News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[jduster]

In the midst of a recession, it is a poor idea to hike taxes, as that would be a gamble that this country should not have to take.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The plan is to allow the tax breaks to expire for the top 2% - people making over $250,000 annually. I think the top 2% of the country can live with a little less to invest in China.

Your poll isn't just a little biased, is it?

 

[cronxeh]

Where is the option for no extention of any tax cuts? Do Republican trolls PF now?

 

[lisab]

We borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts...and now people want to debate if we should keep doing it?!? Sheesh.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts...and now people want to debate if we should keep doing it?!? Sheesh.

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].

An analysis of U.S.-China trade and FDI data shows that:
• The rapidly growing U.S. trade deficit with China is directly linked to the growth of multinational firms operating in China. Of China's more than $200 billion in exports in 1998, over 40% had their source in multinational firms operating in China (Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation 2000).

• The activities of U.S. multinational firms, together with China's protectionist trade policies, have had a significant role in increasing the U.S. trade deficit with China. A 10% increase in the level of U.S. direct investment in an industry in China is associated with a 7.3% increase in the volume of U.S. imports from China and a 2.1% decline in U.S. exports to China in that industry...

Even though U.S. direct investment abroad data for 1999 are not yet available, preliminary reports suggest that China, with an estimated $1.5 billion in FDI, has likely surpassed even Malaysia, which was estimated to have received $415 million (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2000). U.S. FDI in China is linked to growing imports

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

 

[drankin]

We should extend all tax cuts but remove the "Bush" from the name. Put a spin on it and call it "The American Tax Limit" and pass a bill that doesn't let it exceed.

 

[Al68]

Where is the option for no extention of any tax cuts?

Where is the option to cut taxes instead of just whether and how much to raise them?

Do Republican trolls PF now?

Obviously not, at least not the kind that favor tax cuts.

Your poll isn't just a little biased, is it?

A little? I'd say a poll on taxes with that many options, but none for reducing taxes is more than a little biased.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Al are you kidding me? The thread is about whether extending the Bush tax cuts is a good idea, and all the options are "Extend ... the Bush tax cuts". It's not a thread about taxes in general

 

[Al68]

Al are you kidding me? The thread is about whether extending the Bush tax cuts is a good idea, and all the options are "Extend ... the Bush tax cuts". It's not a thread about taxes in general

Are you kidding me? Using the phrase "extend Bush tax cuts" to refer to neither raising nor lowering taxes is the primary bias.

The choices, in unbiased English, are:

1. Neither raise nor lower taxes.
2. Raise taxes some now.
3. Raise taxes some now and some more later.
4. Raise taxes later.

The bias is underlying, not explicit. One must be capable of thinking for themselves to recognize it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The Bush tax cuts phase out on their own. The default choice is do nothing, in which case they are not extended

 

[OmCheeto]

Where is the option for no extention of any tax cuts? Do Republican trolls PF now?

That's not nice. Republican's are people too. I think.

But anyways, I agree about the missing "no extension" omission.

It's not like we can't afford it. I once again see that American's are still pocketing away nearly 3 times as much money as they did 3 years ago.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/savings-rate-dips-as-spending-up-04-in-july-2010-08-30"
The savings rate fell to 5.9% from 6.2% in June, which had been the highest level in a year.
...
The savings rate averaged 2.1% in 2007 prior to the recession.

I thought everyone was saving up for July holiday's back in June, but it appears that they were saving up for August's holidays.

 

[Al68]

The Bush tax cuts phase out on their own. The default choice is do nothing, in which case they are not extended

That is not exactly true. Congress is under no obligation to levy income taxes at all in future years. Considering a tax hike to be the "default" choice is absurd, even if power hungry politicians consider that the default choice.

But that's irrelevant to the fact that "extending tax cuts" used to mean neither raising nor lowering taxes is absurdly biased language. That's too easy to see to be worthy of serious discussion.

