Are you for or against the Obama middle class tax cuts?

[Bonestorm]

No, what is stupid is suggesting that Obama is cutting taxes when the tax brackets would not change from current levels (on the under $250k anyway).

But they will change. In 2011 the Bush tax cuts expire.

Yes, if Obama allows the tax cuts to expire, the tax rates will be going up on everyone, including those making $250k or less.

There is no "if." In 2011 the Bush tax cuts expire. Period. Whether Congress passes a new law providing for tax cuts thereafter remains to be seen.

The complete stupidity on the parts of hacks like you pretending that he would be cutting taxes is quite amusing. It reminds me of when idiots on the left proclaim Reps are trying to CUT spending when in fact they would simply be cutting the amount of the INCREASE in spending.

You're just being stupid.

 

[leaningright]

I rarely wade in on conversations concerning taxes. Being a democrat I understand the need for taxation to maintain programs that I think are worthy (Some are not worthy, IMO). But being a politics junky I have to say that Mott's question is too simplistic. I am definitely for taxing the middle class less. But this looks like a leading question that the media has been trying to get the republicans to respond to. "Get them on record as being for the middle class tax cut and then when they vote against it because it doesn't apply to the "wealthy" also then we got 'em."

Raising taxes during a recession on anyone seems to be a very bad thing. "We want you struggling businesses to create more jobs," Washington says, "but oh, by the way, we're going to take more of your money in the meantime." It doesn't make sense to me. Clinton's tax rate of the 90's was successful in that there was an economic boom at the time....and you guys can argue if you want about who deserves the credit for that boom. It doesn't really matter, it was a boom. Until we get our economy surging and until we can figure some places to make some cuts and changes in government spending, we really don't need to think about raising taxes....on anyone.

Everyone seems to see the "wealthy" or the "rich" and think of the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world. But the employers (yes, that would be those evil corporations) of this nation fall into that category as well. And I hate it just as much as the next guy that a lot of them overpay their CEO's and such but unless you want a socialistic type of government oversight of them, what can we do? Now this I will say: IF THE COMPANY TOOK BAILOUT MONEY THEN THEY DESERVE TO BE OVERSEEN BY THE GOVERNMENT....AT LEAST UNTIL THEY PAY IT BACK.

One final thought: I see someone referred to this situation as "Bush's law" above. This is another element of politics at work. Yes, this law wich contained an expiration date for the tax cuts was passed under Bush's oversight. Yes, he signed it into law. But anyone who was watching then or has read about it now knows that the temporary nature of the tax cuts was only included to get some democrats to sign on with the republicans. Everyone should be able to see the compromise on the part of both parties to get it passed in the first place. So it really isn't "Bush's law" or at least not the law he would have passed. Everyone knows if he could have he would have passed a law with no expiration. BUT ... Now the democrats have won and to the victor go the spoils. They have every right not to pass an extension on the tax cuts. While I think it would be an unwise economic decision (and perhaps political as well), it is really thier call. The republicans can kick and scream about it all they want but the democrats have earned the right to do what they will.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But they will change. In 2011 the Bush tax cuts expire.

There is no "if." In 2011 the Bush tax cuts expire. Period. Whether Congress passes a new law providing for tax cuts thereafter remains to be seen.

LMAO

RIGHT.... so Obama and the Dems can either:

1) Let the tax rates INCREASE in 2011

or

2) They can make sure the tax rates STAY THE SAME

If you are suggesting that the Obama tax 'cuts' you were referring to are going to come in 2011 AFTER the Dems let the tax rates INCREASE, well then, great job Obama! Cutting taxes BACK to the levels they are currently at after letting them increase for a while.

Net change to tax payers... NONE...

 

[Bonestorm]

I rarely wade in on conversations concerning taxes. Being a democrat I understand the need for taxation to maintain programs that I think are worthy (Some are not worthy, IMO). But being a politics junky I have to say that Mott's question is too simplistic. I am definitely for taxing the middle class less. But this looks like a leading question that the media has been trying to get the republicans to respond to. "Get them on record as being for the middle class tax cut and then when they vote against it because it doesn't apply to the "wealthy" also then we got 'em."

