hold much weight when it has been proven that it is the average Joe that donates much more statistically, especially during catastrophes.

Your numbers though lump all the tax cuts into one, plus two wars. Obama is keeping the majority of Bush's cuts. So if Bush was so wrong in pushing these cuts through, shouldn't Obama undo all the "damage" and revert to Clinton level taxation? The answer is of course not, undoing all the cuts would completely undermine any possible economy recovery we might be experiencing and slow the progress of consumer credit rebuilding. It's a long term vs. a short term thing IMHO. How about the prescription drug benefit program? I haven't heard democrats or Obama talking about repealing that. In fact, they just passed a massive expansion of healthcare spending on top of it. You can't blame Bush for any deficits based on current fiscal policy.

Another reason to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

Another reason to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

Sales of houses that cost $1M+ are up from last year, while sales of houses that cost less than $1M are down.

Keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich!


News Headlines

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

Well, and add to that the fact now that most luxury yacht building companies have all fled the U.S., so that there are now more Europeans we are employing!

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.

It's not the government's money. You make it sound like the rich people are stealing it from the poor. It was never the poor people's money.

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.

Geo, there is a big difference in in the government giving someone somebody else's money (entitlements) and giving people their money back to them ( tax cuts).

Would you rather have access to 10% of $40K (gov't tax on poor family of four)....
or,
$100K donated from wealthy family whose income is $2.5MM?

From a percentage perspective, the poor family is giving up more in the form of forced taxation than the wealthy family who gives freely.

This is the same argument when people moan and groan over how little the US gives. We give more than any other nation, but as a percentage of GDP (historically), we give less than 10%......and, we are therfore bashed for our giving.

I really don't care if you raise taxes back to Clinton levels on the Gates, Buffettts, Trumps of the world. What I do care about is raising taxes on those who make below $500,000 as these are your small businesses who creat the majority of the jobs in this country. And their consumption of goods and services is the engine that drives the economy. If you remove money from their pockets you cripple the economy.

.
John McCain on Bush tax cuts (via Stephen Colbert ..)
.
"Senator McCain, our heartiest congratulations and condolences on your victorious defeat." - Stephen Colbert
.
[ame=http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/351584/august-25-2010/john-mccain-s-victorious-defeat]John McCain's Victorious Defeat - The Colbert Report - 8/25/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central[/ame]


.