And the choices given range from leaving taxes at their current (way too oppressive) level, or raising them 3 different ways.

 

[OmCheeto]

The Bush tax cuts phase out on their own. The default choice is do nothing, in which case they are not extended

So... I was correct to not vote in this poll?

There should be a fifth bar in the tally then. Those that refused to vote.

 

[lisab]

That is not exactly true. Congress is under no obligation to levy income taxes at all in future years. Considering a tax hike to be the "default" choice is absurd, even if power hungry politicians consider that the default choice.

But that's irrelevant to the fact that "extending tax cuts" used to mean neither raising nor lowering taxes is absurdly biased language. That's too easy to see to be worthy of serious discussion.

It's not a tax hike, it's letting a tax cut expire. That's why they've been called "the Bush tax cuts" from the very beginning.

We can not afford to borrow more from China to let the rich continue to get a tax cut. We simply can not.

 

[Al68]

It's not a tax hike, it's letting a tax cut expire.

LOL. Nice semantics there.

We can not afford to borrow more from China to let the rich continue to get a tax cut. We simply can not.

You say that as if we're referring to the government giving people money, instead of how much government should drain our economy by taxation. That kind of semantics is just absurd, even if all too common today.

 

[OmCheeto]

LOL. Nice semantics there.You say that as if we're referring to the government giving people money, instead of how much government should drain our economy by taxation. That kind of semantics is just absurd, even if all too common today.

I would say the tax cuts in the first place were the most absurd.

Alan Greenspan agrees with me regarding Congress and the tax cuts:

I should say they should follow the law and let them lapse.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-16/greenspan-says-congress-should-let-bush-era-tax-cuts-expire-transcript-.html"

We may not like taxes, but...

WOODRUFF: So to those interests who say but wait a minute, if you let these taxes go my taxes go up, it is going to depress growth?

GREENSPAN: Yes, it probably will, but I think we have no choice in doing that, because we have to recognize there are no solutions which are optimum. These are choices between bad and worse.

Hiding ones head in the sand isn't going to make problems go away, nor does not paying the bill.

 

[mheslep]

We borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts...

Mostly - no. The US borrowed and spent far more money than was covered in the tax cuts.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why is "no" not an option in this poll?

 

[jduster]

the omission of the "no" option wasn't because of bias. it was because of forgetfulness. i apologize.

 

[nismaratwork]

the omission of the "no" option wasn't because of bias. it was because of forgetfulness. i apologize.

Really, that's one hell of an "oops".

 

[OmCheeto]

the omission of the "no" option wasn't because of bias. it was because of forgetfulness. i apologize.

I thought it might be because Obama said the tax cuts that affected 98.07%* of Americans would not be allowed to expire while he was president, and therefore "no" was not an option.

Poor Barry's got enough PR problems with people making up lhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp" es about him to be doing a Bush Sr. "Read my lips; No new taxes." about-face.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States" --> 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000 (in 2006)

 

[Al68]

I thought it might be because Obama said the tax cuts that affected 98.07%* of Americans would not be allowed to expire while he was president, and therefore "no" was not an option.

Yeah, "taxing the rich" is just free money, right? They'll just take it out of their personal finances, right? Fat cat cigar fund, maybe?

Rich people's personal finances are the source of revenue for "taxing the rich", right? Seriously?

 

[OmCheeto]

Yeah, "taxing the rich" is just free money, right? They'll just take it out of their personal finances, right? Fat cat cigar fund, maybe?

Rich people's personal finances are the source of revenue for "taxing the rich", right? Seriously?

I'm sorry, but I have not a clue what you are talking about. Are you speaking semantically? Though it looks more like neuvo-cliché-speak to me.

How do you say; "I know nothing" in neuvo-cliché-speak?

It's a hobby of mine. Ya know.

 

[Al68]

I'm sorry, but I have not a clue what you are talking about.

It was sarcasm. I was pretending to think that "taxing the rich" takes money from the personal finances of the rich instead of taking money out of investments in the economy.

