News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[nismaratwork]

How about legalizing marijuana, and taxing the living hell out of it? It's a weed, it grows everywhere, and people are used to paying a fortune for it... so... you could sell it for a fortune, regulate and tax it... and you STILL have everybody involved happy. The government gets serious revenue, pot smokers have a regulated product that, even with heavy taxation, is going to be a LOT cheaper than the current black market.

When you add the saving from removing people currently in prison for marijuana offenses (non-violent), downsizing and redirecting the DEA, even if marijuana is as harmful as cigarettes you can make money. The reality that marijuana lacks TSCs means it isn't of course, but to pretend that it's healthy is a... pipe... dream.

So, there's one idea... maybe next we can just take the Afghan government at their word and leave them in their hell-hole. If they ever become a state sponsor again, a quick bombing raid would still be cheaper.

So... what else... oh yes... how about we all agree to tax people making 1 million a year AFTER taxes? I pick that number because I'm really looking forward to the defense of this one.

 

[WhoWee]

How about legalizing marijuana, and taxing the living hell out of it? It's a weed, it grows everywhere, and people are used to paying a fortune for it... so... you could sell it for a fortune, regulate and tax it... and you STILL have everybody involved happy. The government gets serious revenue, pot smokers have a regulated product that, even with heavy taxation, is going to be a LOT cheaper than the current black market.

When you add the saving from removing people currently in prison for marijuana offenses (non-violent), downsizing and redirecting the DEA, even if marijuana is as harmful as cigarettes you can make money. The reality that marijuana lacks TSCs means it isn't of course, but to pretend that it's healthy is a... pipe... dream.

So, there's one idea... maybe next we can just take the Afghan government at their word and leave them in their hell-hole. If they ever become a state sponsor again, a quick bombing raid would still be cheaper.

So... what else... oh yes... how about we all agree to tax people making 1 million a year AFTER taxes? I pick that number because I'm really looking forward to the defense of this one.

I have a better idea - eliminate ALL Government payments/assistance (other than Social Security upon retirement at the earned rate) to anyone convicted of selling drugs - and have the IRS collect from them with a vengence.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I have a better idea - eliminate ALL Government payments/assistance (other than Social Security upon retirement at the earned rate) to anyone convicted of selling drugs - and have the IRS collect from them with a vengence.

How is this a better idea?

 

[WhoWee]

How is this a better idea?

It's not even a new or original idea.
http://blog.timesunion.com/crime/cops-declare-your-income-from-selling-dope-or-no-welfare/3391/

Profits on drug sales (business income albeit illegal) should be subject to income taxes, social security withholdings, and declared when requesting any form of public assistance. Unfortunately, most people won't admit to an illegal act. However, if convicted, there is proof of illegal profits - this means they falsified their request for assistance.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

A lot of Democrats seem to think it will. They always seem to point to Clinton, saying, "After Clinton raised taxes, he created a massive number of new jobs." I have seen this in other forums, also on the show "Inside Washington" where Mark Sheilds made this point.

IMO, due to the size of the deficit and debt, we should wait for the economy to recover, then perhaps let some of the Bush tax cuts expire, not under the guise of class warfare or anything, but simply because the deficit and debt are so large, that doing so then could raise tax revenue without tanking the economy.

At the same time, however, the government must make a firm commitment to keep a cap on spending while raising said taxes at that point, and not get tempted to spend more money again.

 

[WhoWee]

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

Turbo, here are all of my posts in this thread - please identify my "lame claim" - and I'll address.

"I have a solution to the entire tax debate - a new "fair tax" concept. Basically, the higher the IQ and Degree - the higher the tax rate charged.

Why(?) you ask? It's simple, the higher your IQ and the greater your education, the greater the advantage you have over the rest of the workforce, thus the higher your potential to earn."

"Why none of course (people cheat on their taxes?)."

"Don't get caught up in the whole rich versus poor debate.

This debate should be framed around incentives to help small business (and business owners).

Some hard choices need to be made. Reckless spending with no return on investment has to be capped. Additionally, how long can people stay on unemployment (benefit extensions) before they start to lose skills? We need to create jobs and like it or not - small businesses create jobs."

"Perhaps the better question to ask in this debate can be framed around the Obama tax cuts.

