Bush tax cuts may remain in place

[boomerang]

It's an election year!! Do we chalk this up to that or is it a change of course? I know what I'm betting on.

Dems may keep Bush tax cuts

Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest families, could imperil the recovery.

“I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, you don’t raise their taxes,” he said. “In a recession, you don’t tax, burden and restrict. The economy is like a ship, and if you sink the ship, all the good you might do goes down with it.”

Families who make up the 5 percent of highest earners account for about 30 percent of consumer spending.

Election jitters or common sense. You make the call.

 

[JS80]

Boo they should let it lapse so they all get replaced by tea partiers.

 

[werepossum]

Sounds like somebody's noticed that 11% approval rating for Congress. Run conservative, then spend two years doing the opposite.

 

[her209]

They'd still have to get it past Obama.

 

[Bitek]

Wealthy families would not have an incentive to cut back on spending and budget writers could assume an inflow of tax funds in future years, making five- and 10-year budget projections look less scary.

I guess the religious fever over not adding to the deficit has died a quick death. This is an idiotic plan on Dems behalf for so many reasons its hard to begin. I, however, never try to underestimate the Dems ability for political idiocy

 

[BoberFett]

ATP&N Democrats calling this a brave move despite the resistance of the GOP in 3... 2... 1...

 

[drebo]

Families who make up the 5 percent of highest earners account for about 30 percent of consumer spending.

This is the most important sentence of the week.

You don't jumpstart an economy by taking money from those that have it and giving money to the bottom rung. You jumpstart the economy by encouraging those who have money to spend more of it.

 

[theeedude]

Let them vote for it if they want to, and then let Obama veto it.

 

[theeedude]

This is the most important sentence of the week.

You don't jumpstart an economy by taking money from those that have it and giving money to the bottom rung. You jumpstart the economy by encouraging those who have money to spend more of it.

Yes, because the wealthy were doing so badly and spending no money under Clinton tax rates we'll revert to.

 

[Lanyap]

This is the most important sentence of the week.

You don't jumpstart an economy by taking money from those that have it and giving money to the bottom rung. You jumpstart the economy by encouraging those who have money to spend more of it.

"Wealthy Reduce Buying in a Blow to the Recovery"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/economy/17consumers.html?pagewanted=1&ref=motoko_rich

 

[boomerang]

This is the most important sentence of the week.

You don't jumpstart an economy by taking money from those that have it and giving money to the bottom rung. You jumpstart the economy by encouraging those who have money to spend more of it.

Yeah...but...

Don't expect common sense from the left.

 

[Throckmorton]

So can we call them the "Obama Tax Cuts"?

 

[BoberFett]

So can we call them the "Obama Tax Cuts"?

Depends. When someone wants to talk about how the rich don't pay enough, they'll be Bush Tax Cuts. When someone wants to talk about saving the economy, they'll be Obama Tax Cuts.

 

[boomerang]

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

Explains what we could be facing 01/11 and in the future.

But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This "second wave" of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:

Read for yourself if interested. I think long posts just don't get read by the ADHD generation.

 

[boomerang]

Depends. When someone wants to talk about how the rich don't pay enough, they'll be Bush Tax Cuts. When someone wants to talk about saving the economy, they'll be Obama Tax Cuts.

I like the way you think.

 

[Jhhnn]

More of the usual fatcat fanboi lameness. Cut spending to balance the budget when taxes are the lowest they've been in the entire post-WW2 period, particularly for the top 1%.

I was a working adult when most of the jive rightwingers here were learning their first words from Rush on the radio. I really didn't notice that the wealthy were having trouble making ends meet prior to the election of Reagan, at all. Shucks- they actually employed americans, owned real honest to gosh factories in this country, dealt with the Unions just fine, and we all came out ahead. Most of didn't whine about paying big taxes on big money, either- they knew it came with the territory when they set out to get rich.

Fast forward thru the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush years to now, where their incomes have exploded and their tax rates fallen by half in some cases to hear the pitiful whining about how badly they're abused having to pay taxes at all, and about how american labor is just to expensive to meet their profit expectations...

Dems would do well to craft a bill that preserves middle class tax cuts while denying them to the top 1%, closing the loopholes that only the wealthy can exploit and simplifying the code at the same time. Put the big splashy spin on it in the media, then bludgeon repubs opposing it, whether it passes or not.

Hell, the top 1% takes home twice the income of the bottom 50% combined, a complete reversal from 1980. They got there largely by being under taxed for 3 decades, so it only seems fitting that they should be the ones to pay a little extra to help uncle sam make ends meet...

Let the accusations of envy ensue, as the usual red herring of denial...

 

[boomerang]

More of the usual fatcat fanboi lameness. Cut spending to balance the budget when taxes are the lowest they've been in the entire post-WW2 period, particularly for the top 1%.