Raising taxes during a recession on anyone seems to be a very bad thing. "We want you struggling businesses to create more jobs," Washington says, "but oh, by the way, we're going to take more of your money in the meantime." It doesn't make sense to me. Clinton's tax rate of the 90's was successful in that there was an economic boom at the time....and you guys can argue if you want about who deserves the credit for that boom. It doesn't really matter, it was a boom. Until we get our economy surging and until we can figure some places to make some cuts and changes in government spending, we really don't need to think about raising taxes....on anyone.

Everyone seems to see the "wealthy" or the "rich" and think of the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world. But the employers (yes, that would be those evil corporations) of this nation fall into that category as well. And I hate it just as much as the next guy that a lot of them overpay their CEO's and such but unless you want a socialistic type of government oversight of them, what can we do? Now this I will say: IF THE COMPANY TOOK BAILOUT MONEY THEN THEY DESERVE TO BE OVERSEEN BY THE GOVERNMENT....AT LEAST UNTIL THEY PAY IT BACK.

One final thought: I see someone referred to this situation as "Bush's law" above. This is another element of politics at work. Yes, this law wich contained an expiration date for the tax cuts was passed under Bush's oversight. Yes, he signed it into law. But anyone who was watching then or has read about it now knows that the temporary nature of the tax cuts was only included to get some democrats to sign on with the republicans. Everyone should be able to see the compromise on the part of both parties to get it passed in the first place. So it really isn't "Bush's law" or at least not the law he would have passed. Everyone knows if he could have he would have passed a law with no expiration. BUT ... Now the democrats have won and to the victor go the spoils. They have every right not to pass an extension on the tax cuts. While I think it would be an unwise economic decision (and perhaps political as well), it is really thier call. The republicans can kick and scream about it all they want but the democrats have earned the right to do what they will.

The bold is just not true. The 2001 tax cuts were passed under reconciliation procedure at the election of the Republicans. Because the Republicans elected to proceed under reconciliation procedure, according to the Byrd rule, the tax cuts were required to expire after 10 years because they had a negative impact on debt and budget deficits. Limiting the tax cuts to ten years also enabled the Republicans to pretend that the tax cuts would not blow a ginormous hole in the budget and explode debt that everyone knew would happen if the tax cuts were made permanent. It had nothing to do with the Democrats.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO

RIGHT.... so Obama and the Dems can either:

1) Let the tax rates INCREASE in 2011

or

2) They can make sure the tax rates STAY THE SAME

If you are suggesting that the Obama tax 'cuts' you were referring to are going to come in 2011 AFTER the Dems let the tax rates INCREASE, well then, great job Obama! Cutting taxes BACK to the levels they are currently at after letting them increase for a while.

Net change to tax payers... NONE...

The issue isn't whether there is a "net change to taxpayers." The issue is whether a law that lowers tax rates from the current scheduled rates in 2011 and beyond can properly be called a tax cut. I say that a law lowering scheduled tax rates is a tax cut. For some strange reason you disagree. I don't get it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I rarely wade in on conversations concerning taxes. Being a democrat I understand the need for taxation to maintain programs that I think are worthy (Some are not worthy, IMO). But being a politics junky I have to say that Mott's question is too simplistic. I am definitely for taxing the middle class less. But this looks like a leading question that the media has been trying to get the republicans to respond to. "Get them on record as being for the middle class tax cut and then when they vote against it because it doesn't apply to the "wealthy" also then we got 'em."

Raising taxes during a recession on anyone seems to be a very bad thing. "We want you struggling businesses to create more jobs," Washington says, "but oh, by the way, we're going to take more of your money in the meantime." It doesn't make sense to me. Clinton's tax rate of the 90's was successful in that there was an economic boom at the time....and you guys can argue if you want about who deserves the credit for that boom. It doesn't really matter, it was a boom. Until we get our economy surging and until we can figure some places to make some cuts and changes in government spending, we really don't need to think about raising taxes....on anyone.

Everyone seems to see the "wealthy" or the "rich" and think of the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world. But the employers (yes, that would be those evil corporations) of this nation fall into that category as well. And I hate it just as much as the next guy that a lot of them overpay their CEO's and such but unless you want a socialistic type of government oversight of them, what can we do? Now this I will say: IF THE COMPANY TOOK BAILOUT MONEY THEN THEY DESERVE TO BE OVERSEEN BY THE GOVERNMENT....AT LEAST UNTIL THEY PAY IT BACK.