How many jobs were created from Obama's tax cuts to 95% of all Americans?
Better yet, how many jobs were created from Cash for Clunkers?

We've seen massive stimulus spending, a takeover of the auto industry, extensions of unemployment, promises of a better future, promises of Green energy potentials, Union subsidies, COBRA extensions, promises of better health care, etc.

The question is when and how? The Government can't subsidize our future - somebody has to pay for it. An extra $10 in someone's pocket buys a pizza - and a need for an additional $10. An extra $100,000 left in a business creates growth, employment, and future tax revenue."

"The Dems will have some explaining to do as details continue to leak out regarding "health care reform".
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../10/113149.htm

"Key Findings
National Health Expenditures:



Health spending in 2010 is projected to reach $2.6 trillion and account for 17.5 percent of GDP, up 0.2 percentage point from pre-reform estimates. This growth is driven in large part by the postponement of cuts to Medicare physician payments and legislative changes to COBRA premium subsidies.

In 2011, public and private health spending is expected to grow more slowly as reductions in Medicare physician payment rates (including a 23-percent reduction in December of 2010) come into effect and COBRA premium subsidies expire.
Health spending is projected to rise significantly in 2014 when health coverage is expanded to millions of uninsured Americans. Expanded coverage means overall spending is expected to increase by 9.2 percent, significantly higher than the 6.6 percent rate put forward in February. Public spending is projected to increase by 9.7 percent in 2014, while private spending is anticipated to increase by 8.6 percent.


Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/09/10/113149.htm#ixzz10Iy25Iq7""

"As you know, I deal with these issues on a daily basis. In my professional opinion, you can not increase benefits, increase regulation, and insure all pre-existing conditions without increasing costs."

"If it were only that simple...
http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servi...e/CostOfCancer"[/I]

"Defense"

"...
I thought everyone accepted that:
Dems increase spending on social programs (get more votes) and cut defense when possible.
Repubs invest in defense and try to control runaway social spending."

"...and we wonder why the TEA party is so popular?"

"I could not agree more - with regards to a focus on tax credits that reward domestic investment.

We need to stimulate private sector investment - for industries other than defense."

"You might want to consider one of these for your avatar.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...&qpvt=fat+cat#"

"Does anyone remember Carter's (seemingly endless) TV appearances where he spoke of the need to address Soviet military capabilities? Carter knew we needed to increase defense spending - perhaps his Left base didn't approve? Then, I seem to recall Reagan saying something like 'don't worry - I know what to do' and then he spent more than Carter ever thought possible. We can argue whether the Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless - but we'll never know.

Economically speaking, I think Bush Sr. and then Clinton enjoyed the fruits of their predecessors. I also agree that Clinton would have spent a great deal on social programs early in his term if permitted.

I was never a fan of Bush Jr. Clearly 9/11 has the moment in time that defined his Presidency. It greatly impacted the economy and (his decisions) set us on a course of deficit spending. Without 9/11, I think Bush would have focused more on social programs, including health care and immigration, but deficits would have grown much slower.

As for Obama, the graph seems to demonstrate future projections? Based on Obama's claim that Stimulus would hold the unemployment rate below 9% - I'll take the projections with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, the President AFTER Obama (not named - anyone want to guess) seems to have things under control - just saying."

"Btw, why doesn't our Poll have "Let the tax cuts expire" as a choice?"

"I guess the option couldn't be added after the polling began?"

""

"Perhaps we should first define the middle class. Should we assume it begins at $50,000 annual income (appox level where earned income stops) and $250,000 (Obama's favorite number)? Also, should we factor in home values, savings, investments and debt obligations to reach a net worth benchmark?"

"LOL Watch out, the Libs will use this to promote "effective redistributon of wealth".
I'm looking for a link that I found about a year ago. It demonstrated the residual value of dividends to US citizens if capital invested in Germany and Japan after WWII had been an equity investment."

"Do you think they would support a one time net worth/equity tax - say 20 percent?"

"I think spending cuts are easy to sell when you focus on VALUE. Likewise, value was used to sell Stimulus (infrastructure).
However, when we hear about $600 toilet seats and hammers and $30 packets of cocoa (charged to Medicaid) and a heroin addict accumulating $300,000 in taxi rides (driving past local clinics) to get methadone- plus the cost of the drugs. Accountability and sensibility are needed now more than ever."