Poor rich people, they might have to cut down on those fat cat cigars if we raise their taxes. (more sarcasm)

 

[OmCheeto]

It was sarcasm. I was pretending to think that "taxing the rich" takes money from the personal finances of the rich instead of taking money out of investments in the economy.

Poor rich people, they might have to cut down on those fat cat cigars if we raise their taxes. (more sarcasm)

hmmm... Then I guess I am just not understanding the point of your sarcasm.

Do you have a point?

Are you trying to impress upon us, some worldly wisdom with your sarcasm?

If you are, it's gone way over(or more likely, way under) my head.

ps. I've made a preemptive report to the authorities of us about to start fighting on my previous post, so no need to tattle. The dirty deed is done.

 

[turbo]

There is an attitude on the right that the people who benefit disproportionately from our economic/financial system should not pay more taxes than the rest of us. I should mention here that I benefited greatly due to hard work and diligence and was myself right on the cusp of that top-2% figure until I found myself unemployed and unemployable due to disability. I never whined and cried about being taxed too heavily. Too many people in my family are just above the poverty-line, and they are hit hard by regressive taxes, like sales taxes and property taxes that are not indexed one's ability to pay.

Bush's tax cuts for the top few percent should not be renewed. They add to our federal deficit while creating no new domestic jobs or new wealth. If you want to stimulate the economy, extend unemployment benefits to the people that HAVE to spend the money they have. That is broad-based, instant stimulation, and it cascades through the local economy, so there is a significant multiplier.

 

[Al68]

There is an attitude on the right that the people who benefit disproportionately from our economic/financial system should not pay more taxes than the rest of us.

Baloney. No one has such an "attitude" as that. Can you substantiate that claim at all?

Bush's tax cuts for the top few percent should not be renewed. They add to our federal deficit while creating no new domestic jobs or new wealth.

Raising those taxes will take money out of economic investments, not the "pockets" of rich people or their personal finances. It is the left that is pathologically obsessed with the well being of rich people, not the right. The right only care in the delusional minds of those on the left.

If you want to stimulate the economy, extend unemployment benefits to the people that HAVE to spend the money they have. That is broad-based, instant stimulation, and it cascades through the local economy, so there is a significant multiplier.

Baloney. Wealth distribution doesn't create wealth, it only removes it from economic investments where it is actually used to create wealth, create jobs and material goods and services. It amazes me how many people believe wealth can be created by giving people "dollars".

 

[turbo]

Baloney. No one has such an "attitude" as that. Can you substantiate that claim at all?

Do you ever watch the news? John Boehner claimed before Congress' vacation that we could not afford to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed because it would add 30+ billion to the deficit. Soon after he claimed that we had to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% despite the fact that it would add about a trillion dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years. You will look in vain for a statement from Boehner that says he doesn't think that the people who benefit disproportionately from our economic/financial systems should pay more in taxes than ordinary folks, but his public statements and official actions are crystal-clear on that point.

Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher proportion of her income in taxes than Buffet does. Source? Buffet himself.

 

[Al68]

You will look in vain for a statement from Boehner that says he doesn't think that the people who benefit disproportionately from our economic/financial systems should pay more in taxes than ordinary folks, but his public statements and official actions are crystal-clear on that point.

Only if grossly misconstrued, as is all too common on the left. Every Republican tax cut in recent history has cut the taxes of "ordinary folks" a greater percentage than the rich, shifting the total tax burden from them to the rich. The facts grossly contradict the propaganda from the left.

The left paints a picture of Republican tax policy that not a single sane person alive could support. And you really think that picture is accurate? The propaganda from the left can only stand in darkness, in the light of the facts, it is exposed as the absurd and hateful lies that they are.

 

[turbo]

Only if grossly misconstrued, as is all too common on the left.

