My thought on the Bush tax cuts: let them expire...ALL of them.

[Rationalist]

Republicans are pushing to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans; Democrats want to extend the cuts only for those making less than $250K/year. My position is that we should allow the cuts to expire across the board, so long as they are accompanied with an equal amount in spending cuts NOW (none of that "over the next 10 years" horseshit). This would reduce the deficit by approximately $560 billion. Such a move would erase most of the raise that I am expecting in January, but it is a sacrifice that I'd be willing to make, provided politicians are willing to demonstrate sincere fiscal restraint.

Too bad neither party would be willing to take such a common sense approach. Republicans would accuse Democrats of attacking the job creators, and Democrats would accuse Republicans of pushing grandma over a cliff. This, when combined with the general stupidity of the American public, is why the US is essentially doomed.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i'm for that, except raise the limit from 250K to 350K.

 

[gui1tars]

Right now it appears that the tax cuts will indeed expire on Dec. 31. At that point in early January and beyond the Democratic congressional leaders have said they will negotiate new tax cuts. Just who can complain about tax cuts? Fears of the debt and deficits are mostly bullshit from the beginning but used by the very people that began that ramp back up in them quite successfully to create fear and havoc amongst the unclean and uneducated. The USA economy has always operated with debt and deficits as a matter of sound and good economic practice and theory.

 

[NOVA]

BUSH tax policy ended in DECEMBER, 2008 along with his presidency....they had done the job they were meant to do.

What you're talking about is the Obama tax rate policy......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

read my slips.....

 

[gui1tars]

BUSH tax policy ended in DECEMBER, 2008 along with his presidency....they had done the job they were meant to do.

What you're talking about is the Obama tax rate policy......

The gwb Presidency didn't end until January 20, 2009. No matter. His tax policies continue until this very day and are due to expire on December 31, 2012. Congress determined that long ago. Are you all the idiot you pretend to be?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think it is a boneheaded idea to raise people's tax rates in a time of economic struggle. I never have understood why people want to view taxes in a vacuum or bubble, where changes don't effect anything and all remains static. If that is the case, why not raise tax rates to 100% on everyone, and in a few years, we'd pay off the national debt? Based on the number of people working and currently paying taxes, such a plan would work, wouldn't it? Of course not... because we don't live in a static universe where tax increases have no effect on anything else. If you raised the rate to 100%, most people would stop working and earning incomes. They wouldn't be able to afford to, because they can't devote 40 hrs a week to paying taxes, and then have to provide for themselves and their families. The results would be dismal, you wouldn't collect ANY taxes.

These artificial 'thresholds' we create, like $250k per year, or Yurt's $350k.. do not indicate wealth status. The individual simply earned an unusually high amount of income for that year, it doesn't mean they are wealthy. One thing I know about wealthy people is, the one thing they don't really need is income. Certainly not as much as the middle-class needs it. Most middle-class families rely on income to pay their bills and mortgages and stuff. Wealthy people have already taken care or their bills and mortgages and stuff, and have plenty in the bank to spare, it's what makes them 'wealthy.' So they don't HAVE to earn incomes like the middle-class. You can raise their tax rates, but it usually results in LESS revenue, because they are less motivated to earn incomes, and they don't have the need to do so. Now, you can raise middle-class tax rates and increase revenues, because middle-class people HAVE to earn incomes. They have bills to pay, mortgages and stuff... they don't have the 'luxury' of not earning income, because they aren't 'wealthy.'

I think, before we raise taxes one single penny on ANYONE, we need to do a complete rectal exam on the budget and get that balanced FIRST!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Republicans are pushing to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans; Democrats want to extend the cuts only for those making less than $250K/year. My position is that we should allow the cuts to expire across the board, so long as they are accompanied with an equal amount in spending cuts NOW (none of that "over the next 10 years" horseshit). This would reduce the deficit by approximately $560 billion. Such a move would erase most of the raise that I am expecting in January, but it is a sacrifice that I'd be willing to make, provided politicians are willing to demonstrate sincere fiscal restraint.