"Under 65 Medicare and Medicaid spending are runaway freight trains - and "health care reform" will not solve the problem."

"If you live in the US and you have (full) Medicaid - you pay for nothing. You can run to the emergency room everytime you have an ache and get multiple CT scans, x-rays and MRI's (or multiple other tests - making a point).

Now you want to "give" everyone these benefits and have 1-2% of the population pay the bill?

Have you ever heard the story about eating the "Golden Goose"?"

[I]"Originally Posted by turbo-1
Any proof of this abuse? Where is the non-idealogical support for those statements?

Who said anything about an abuse? It is their right - Medicaid is an Entitlement Program.

I'm going to give you the quick wiki version - otherwise we'll need to move to another thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...tive_Labor_Act
"Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.
"

Also from this link

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[5] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented."[6] More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA's passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.[7] There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S."

Worth mentioning, general Medicaid benefits are state-specific."

"Let's get back to topic.

You can't solve a complicated problem without considering all variables. Our specific problem is increased spending coupled with decreased revenues.

We need to find a way to cut spending drastically (IMO as much as 40% in some areas) and at the same time re-vitalize the economy. Our tax policy needs to encourage investment into property, plant and equipment IN THE US.

Until the conversation moves away from class warfare and protection of special interests, nothing will be resolved."

"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."

"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?"


Your response to this turbo - was:
"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?
"

"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"?"

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

"Originally Posted by turbo-1
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?"

THEN you posted this Turbo:
"Originally Posted by turbo-1
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.
"

"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/.../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...or_waiver.html"[/I]

"Originally Posted by turbo-1
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."

"I have a better idea - eliminate ALL Government payments/assistance (other than Social Security upon retirement at the earned rate) to anyone convicted of selling drugs - and have the IRS collect from them with a vengence."

"It's not even a new or original idea.
http://blog.timesunion.com/crime/cop...-welfare/3391/

Profits on drug sales (business income albeit illegal) should be subject to income taxes, social security withholdings, and declared when requesting any form of public assistance. Unfortunately, most people won't admit to an illegal act. However, if convicted, there is proof of illegal profits - this means they falsified their request for assistance."

Turbo - you need to follow your own standard - this is my public response to your challenge and I need to ask again - what is this about?

"Originally Posted by turbo-1
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.
"

 

[nismaratwork]

<ULTRA SNIP>

I started to read your post, but you really REALLY need to properly format those quotes in such a massive post. This strikes me as a fairly important post in this thread, but it's kind of painful to look at.

 

[WhoWee]

I started to read your post, but you really REALLY need to properly format those quotes in such a massive post. This strikes me as a fairly important post in this thread, but it's kind of painful to look at.

Turbo has challenged me to support a claim that I didn't post. I apologize for the massive post - I don't know how else to respond to his "Don't be a wimp" comment - other than to show EVERYTHING I've posted and ask him what he's talking about - publicly - as he's requested. Again, I apologize to you and everyone else.

 

[nismaratwork]

Turbo has challenged me to support a claim that I didn't post. I apologize for the massive post - I don't know how else to respond to his "Don't be a wimp" comment - other than to show EVERYTHING I've posted and ask him what he's talking about - publicly - as he's requested. Again, I apologize to you and everyone else.

I think you misunderstand... I'm not saying you should trim your post or change it, just use the [quote ] [/quote ] (spaces added), and [quote="NameofPoster" (end bracket) to specify who. It makes the whole thing a lot easier to read when you instantly see the back and forth, instead of what looks like a wall of multi-formatted text.

I'll be honest, I don't seem to agree with you much politically, but this isn't the result of that, just... old man eyes.

 

[turbo]

We have had blanket assertions from the GOP and from some members on this board that failing to extend the Bush tax cuts to all will kill job-creation. That is a right-wing fantasy. The Reagan tax cuts didn't create jobs, nor did W's tax cuts. It can be (and should be, IMO) argued that since the middle class and poor spend most of their income, that extending those tax cuts would stimulate the economy and perhaps aid in job-creation. Giving tax-cuts to millionaires would have no such effect.