One final thought: I see someone referred to this situation as "Bush's law" above. This is another element of politics at work. Yes, this law wich contained an expiration date for the tax cuts was passed under Bush's oversight. Yes, he signed it into law. But anyone who was watching then or has read about it now knows that the temporary nature of the tax cuts was only included to get some democrats to sign on with the republicans. Everyone should be able to see the compromise on the part of both parties to get it passed in the first place. So it really isn't "Bush's law" or at least not the law he would have passed. Everyone knows if he could have he would have passed a law with no expiration. BUT ... Now the democrats have won and to the victor go the spoils. They have every right not to pass an extension on the tax cuts. While I think it would be an unwise economic decision (and perhaps political as well), it is really thier call. The republicans can kick and scream about it all they want but the democrats have earned the right to do what they will.

You are right. Elections have consequences and the Dems won the last several.

As for the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts a number of economist have concluded that this would provide a greater economic stimulus then allowing the tax cuts to expire all together (obviosly) or by keeping them in it's current form with the tax cuts heavily weigted towards the top 2% of income earners.

Our economy is a consumer economy and it is consumer spending which drives the economy, not some super rich guys on Wall Street doing tricks with money. Gearing the tax breaks towards the middle class who will go out and spend the money on consumer goods is a far greater stimulus then giving it to the wealthy who will spend far less proportionately on consumer goods.

So in this respect, the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts make a lot of sense.

 

[leaningright]

The bold is just not true. The 2001 tax cuts were passed under reconciliation procedure at the election of the Republicans. Because the Republicans elected to proceed under reconciliation procedure, according to the Byrd rule, the tax cuts were required to expire after 10 years because they had a negative impact on debt and budget deficits. Limiting the tax cuts to ten years also enabled the Republicans to pretend that the tax cuts would not blow a ginormous hole in the budget and explode debt that everyone knew would happen if the tax cuts were made permanent. It had nothing to do with the Democrats.

This is the very reason that I rarely wade in on tax discussions. I am simply not knowledgeable (I hate typos) enough about all the situations so I have to just give my opinion. You could very well be right and I won't argue the point because I just don't know. As to where my opinion comes from .... it is just based on things that I read like this:

"Which is exactly what happened that spring. With only minor changes (the tax cuts were not permanent, the estate tax was lowered and not eliminated), the 2001 Bush tax cuts passed both houses of Congress with substantial numbers of Democrats voting in favor. While the House backed the original $1.6 trillion, the Senate (where Bush faced the opposition of John McCain and soon-be-ex Republican Jim Jeffords) initially voted for "only" a $1.2 trillion. Ultimately, the compromise conference bill came in $1.35 trillion and brought numerous Democrats along for the ride:"

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001372.htm

I know this is just a blog but it is a democratic blog pointing out the difficult time Obama is having working with republicans. Like I said, you may be right and probably are....

 

[klaatu]

LMAO

RIGHT.... so Obama and the Dems can either:

1) Let the tax rates INCREASE in 2011

or

2) They can make sure the tax rates STAY THE SAME

If you are suggesting that the Obama tax 'cuts' you were referring to are going to come in 2011 AFTER the Dems let the tax rates INCREASE, well then, great job Obama! Cutting taxes BACK to the levels they are currently at after letting them increase for a while.

Net change to tax payers... NONE...

Its the same thinking as letting the Tax Cuts of 2001 expire isnt a Tax Hike, its just rolling back the Tax Schedule to when Bill Clinton was in office...when it was the real Tax Rate. The entire 10 years after was just a Temporary Tax Schedule. However ... letting the Temporary Tax Schedule resume for the middle class only... whomever that is.. is a Tax Cut under Obama...

You know...this is why I have to take Blood Pressure medicine....I can only take so much of this nonsense ....

 

[cawacko]

The bold is just not true. The 2001 tax cuts were passed under reconciliation procedure at the election of the Republicans. Because the Republicans elected to proceed under reconciliation procedure, according to the Byrd rule, the tax cuts were required to expire after 10 years because they had a negative impact on debt and budget deficits. Limiting the tax cuts to ten years also enabled the Republicans to pretend that the tax cuts would not blow a ginormous hole in the budget and explode debt that everyone knew would happen if the tax cuts were made permanent. It had nothing to do with the Democrats.

