Bush tax cuts may remain in place

[SammyJr]

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.

The idea of a classless society is part of the Free Trade religion. The idea is to promote solidarity with the rich so that the followers of the religion don't notice that the rich wield all the power and they're left to fight amongst the feeble scraps.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Making sense is impossible when you're out of your anti-tax minds, like the guru of the whole anti-tax movement, who equates progressive taxes with the holocaust-

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1008-07.htm

Fanbois to his defense in 5- 4- 3- 2- 1...

 

[CPA]

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

You are nuts if you think Obama would veto it, in an important election year.

 

[spidey07]

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.

You have no idea how much I've stopped spending and holding onto my wallet. In the Bush years things were always looking up, economy booming, etc.

With Obama most smart people are indeed holding onto their wallets. Doubt all you want, this is an internet forum, what motive would I have to lie?

The only spending I'm doing is on real estate at incredibly low rates. But that fucker Obama want's to go after that as well. Fuck that fucker.

 

[Red Dawn]

You have no idea how much I've stopped spending and holding onto my wallet. In the Bush years things were always looking up, economy booming, etc.

With Obama most smart people are indeed holding onto their wallets. Doubt all you want, this is an internet forum, what motive would I have to lie?

The only spending I'm doing is on real estate at incredibly low rates. But that fucker Obama want's to go after that as well. Fuck that fucker.

You getting your fiancée to foot the bill now?

 

[joebloggs10]

Congress extending the tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets makes political sense. Obama gets to keep his campaign pledge to not raise taxes on those earning <$250,000. If (when?) the GOP takes back the House or Senate in November they'll face the prospect of the tax cuts expiring in 2013 (because the current Dem Congress will NOT make them permanent). Then the Democrats will either vilify them for letting them expire and raising taxes or vilify them for renewing the tax breaks and causing a deficit.

Not only does it makes sense politically, but it makes sense if you look at the players involved. While Sharron Angle doesn't stand much of a chance of beating Harry Reid, it's at least plausible. Nancy Pelosi is pretty secure in her seat. So, what happens today? Pelosi tries to shuck all semblance of leadership and says she will instruct House Dems to follow whatever the Senate Dems decide to do with taxes. She wants nothing to do with making a tough decision on anything except a truly partisan issue, so if she can put the onus on a potential 2013 Republican Congress, she will do so.

 

[theeedude]

You are nuts if you think Obama would veto it, in an important election year.

Not for him it's not. So the Dems in Congress can vote for it and say "see, I voted for more tax cuts," then Obama can veto it, and say "sorry, no money to pay for it."

 

[Throckmorton]

Not for him it's not. So the Dems in Congress can vote for it and say "see, I voted for more tax cuts," then Obama can veto it, and say "sorry, no money to pay for it."

People will still associate democrats with Obama, because Obama is a democrat. And then it will hurt Obama in another 2 years anyway.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

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.

Make it as big and bold as you want its still a cherry picked bullshit stat.
I have a feeling they are including the purchase of rolexes, yachts and buggati's as consumer spending

 

[Craig234]

Make it as big and bold as you want its still a cherry picked bullshit stat.
I have a feeling they are including the purchase of rolexes, yachts and buggati's as consumer spending

That is consumer spending.

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

Actually, that's exactly how you can do it.

Once again, the metaphor is useful - money to the poor is a river, flowing in and out, and to the rich a lake (or ocean), sitting under them.

Give the poor more money and they spend it and fuel the economy. Give the rich more money and they own more of the economy.

But since this isn't part of the right-wing's media propaganda, many people don't get it.

The rich have an interest that's against the public interest, in getting to own more and more far past the line where it's harmful to the economy.

I've also used the metaphor of an old west small town where all the land and industries are owned by one man who rents them out and take a cut.

He doesn't actually add any value, he just drains it, but because he's powerful, he can nip any opposition in the bud. Free up his ownership and the town will thrive.

But the right doesn't get that about the real economy. Oligarchy is their unstated goal.

 

[*kjm]

That is consumer spending.