Unfortunately, we have minority rule in the Senate, and though there was talk of bargaining to keep tax cuts for people at $500K or even $1M income, and rescinding the cuts for higher incomes, even that was not enough for the GOP. All tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended or they wouldn't allow any extension of unemployment benefits. That's sick.

The GOP blames deficit spending on the Democrats (who share the blame for sure) while they play the same games. If the extended tax cuts had to be paid for, where would the money come from?

 

[WhoWee]

I'll be honest, I don't seem to agree with you much politically, but this isn't the result of that, just... old man eyes.

Well you're not alone in that group here at the PF. However, I do think some of my positions are misunderstood and even over-reacted to at times. I am clearly in favor of trimming the waste from Government spending. I am also clearly in favor of a tax policy that attracts investment in the US.

On the social program side, I've disclosed several times that I'm active professionally in the insurance industry. I am very familiar with health insurance - Medicare and Medicaid in particular. Accordingly, the cost of an expansion of Medicaid concerns me greatly.

I've also commented repeatedly regarding the Earned Income Tax Credit. It was basically designed to give back Social Security withholdings to low income families. That threshold is now roughly $50,000 per year for a family of 4 - that (in my mind) is that group really "low income" - or are they middle class? In the insurance industry, a family of 4 with income of $50,000 is the group MOST LIKELY to purchase life insurance - why can't this group be expected to pay into their retirement fund as well (Social Security)? btw - insurance salespersons may disagree with me and say let them use the EITC to buy life insurance.

As for food stamps - I honestly think the Government should use it's buying power to negotiate wholesale (generic) prices for distribution to the poor - not pay top dollar for processed and gourmet offerings.

I think our system is designed to maintain a permanent welfare class and entitlement mentality.

 

[WhoWee]

We have had blanket assertions from the GOP and from some members on this board that failing to extend the Bush tax cuts to all will kill job-creation. That is a right-wing fantasy. The Reagan tax cuts didn't create jobs, nor did W's tax cuts. It can be (and should be, IMO) argued that since the middle class and poor spend most of their income, that extending those tax cuts would stimulate the economy and perhaps aid in job-creation. Giving tax-cuts to millionaires would have no such effect.

Unfortunately, we have minority rule in the Senate, and though there was talk of bargaining to keep tax cuts for people at $500K or even $1M income, and rescinding the cuts for higher incomes, even that was not enough for the GOP. All tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended or they wouldn't allow any extension of unemployment benefits. That's sick.

The GOP blames deficit spending on the Democrats (who share the blame for sure) while they play the same games. If the extended tax cuts had to be paid for, where would the money come from?

Not so fast turbo - you challenged me in a significant way and I responded by showing EVERY POST I've made in this thread. I never made the claim that you specified - now it's YOUR TURN to retract in a public way...and in your words "Don't be a wimp".

 

[nismaratwork]

Well you're not alone in that group here at the PF. However, I do think some of my positions are misunderstood and even over-reacted to at times. I am clearly in favor of trimming the waste from Government spending. I am also clearly in favor of a tax policy that attracts investment in the US.

On the social program side, I've disclosed several times that I'm active professionally in the insurance industry. I am very familiar with health insurance - Medicare and Medicaid in particular. Accordingly, the cost of an expansion of Medicaid concerns me greatly.

I've also commented repeatedly regarding the Earned Income Tax Credit. It was basically designed to give back Social Security withholdings to low income families. That threshold is now roughly $50,000 per year for a family of 4 - that (in my mind) is that group really "low income" - or are they middle class? In the insurance industry, a family of 4 with income of $50,000 is the group MOST LIKELY to purchase life insurance - why can't this group be expected to pay into their retirement fund as well (Social Security)? btw - insurance salespersons may disagree with me and say let them use the EITC to buy life insurance.

As for food stamps - I honestly think the Government should use it's buying power to negotiate wholesale (generic) prices for distribution to the poor - not pay top dollar for processed and gourmet offerings.

I think our system is designed to maintain a permanent welfare class and entitlement mentality.

I find your last point very compelling... after all, how do you let people starve?... you don't. That being said, abuse of food-stamps and welfare is no joke, never mind the overall system. I see nothing wrong with food distribution instead of food-stamps, but this IS the same government that classified ketchup as a vegetable. I'm not sure that either system is bound to work; the first becomes a lifestyle (however unpleasant), and the second could lead to malnutrition and all related ills.