Too bad neither party would be willing to take such a common sense approach. Republicans would accuse Democrats of attacking the job creators, and Democrats would accuse Republicans of pushing grandma over a cliff. This, when combined with the general stupidity of the American public, is why the US is essentially doomed.

Agreed. What the fuck you have you been drinking lately Brent? You're starting to make sense!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think it is a boneheaded idea to raise people's tax rates in a time of economic struggle. I never have understood why people want to view taxes in a vacuum or bubble, where changes don't effect anything and all remains static. If that is the case, why not raise tax rates to 100% on everyone, and in a few years, we'd pay off the national debt? Based on the number of people working and currently paying taxes, such a plan would work, wouldn't it? Of course not... because we don't live in a static universe where tax increases have no effect on anything else. If you raised the rate to 100%, most people would stop working and earning incomes. They wouldn't be able to afford to, because they can't devote 40 hrs a week to paying taxes, and then have to provide for themselves and their families. The results would be dismal, you wouldn't collect ANY taxes.

These artificial 'thresholds' we create, like $250k per year, or Yurt's $350k.. do not indicate wealth status. The individual simply earned an unusually high amount of income for that year, it doesn't mean they are wealthy. One thing I know about wealthy people is, the one thing they don't really need is income. Certainly not as much as the middle-class needs it. Most middle-class families rely on income to pay their bills and mortgages and stuff. Wealthy people have already taken care or their bills and mortgages and stuff, and have plenty in the bank to spare, it's what makes them 'wealthy.' So they don't HAVE to earn incomes like the middle-class. You can raise their tax rates, but it usually results in LESS revenue, because they are less motivated to earn incomes, and they don't have the need to do so. Now, you can raise middle-class tax rates and increase revenues, because middle-class people HAVE to earn incomes. They have bills to pay, mortgages and stuff... they don't have the 'luxury' of not earning income, because they aren't 'wealthy.'

I think, before we raise taxes one single penny on ANYONE, we need to do a complete rectal exam on the budget and get that balanced FIRST!

Fine. By how much will you be willing to cut the grand daddy of all spending programs the military? Oh....and wouldn't spending have a far greater negative impact on a stale economy than allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The gwb Presidency didn't end until January 20, 2009. No matter. His tax policies continue until this very day and are due to expire on December 31, 2012. Congress determined that long ago. Are you all the idiot you pretend to be?

The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010. The Obama administration (along with Congress) enacted a law to extend the same cuts through 2012. To pretend that Obama is not responsible for the current tax rates is absurd.

 

[Rationalist]

I think, before we raise taxes one single penny on ANYONE, we need to do a complete rectal exam on the budget and get that balanced FIRST!

So let me get this straight. You think that we should balance the budget without cutting defense OR raising taxes? How would you go about accomplishing that, exactly?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So let me get this straight. You think that we should balance the budget without cutting defense OR raising taxes? How would you go about accomplishing that, exactly?

I have never said that I didn't think we need to cut the defense budget. There is certainly a lot of waste and redundancy there, and it all needs to be looked at. We need to be looking at benefit vs. cost, and whether or not a cut would cost large numbers of jobs. Already, nothing we can cut in the budget will cost jobs like military cuts, but there are plenty of things in the military budget we can still cut, and not cost an ass-load of jobs. Before we do stuff to cost a lot of people their job, we should eliminate the waste, and get rid of stupid shit we don't need to be doing, first.

You keep thinking you can raise taxes and it will increase the amount of money received by the IRS, and that is just not based in reality. Again, we can raise the middle-class tax rates and realize an increase in revenues, because the middle-class has no choice, they MUST earn incomes. Raising the rate on the so-called "wealthy" will do little or nothing to increase revenues, and might actually result in a decrease, it usually does.