How does Kerry plan on repealing/reversing the tax cut on the richest 1%

[CPA]

Does anyone know how Kerry plans on reversing this part of the overall taxcut package Bush got passed last year when Congress should still be controlled by the Republicans next year? Are there that many Republicans that he can swing to the other side?

 

[Gravity]

Can he do it by executive order?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Can he do it by executive order?

I'm not sure, but I don't think he can.

 

[alchemize]

Of course he can't do it. That's why it's such a great promise. When he can't keep it, he'll blame congress (with some merit).

 

[CPA]

n/m can't seem to word it right.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course he can't do it. That's why it's such a great promise. When he can't keep it, he'll blame congress (with some merit).

Well then the house repuges will have to defend voting against health care in 2006. Maybe the DNC can make ads with dying children next to the face of the repug who is running. Sound familiar?

 

[maddogchen]

it might become one of many campaign promises he can't keep. Either Kerry or Bush I think we'll all be disappointed by them the next four years.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Advantage of being a politician. You can make all the promises that you want. Most of the times you can pass the accountability of failure onto the opposition. But you can claim the credit for those that work.

 

[piasabird]

You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

Why read the reports when you can make stuff up? 15-25%? Rolling back the tax cuts for theose making over $200,000 is supposed to pay for all of it ($.9-$1.2T), depending on the GNP over the next few years.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: piasabird
You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

Why read the reports when you can make stuff up? 15-25%? Rolling back the tax cuts for theose making over $200,000 is supposed to pay for all of it ($.9-$1.2T), depending on the GNP over the next few years.

Link? If the rich continue to obtain income through tax free bonds, its going to be a bit more difficult than that.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: piasabird
You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

Why read the reports when you can make stuff up? 15-25%? Rolling back the tax cuts for theose making over $200,000 is supposed to pay for all of it ($.9-$1.2T), depending on the GNP over the next few years.

Todd, don't forget according to Kerry the rolling back of the tax cut will also be used on increased funding of education, VA hospitals/care and border control. Not my words, his. Not sure about Social Security, though, since he didn't really have a plan for that.

 

[Gravity]

So, if he can't roll back the tax cut, he can't operationalize any of his "plan?"

Looks like a do nothing from inauguration.

 

[Infohawk]

This is a fair question. IF Congress remains Republican Kerry won't be able to do too much in office. And that's not too bad of a thing. Having checks and balances is nice and keeps us from Iraq messes and the like. If anything this is an argument for moderates to vote for Kerry: he's a counterbalance to the radical right in Congress.

 

[chess9]

This is exactly why you shouold vote for Kerry and not Bush. Nothing will get done in Washington for 4 years. Why would that be bad? 🙂

Edit: Oops! We are forgetting one little detail. A lot of those tax breaks EXPIRE starting in '05 I believe!!! I don't remember if this is one of them. 🙂

-Robert

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: piasabird
You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

Why read the reports when you can make stuff up? 15-25%? Rolling back the tax cuts for theose making over $200,000 is supposed to pay for all of it ($.9-$1.2T), depending on the GNP over the next few years.

Yet according to Kerry himself, these tax cuts only added up to $89 billion. Amazing.

 

[terraphile]

Well, there is a chance that the democrats could take back congress, in which case they could repeal the taxes.

But If stays republican, Kerry could just start veto-mania. And that's not a bad thing. A republican (neocon, if you will) congress does'nt seem to be a recipe for fiscal discipline. Already, a huge portion of our taxes goes to just paying interest on this defecit.

Really though, I'm more worried about the trade defecit more than anything else.

 

[Jhhnn]

With the possibility of a Democratic Senate, the possibility of beating up on the Republican House as irresponsible is quite real, as is the need to increase federal revenues. How else will we pay for all the Republican Pork? Just keep borrowing? Can't do that forever, or even much longer w/o dire consequences...

Even the Hero of the Right, RR, had to raise taxes after near disastrous cuts...

 

[ReiAyanami]

there are enough fiscal conservatives (true Republicans) for him to pull it off. he can call on McCain

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: piasabird
You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

Why read the reports when you can make stuff up? 15-25%? Rolling back the tax cuts for theose making over $200,000 is supposed to pay for all of it ($.9-$1.2T), depending on the GNP over the next few years.

Yet according to Kerry himself, these tax cuts only added up to $89 billion. Amazing.

That most likely is $89billion/year.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: piasabird
You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

Why read the reports when you can make stuff up? 15-25%? Rolling back the tax cuts for theose making over $200,000 is supposed to pay for all of it ($.9-$1.2T), depending on the GNP over the next few years.

Yet according to Kerry himself, these tax cuts only added up to $89 billion. Amazing.

That most likely is $89billion/year.

Furthermore, the expense of tax cuts actually accelerates in the out years. That's part of the reason why thinking economists called BS on Bush's stimulus.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That most likely is $89billion/year.

Furthermore, the expense of tax cuts actually accelerates in the out years. That's part of the reason why thinking economists called BS on Bush's stimulus.

[/quote]

So the tax cuts over the past two years have had no effect?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: piasabird
You will never see a big all-encompassing health care plan. It would cost so much that everyone would have to pay an extra 15% - 20% in taxes. It would also be akin to socialism.

Why read the reports when you can make stuff up? 15-25%? Rolling back the tax cuts for theose making over $200,000 is supposed to pay for all of it ($.9-$1.2T), depending on the GNP over the next few years.

Yet according to Kerry himself, these tax cuts only added up to $89 billion. Amazing.

Wow, you keep digging. That was for those in the top 1%, not over $200,000. That was also for one year, fiscal 2004.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That most likely is $89billion/year.

Furthermore, the expense of tax cuts actually accelerates in the out years. That's part of the reason why thinking economists called BS on Bush's stimulus.

So the tax cuts over the past two years have had no effect?

[/quote]Even the most partisan Democratic hack probably knows better than to claim Bush tax cuts have not had some stimulatory effect. But most would say the effect is marginal and certainly disproportionately small compared to the effect to a rollback on FICA. A FICA cut could have been temporary, highly stimulatory, and quite fair since EVERYONE that pays taxes on EARNED INCOME would get a tax cut proportional to the taxes they pay.

Even the most partisan Republican hack probably knows that Bush tax cuts have ADDED billions to the deficit which will likely mean trillions in debt by the time the principal AND interest are paid off. Further, the alleged job growth during the Bush reign has largely been public sector jobs.