Al, that's bull, and you know it. The lower economic classes are hit with regressive taxes that cannot possibly be avoided. The wealthy have a lot of ways around taxes, and are constantly campaigning for more. No "death tax" (as they characterize an inheritance tax) no capital-gains tax, reduced taxes on non-wage incomes (which is practically all the incomes of the wealthiest Americans), etc. It's class-warfare, and the GOP is happily dancing with their handlers on all counts. There are quite a few Democrats willing to throw the working class under the bus, too, so neither party is "clean".

 

[Al68]

Al, that's bull, and you know it. The lower economic classes are hit with regressive taxes that cannot possibly be avoided. The wealthy have a lot of ways around taxes, and are constantly campaigning for more.

Just look what happens to your claims with a little light shown on them:

____________Effective federal tax rate _______As percentage of total federal taxes
Bottom 20% _______ 4.3 % _____________________ 0.8 %
Second 20% _______ 9.9 % _____________________ 4.1 %
Middle 20% _______ 14.2 % _____________________ 9.3 %
Fourth 20% _______ 17.4 % ____________________ 16.9 %
Top 20% _________ 25.5 % ____________________ 68.7 %

Top 1% _________ 31.2 % _____________________ 27.6 %

These are from 2005 CBO and include payroll taxes. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml. And they have much more data, every bit of which shows the left to be nothing but power hungry liars.

A little light changes everything.

 

[turbo]

You have neatly side-stepped the issue. Very common with the right. The lower classes are hit with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc that they cannot avoid. Those taxes are a large percentage of their disposable income. If you live in a state like this one (5% sales tax) 5% of whatever you spend on non-exempt goods (food is generally exempt) goes to taxes. Poorer people have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on clothing, furnishings, etc, and they have an extra 5% tax burden on their purchases as a result. With wealthy people, such spending is discretionary, with poor people, it is generally anything but. For instance, when your children are growing out of their clothing, they need more clothing.

Bush imposed unfunded mandates to fuel his "No Child Left Behind", increasing many citizens' property taxes to pay for the increased cost of complying with the mandates. If you are a home-owner and you live in a typical state in which about 50% of your property taxes to the school system in your town, you have no choice about paying for the unfunded mandates. US citizens are over-taxed, but it is not the super-wealthy that are over-taxed - they are getting a sweet deal while the disappearing middle-class and the growing lower-class are getting pressed for more and more.

 

[Al68]

You have neatly side-stepped the issue. Very common with the right. The lower classes are hit with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc that they cannot avoid. Those taxes are a large percentage of their disposable income. If you live in a state like this one (5% sales tax) 5% of whatever you spend on non-exempt goods (food is generally exempt) goes to taxes. Poorer people have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on clothing, furnishings, etc, and they have an extra 5% tax burden on their purchases as a result.

First, I am fully aware of all that, and it does change the numbers a little, but not enough to change the big picture. I didn't "side-step" the issue, my post related very directly to the issue. Your relates to the issue a little bit, but it doesn't support your argument in the least.

You made an absurdly false claim. Why not just retract it for once?

 

[turbo]

You made an absurdly false claim. Why not just retract it for once?

Nay-saying and broad generalizations do not serve your argument well.

What is absurdly false? That the people who benefit disproportionately from our economy do not pay a proportionate share of taxes? That people in lower economic classes are hit by regressive taxes? That people who own houses are hit with unfunded mandates that make education very expensive?

If you want to argue, go back to my post at 3:53 and take it point by point and explain why it is "absurdly false". There is no way that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be renewed. It benefits only those who are already laughing all the way to the bank. Do you think that it would permanently damage people making nearly $400K to cause their top tax rate to return from 33% to 36%? The GOP hysteria on this subject is laughable, and it should cause revulsion in the party faithful, (99+% of whom would never benefit from the extension of the tax cut for the wealthy).