So if more Democrats voted for the tax cuts in 2001 they still would have had to go through reconciliation procedure?

 

[Chapdog]

id say extend them all for 2 years thru 2012 and then raise them on the rich 250k+ back to 00 levels phase in over a period of time starting in 2013. keep under 250k the same or lower. Also use the proceeds on the raising of the rates to fund SSI deficit and cut govt spending.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The issue isn't whether there is a "net change to taxpayers." The issue is whether a law that lowers tax rates from the current scheduled rates in 2011 and beyond can properly be called a tax cut. I say that a law lowering scheduled tax rates is a tax cut. For some strange reason you disagree. I don't get it.

That is because you are a party hack who is trying to put the party spin on it. Bottom line... you are a good little parrot.

If you actually believe that people will buy the 'we are giving you a tax cut even though your tax rates will be exactly as they are today'... go for it. use that as your platform...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

id say extend them all for 2 years thru 2012 and then raise them on the rich 250k+ back to 00 levels phase in over a period of time starting in 2013. keep under 250k the same or lower. Also use the proceeds on the raising of the rates to fund SSI deficit and cut govt spending.

personally, I would cut out about 50,000 pages of the tax deductions and loopholes from the tax code. THAT would get the EFFECTIVE tax rates to go up.

If Warren Buffet can get his EFFECTIVE tax rate to be lower than his secretary's then our current tax code (in its entirety) is REGRESSIVE.

That said, barring the miraculous, I would concur with your above solution with the exception that I would alter the estate tax to be $5mm adjusted annually for inflation.

 

[Chapdog]

if the rates rise while we are in a stagnant economy there is no logical way in hell obama gets re-elected. would be his dooms day. Pubs have him by the throat on this one.

 

[klaatu]

That is because you are a party hack who is trying to put the party spin on it. Bottom line... you are a good little parrot.

If you actually believe that people will buy the 'we are giving you a tax cut even though your tax rates will be exactly as they are today'... go for it. use that as your platform...

Here ..I'll do the little tools work for him ...

"Thats Stupid ... you're being stupid ..." I wiiiinnnn!!!!

 

[zappasguitar]

I see. So if Obama let's Bush's law remain in place, Obama raises taxes. If Obama passes a new law that cuts taxes, he's just keeping them the same. That's stupid.

That's yer standard Rightie double-talk nonsense...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's yer standard Rightie double-talk nonsense...

Explain to us... how is it double talk?

Obama has two choices right now....

1) Keep tax rates as they are (he suggests doing so for those making $250k or less and raising those above $250k to pre 2001 levels)

2) Let the tax rates increase to pre-2001 levels.

those are his options (as we know he is not going to lower them)

 

[cawacko]

That's yer standard Rightie double-talk nonsense...

how would you phrase it then Zap?

 

[Bonestorm]

SF:

I'm pretty certain you wouldn't have much difficulty figuring out how cutting tax rates is a tax cut if a Republican were proposing it. Likewise, I'm sure this would be so hard to figure out if instead of cutting tax rates by five percentage points it was your commission getting cut by five percentage points.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF:

I'm pretty certain you wouldn't have much difficulty figuring out how cutting tax rates is a tax cut if a Republican were proposing it. Likewise, I'm sure this would be so hard to figure out if instead of cutting tax rates by five percentage points it was your commission getting cut by five percentage points.

again you twit... he is NOT cutting them. They are NOT going down from here.

you are trying to say that if Obama lets them go up and then he brings them back down that it is a cut. IF he does that, then there is NO change to the taxpayer. Yet you want us to believe that is a CUT????

Like I said, tell your masters that they should run with that as a platform for this November.... "hey, we are going to let your taxes go up so that we can cut them back down to the level they are currently at.... vote for us.... we edumacated"

 

[Damocles]

Are you for or against the Obama middle class tax cuts?

I am for any tax cuts, however it is a misnomer to call them tax cuts when all they will be doing is extending an expiration date.

I also think it is stupid to hike taxes on anybody in the current economic stagnation. Extend all of the cuts.