• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Here's a very good reason not to have a big tax cut.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Now, liberals, follow along and repeat after me:

It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.
It's a tax RATE cut, NOT a tax revenue cut.


Russ, NCNE
 
Well, Ornery, I guess there is no need to go into different tangents. Russ has already pushed the nastiness into the thread.
 
The reason I posted those facts (that I saw on Cspan Congressional hearings last night) is because we may want to develop a plan to pay it off, and reduce spending, hopefully before we cut taxes (or tax rates WTF ever). Why? Because we owe SS, medicare, et all money that we borrowed to pay that interest. So if we do not pay it off, people are going to have to eventually go without those programs from which they have been paying into. You can only rob Peter so many times to Pay Paul before Peter's wife comes and kicks your ass.

Have you ever watched C-Cpan at night? There were three guys talking about the debt, tax cuts and everything and it reminded me of a late night info-mercial. It was just way too smoothly done 🙂
 
warcleric,

<< gives them money to horde, not use to improve the economy... >>

The government doesn't improve the economy any more than a leech can improve your blood supply. The best government can do is to optimumize conditions, like freedom.

Russ,
If the power of the teacher's unions in nipped and if school vouchers become reality then the general populace may come to understand those complex concepts like rate and maybe even percent. I heard someone say that if Liberals had common sense and integrity they'd be Conservative.
 
Yeah, charrison, the truth is nasty. Just like when you accused Congress of changing GWB's tax plan. Your own words work against your credibility on the truth issue.

As for Russ, no one in this thread thus far took shots at one group or another. Let's degrade the discussion into labeling the participants as conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, all in a condescending manner. And then let's add to it with inane comments like &quot;the truth is nasty.&quot; Too bad you can't insert the picture of the 5-year-old sticking out his tongue. Look how many people (all conservatives? since Russ likes to label people) who contributed nothing until &quot;the truth is nasty&quot; was spewed out. Those little witticisms are great if your attention span can process only a three-second sound bite.

Russ uses you guys for his own enjoyment. He knows that if he lobs in an inflammatory sound bite, especially if it's nice and short so that the slowest members can digest it in three seconds, he can sit back and watch as you guys feed on your young. Geez, don't be so predictable.
 
JJM,

Bush called for 4 tax brackets instead of 5, and a retroactive tax cut on the remainging 4 brackets. This is not what is being pushed thru congress right now. I think you are the one with credibility problems. I would be more than happy to correct my statements, if you can disprove the above. IE, show me the quotes.
 
charrison - I offered proof. Go read it. But since I'm a nice guy:

&quot;GOP members of the committee, notably Chairman Bill Thomas...have gone to some lengths to say they merely voted the bill the White House sent them.&quot;

And the Journal's editorial board: &quot;We challenge anyone on that committee or in the Executive Office Building to say in public that retroactivity for only that 12% rate will jump-start anything.&quot;

Hmm, that seems like pretty clear proof, wouldn't you say?
 
Unless you pay for it, you can't go to the Journal's site. Call a broker and have him/her read it to you. It's right in the first paragraph in the upper left corner, page A22, 3/7/2001. Or go to the library; it'll be right there. Now you're just playing games. Since you are so suspect, how about a little wager on the accuracy of what I quoted from the Wall Street Journal?
 
I am not playing games. Just trying to check facts, dont get bent out of shape on that. I will be the first person to slam bush, if this is in fact the case.
 
  • House Set To Vote on Bush Tax Cut
    By Curt Anderson
    AP Tax Writer Thursday, March 8, 2001

    &quot;...&quot;As we look at the economic statistics, we feel it is important to get money flowing back to the American people as fast as we can,&quot; O'Neill said.

    The House bill would gradually shrink and compress the current rates of 15 percent, 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent and 39.6 percent. In 2006, the new rates would be 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent. A temporary 12 percent bracket would be created, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2001, to give all taxpayers an immediate break...&quot;
WTF are the Democrats dragging their feet about? Any logical reasons? :|
 
Go here

You will note that the bill was approved as submitted.

Click on the link to the bill and you will see no links under amendments. That means there were no amendments to the bill.

Clear enough for ya?
 
Ornery - How are the Dems dragging their feet when the Republican-controlled Ways and Means Committee approved the bill directly as GWB submitted it? The source of the delays in implementing the bracket reductions starts with GWB himself.
 
How about some facts for the anti-tax-cut crowd:

1) Trickle-down does work. In fact, it is the entire basis for a capitalist system. Otherwise, who provides the capital for economic growth? The government? The impoverished?

<< gives them money to horde, not use to improve the economy... >>

Uh yeah. I'm sure the wealthy hide their money under their mattresses. Where exactly do you think the wealthy &quot;horde&quot; their wealth? Hmmm... maybe in investments?

2) Complete debt paydown is not feasible. A huge portion of the national debt is issued in the form of non-callable bonds. Want to pay them off quickly? Get ready to pay a huge premium to bond-holders. Also, a huge percentage of the bonds are held by wealthy investors. So what does paydown entail? Taxing the country to pay off the wealthy. About a third of the bonds are held by foreigners and foreign corporations. So what else does paydown mean? Taxing the country to ship money off-shore.

I'm not saying we should never pay down the debt, but Gore's plan of accelerated pay-down was stupid. First off, the bad results I mentioned above would take place. Second, you could never pay off all debt because the U.S. could not just quit issuing Treasury bonds. They are the safest investments around, and the investment community could not function without them. Third, quick pay-down means that the current working generation bears all the burden of paying down a debt that has arguably benefitted the entire country.

