Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[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. :grumpy:

 

[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. :grumpy:

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.

 

[Amp1]

I voted for the second choice. Tax cuts should be permanent for the 98% making below $250,000/y.

It's nice to think that the top 1% or 2% haven't much to worry about but the problem is that there is more stress involved - IMO - staying ahead of the other 98% of our population isn't easy. You have to influence individuals, as well as, governmental policies (local, state, and federal). To accomplish this PACs are needed, since the middle and lower classes (income wise) haven't the resources to nudge, bribe, or payout for this manipulation. It is left to those fortunate few who have said ability. I don't think most wealthy individuals deliberately aid in maintaining an uneven field however I think that it is a function of greed that this situation continues.

I think that corporate entities because they have a quasi-autonomous personality need to be regulated, and controlled by people who have human beings and society as their priority. So that the many disparities that exist in a (or our) society can be dealt with fairly.

This is an if, but if I was in the top 3% of income earners a 40% tax rate wouldn't bother me because I grew up having to do more with less. I.e., Giving up $100,000 from a salary of $200,000+ leaving about 90,000 to 100,000 for me would not hurt me if I don't try to maintain a high level lifestyle. And I would still be living better than I had for a majority of my life.

 

[mheslep]

It may be politically difficult to cut federal spending, but sooner or later a cut will happen, this is unavoidable. Taxes can not come close to covering the current spending load, nor should they even if it were possible. Several states managed the political will to cut their budgets recently; Mississippi by some 10%. And I mean cut, as in reduced, not an increase which was reduced from some hoped for target. Hopefully spending cuts won't occur here as they did in Greece, with the riots in the streets protesting an increase in government retirement/pension age from 50 to 52 for hair dressers.

 

[nismaratwork]

It may be politically difficult to cut federal spending, but sooner or later a cut will happen, this is unavoidable. Taxes can not come close to covering the current spending load, nor should they even if it were possible. Several states managed the political will to cut their budgets recently; Mississippi by some 10%. And I mean cut, as in reduced, not an increase which was reduced from some hoped for target. Hopefully spending cuts won't occur here as they did in Greece, with the riots in the streets protesting an increase in government retirement/pension age from 50 to 52 for hair dressers.

Lets be honest now, the system in Greece was ridiculous in the extreme, and the USA doesn't have anything like that level of social welfare or early retirement.

 

[mheslep]

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".

I go further and point out (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2868414&postcount=17", to pay social security benefits at a retirement age 20-30 years below the life span for which those benefits were originally created, to pay $60B for a government auto company, ...". The sum total of this type of spending far exceeds the few tens of billions per year lost to revenue from the Bush tax cuts.

 

[mheslep]

For comparison:
Greek debt per capita: ~$50k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece" / 11M)
US debt per capita: ~$45k ($13.4T [federal only] / 300M)

Now absolute debt comparisons with the US are usually waived off because the US GDP per capita is relatively large. However, GDP can shrink come bad fortune and/or bad policy; the debt will not.

Regarding extreme public pensions, I'd like to see the Greek who can top this guy:

Rizzo [city manager for a town of 37,000] is set to receive a pension of about $600,000 a year, which would make him the highest-paid pensioner in the California Public Employees' Retirement fund. That amount is calculated from a salary of nearly $800,000.

-all legal.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rizzo-pension-20100904,0,3689592.story

For examples of more widespread US social welfare liabilities, see http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/speaking_of_lia.html" which reports a $7.2T liability beyond collected revenue predictions.

 

[loseyourname]

No structure of marginal tax brackets should be seen as permanent or unchangeable. Otherwise, the available tools of fiscal policy are basically rendered impotent to react appropriately to the business cycle. We should probably set reasonable caps (for instance, no activity should ever be taxed at a combined local-state-federal rate of 40% or greater), but the rates and brackets themselves should change every year.

As for the specific impact of moving the rate for income over $250,000 from 36% to 39%, it should theoretically have a short-term stimulative effect since the government will spend the money, whereas the private income-earners are saving it, but that will also hurt investment. If "investment" just means stockpiling gold, that could actually be a good thing, but only if the rate goes down again immediately when private investment in productive assets starts to recover, which probably won't happen.

