Senate GOP

[Deathpig]

Extending them for everyone ad infinitum will add 4 trillion dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years, IIRC. How does that square with the Republican "desire" to balance the budget?

 

And let's remember, the end of this decade-long tax holiday will merely revert MOST (not all) taxes to the levels that were extant under Bill Clinton. As I recall, those Clinton years were economically rather good, were they not? In contrast, the 2000 decade (c/w reduced taxes) was economically horrendous.

 

So, tell me one more time why it is so critically important to have these cuts extended and why the right thinks tax rates have such a big economic impact when the evidence seems to indicate they do not?

 

I find the whole income tax cut/tax increase insanity to be pretty silly, as we're arguing over minimal differences. I'm much more concerned about corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, and dividend taxes than straight income tax (as far as how taxes relate to economic growth). We need companies based here (tax revenue collected here), invested in here, and grown (jobs created) here. That I get taxed for ~5% more or less of my income is way less relevant to me in the big picture, and not worth the same effort to fight over. Pick the fight over what actually matters and drop the stupid rhetoric.

 

All that said, I think even you would find it very difficult to argue that a ~6% difference in the tax rate of the top income earners catastrophically shifted the economy into the tank. The dot-com bubble burst right around 2000, and the housing bubble burst in 2008. I'm pretty sure we can agree that the 'horrendous economy' of the 2000s was a factor of those two bubbles. Where is the causal relationship between Bush tax cuts and those two bubbles?

[I Like Soup]

Extending them for everyone ad infinitum will add 4 trillion dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years, IIRC. How does that square with the Republican "desire" to balance the budget?

Cut government spending by 30% and you'll get there.

[bpwallace49]

We're having the wrong argument here. Bush tax cuts or no Bush tax cuts. Revamp the whole tax code. Let's stop fighting the wars of the past 10 years and move forward with a new vision. Implement the entire debt commission proposal. Screw the politicians. Pain for everybody and let's get on with fixing our perpetual mess.

 

And while that is the most logical solution, it is also the least tenable to politicans, which means it will never ever be passed.

[redrumjuice]

About half the income taxed above $250,000 is business income, so small businesses get hammered from the Obama plan. Mr. Schumer argues that if the income threshold for higher taxes is raised to $1 million, Republicans will no longer be able to claim that this plan taxes small business income.

 

Not so. The Small Business Administration classifies a small business as an entity with fewer than 500 employees. The Schumer plan shifts the tax onto larger, more profitable firms from relatively smaller ones. But this still puts jobs at risk. A business with $1 million or $10 million of net income has many times more employees and does a lot more hiring than a business with, say, $60,000 of net income or one that is losing money.

 

If you try and say small business don't employ the majority of Americans, well you're flat out wrong.

[redrumjuice]

Good job hussein!!!

 

In November, 36.0% of American Adults identified themselves as Republicans; 34.7% considered themselves Democrats, and 29.3% were not affiliated with either major party. That’s the largest number of Republicans since February 2005 and the first time ever that Rasmussen Reports polling has found more people identifying as Republicans than Democrats.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...partisan_trends

[caddyman]

Good job hussein!!!

 

 

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...partisan_trends

[Perchoutofwater]

Your "employ most Americans" argumnet is nonsense, and you know it Perch.

 

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/ar...51,00.html#_pt1

 

Under this chart from the IRS, look at how many S corporations and partnerships (like law firms and accounting firms) take up a % of all the high income filers once you get over 500K. If you are talking about how the rich consume more or buy more stocks, then you may have a point. But if you are talking about how this affects small businesses (as the right has been trumpeting) that just doesnt hold water.

 

 

As the last quoted area points out, that the Bush tax cuts will drastically hurt everyone over time, as they never have been offset with spending cuts or other revenue replacement.

 

If we were talking about raising the taxes (or if you rather allowing the cuts to be rolled back) on those making over $500,000 you might have point, but Obama and the Dems want to raise them on those making over $250,000.

 

With regard to the rest, it assumes that what is good for corporations is detrimental to noncorporations which I do not agree with. Most of my business outside of public sector work is with corporations. If those corporations are doing well, they expanding buying more raw materials, or increasing the size of their buildings and production lines.

 

Look at interest rates now versus where they were in 2003, have they gone up?

 

BTW I agree that if the tax rates are prolonged it should be temporary until the economy is on a more sound footing. I just think all should be treated the same. Either extend everyone's or none.

[Perchoutofwater]

We're having the wrong argument here. Bush tax cuts or no Bush tax cuts. Revamp the whole tax code. Let's stop fighting the wars of the past 10 years and move forward with a new vision. Implement the entire debt commission proposal. Screw the politicians. Pain for everybody and let's get on with fixing our perpetual mess.

 

+1

 

Or better yet, let's do away with the income tax all together and have a national sales tax, that way we will see what spending programs people really think are worth it once everyone is paying for them.

[gbpfan1231]

If we were talking about raising the taxes (or if you rather allowing the cuts to be rolled back) on those making over $500,000 you might have point, but Obama and the Dems want to raise them on those making over $250,000.