3) Reagan's tax cuts were not bad for revenue. In fact, if you look at the figures, government tax revenues grew at an astounding pace during Reagan's presidency. It was also true that Federal spending managed to grow even faster.
 
According to that link, it was been ammended. What has been changed, it does not say. It only lists what was aproved, not what was sent.
 
Okay, charrison, you stick to that. The &quot;as amended&quot; phrase is the standard boilerplate language. It is possible there was a technical amendment to fix, for example, a spelling of a word, but that's all. If there had been a substantive amendment, it would have been listed. You really find it hard to believe this, don't you? Have you read the piece in the Journal to which you referred? The whole thing makes it crystal clear that the proposal starts with GWB. I tried to offer you what I thought were the most pertinent quotes. I think you will be even angrier after you read the whole piece.
 
&quot;While most Democrats were opposed, majority Republicans predicted the 10-year, $958 billion income tax cut would pass and move to the Senate, where its fate is less assured and little action is expected until May.&quot;

&quot;House Democrats tried to slow things using a variety of rules, including motions to adjourn requiring lengthy roll-call votes. A final vote was still expected later in the day.&quot;


What is the Democrat's problem? Why the feet dragging? What happened to their loathing of partisanship? Most Americans, Dem and GOP, want a tax cut like yesterday! WTF are they thinking and do you agree with their position?
 
Joe - You do know that the Treasury has been buying back about $30 billion every six months in open market transactions, right? And the regularly-scheduled auctions have been reduced in both frequency and amount of debt issued, meaning that only a portion of maturing debt has been refinanced. The Treasury has discontinued auctions for 3 and 7 year issues completely. There is now a proposal to end 30-year issues by next year. In fact, some of the older Treasury debt is callable, and some of the lower coupon stuff can be bought at a discount. Buying that debt at a discount sounds like a prudent plan to me. (You can see the list of prices on the entire universe of Treasury debt in The Wall Street Journal. Page C18 in today's edition.) Diverting funds to debt repayment is as easy as cutting back further on auctions.
 
jjm,

I have not seen enough info yet to make a decision one way or the other. Sorry i dont have the WSJ right in front of me.
 
Ornery - Here's why:

03/08 14:49 Bloomberg.com
Bush Aims to Fuel Tax Cut Drive as House Vote Nears (Update1)
By Holly Rosenkrantz


Washington, March 8 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush is taking his $1.6 trillion, 10-year tax cut plan on a campaign swing to three states where he'll seek to use popular support to tweak legislators who aren't on his side.

Bush travels today and tomorrow to North and South Dakota and Louisiana, states that he won in the presidential race. They're also home to Democratic senators who either are up for re-election next year or among the most vocal critics of his tax cuts. Bush said he wants ``as many'' Democrats on his side ``as we can get.''

``The message is loud and clear that we've got ample revenues to fund our priorities, pay down debt'' and ``send money back to the people who pay the bills -- the taxpayers,'' Bush said before leaving the White House.

The trip comes as the House of Representatives is set to hand Bush his first big legislative victory by passing the largest piece of his tax cut. Members of both parties say they expect the House, with 220 Republicans and 211 Democrats, to vote along party lines for the biggest installment of Bush's plan. It faces tougher opposition in the Senate, where the parties are split 50-50 and two Republicans have suggested they may not vote for the tax cut.

``I'll be going to states where we we've got a good chance of convincing members in states where there may be some obstinance,'' Bush said this week. He said he chose states ``where a majority of folks saw it my way when I was running for president.''

Working on Members

Senators Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, both Democrats, are up for re-election next year and Bush won both states in the Nov. 7 election. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has said Republicans will pressure Landrieu -- as well as Democrat Max Cleland of Georgia, whose state Bush visited last week -- to vote for the tax package.

Landrieu said Tuesday she's prepared to vote against Bush's plan because tax cuts must ``be done in the context of a total budget.''

``We'll be working members all the way through the process,'' Bush said yesterday.

North Dakota also gave Bush a majority of votes and its two senators, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, have blasted Bush's tax cuts. Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota is trying to hold fellow party members to a smaller, $750 billion tax cut plan. He's also leading the Democratic charge that Bush's plan is too expensive and will create budget deficits.

``The people of my state have indicated to me that they strongly support a tax cut,'' Daschle said. ``But they have also indicated equally strongly that a tax cut should be a responsible one.''

Shifting Priorities

Bush proposes shifting budget priorities to keep overall federal spending growth to about 4 percent. Spending would be cut for 10 of 26 federal agencies while growing for the Education and Defense departments. The centerpiece of his plan, as it was in the election campaign, is the tax cut. Bush would reduce and consolidate marginal tax rates, eliminate the estate tax and scrap the so-called marriage penalty that hits some two-income couples.

During his trip this week, Bush will meet with farmers and hold campaign-style rallies at a university and an airport hangar. The North and South Dakota Democratic senators said his message won't resonate with residents of their states.

``If President Bush meets with 100 ordinary South Dakotans, 93 of them will be from families who make less than $75,000 a year. Sixty-three of them will be from families that make less than $30,000 a year,'' Daschle said.

``Yet the tax cut that Governor Bush proposed first, and now President Bush in his current position, provided 43 percent of the tax relief to those who make on the average over $900,000 -- not many South Dakotans in that category.''

A television station in South Dakota invited Bush and Daschle to debate the tax cut plan. Bush declined, spokesman Ari Fleischer said. ``That's not the purpose of his trip,'' Fleischer said.

Bush will spend the weekend at his ranch in Texas and continue his tax tour Monday in Florida.
 
Back
Top