Had I not been filing jointly with my wife who makes a decent, though modest, wage in manufacturing, I would have easily broken into that top 2% for 3-4 years in a row at the top of my earnings, as a single filer. Still, I find it hard to believe that I would have been inconvenienced by a return to pre-Bush giveaway tax levels. I don't drive fancy cars, don't live in a huge, expensive house, and don't need to "keep up appearances" through spending on material things. (You can ask Astronuc if you don't want to take my word for it.) If someone earning over $200K/yr in taxable income can't absorb an increase of 2-3% in their Federal tax rate, they know nothing about budgeting, saving, or financial planning. No pity from me for the ignorant.

 

[mheslep]

I'm curious just how long US citizens thing unemployment benefits should last. http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/99ers-hope-for-tier-5-and-beyond-despite-belief-unemployment-benefits-%E2%80%9Ccan%E2%80%99t-go-on-forever%E2%80%9D/2146/" Should it be 999 weeks, or 999 months before the claims of cruelty die down?

 

[turbo]

I'm curious just how long US citizens thing unemployment benefits should last. http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/99ers-hope-for-tier-5-and-beyond-despite-belief-unemployment-benefits-%E2%80%9Ccan%E2%80%99t-go-on-forever%E2%80%9D/2146/" Should it be 999 weeks, or 999 months before the claims of cruelty die down?

Start a poll!

 

[Al68]

What is absurdly false?

Your claim that those on the right think that rich people shouldn't pay more taxes than "ordinary people".

That the people who benefit disproportionately from our economy do not pay a proportionate share of taxes?

Evidence? Every factual source I know of says they pay far more than a proportional amount, and that the Bush tax cut shifted the burden even more toward the rich.

That people who own houses are hit with unfunded mandates that make education very expensive?

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but I might agree with you on that.

There is no way that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be renewed. It benefits only those who are already laughing all the way to the bank.

Baloney. And you know it.

Do you think that it would permanently damage people making nearly $400K to cause their top tax rate to return from 33% to 36%?

No. It wouldn't damage them personally at all. The personal financial well-being of rich people is not the issue here. The left only pretends it is to avoid honest debate.

Still, I find it hard to believe that I would have been inconvenienced by a return to pre-Bush giveaway tax levels.

Again talking as if a tax cut is the government is giving someone money? I'm against the government giving money to rich people, and you know it.

If someone earning over $200K/yr in taxable income can't absorb an increase of 2-3% in their Federal tax rate, they know nothing about budgeting, saving, or financial planning. No pity from me for the ignorant.

Again, a red herring. Nobody is suggesting you pity the rich. That's just more absurdity.

If my (and Republicans') position on this issue is so wrong, you (and Dems) would have no need to misrepresent it. The beliefs you represent as "the right" are non-existent, and used for a strawman argument by the left to avoid honest debate.

 

[dreiter]

Actually the Bush tax cuts are really a non-issue in the current tax situation. What needs to happen is to have capital gains tax come more in-line with the standard tax rates. The 'regular rich' (~$100K/yr) pay more in taxes than the super rich (>$1mil/yr) because the super rich make most of their money in ways that is only taxed by the capital gains tax. This is a terrifically flawed system, and it's even more unfair to the 'regular rich' than it is to the middle and lower classes...

 

[OmCheeto]

Actually the Bush tax cuts are really a non-issue in the current tax situation. What needs to happen is to have capital gains tax come more in-line with the standard tax rates. The 'regular rich' (~$100K/yr) pay more in taxes than the super rich (>$1mil/yr) because the super rich make most of their money in ways that is only taxed by the capital gains tax. This is a terrifically flawed system, and it's even more unfair to the 'regular rich' than it is to the middle and lower classes...

What is flawed are the instructions for http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sd.pdf". My god. My investment adviser advised me not to sell my stocks(ever). I now see why. I'm going to have to hire a tax expert for about $200 to have him figure out how much money I owe on $100 worth of long term capital gains on the stocks I sold this year.

 

[nismaratwork]

What is flawed are the instructions for http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040sd.pdf". My god. My investment adviser advised me not to sell my stocks(ever). I now see why. I'm going to have to hire a tax expert for about $200 to have him figure out how much money I owe on $100 worth of long term capital gains on the stocks I sold this year.

