News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

  • Extend all of the Bush tax cuts permanently

    Votes: 16 45.7%
  • Extend some of the Bush tax cuts permanently

    Votes: 5 14.3%
  • Extend some of the Bush tax cuts temporarily

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • Extend all of the Bush tax cuts temporarily

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Total voters
    35
1
0
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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

Gold Member
949
10
Where is the option for no extention of any tax cuts? Do Republican trolls PF now?
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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/
 
Last edited:

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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,734
99
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,734
99
The Bush tax cuts phase out on their own. The default choice is do nothing, in which case they are not extended
 

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,059
2,414
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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

Gold Member
2,059
2,414
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. :grumpy:
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
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

Gold Member
2,059
2,414
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" [Broken]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
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.
 
Last edited:
Why is "no" not an option in this poll?
 
1
0
the omission of the "no" option wasn't because of bias. it was because of forgetfulness. i apologize.
 
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". :rofl:
 

OmCheeto

Gold Member
2,059
2,414
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" [Broken]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" [Broken]--> 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000 (in 2006)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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

Gold Member
2,059
2,414
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

Gold Member
2,059
2,414
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.
 

Related Threads for: Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
124
Views
12K
  • Posted
4 5 6
Replies
145
Views
17K
  • Poll
  • Posted
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
Replies
71
Views
7K
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top