I have one major question: do you believe that our system is DESIGNED to maintain a welfare class, or that politicians have incrementally given into interest groups in this area as with so many others? Personally, I believe the latter as being more likely, but what's the solution?

 

[turbo]

Not so fast turbo - you challenged me in a significant way and I responded by showing EVERY POST I've made in this thread. I never made the claim that you specified - now it's YOUR TURN to retract in a public way...and in your words "Don't be a wimp".

You jumped in on my response to mheslep, so I assumed that you meant to defend his assertion. If not, I apologize.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3025201&postcount=310

The GOP position that eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would kill job creation is dishonest, and unsupported by past history. Plus, even the wealthiest would benefit from all the cuts extended to the middle class, up to whatever cap could be agreed on. $250K, $500K, $1M... None of that was good enough for the GOP, and they were willing to let unemployment benefits expire for the most severely effected families unless the super-wealthy got more tax cuts.

 

[WhoWee]

I find your last point very compelling... after all, how do you let people starve?... you don't. That being said, abuse of food-stamps and welfare is no joke, never mind the overall system. I see nothing wrong with food distribution instead of food-stamps, but this IS the same government that classified ketchup as a vegetable. I'm not sure that either system is bound to work; the first becomes a lifestyle (however unpleasant), and the second could lead to malnutrition and all related ills.

I have one major question: do you believe that our system is DESIGNED to maintain a welfare class, or that politicians have incrementally given into interest groups in this area as with so many others? Personally, I believe the latter as being more likely, but what's the solution?

IMO - Politicians are the problem. I favor term limits for the House and a revised election process for the Senate - basically providing that a candidate first serve in the House or at the state Congressional/Governor level.

As for food stamps - I don't want to see anyone go hungry. However, I don't think out tax dollars should be spent on gourmet cheese spreads, Fruit Loops and Pop Tarts (first 2 brands that came to mind - lot's of other processed labels), and prime cuts of beef that I can't afford. I would like to see food stamps feed the most people possible - for the lowest cost - with generic items and reasonable meat, fruit, vegetable, and bread choices.

 

[WhoWee]

You jumped in on my response to mheslep, so I assumed that you meant to defend his assertion. If not, I apologize.

Fair enough, my friend.

 

[Al68]

I think our system is designed to maintain a permanent welfare class and entitlement mentality.

Of course it is. The welfare state is a cult of individual and government irresponsibility.

But explaining the basics of free enterprise and economic freedom to a Marxist is a losing cause. Marxist ideology is so ingrained in them that they just cannot comprehend it. Or such a the lack of comprehension is feigned in order to avoid honest debate.

They can advocate confiscating more capital from capitalists, then bizarrely deny that it will hurt capitalist job creation. And as crazy as that sounds, they will then challenge non-Marxists to substantiate the obvious, like a toddler challenging an adult to prove that the moon isn't made of cheese. And trust me, that's virtually impossible, despite the obvious truth of the claim.

 

[CAC1001]

We have had blanket assertions from the GOP and from some members on this board that failing to extend the Bush tax cuts to all will kill job-creation. That is a right-wing fantasy.

No it isn't. There is no way to know for sure. In healthy economy, perhaps not, in a crappy economy it could most certainly.

The Reagan tax cuts didn't create jobs,

I wouldn't say that. Reagan saw one of the largest economic booms in history, and his tax cuts I think very much responsible for this. With the Reagan tax cuts, we saw capital flow into the stock and bond markets, which led to much business and hence job creation. Prior to this, the wealthy had most of their money hidden. Remember, there is a point at which if you tax the higher-earners too much, you kill off incentive to work and invest, and such people hide their money. From these points, if you lower tax rates, you can see increased investment, job creation, and revenue.

In a healthy economy, I'd venture that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest would not have such an effect, because the rates wouldn't be raised that much. But we are in a crappy economy right now, so there is no way to know for sure. Also the government must have that firm commitme to cap spending.

Also remember the Reagan tax cuts were from some pretty high rates, and were for everyone as well, so there was both a supply-side and demand-side (Keynesian) effect. the Keynesian effect in this sense was just applied by giving more money to consumers via tax cuts as opposed to bureaucrats spending it.

nor did W's tax cuts.

