Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[Al68]

So while many people may be socialists, or have socialistic tendencies, I wouldn't say they are Marxism-influenced. The people who adamantly support democratic government but who have otherwise socialistic tendencies I'd put in the Fabian camp.

I was using the word "Marxist" to refer to their basic philosophy, not the specific means to achieve certain goals. To say that Fabian socialism is greatly "Marxism-influenced" is a monstrous understatement. Marxist ideology is at the heart of socialism, including the more moderate Fabian socialism.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, the WHO is the United Nations health organization. I don't know that this makes it the primary health-mon. organization for the world.

Do you know some other org that is more deserving of that description? I don't.

 

[WhoWee]

It gets better than that. We borrow money from China to give tax breaks to the rich, so that they can invest in China, which increases our trade deficit, which ultimately leads to more borrowing from China. Supply-side economics is reduced to a sad joke, in a global economy. The money from tax breaks for the rich doesn't trickle down, it trickles away [as a function of domestic vs foreign manufacturing].


http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_fdi_fdi/

I just noticed this post.

How many dollars from these tax cuts and Earned Income Tax Credits were spent at Walmart (and other retailers selling Chinese made products) by the "middle class taxpayers"?

We need a tax policy that attracts investment in the US.

 

[CAC1001]

(emphasis mine)

That's a weasel word.

Hmm...well, by "many," I just meant that I have read various doctors, economists, etc...say we have among the best healthcare system, however I couldn't remember all the different ones off the top of my head, so I just wrote "many."

Nevertheless, one could just as well ask the following: The WHO (which is the primary health-monitoring organization around the world) says that the US lags behind the outcomes of European systems, so why do many say otherwise?

Isn't this basically what I said, just worded a bit differently?

 

[Gokul43201]

Isn't this basically what I said, just worded a bit differently?

If it is, I misinterpreted your post. It seemed to me like you were predisposed to accepting the word of the "many" over the judgment of the "WHO". But I see now that this is not explicit in your post - I obviously interpreted more than there was to it.

 

[mheslep]

At the last minute, NO tax increase say's the Pres.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

 

[nismaratwork]

At the last minute, NO tax increase say's the Pres.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

Be careful that you don't put a ball in the gutter with that much spin! He certainly stressed that taxes wouldn't return to previous levels for those making <$250K, but let's at least be honest with each other and not call the natural end of a tax DECREASE, an increase.

Now we have the joy of watching house Democrats become paralyzed by their own lack of competence while John Boehner eats carrots and sits in a tanning booth. I respect the president to acceding to reality, but that reality is political pressure and cowardice, not tax hikes.

 

[mheslep]

Be careful that you don't put a ball in the gutter with that much spin! He certainly stressed that taxes wouldn't return to previous levels for those making <$250K, but let's at least be honest with each other and not call the natural end of a tax DECREASE, an increase.

Why attempt to take upon yourself to declare what is 'natural'? This is a fact: prior to yesterday's agreement, federal income taxes for all taxpaying Americans were set to increase from what they were paying on Dec 31, 2010, to a substantially higher rate the day after. More importantly, that increase from one year into the next would have, by wide agreement, had definite effects by way of hurting job creation in the US. Yes federal taxes decreased in '01-03, increased in '90, increased in '96, decreased in '81-84, decreased in '63, and so on, blah, blah, blah. A declaration that the prior to '01-03 tax rates are somehow the natural rate is just another symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[nismaratwork]

Who are you to say what is 'natural'? Before yesterday's agreement, federal income taxes were set to INCREASE from what they were paying on Dec 31, 2010, to something substantially higher the day after. More importantly, that increase from one year into the next would have, by wide agreement, had definite effects in hurting job creation in the US.

re bolded portion: For someone with what seems to be a solid grasp of math, I don't believe that this is what you believe in terms of the first portion.

For the second... yes, that's true, but captioning as, "no to tax increase" is misleading and intellectually dishonest. Oh, and the number on average is roughly an addition 3000 USD (a lot, agreed), but as for wide agreement, is it balanced by wide disagreement as well?

 

[turbo]

Who are you to say what is 'natural'? Before yesterday's agreement, federal income taxes were set to INCREASE from what they were paying on Dec 31, 2010, to something substantially higher the day after. More importantly, that increase from one year into the next would have, by wide agreement, had definite effects in hurting job creation in the US.

"Wide Agreement"? Please support this. Giving tax breaks to millionaires hasn't created jobs in the past, and it won't in the future. The GOP fails to admit that if the breaks are eliminated above $250K, $500K or $1M, every single cent that anybody earns below that amount will still be taxed at the lower rate established by the Bush cut. Only the earnings over that threshold would be taxed at a higher rate. Dishonest in the extreme.