Of course, normally the point of raising marginal rates is to retire debt at the peak of a recovery, and if that's all they're going to do, it's pointless, because we're still closer to the bottom than the top, it would remove any theoretical stimulative effect, and rates are too low right now to justify retiring debt in the absence of a budget surplus. Plus, the more rational way to generate a surplus is organically at the peak of the business cycle when receipts increase even at existing rates and demand for social services hits a low, not to do it at the trough of a cycle by raising rates in the face of otherwise falling receipts.

The larger problem is that we crippled our ability to respond with proper policy by running up so much debt during a boom, making us unable to do it when we were supposed to during a downturn, causing this proposal to raise taxes just to maintain existing service levels, which should never be necessary at the federal level.

 

[mheslep]

No structure of marginal tax brackets should be seen as permanent or unchangeable.

That's to the good for the government macro planner. Moving the rates around rapidly imposes a cost on business operations through a lack of predictability.

Otherwise, the available tools of fiscal policy are basically rendered impotent to react appropriately to the business cycle.

Even with fiscal room to maneuver, observation shows that is unlikely government can bring itself to pull the correct levels in the short term swings of business cycles, furthermore the fiscal economic guidance of what to do is unclear. The only clear economic lever pulling successes of the last several decades have been in monetary policy, and even there we have had mistakes (easy Greenspan money 01-03).

We should probably set reasonable caps (for instance, no activity should ever be taxed at a combined local-state-federal rate of 40% or greater),

How about 25%? Keynes himself apparently said, "25 percent taxation is about the limit of what is easily borne."

but the rates and brackets themselves should change every year.

As for the specific impact of moving the rate for income over $250,000 from 36% to 39%, it should theoretically have a short-term stimulative effect since the government will spend the money, whereas the private income-earners are saving it, but that will also hurt investment. If "investment" just means stockpiling gold, that could actually be a good thing, but only if the rate goes down again immediately when private investment in productive assets starts to recover, which probably won't happen.

Consider that the savings (instead of investment/spending) in that bracket may well be due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis" of the pending rate increases. Take away that threat, and I suspect investment and spending will start to climb again, in a matter much more likely to increase employment than when the government takes tax money out for stimulus joy ride.

Of course, normally the point of raising marginal rates is to retire debt at the peak of a recovery, and if that's all they're going to do, it's pointless, because we're still closer to the bottom than the top, it would remove any theoretical stimulative effect, and rates are too low right now to justify retiring debt in the absence of a budget surplus. Plus, the more rational way to generate a surplus is organically at the peak of the business cycle when receipts increase even at existing rates and demand for social services hits a low, not to do it at the trough of a cycle by raising rates in the face of otherwise falling receipts.

The larger problem is that we crippled our ability to respond with proper policy by running up so much debt during a boom, making us unable to do it when we were supposed to during a downturn, causing this proposal to raise taxes just to maintain existing service levels, which should never be necessary at the federal level.

The US has been unable to run up debt in this downturn? US federal debt has http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tripple-debt.jpg" Just how much additional debt did are you calling for, and to what end? To my mind there are no good examples of successful stimulation of depressed economies through government spending - not in 1990's Japan, not in the US 1930s. After this last ~$1T stimulus attempt and the resulting near 10% unemployment, deficit stimulus spending economics should warrant at the very least great skepticism, and taking for granted that fire hosing money out of a government window must stimulate the economy in all recessions borders on the irrational. Finally, the predicted revenue increase from the repeal of the proposed Bush tax cuts, even if all of it goes through, is only a fraction of the deficit gap caused by current spending ($70B/year).

 

[turbo]

The GOP is squealing about raising the marginal tax rate on the highest-earning Americans from 36-39%. They proclaim that the Bush cuts on the highest earners must be extended, despite the fact that such an extension would add ~$1Trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Extending the tax cuts to the people most able to pay them would be stupid and unproductive, while rescinding those tax cuts to the people whose wages have stagnated or fallen, and whose savings have taken a beating would prolong our economic downturn.