Not sure on W's tax cuts, but W's were also a combination demand and supply-side stimulus, as taxes were cut for everyone. The Child Tax Credit was doubled from $500 to $1000 per child and tax rates were lowered across-the-board.

It can be (and should be, IMO) argued that since the middle class and poor spend most of their income, that extending those tax cuts would stimulate the economy and perhaps aid in job-creation. Giving tax-cuts to millionaires would have no such effect.

But no one is arguing to "give" tax cuts to millionaires, they are arguing to not raise their taxes right now.

Unfortunately, we have minority rule in the Senate, and though there was talk of bargaining to keep tax cuts for people at $500K or even $1M income, and rescinding the cuts for higher incomes, even that was not enough for the GOP. All tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended or they wouldn't allow any extension of unemployment benefits. That's sick.

IMO, it's pretty simple, extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone, and extend unemployment benefits, due to the economy.

In a healthier economy, I would say end the unemployment benefits because they keep unemployment artificially higher, and rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but with a firm commitment to keep spending in check.

Right now, the economy is unusually crappy, so the argument that unemployment benefits are keeping the unemployment rate artificially high, well maybe, but so many are unemployed or under-employed right now, if we end them, I think it will hurt more than help at the moment. Once jobs start becoming available, then let them expire, and people can become employed. Right now the jobs just aren't out there.

The GOP blames deficit spending on the Democrats (who share the blame for sure) while they play the same games. If the extended tax cuts had to be paid for, where would the money come from?

That is why we need a commitment to fiscal conservatism from everybody as well.

 

[mheslep]

You jumped in on my response to mheslep, so I assumed that you meant to defend his assertion.

Hopefully you saw my response to clarify.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3025222&postcount=311

 

[mheslep]

If the extended tax cuts had to be paid for, where would the money come from?

o Rescind the balance of TARP
o Rescind the balance of the AARA stimulus.
o Restore all other spending back to 2008 levels - defense, unemployment spending, everything.

That would ~ balance the budget with current tax levels.

 

[Al68]

o Rescind the balance of TARP
o Rescind the balance of the AARA stimulus.
o Restore all other spending back to 2008 levels - defense, unemployment spending, everything.

That would ~ balance the budget with current tax levels.

That kind of solution is only applicable for those who actually want to balance the budget. For those who's goal is to expand the power of government, not so much.

 

[turbo]

Hopefully you saw my response to clarify.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3025222&postcount=311

Yes, I saw it, thank you. The fallacy is in conflating tax cuts for middle-class and poor people with tax cuts for the wealthy, which is a never-ending drum-beat of the GOP. It has been posited that tax-cuts for people who must spend the money has about a 2x multiplier effect on job creation/stimulation. The people who resist allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire have no justification to fall back on, except their subservience to the wealthy.

The US has very liberal rules and regulations regarding business, investment, etc. The people that make millions and billions under our system should be expected to pay to support that system. There is nothing wrong with a progressive tax system in which the people who make the most money pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes. I expect someone will jump in now and call me a Marxist, but let's look back at the establishment of SS in the 30's. It helped keep old people from starving and freezing to death. The GOP mantra of "never raise taxes in a recession" is pretty lame when you look back at how bleak things looked in the 1930s. My parents were born in the 20's and were raised in abject poverty. It would be hard for you to find 2 people who were more fiscally conservative, but they both voted Democrat consistently, thanks to FDR. I supported Republican causes in the 60's and thereafter, until Reagan sold out to the neo-cons. It's hard to have much influence as an Independent (since we don't have party caucuses, etc), but it's better than being tied to Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dee.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, I saw it, thank you. The fallacy is in conflating tax cuts for middle-class and poor people with tax cuts for the wealthy, which is a never-ending drum-beat of the GOP. It has been posited that tax-cuts for people who must spend the money has about a 2x multiplier effect on job creation/stimulation. The people who resist allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire have no justification to fall back on, except their subservience to the wealthy.

