Are the Bush Tax Cuts Still Beneficial to the Economy?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter airborne18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Taxes Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the economic impact of the Bush tax cuts, exploring whether they continue to benefit the economy or if they are detrimental. Participants examine the implications of these tax cuts on job growth, tax revenue, and overall economic health, with a focus on theoretical and conceptual aspects rather than definitive conclusions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the Bush tax cuts are no longer beneficial and contribute to a drag on the economy, citing a lack of job growth and reduced tax revenue.
  • Others suggest that maintaining the tax cuts allows job creators to keep more money, which is essential for economic stimulation.
  • There is a contention that small businesses are not using the benefits of tax cuts to grow the economy, leading to calls for reversing the cuts to increase tax revenue.
  • One participant claims that every tax cut reduces marginal transactions, potentially leading to decreased economic output, and questions whether tax increases would actually inspire investment.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that investor confidence is tied to consumer demand, which remains low, and that tax increases could further suppress demand.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of tax hikes as a solution to economic issues, suggesting that they may not lead to the desired outcomes.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that post-WW2 economic expansion was driven by population growth and demand, implying that current immigration policies may not adequately address demographic challenges.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the benefits or drawbacks of the Bush tax cuts. Disagreements persist regarding the effects of tax cuts on economic growth, job creation, and the potential impact of tax increases.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights various assumptions about economic behavior, the relationship between tax policy and consumer demand, and the complexities of fiscal sustainability. Limitations in the arguments include a lack of empirical evidence to support claims and differing definitions of economic terms.

  • #121
CAC1001 said:
Just a bit confused here, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the SCOTUS, isn't it still the job of the SCOTUS to make sure that laws passed by the government keep in line with the Constitution?
Yes, but that's not their job exclusively. The first barrier to unconstitutional (federal) laws lies with congress. The second barrier is the Senate. The third barrier is the President.

The Supreme Court is the last barrier, but it's problematic to wait for that, since any law they rule is unconstitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced. The constitution has already been violated. People have been forced to stand trial for an action that was not actually a crime, just mistakenly considered to be a crime by government. People spending years in jail for an action that government was forbidden to prohibit or restrict.

How can a congressman vote for a law, have it ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, and not at least resign? SCOTUS just declared them to be violators of the constitution for God's sake. How is that not a much bigger deal than it's treated? Their actions result in ruined lives, reduced legitimacy of government, reduced freedom of an entire nation, and they treat it like they just got a speeding ticket.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Al68 said:
The Supreme Court is the last barrier, but it's problematic to wait for that, since any law they rule is constitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced..

In the bolded part, did you mean, "...any law they rule is unconstitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced...??
 
  • #123
CAC1001 said:
In the bolded part, did you mean, "...any law they rule is unconstitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced...??
Yes, that would make a little more sense. :redface:

Corrected, thank you.
 
  • #124
Everything should be taxed at 100% with all the proceeds going to me.

I think this is fair.
 
  • #125
xxChrisxx said:
Everything should be taxed at 100% with all the proceeds going to me.

I think this is fair.
You'd be pretty rich based on Democratic Party math. But in reality, you'd be broke.

You'd be much better off if you received "only" 10%.
 

Similar threads

News How will the looming fiscal cliff impact the US economy and job market?
  • · Replies 204 ·
7
Replies
204
Views
29K
News Why is the tax code giving special treatment to corporate jets?
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
11K
News Job Creation - the Key To Protecting Entitlements
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Negative Income Tax: A Progressive & Simple Proposal w/ Benefits for All
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
News What Are Payroll Tax Supported Programs to You?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
News Can Tax Cuts Truly Self-Finance in Times of Major National Expenses?
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
10K
News What is wrong with the US economy?
  • · Replies 870 ·
30
Replies
870
Views
115K
History Most Lucrative Criminal Act Of All Time
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
478
News The FairTax in place of income tax
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Should savings be counted in GDP?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
18K