Those of us who have benefited greatly from our economy and our hard work should not lobby to perpetuate and extend the earnings-disparity between the rich and the poor. That's the kind of crap that led our country into the Great Depression. And yes, I was firmly in the upper 2% for several years before illness (and lack of proper accommodation for that) knocked me out of the work-force, so I have a good feel about how much of a "hardship" rescinding 3% of the marginal tax rate would have on me. Not enough to worry about. We live comfortably, and well within our means. I'm certain that the millionaires (including most Senators) who want to continue the tax break can learn to live without it.

 

[mheslep]

The GOP is squealing about raising the marginal tax rate on the highest-earning Americans from 36-39%. They proclaim that the Bush cuts on the highest earners must be extended, despite the fact that such an extension would add ~$1Trillion to the deficit over the next decade...

That's at least 30% high, and since when do you care about deficits (or unemployment for that matter)? I've missed your objections to the last several years of helicopter spending.

 

[turbo]

That's at least 30% high, and since when do you care about deficits (or unemployment for that matter)? I've missed your objections to the last several years of helicopter spending.

Extending unemployment benefits would have cost ~$30 Billion and the GOP wouldn't sign on because it would "add to the deficit". Somehow, Boehner et al had no problem with adding a trillion to the deficit to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.

If you don't think that I have been outraged by unfunded wars, you're very wrong.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2869160&postcount=26

 

[loseyourname]

That's to the good for the government macro planner. Moving the rates around rapidly imposes a cost on business operations through a lack of predictability.

Even with fiscal room to maneuver, observation shows that is unlikely government can bring itself to pull the correct levels in the short term swings of business cycles, furthermore the fiscal economic guidance of what to do is unclear. The only clear economic lever pulling successes of the last several decades have been in monetary policy, and even there we have had mistakes (easy Greenspan money 01-03).

These are sort of competing problems here. The major problem with fiscal policy is that it's lagging because of how slowly spending measures move through Congress. So even though monetary policy has less of the desired effect, we use it more because it's more administratively efficient.

But I'm not talking about making wild rate swings left and right all the time. Just that fiscal policy is only effective when it's actually used and different situations call for different rates. Sometimes you need to raise them and sometimes you need to cut them. They can't be set in stone. As for the effect on business operations, I think that's pretty easily avoided by not taxing business operations.

How about 25%? Keynes himself apparently said, "25 percent taxation is about the limit of what is easily borne."

As far as I know, empirical studies have indicated that 40% is the marginal rate at which the taxed activity starts to be significantly discouraged. You see this with nurses. When overtime starts knocking them into the highest bracket, they stop working overtime.

But what the number is doesn't matter. The point is just that there is a point at which tax rates get too high and we should cap them and allow flexibility beneath that cap.

Consider that the savings (instead of investment/spending) in that bracket may well be due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis" of the pending rate increases. Take away that threat, and I suspect investment and spending will start to climb again, in a matter much more likely to increase employment than when the government takes tax money out for stimulus joy ride.

High-income households have high savings rates regardless of future tax forecasts. Shifting wealth from low- to high-MPC consumers will always have a short-term stimulative effect. That isn't to say it's always the right thing to do, and that's why I qualified the "theoretical projection of effect" above with caveats regarding negative long-term effects. Plus, at a certain point, it's unethical to just confiscate money. Still, there will always be a short-term stimulative effect when you take money that isn't being spent and spend it.

The US has been unable to run up debt in this downturn?

That isn't really what I meant. The government, practically speaking, can issue damn near as much debt as it wants to. But when you run up debt during boom times, you cripple your ability to act prudently during busts. Because now, passing a debt-funded spending package doesn't simply create debt, it creates excessive debt. The proper way to do it is to run surpluses during boom times and deficits during busts to maintain predictable service levels in the face of volatile national income and to smooth the business cycle. Running a deficit all the time just results in a permanently increasing national debt that kills the future. If you run a deficit during booms and then cut back during busts, you just worsen the business cycle and turn booms into bubbles and busts into depressions.