 

[mheslep]

"Wide Agreement"? Please support this. Giving tax breaks to millionaires hasn't created jobs in the past, and it won't in the future. The GOP fails to admit that if the breaks are eliminated above $250K, $500K or $1M, every single cent that anybody earns below that amount will still be taxed at the lower rate established by the Bush cut. Only the earnings over that threshold would be taxed at a higher rate. Dishonest in the extreme.

I didn't say just the highest bracket turbo. Before the agreement, all taxes were set to go up, as I italicized before. Do you really need a reference stating that a tax increase on everyone would hurt job growth? I'm happy to dig it up if you like - seriously.

 

[WhoWee]

"Wide Agreement"? Please support this. Giving tax breaks to millionaires hasn't created jobs in the past, and it won't in the future. The GOP fails to admit that if the breaks are eliminated above $250K, $500K or $1M, every single cent that anybody earns below that amount will still be taxed at the lower rate established by the Bush cut. Only the earnings over that threshold would be taxed at a higher rate. Dishonest in the extreme.

The question I have is this - why is it fair to single out any particular group of taxpayers in this manner? What if the discussion was turned to "citizens of New England" - because they've been here the longest?

 

[Gokul43201]

At the last minute, NO tax increase say's the Pres.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

So far, nothing's been passed yet, so this may be a little early, but I'm tempted to play the moot card on an earlier post of yours in another thread (I think it's in another thread; you know which one I'm talking about).

 

[mheslep]

re bolded portion: For someone with what seems to be a solid grasp of math, I don't believe that this is what you believe in terms of the first portion.

First portion? eh?

For the second... yes, that's true, but captioning as, "no to tax increase" is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

The law, as it stood yesterday AM, was about to increase taxes. Obama stopped it. I gather you feel it is important to discuss motivations; how Obama did not want to make the agreement he did, that he'd promised a hundred times in the campaign to roll back the '01-03 tax cuts on >$250k incomes. Fine, post away, but I've read the NYT article and others; I'm not interested in any more, and am certainly not bound to talk about the President's motivations every time I discuss his actions.

Oh, and the number on average is roughly an addition 3000 USD (a lot, agreed), but as for wide agreement, is it balanced by wide disagreement as well?

On the economic hit from tax increases across all income brackets? No.

 

[mheslep]

So far, nothing's been passed yet, so this may be a little early, but I'm tempted to play the moot card on an earlier post of yours in another thread (I think it's in another thread; you know which one I'm talking about).

Very recent post?

 

[Topher925]

The question I have is this - why is it fair to single out any particular group of taxpayers in this manner? What if the discussion was turned to "citizens of New England" - because they've been here the longest?

Because this particular group of tax payers isn't relying on government funded unemployment checks to feed their families. I don't have any data to support this, but I'm sure a large portion of the $10M+ tax group is what helped land this country in a recession in the first place.

People from New England have been here the longest, but they have also been paying taxes the longest.

 

[Gokul43201]

Very recent post?

Nah, an old one (read my lips 2.0).

 

[mheslep]

So far, nothing's been passed yet, so this may be a little early, ...

Nah. Congress (Pelosi/Read) have no choice, politically, though they may yet attempt to dicker w/ the estate tax or something. Consider: If Pelosi refuses the deal and allows the increases to go through, the entire country will see a with-holding hit on the first paycheck in January. Shortly after the Republicans will take over the House and retroactively rescind it within a few weeks. That's the political equivalent of throwing herself out the window.

 

[WhoWee]

Because this particular group of tax payers isn't relying on government funded unemployment checks to feed their families. I don't have any data to support this, but I'm sure a large portion of the $10M+ tax group is what helped land this country in a recession in the first place.

People from New England have been here the longest, but they have also been paying taxes the longest.

Why don't you find some data to demonstrate how much families relying on unemployment pay in taxes. You might also want to research the Earned Income Tax Credit as it applies to families of 4 people and making less than $50,000 per year - then re-post.

As for your assumption about the "$10M+ tax group" - you're "sure" of what?

Forget New England (that was for Turbo) - how about "the higher your degree - the higher your tax rate"?

 

[turbo]

The question I have is this - why is it fair to single out any particular group of taxpayers in this manner? What if the discussion was turned to "citizens of New England" - because they've been here the longest?

So you don't plan to support your assertion that tax-cuts for millionaires will create jobs? I'm not surprised, since there is NO factual basis for that claim. Perhaps you should retract the claim?

 

[WhoWee]

Nah. Congress (Pelosi/Read) have no choice, politically, though they may yet attempt to dicker w/ the estate tax or something. Consider: If Pelosi refuses the deal and allows the increases to go through, the entire country will see a with-holding hit on the first paycheck in January. Shortly after the Republicans will take over the House and retroactively rescind it within a few weeks. That's the political equivalent of throwing herself out the window.

Pelosi should hold her ground - fall on her sword - jump out of that window.