 

With regard to the rest, it assumes that what is good for corporations is detrimental to noncorporations which I do not agree with. Most of my business outside of public sector work is with corporations. If those corporations are doing well, they expanding buying more raw materials, or increasing the size of their buildings and production lines.

 

Look at interest rates now versus where they were in 2003, have they gone up?

 

BTW I agree that if the tax rates are prolonged it should be temporary until the economy is on a more sound footing. I just think all should be treated the same. Either extend everyone's or none.

Agree - and it has been mentioned before. I assume that Ursa, Bushfag, and BP can all afford to pay a little extra taxes - when was the last time either of you paid in more taxes than what was calcualted when you did your tax returns? Come on I am sure you guys can afford it - you pay for a membership for a Football website so suck it and pay some extra.

 

If you want a portion of the people to pay an extra sum of taxes put your money where your mouth is and you guys pay for the crap the govt is spending.

[Duchess Jack]

it seems odd that personal income and business income are mixed here.

 

If I own a business - whatever money I take out of the business should be my income, right? So long as money is invested back into the business - say to pay folk's salaries and to invest further in it - it shouldn't be considered income, should it? My take is likely incorrect with the way folk are talking about this - but doesn't it make more sense? That way it would not effect businesses - just folk that draw an income from the businesses.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[bpwallace49]

If we were talking about raising the taxes (or if you rather allowing the cuts to be rolled back) on those making over $500,000 you might have point, but Obama and the Dems want to raise them on those making over $250,000.

 

With regard to the rest, it assumes that what is good for corporations is detrimental to noncorporations which I do not agree with. Most of my business outside of public sector work is with corporations. If those corporations are doing well, they expanding buying more raw materials, or increasing the size of their buildings and production lines.

 

Look at interest rates now versus where they were in 2003, have they gone up?

 

BTW I agree that if the tax rates are prolonged it should be temporary until the economy is on a more sound footing. I just think all should be treated the same. Either extend everyone's or none.

 

Oh I agree Perch. The threshold would have to be redefined in general for ANY of these temporary breaks to be expanded. The point was the defining line between small businesses and larger corporations. I would be in favor of having a higher threshold that would continue to benefit LOCAL small businesses instead of feeding into larger multi-national corporate troughs. Perch, please look at the following link.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811

 

That addressed the folly of these tax cuts and the disproporationate application in 2004. Now we want to magnify that propblem?

[Perchoutofwater]

Oh I agree Perch. The threshold would have to be redefined in general for ANY of these temporary breaks to be expanded. The point was the defining line between small businesses and larger corporations. I would be in favor of having a higher threshold that would continue to benefit LOCAL small businesses instead of feeding into larger multi-national corporate troughs. Perch, please look at the following link.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811

 

That addressed the folly of these tax cuts and the disproporationate application in 2004. Now we want to magnify that propblem?

 

The problem with the Bush tax cuts is they did not incorporate spending cuts. The thing I like about the panels plan is that it simplifies the tax code, reduces the marginal rates and reduces spending. I've said all along that I'd be in favor of tax increases (in a stable economy) if taxes were increased by 1% for every 2% that is cut in spending until such time as there is no deficit and the debt is paid off with a prevision that once the debt is paid off that for every percentage point spending is increased, taxes are cut by twice as much. I just want smaller government, which is the only way we can get a sustainable tax reduction and get the money back in the hands of the people who actually produce something.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Ursa Majoris]

All that said, I think even you would find it very difficult to argue that a ~6% difference in the tax rate of the top income earners catastrophically shifted the economy into the tank. The dot-com bubble burst right around 2000, and the housing bubble burst in 2008. I'm pretty sure we can agree that the 'horrendous economy' of the 2000s was a factor of those two bubbles. Where is the causal relationship between Bush tax cuts and those two bubbles?

Well, that's the point. The received wisdom is "tax cut good, tax hike bad" when the evidence suggests it makes no difference to how the real economy performs. Bubbles and other factors such as greed and human stupidity don't care about taxes very much. When the choice is between 32% and 37% as a top rate (and remember that, it's a top rate, not a rate on all income) tax rates are not a factor in unemployment levels. In other words, extending the tax holiday is not going to magically boost hiring. It's a crock of propaganda BS.

 

The real motivation behind the constant drone for extending the tax cuts is entirely self-centered. It has nothing to do with Uncle Sam and everything to do with the great I Am.

[Perchoutofwater]

Well, that's the point. The received wisdom is "tax cut good, tax hike bad" when the evidence suggests it makes no difference to how the real economy performs. Bubbles and other factors such as greed and human stupidity don't care about taxes very much. When the choice is between 32% and 37% as a top rate (and remember that, it's a top rate, not a rate on all income) tax rates are not a factor in unemployment levels. In other words, extending the tax holiday is not going to magically boost hiring. It's a crock of propaganda BS.

 

The real motivation behind the constant drone for extending the tax cuts is entirely self-centered. It has nothing to do with Uncle Sam and everything to do with the great I Am.

 

Why don't we make everyone's tax rate the same once they are above a realistic poverty line that is adjusted for inflation?