 

[Al68]

...so I have a good feel about how much of a "hardship" rescinding 3% of the marginal tax rate would have on me. Not enough to worry about. We live comfortably, and well within our means. I'm certain that the millionaires (including most Senators) who want to continue the tax break can learn to live without it.

Yep, poor, poor rich people. And lower middle class people like me that feel so sorry for them and take their side against the righteous Dems. People like me who just can't stand the thought of rich people like you having such hardships. :uhh:

I think it's now safe to assume you are very aware that your representation of those that disagree with you is laughably absurd and fraudulent, and you are not really as uninformed of the opposing viewpoint as you pretend, so there is no point in arguing about it.

 

[turbo]

Yep, poor, poor rich people. And lower middle class people like me that feel so sorry for them and take their side against the righteous Dems. People like me who just can't stand the thought of rich people like you having such hardships. :uhh:

I think it's now safe to assume you are very aware that your representation of those that disagree with you is laughably absurd and fraudulent, and you are not really as uninformed of the opposing viewpoint as you pretend, so there is no point in arguing about it.

I was earning over 30K/year in a "draw" salary, and far exceeded many, many times that for years in my sales incentives (you could call them bonuses but they were structured very strictly WRT to department performance). My wife and I both came from poor families and we never needed to keep up for appearances.

It is "safe to assume" NOTHING. Get a grip. And get a viewpoint that doesn't originate from political views that are purely neo-con blather. There are conservatives like myself that have had to go independent since the GOP has abandoned all conservative tenets in order to pander to the wealthy.

 

[Al68]

It is "safe to assume" NOTHING. Get a grip. And get a viewpoint that doesn't originate from political views that are purely neo-con blather.

John Lock: neo-con blather-er extraordinaire. Yeah, that's it.

There are conservatives like myself that have had to go independent since the GOP has abandoned all conservative tenets in order to pander to the wealthy.

Yeah, we all know you're the love child of Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand. :rofl:

I can play this game, too: I'm a socialist myself, a huge fan of Marx. I just object to the extreme version of socialism advocated by Dems. I favor a more moderate version of socialism favored by the few Republicans left that haven't turned completely into advocates of that radical extreme version of authoritarian socialism.

 

[turbo]

I can play this game, too: I'm a socialist myself, a huge fan of Marx. I just object to the extreme version of socialism advocated by Dems. I favor a more moderate version of socialism favored by the few Republicans left that haven't turned completely into advocates of that radical extreme version of authoritarian socialism.

I have made more money/year than 98% of the inhabitants of the US for a number of years. I also happen to be a fiscal conservative. That is something that the neo-cons fail to appreciate. I expect that you are among them ( the neo-cons)

I don't support the waging of wars fought on arguments that cannot be logically supported (based on lies, if you want to be honest). I do not support the gutting of Social Security by any means. I do not support the imposition of unfunded Federal mandates on state and local governments (No Child Left Behind). If you yearn for a return to "W's" presidency, please provide some rational arguments why this would be a good thing, in the spirit of PF's drive toward balance and fairness.

 

[nismaratwork]

John Lock: neo-con blather-er extraordinaire. Yeah, that's it.Yeah, we all know you're the love child of Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand. :rofl:

I can play this game, too: I'm a socialist myself, a huge fan of Marx. I just object to the extreme version of socialism advocated by Dems. I favor a more moderate version of socialism favored by the few Republicans left that haven't turned completely into advocates of that radical extreme version of authoritarian socialism.

Well, speaking as someone who's already earned more money than I'll spend in one lifetime, I agree with Turbo-1 as well, for much the same reasons. Would you care to expand your ad hominem attacks to me as well?

 

[Al68]

I have made more money/year than 98% of the inhabitants of the US for a number of years. I also happen to be a fiscal conservative. That is something that the neo-cons fail to appreciate. I expect that you are among them ( the neo-cons)

Well, if you will define "neo-con", I'll tell you. Is it the same as a classical liberal? I'm only guessing that because you use the term to describe those with classically liberal positions, or as Dems fraudulently say: "for the rich".