Actually, that's exactly how you can do it.

Once again, the metaphor is useful - money to the poor is a river, flowing in and out, and to the rich a lake (or ocean), sitting under them.

Give the poor more money and they spend it and fuel the economy. Give the rich more money and they own more of the economy.

But since this isn't part of the right-wing's media propaganda, many people don't get it.

The rich have an interest that's against the public interest, in getting to own more and more far past the line where it's harmful to the economy.

I've also used the metaphor of an old west small town where all the land and industries are owned by one man who rents them out and take a cut.

He doesn't actually add any value, he just drains it, but because he's powerful, he can nip any opposition in the bud. Free up his ownership and the town will thrive.

But the right doesn't get that about the real economy. Oligarchy is their unstated goal.

I'm on the low end of the medium income pole and get my check from the rich.... for you to say give it to the government and it will make my life better is just crazy! Are you that insane?

 

[classy]

The Bush tax cuts are gone for the most part. They may fudge in one or two places, but those cuts are history.

 

[shira]

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.

So, SPENDING by consumers is the key to jumpstart the economy, ay?

OK, I'll bite. Tell you what we'll do:

1) End the Bush tax cuts for the top 5&#37; of the population and continue the Bush tax cuts for everyone else. That will increase their federal taxes of the top 5% by about 10%.

2) It's absurd to assume that the SPENDING of the top 5% will go down by the full amount of money of their tax increase. But let's be generous: Let's assume that their spending goes down by HALF of the amount of their tax increase.

3) Give 75% of the money raised in taxes from the top 5% back to the BOTTOM 33% of the income distribution. Because these people are really, really hurting, they'll spend almost 100% of this money.

4) The government keeps the remaining 25% of the money raised from the top 5% and uses it to reduce the deficit.

5) So, where does this leave us?: Spending by consumers goes UP by 25% of the money raised from the top 5% - that's a MAJOR stimulus. AND the deficit is REDUCED by 25% of the money raised by the top 5%. That's a BIG reduction.

So, I like my plan a lot. And since you just spouted about how consumer spending stimulates the economy, and my plan produces MORE consumer spending than yours does, I assume you approve, too.

 

[spidey07]

Shira you sound an awful lot like Obama. Gotta redistribute that wealth! Socialism is great, until you run out of money to rob. This is America, we the people don't want what you're pushing. Keep your hands of of MY MONEY that I EARNED.

 

[classy]

Shira you sound an awful lot like Obama. Gotta redistribute that wealth! Socialism is great, until you run out of money to rob. This is America, we the people don't want what you're pushing. Keep your hands of of MY MONEY that I EARNED.

You crack me up with the "we the people". We the people have more gimmicks and slight of hand tricks to keep most of their wealth and not pay their part. We the people need to start paying their damn share instead of hiding it off shore.

 

[spidey07]

You crack me up with the "we the people". We the people have more gimmicks and slight of hand tricks to keep most of their wealth and not pay their part. We the people need to start paying their damn share instead of hiding it off shore.

The ultra rich will always find ways around it, they have enough money to pay somebody handsomely to work around the code to minimize tax loss. And if they are ultra rich, then dammit, good for them - This is America. It's this nonsense that if you make over 250K that you are somehow "rich". That ain't rich, that's work. That's most small business or two married professionals (notice the return of the marriage penalty that Bush worked so hard to eliminate will be back).

 

[boomerang]

You crack me up with the "we the people". We the people have more gimmicks and slight of hand tricks to keep most of their wealth and not pay their part. We the people need to start paying their damn share instead of hiding it off shore.

Lead by example.

How much did you voluntarily give to the government this year above and beyond your tax obligation? You can send them a check at any time and earmark it to be used to reduce the public debt.

How much?

 

[boomerang]

The ultra rich will always find ways around it, they have enough money to pay somebody handsomely to work around the code to minimize tax loss. And if they are ultra rich, then dammit, good for them - This is America. It's this nonsense that if you make over 250K that you are somehow "rich". That ain't rich, that's work. That's most small business or two married professionals (notice the return of the marriage penalty that Bush worked so hard to eliminate will be back).