I was a working adult when most of the jive rightwingers here were learning their first words from Rush on the radio. I really didn't notice that the wealthy were having trouble making ends meet prior to the election of Reagan, at all. Shucks- they actually employed americans, owned real honest to gosh factories in this country, dealt with the Unions just fine, and we all came out ahead. Most of didn't whine about paying big taxes on big money, either- they knew it came with the territory when they set out to get rich.

Fast forward thru the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush years to now, where their incomes have exploded and their tax rates fallen by half in some cases to hear the pitiful whining about how badly they're abused having to pay taxes at all, and about how american labor is just to expensive to meet their profit expectations...

Dems would do well to craft a bill that preserves middle class tax cuts while denying them to the top 1%, closing the loopholes that only the wealthy can exploit and simplifying the code at the same time. Put the big splashy spin on it in the media, then bludgeon repubs opposing it, whether it passes or not.

Hell, the top 1% takes home twice the income of the bottom 50% combined, a complete reversal from 1980. They got there largely by being under taxed for 3 decades, so it only seems fitting that they should be the ones to pay a little extra to help uncle sam make ends meet...

Let the accusations of envy ensue, as the usual red herring of denial...

Instead of looking at the world through a telescope, you might want to try a pair of binoculars. It may broaden the view.

 

[SammyJr]

Somehow, I don't think an extra 3% on the top 5% will stop them from spending or even slow them down. The idea that people at that level have to do the same level of belt tightening as the rest of us is laughable. This is just more solidarity with the rich bullshit.

 

[spidey07]

Somehow, I don't think an extra 3% on the top 5% will stop them from spending or even slow them down. The idea that people at that level have to do the same level of belt tightening as the rest of us is laughable. This is just more solidarity with the rich bullshit.

Actually that top 5% encompass the HENRYs. High Earners, Not Rich Yet. It absolutely DOES put a damper in their behavior. Personally I'm not spending a dime unless I have to because of the impending tax increases. Many of my friends are doing the same as well as pulling out capital because of the CG increases along with it. We're talking 10s upon 10s of thousands of dollars in tax increases here.

I don't think you get it yet. We are not rich and yet get killed in taxes because we make enough to disqualify basically every credit. And don't get me started on the AMT.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Somehow, I don't think an extra 3% on the top 5% will stop them from spending or even slow them down. The idea that people at that level have to do the same level of belt tightening as the rest of us is laughable. This is just more solidarity with the rich bullshit.

I don't think a 98.44% tax would hurt Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.. should we do it?

 

[spidey07]

More goodies on the democrats tax hikes...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iV8UaDH816Rxzyikw9In_WGjT3cwD9H4CUC80

Only 3 percent of taxpayers who report business income on their individual tax returns would face a tax increase under Obama's plan. Those taxpayers, however, account for half the business income reported on individual returns, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

"If you want a jobs bill, the fastest way to create jobs would be to extend the tax cuts," Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in an interview. "One of the reasons people aren't being hired is there's so much uncertainty."

 

[JS80]

I don't think a 98.44% tax would hurt Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.. should we do it?

Why stop there? tax 110% of their income. If they stop making money, tax their idle accumulated wealth!

 

[Throckmorton]

Actually that top 5% encompass the HENRYs. High Earners, Not Rich Yet. It absolutely DOES put a damper in their behavior. Personally I'm not spending a dime unless I have to because of the impending tax increases. Many of my friends are doing the same as well as pulling out capital because of the CG increases along with it. We're talking 10s upon 10s of thousands of dollars in tax increases here.

I don't think you get it yet. We are not rich and yet get killed in taxes because we make enough to disqualify basically every credit. And don't get me started on the AMT.

What a country we live in, where you can be in the top 5% and be considered "not rich yet". I guess we really took "classless society" to the extreme.

 

[SammyJr]

Actually that top 5% encompass the HENRYs. High Earners, Not Rich Yet. It absolutely DOES put a damper in their behavior. Personally I'm not spending a dime unless I have to because of the impending tax increases. Many of my friends are doing the same as well as pulling out capital because of the CG increases along with it. We're talking 10s upon 10s of thousands of dollars in tax increases here.

I don't think you get it yet. We are not rich and yet get killed in taxes because we make enough to disqualify basically every credit. And don't get me started on the AMT.

LOL, whatever. You talk big, but I sincerely doubt you've made any changes at all in your spending habits. If you were hoarding under Lord GW Bush, then you are hoarding now.

 

[SammyJr]

I don't think a 98.44% tax would hurt Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.. should we do it?

Can you make an argument that doesn't reflect black and white thinking? A tax increase to 39.6% isn't 98.44%, no matter how hard that is for a follower of the Free Trade Gods to grasp.