I feel your pain... specifically I feel it in the rear, but I feel it nonetheless!

 

[talk2glenn]

Actually the Bush tax cuts are really a non-issue in the current tax situation. What needs to happen is to have capital gains tax come more in-line with the standard tax rates. The 'regular rich' (~$100K/yr) pay more in taxes than the super rich (>$1mil/yr) because the super rich make most of their money in ways that is only taxed by the capital gains tax. This is a terrifically flawed system, and it's even more unfair to the 'regular rich' than it is to the middle and lower classes...

This is completely nonsensical.

Capital gains taxes apply to returns on investments. An investment is not regular income - it can lose value. Your paycheck is guaranteed for as long as you have a job. As an employee, you assume no risk.

The government taxes capital gains at a lower rate for three reasons:

1) The capital was already taxed when it was earned as income, before being invested. Investment taxes are a form of double-taxation.
2) The investor assumes all market risk, the employee none. Government rewards this risk with lower tax rates because invested capital underwrites paychecks.
3) Lower investment taxes encourages investing your money, and discourages saving it. Consumption and investment are more desirable than savings. Government has an interest in getting you to consume and invest, and in keeping you from saving.

The only thing that's flawed here is your reasoning.

I'm curious just how long US citizens thing unemployment benefits should last. Right now it is 99 weeks. Should it be 999 weeks, or 999 months before the claims of cruelty die down?

Why continue to pretend its unemployment insurance at all? Go the way of England; put 'em on the dole and guarantee a few good lifetime party voters.

If someone earning over $200K/yr in taxable income can't absorb an increase of 2-3% in their Federal tax rate, they know nothing about budgeting, saving, or financial planning.

Err...how, exactly, do you propose that an individual budget for the whims of the state? Should I start setting aside 2-3% of my income every year to a "what the heck is Congress going to do next?" fund? Does that strike you as an efficient use of my time and money? This is laughably hysterical. Just because you love to post on public forums about how much money you make, and how little you need it all, does not a representative case make.

In any event, the Treasury accepts donations. While Congress deliberates, do your conscience a favor, and write a check for 2 to 3 percent of your income to the US Treasury, with Gift to Public Debt written in the memo line, and send it to this address:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

The lower classes are hit with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc that they cannot avoid. Those taxes are a large percentage of their disposable income. If you live in a state like this one (5% sales tax) 5% of whatever you spend on non-exempt goods (food is generally exempt) goes to taxes. Poorer people have to spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on clothing, furnishings, etc, and they have an extra 5% tax burden on their purchases as a result. With wealthy people, such spending is discretionary, with poor people, it is generally anything but. For instance, when your children are growing out of their clothing, they need more clothing.

This is just plain false. It is true that the poor pay sales, property, and excise taxes. It is also true that they pay corporate income taxes, business license taxes, and every other "soak the rich" mandate the Democrats love to impose - indirectly, through higher prices on those clothes and that food.

Even so, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of income earners in the United States pay an effective 31% of their income in taxes. The bottom 20%? About 5%. This includes federal, state, and local taxes, direct and indirect - even indirect mandates like corporate income taxes. How did they figure it? Lots and lots of interns, probably.

 

[dreiter]

This is completely nonsensical.

Capital gains taxes apply to returns on investments. An investment is not regular income - it can lose value. Your paycheck is guaranteed for as long as you have a job. As an employee, you assume no risk.

The government taxes capital gains at a lower rate for three reasons:

1) The capital was already taxed when it was earned as income, before being invested. Investment taxes are a form of double-taxation.
2) The investor assumes all market risk, the employee none. Government rewards this risk with lower tax rates because invested capital underwrites paychecks.
3) Lower investment taxes encourages investing your money, and discourages saving it. Consumption and investment are more desirable than savings. Government has an interest in getting you to consume and invest, and in keeping you from saving.