Don't forget that the richest people in America are Democrats.

Kerry is parking his 7 million dollar yacht in Rhode Island versus his home state of Massachusetts to avoid nearly $450,000 dollars in sales tax and a yearly $70,000 excise tax bill. His 'people' are of course spinning it.

I'm sure the lefties have justified this though.

 

[spidey07]

Don't forget that the richest people in America are Democrats.

Kerry is parking his 7 million dollar yacht in Rhode Island versus his home state of Massachusetts to avoid nearly $450,000 dollars in sales tax and a yearly $70,000 excise tax bill. His 'people' are of course spinning it.

People with any kind of decent income or assets will always think about the tax consequences and act accordingly. This isn't "gaming the system", it's called being smart with your money. I am not rich by any means but I sure as hell am changing what I do with my money with the threat of these massive tax increases by Obama and the democrats.

And thanks be to Obama for making the jumbo mortgage limit lapse to 417K. Thanks to that fucker I can't make the most of my money. Fuck that fucking fucker.

 

[manimal]

Shira you sound an awful lot like Obama. Gotta redistribute that wealth! Socialism is great, until you run out of money to rob. This is America, we the people don't want what you're pushing. Keep your hands of of MY MONEY that I EARNED.

The weak always trot out the same dog and pony show. ZOMG SOCIALIZM and taxes and stuff... omg I better get the guns fema is coming fer me...Btw did you graduate from pat robertson's school or was it glenn beck U?



Sorry your earlier comment on the bush era being so great is rather funny. The Bush tax cuts subsidized growth with debt...... It was one big shell game...Bernie Madoff was very happy about it....

Where were you deficit hawks when all that crap went unfunded? Tell you what. Ill agree to the bush tax cuts if we take the money from the military.......

 

[manimal]

People with any kind of decent income or assets will always think about the tax consequences and act accordingly. This isn't "gaming the system", it's called being smart with your money. I am not rich by any means but I sure as hell am changing what I do with my money with the threat of these massive tax increases by Obama and the democrats.

And thanks be to Obama for making the jumbo mortgage limit lapse to 417K. Thanks to that fucker I can't make the most of my money. Fuck that fucking fucker.

Why not be thankful for having a roof over your head instead of blaming someone else? You know what I made a ton of money flipping houses in southern california and apts in nyc in the 90s and 2000s. I have moved on to different pastures.. Maybe you should too...

 

[lothar]

You are nuts if you think Obama would veto it, in an important election year.

Obama is not running for re-election this year.

 

[Throckmorton]

The ultra rich will always find ways around it, they have enough money to pay somebody handsomely to work around the code to minimize tax loss. And if they are ultra rich, then dammit, good for them - This is America. It's this nonsense that if you make over 250K that you are somehow "rich". That ain't rich, that's work. That's most small business or two married professionals (notice the return of the marriage penalty that Bush worked so hard to eliminate will be back).

250k is rich. That's a quarter. of. a. million. dollars. per. year.

 

[classy]

Lead by example.

How much did you voluntarily give to the government this year above and beyond your tax obligation? You can send them a check at any time and earmark it to be used to reduce the public debt.

How much?

Huh?

I didn't say or propose that they pay anything beyond what is required of them. The truth is they hide, lie, and cheat at their taxes. I don't. So I do lead by example.

 

[classy]

The ultra rich will always find ways around it, they have enough money to pay somebody handsomely to work around the code to minimize tax loss. And if they are ultra rich, then dammit, good for them - This is America. It's this nonsense that if you make over 250K that you are somehow "rich". That ain't rich, that's work. That's most small business or two married professionals (notice the return of the marriage penalty that Bush worked so hard to eliminate will be back).

What? Thats not two professionals? 250K? Maybe only in California or Maybe NY. I would bet anything most 2 professional homes are 110-150K. Unless they are both doctors or lawyers. If your are making 250K as a household, you are doing well. Not rich but with discipline, no dream within reason would be out of reach.