The US has very liberal rules and regulations regarding business, investment, etc. The people that make millions and billions under our system should be expected to pay to support that system. There is nothing wrong with a progressive tax system in which the people who make the most money pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes. I expect someone will jump in now and call me a Marxist, but let's look back at the establishment of SS in the 30's. It helped keep old people from starving and freezing to death. The GOP mantra of "never raise taxes in a recession" is pretty lame when you look back at how bleak things looked in the 1930s. My parents were born in the 20's and were raised in abject poverty. It would be hard for you to find 2 people who were more fiscally conservative, but they both voted Democrat consistently, thanks to FDR. I supported Republican causes in the 60's and thereafter, until Reagan sold out to the neo-cons. It's hard to have much influence as an Independent (since we don't have party caucuses, etc), but it's better than being tied to Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dee.

Do you think everyone should make contributions to their own Social Security benefits - or do you think families of 4 with taxable income of $50,000 or less should be reimbursed with Earned Income credit?

 

[turbo]

Do you think everyone should make contributions to their own Social Security benefits - or do you think families of 4 with taxable income of $50,000 or less should be reimbursed with Earned Income credit?

That's a class-warfare question, IMO, and I'm not going to get into actuarial data or indexing of SS contributions/benefits. We'd need a new thread with some actual economists moderating to get into that in a fair manner.

Let's look at who might be concerned about lifting or removing the cap on SS-taxable wages instead. Those who earn over the present cap, and the companies that employ them. I hit that cap year after year, even when I was self-employed as a consultant and had to pay all the SS quarterly, along with my income taxes. I would not have objected to the removal of that cap. Certainly the payments that I made would far exceed the benefits that I would received, but that's part of the price you should pay for living in a society that is safe and secure, and gives individuals the opportunity to accumulate wealth disproportionate to their efforts. I was talented and skillful (IMHO), and made a lot of money as a trouble-shooter for the pulp and paper industry, and was paid in kind. I am not so vain as to believe that I worked as hard as a single mother trying to raise a couple of kids working a part-time job with no benefits, or a young family that is scraping to keep up with house payments and to keep a couple of vehicles on the road. Lots of this is missing from the political "news" these days.

 

[WhoWee]

That's a class-warfare question, IMO, and I'm not going to get into actuarial data or indexing of SS contributions/benefits. We'd need a new thread with some actual economists moderating to get into that in a fair manner.

Let's look at who might be concerned about lifting or removing the cap on SS-taxable wages instead. Those who earn over the present cap, and the companies that employ them. I hit that cap year after year, even when I was self-employed as a consultant and had to pay all the SS quarterly, along with my income taxes. I would not have objected to the removal of that cap. Certainly the payments that I made would far exceed the benefits that I would received, but that's part of the price you should pay for living in a society that is safe and secure, and gives individuals the opportunity to accumulate wealth disproportionate to their efforts. I was talented and skillful (IMHO), and made a lot of money as a trouble-shooter for the pulp and paper industry, and was paid in kind. I am not so vain as to believe that I worked as hard as a single mother trying to raise a couple of kids working a part-time job with no benefits, or a young family that is scraping to keep up with house payments and to keep a couple of vehicles on the road. Lots of this is missing from the political "news" these days.

I have no problem removing the cap - if benefits increase for people paying greater amounts. However, I don't think it's fair to selectively exempt anyone from paying into the system - that's the class warfare aspect - and might influence votes.

 

[turbo]

I have no problem removing the cap - if benefits increase for people paying greater amounts. However, I don't think it's fair to selectively exempt anyone from paying into the system - that's the class warfare aspect - and might influence votes.

We're already selectively exempting the wealthy from paying anything more than middle-class wage-earners.

 

[WhoWee]

We're already selectively exempting the wealthy from paying anything more than middle-class wage-earners.

Again, remove the cap and eliminate the EITC.

 

[turbo]

Again, remove the cap and eliminate the EITC.

Not a bad compromise, IMO, but do you see the Dem and GOP contingents exploring it?

 

[WhoWee]

Not a bad compromise, IMO, but do you see the Dem and GOP contingents exploring it?

I'm not sure any of them want to solve a problem in this manner - won't sway any votes. On the other hand, if all legislation was "vote neutral" (hope I just coined the phrase?) we would all win.

 

[turbo]

I'm not sure any of them want to solve a problem in this manner - won't sway any votes. On the other hand, if all legislation was "vote neutral" (hope I just coined the phrase?) we would all win.

There has been no sign in DC that compromise is even an option. I am sick of the strong-arm vs scorched-earth tactics that we see employed to get even minor legislation considered and passed.