[cliaz]

I have to ask a really stupid question and it is more due to my ignorance of taxes and politics but why don't we have a flat tax rate that is applicable to all?

[Perchoutofwater]

I have to ask a really stupid question and it is more due to my ignorance of taxes and politics but why don't we have a flat tax rate that is applicable to all?

 

The simple answer is that roughly 50% of the population currently pays no federal income tax, once rebates, deductions and credits are calculated in. If everyone actually had to pay the same percentage, people would be a lot more particular about what the federal government spends our money on, and many of the programs that the dems use to purchase votes would be done away with.

[bpwallace49]

Well, that's the point. The received wisdom is "tax cut good, tax hike bad" when the evidence suggests it makes no difference to how the real economy performs. Bubbles and other factors such as greed and human stupidity don't care about taxes very much. When the choice is between 32% and 37% as a top rate (and remember that, it's a top rate, not a rate on all income) tax rates are not a factor in unemployment levels. In other words, extending the tax holiday is not going to magically boost hiring. It's a crock of propaganda BS.

 

The real motivation behind the constant drone for extending the tax cuts is entirely self-centered. It has nothing to do with Uncle Sam and everything to do with the great I Am.

 

Hmmm . . I would disagree with that. When you have excess capital lying around (like some of the very top end tax cuts) then that money doesnt just sit in a vault, it can be more aggressively and recklessly invested in speculation, which in turn fuels bubbles.

 

Whne you have a millionaire that get a tax break, it doesnt mean he will hire more gardeners or maids, it means that he has a new pool of money to "play around with" in investing. With other investmnets somewhat secure adn safe, that new extra money can be spend with a higher risk/reward percentage such as investing in doc.com startups, venture capital investing, real estate projects, etc.

[bpwallace49]

The simple answer is that roughly 50% of the population currently pays no federal income tax, once rebates, deductions and credits are calculated in. If everyone actually had to pay the same percentage, people would be a lot more particular about what the federal government spends our money on, and many of the programs that the dems AND REPUBLICANS use to purchase votes would be done away with.

 

fixed for accuracy

[redrumjuice]

Here's a whole bunch of crap we can cut and lower taxes at the same time: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/r...notperform.html

[Duchess Jack]

Hmmm . . I would disagree with that. When you have excess capital lying around (like some of the very top end tax cuts) then that money doesnt just sit in a vault, it can be more aggressively and recklessly invested in speculation, which in turn fuels bubbles.

 

Whne you have a millionaire that get a tax break, it doesnt mean he will hire more gardeners or maids, it means that he has a new pool of money to "play around with" in investing. With other investmnets somewhat secure adn safe, that new extra money can be spend with a higher risk/reward percentage such as investing in doc.com startups, venture capital investing, real estate projects, etc.

at least it would be invested. with corporations having more money on hand than ever before - its kind of disingenuous to suggest that taxes are killing them.

[I Like Soup]

Here's a whole bunch of crap we can cut and lower taxes at the same time: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/r...notperform.html

I mean, seriously, why does America have to be the world police and have a hugh military? Before WWI and WWII, we were quite far behind in the ways of war/technology, but we caught up rather fast. After WWII, I guess due to the Cold War, we had to beau up and remain the "other big kid on the block" versus the USSR. We are in a much different day and age,...reduce military spending! I never thought I'd say that being a veteran and all, but it's the truth. I guess we need to keep on our toes with China now though...

[Duchess Jack]

I mean, seriously, why does America have to be the world police and have a hugh military? Before WWI and WWII, we were quite far behind in the ways of war/technology, but we caught up rather fast. After WWII, I guess due to the Cold War, we had to beau up and remain the "other big kid on the block" versus the USSR. We are in a much different day and age,...reduce military spending! I never thought I'd say that being a veteran and all, but it's the truth. I guess we need to keep on our toes with China now though...

and every dollar spent on illigal immigrants is a dollar not spent on Americans.

[Azazello1313]

When you have excess capital lying around (like some of the very top end tax cuts) then that money doesnt just sit in a vault, it can be more aggressively and recklessly invested in speculation, which in turn fuels bubbles.

 

economic activity fuels bubbles, so let's just make sure we kill all that right now.

[bpwallace49]

at least it would be invested. with corporations having more money on hand than ever before - its kind of disingenuous to suggest that taxes are killing them.

 

Of course it is disingenuous for them to say taxes are killing them. But that sure doesnt stop them from repeating that mantra . . .

[gbpfan1231]

Agree - and it has been mentioned before. I assume that Ursa, Bushfag, and BP can all afford to pay a little extra taxes - when was the last time either of you paid in more taxes than what was calcualted when you did your tax returns? Come on I am sure you guys can afford it - you pay for a membership for a Football website so suck it and pay some extra.

 

If you want a portion of the people to pay an extra sum of taxes put your money where your mouth is and you guys pay for the crap the govt is spending.

Hmm - Can I assume that you guys never paid more than you were required to pay? Can I also assume you will shut the hell up until you do.

 

Why should you guys not pay more when you continue to harp that others should?