I don't support the waging of wars fought on arguments that cannot be logically supported (based on lies, if you want to be honest). I do not support the gutting of Social Security by any means. I do not support the imposition of unfunded Federal mandates on state and local governments (No Child Left Behind). If you yearn for a return to "W's" presidency, please provide some rational arguments why this would be a good thing, in the spirit of PF's drive toward balance and fairness.

I yearn for liberty. W's positions were more economically libertarian than Obama's (which isn't saying much), but far less than mine.

As far as a spirit of balance and fairness, your habit of consistently misrepresenting the views of those you disagree, like using the words "pandering to the wealthy" to describe positions barely more libertarian than Dems, leaves no room for honest debate. I have no intention of presenting any argument in favor of views that no one espouses.

That's an important point: the positions you keep arguing against are positions that no one has advocated. That's called a strawman argument. Try arguing against someone's stated position, and without any reference to their supposed motives (ad hominem argument), or any other well known logical fallacies.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, if you will define "neo-con", I'll tell you. Is it the same as a classical liberal? I'm only guessing that because you use the term to describe those with classically liberal positions, or as Dems fraudulently say: "for the rich".I yearn for liberty. W's positions were more economically libertarian than Obama's (which isn't saying much), but far less than mine.

As far as a spirit of balance and fairness, your habit of consistently misrepresenting the views of those you disagree, like using the words "pandering to the wealthy" to describe positions barely more libertarian than Dems, leaves no room for honest debate. I have no intention of presenting any argument in favor of views that no one espouses.

That's an important point: the positions you keep arguing against are positions that no one has advocated. That's called a strawman argument. Try arguing against someone's stated position, and without any reference to their supposed motives (ad hominem argument), or any other well known logical fallacies.

You've made some truly absurd claims here that require sourcing. In what way and on what planet was the spending practices of W.'s admin "Libertarian"?! I assume it couldn't have been military spending, or creating The DHS... neither very libertarian moves. You're talking out of your backpassage, so cite in accordance with PF rules or back up.

 

[Al68]

Well, speaking as someone who's already earned more money than I'll spend in one lifetime, I agree with Turbo-1 as well, for much the same reasons. Would you care to expand your ad hominem attacks to me as well?

LOL. Sure, you must be the other love child of Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand. :rofl:

You've made some truly absurd claims here that require sourcing. In what way and on what planet was the spending practices of W.'s admin "Libertarian"?! I assume it couldn't have been military spending, or creating The DHS... neither very libertarian moves. You're talking out of your backpassage, so cite in accordance with PF rules or back up.

Why don't you instead cite where I made any claim that W's spending practices were libertarian. I was obviously referring to the subject of this thread: tax cuts. :uhh:

Who's talking out of their backpassage here?

 

[OmCheeto]

No structure of marginal tax brackets should be seen as permanent or unchangeable. Otherwise, the available tools of fiscal policy are basically rendered impotent to react appropriately to the business cycle. We should probably set reasonable caps (for instance, no activity should ever be taxed at a combined local-state-federal rate of 40% or greater), but the rates and brackets themselves should change every year.

As for the specific impact of moving the rate for income over $250,000 from 36% to 39%, it should theoretically have a short-term stimulative effect since the government will spend the money, whereas the private income-earners are saving it, but that will also hurt investment. If "investment" just means stockpiling gold, that could actually be a good thing, but only if the rate goes down again immediately when private investment in productive assets starts to recover, which probably won't happen.

Of course, normally the point of raising marginal rates is to retire debt at the peak of a recovery, and if that's all they're going to do, it's pointless, because we're still closer to the bottom than the top, it would remove any theoretical stimulative effect, and rates are too low right now to justify retiring debt in the absence of a budget surplus. Plus, the more rational way to generate a surplus is organically at the peak of the business cycle when receipts increase even at existing rates and demand for social services hits a low, not to do it at the trough of a cycle by raising rates in the face of otherwise falling receipts.

The larger problem is that we crippled our ability to respond with proper policy by running up so much debt during a boom, making us unable to do it when we were supposed to during a downturn, causing this proposal to raise taxes just to maintain existing service levels, which should never be necessary at the federal level.

Bah! You sound like you know what you are talking about. I hate that...

---------------------------------
not really. will you be my pf friend? please...