 

[mheslep]

Nah, an old one (read my lips 2.0).

Oh yeah. I corrected myself there and it still holds - I don't say Obama wants to do anything other than what he said he wanted to do in the campaign - at least on the subject of income taxes. (edit: plenty of areas where I think he has not). It may seem self-interested since I don't want any tax increases on any bracket, but I admire Obama for taking on the far left of his party on this in yesterday's statement. There are those who, in my opinion, would not care in the whole country caught fire and the US ground to a halt: the 'rich' must pay more taxes and the GOP must be denied, they just must, nothing else matters.

Edit: example from Krugman or whoever right's his column:

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving into the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/opinion/06krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman

 

[Gokul43201]

Nah. Congress (Pelosi/Read) have no choice, politically, though they may yet attempt to dicker w/ the estate tax or something.

I heard Voinovich is going to veto, because of the effects on the deficit. I don't know if there are other Republicans that plan to join him. And I don't know how many Dems will oppose it. I think Frank wants a filibuster and Sanders is planning to veto. I don't expect there will be more than 30% opposition, but I'd rather be safe than jump the gun, especially when I'm playing the moot card.

 

[WhoWee]

So you don't plan to support your assertion that tax-cuts for millionaires will create jobs? I'm not surprised, since there is NO factual basis for that claim. Perhaps you should retract the claim?

I'm not sure where/when I made that specific assertion (early in the thread perhaps?) - what I am asking is why single out any single group of taxpayers and demonize them?

As for tax-cuts creating jobs ->> let me turn it around ->> When have tax increases ever created jobs - other than for tax accountants?

 

[mheslep]

Pelosi should hold her ground - fall on her sword - jump out of that window.

Good for Congress, not so good our paychecks.

 

[Gokul43201]

As for tax-cuts creating jobs ->> let me turn it around ->> When have tax increases ever created jobs - other than for tax accountants?

I think that's the wrong argument to turn it around to. I don't know anyone that's claiming that tax increases will create jobs. What they are saying is that it will help lower the deficit a bit.

 

[mheslep]

I heard Voinovich is going to veto, because of the effects on the deficit. I don't know if there are other Republicans that plan to join him. And I don't know how many Dems will oppose it. I think Frank wants a filibuster and Sanders is planning to veto. I don't expect there will be more than 30% opposition, but I'd rather be safe than jump the gun, especially when I'm playing the moot card.

Yes filibuster not veto, which would not withstand a cloture vote. The deficit is an issue demanding resolution, but Voinovich and others so inclined should hold their powder for the next debt limit raise in the Spring, against which they can hold hostage any reluctance to cut spending leading up to it. Besides, possibly tanking the economy again and thus revenue with an across the board tax increase might not get Voinovich near the deficit reduction he hopes.

 

[turbo]

So you don't plan to support your assertion that tax-cuts for millionaires will create jobs? I'm not surprised, since there is NO factual basis for that claim. Perhaps you should retract the claim?

Please substantiate this lame claim or back off. Please back off publicly. Don't be a wimp.

 

[WhoWee]

I think that's the wrong argument to turn it around to. I don't know anyone that's claiming that tax increases will create jobs. What they are saying is that it will help lower the deficit a bit.

We clearly need more jobs and more people paying taxes.

One of the problems I see with the whole class warfare scenario is this - the median income in the US for a 4 person family in 2008/09 was $70,354 - this would include all of those rich people.

At the same time, families of 4 with gross income under $75,000 already pay very little in taxes - roughly $6,500 or 8.67% (and under $50K they shouldn't pay any income taxes and make a gain on taxes after receiving their Earned Income Tax Credit). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/SMI75FY09.pdf

I think everyone that works should pay taxes - period. We need to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit - it is not an income tax refund - it is a give-back of Social Security withholdings. Who - other than the US Government - would ever give back retirement contributions to the people who will ultimately benefit? We also need to simplify the tax code and eliminate some of the loopholes.

btw - These (future) "loopholes" should include Obama administration/HHS Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 - as of December 3, 2010 the list includes 222 companies and over 1,500,000 people and includes Aetna (insurance) with 209,423 people, CIGNA has 265,000 and Capital District Physicians has 23,314 people - plus list also includes some unions including some SEIU and Teamster locals.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

 

[WhoWee]

Please substantiate this lame claim or back off. Please back off publicly. Don't be a wimp.

Please show me the specific post you are referring to - I'm not sure what you're talking about and posted this response accordingly.

"I'm not sure where/when I made that specific assertion (early in the thread perhaps?) - what I am asking is why single out any single group of taxpayers and demonize them?

As for tax-cuts creating jobs ->> let me turn it around ->> When have tax increases ever created jobs - other than for tax accountants? "

If you want to challenge me on a post - challenge my post - not yours.