The only thing that's flawed here is your reasoning.

I'm not terrifically excited to debate right now but such is life eh? What I will respond with is that nothing you have said justifies the current taxation rates. Capital gains incomes are essentially no-risk investments. Look at the stock market. It has continued to climb over it's 100+ year history, and it's only going to stop when the entire American economy falls. So (rich) investors with diverse portfolios are going to consistently make money with long-term investing, and they are going to pay a very low tax rate on that 'income'. This is unfair. Maybe you don't care about fairness (you a pure capitalist?) but I think that economic disparity is a major obstruction to the advancement of societies and humanity in general. If you earn more than a million a year (from ANY source) I think you should be heavily taxed.

 

[russ_watters]

I know I'm late to this gem of a thread, but one thing I love is this:

We borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts...and now people want to debate if we should keep doing it?!? Sheesh.

It wasn't just you doing it, Lisa, a number of people said similar things. The "Bush tax cuts" cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. The way the rhetoric from the left has been sounding lately, I'm wondering if people are even aware that it wasn't just the rich who got tax cuts or if that was just a knee-jerk reaction from passion instead of thought that caused the oversight in your characterization.

 

[nismaratwork]

I know I'm late to this gem of a thread, but one thing I love is this: It wasn't just you doing it, Lisa, a number of people said similar things. The "Bush tax cuts" cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. The way the rhetoric from the left has been sounding lately, I'm wondering if people are even aware that it wasn't just the rich who got tax cuts or if that was just a knee-jerk reaction from passion instead of thought that caused the oversight in your characterization.

Perhaps she was referring to relative proportions in the cuts... and the political belief that at some point you don't need to give tax breaks to those who are considered "well-off to rich" by the majority of Americans?

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps she was referring to relative proportions in the cuts... and the political belief that at some point you don't need to give tax breaks to those who are considered "well-off to rich" by the majority of Americans?

Dunno. If "we borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts" we also borrowed money from the Chinese to give everyone else tax cuts and it is Obama's intent to continue that. Seems disingenuous to cherry-pick like that, ignoring probably 90% of the "borrowing from the Chinese".

In other words, according to Democrats, it is ok to borrow from the Chinese to give 95% of Americans tax cuts, but to include the other 5% in those tax cuts is very upsetting.

I've also never heard a democrat opposing a tax increase for the rich or supporting a tax decrease. It would seem like there is always more the rich should pay. Never have I heard what I would consider fair: a situation where everyone would benefit from a tax cut or everyone would have their taxes increased.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dunno. If "we borrowed money from the Chinese to give the rich tax cuts" we also borrowed money from the Chinese to give everyone else tax cuts and it is Obama's intent to continue that. Seems disingenuous to cherry-pick like that, ignoring probably 90% of the "borrowing from the Chinese".

Maybe, but I can still understand the outrage, although it shouldn't distract from the other %age you mentioned.

 

[gmax137]

Never have I heard what I would consider fair: a situation where everyone would benefit from a tax cut or everyone would have their taxes increased.

The only (responsible) way for 'everyone to benefit from a tax cut' would be to decrease spending and you know that's never going to happen. Politicians (from local councils to congress) are incapable of doing it. And they will never raise 'everyone's' taxes, because then there would be nobody left to vote for them. Our system is based on compromise, which means 'get someone else to pay for what I want.'

 

[cristo]

With wealthy people, such spending is discretionary, with poor people, it is generally anything but. For instance, when your children are growing out of their clothing, they need more clothing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't see how this is a good example. Do the wealthy people not have children?

 

[russ_watters]

No, but wealthy people are apparently not allowed to have savings.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, but wealthy people are apparently not allowed to have savings.

You mention savings and children... how about this as a compromise: We tax the wealthy more than those with less, but we remove the (ridiculous) estate tax ("death tax")? That seems like a good trade when considering passing saved wealth to the next generation.