• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How the Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TridenT

Lifer
Sep 4, 2006
16,810
45
91
I payed more taxes in the 90s and I was fine.....I would wager most of us that made any money back then would love to go back to those times. While I agree that working people are taxed too much the preponderance of loopholes and exemptions in the tax code begs people to take advantage of them. The hedge fund salary loophole that Zebo mentioned is one of the most egregious....

I would be fine with bringing back the Bush tax cuts if we payed for it by cutting the defense budget accordingly. If we remove social security from the pie whats the biggest expense the taxpayers are responsible for?

The first idiot that cries we cant cut defense spending because its jobs get a pie in the face...
Well, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are mandatory spending... so they can't exactly cut those. :p

Defense is discretionary and so they should. :p I'd like it if we didn't have wars u know? :p

Oh, and I would prefer it if we took care of these loopholes and shit that is flawed. What I don't understand is why it's not being done.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
While I agree that working people are taxed too much the preponderance of loopholes and exemptions in the tax code begs people to take advantage of them.
--------------

Take advantage is like saying you're taking advantage of home interest deduction congress gives you. Congress wrote in those perks I discussed so it's not taking advantage but law and rights. The only question is do we change them and I think the only way that can happen is if people are informed a business owner worth millions can pay less tax than a secretary. A business owner gets to work in a car paid for with non taxed dollars while a secretary gets to work in a car paid for with her post tax dollars. etc etc etc. A business owner can defer compensation taxed at a lower rate while a secretary pays highest rates called earned income. I could go on forever but the law is stacked against you if you work for others, disproportionately so. And that's all that really matters.

I never expect it to happen. Most people can barley understand a 1040 let alone 50,000 pages IRS code, 99% dealing with perks not afforded to them, but instead those who have a clue so they will never understand how disproportionately they are getting fucked.


Taking advantage is paying a real employee 1099 instead to escape your obligations to employees SS/MED, paperwork etc. Take advantage is a lawyer who books hunting trips but happens to have a client with him so it's logged as a business expense.

Conspiracy time:
I personally believe the whole tax code is so cumbersome and regressive to keep your average wage earner down, to prevent him from someday competing with his boss an the boss flush. It takes either a significant amount of intellectual capital or real capital to pay someone to even navigate tax code for business not to mention money, which you have a lot less of paying 30-45% in accumulated taxes.
 
Last edited:

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
Defense is discretionary and so they should. :p I'd like it if we didn't have wars u know? :p
[/b]
What does having 15 thousand troops in Okinawa have to do with our current wars? What does having 12 times more nuclear submarines than the rest of the world combined do for the current police actions? We need to get rid of the notion that the US is the world policeman and let countries like Japan and Germany pay for their own defence. We are essentially subsidsing their defence. I am not condoning outright abandonment of the current global reach the myriad of bases we have around the world gives us but I do see a need to reexamine and pare down some of them. 50 years ago having troops in Japan made sense. Today not so much, what good does 15k troops in Japan do? Deterrent for China? Laughable......

We need a smaller more nimble force with better technology. The old paradigm of large pitched battles is gone......
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,056
5,138
126
We can't afford extending Bush taxcuts. I am sure GOP would filibuster any attempt to extend them since they care about the deficits so much :)
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
We need a smaller more nimble force with better technology. The old paradigm of large pitched battles is gone......
While I'm a big supporter of the military, being ex-military myself, I would tend to agree. The US Navy has 11 super carriers. No other nation even has 1 super carrier. We could scale back to 3 or 4 and still dominate a situation.

I'd pull back some 90% of US forces over seas and close the facilities down. However, with that pull back, we'd have to be more aggressive in situations. Less pandering and sanctions, more ass kicking.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Have you seen any proclamations or assurances that any increase in revenue to the government will be used to pay those bills? I know I haven't.
And this children is the meat of the matter. If government raises a billion dollars it will spend a billion and a half of it. There will be NO paying down the debt. It will all be spent and then some.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
We can't afford extending Bush taxcuts. I am sure GOP would filibuster any attempt to extend them since they care about the deficits so much :)
The increased taxes are mainly going to be paid by the "rich" in higher cost-of-living areas on the coasts and urban areas that vote Democratic anyway. I'm all for granting your wish; heck, I wish your taxes could go even higher than this. Combine that with high state and local taxes, sales taxes, and real estate values that are astronomical, and now we're talking.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
And this children is the meat of the matter. If government raises a billion dollars it will spend a billion and a half of it. There will be NO paying down the debt. It will all be spent and then some.
Thanks for the baseless ideological pontificating. You know what won't pay down the debt for sure? Not raising the money to pay it down.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Thanks for the baseless ideological pontificating. You know what won't pay down the debt for sure? Not raising the money to pay it down.
Baseless?

The government raided SS - Check.
Government programs far exceeding projected costs- Check.
Government spending increases in good times and bad- Check.

So when did the federal government ever take a tax increase and not spend it?

You know what won't pay down the debt for sure? Spending the money not paying down the debt.

So let's get this on the record.

Assuming a tax increase, will Congress spend it or dedicate it to paying down the debt, or if both how do you think it divided?

History is on my side. Discredit me and show when the federal government has increased taxes to pay for reducing the deficit, and I mean in a substantial non smoke and mirrors way.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
They won't be rescinded, they'll just expire. They were passed as a temporary measure, if you want to blame someone for that you can go ahead and blame those who made it that way. Obama didn't make them temporary, he wasn't president when that decision was made, nor was he a senator.
Good stuff, I knew one of you would defend it.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Thanks for the baseless ideological pontificating. You know what won't pay down the debt for sure? Not raising the money to pay it down.
Federal gov continues to prove it is not a good steward of tax payers' money and thus deserves less until it is a good steward. It no more deserves more money than a college kid who habitually runs up his credit card and whines to his mother who, stupid and enabling, gives it to him, which he just uses to buy more crap and never gets himself out of debt with.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Federal gov continues to prove it is not a good steward of tax payers' money and thus deserves less until it is a good steward. It no more deserves more money than a college kid who habitually runs up his credit card and whines to his mother who, stupid and enabling, gives it to him, which he just uses to buy more crap and never gets himself out of debt with.
Bahahahahahaha

You never said this when your hero Bush was in control.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Federal gov continues to prove it is not a good steward of tax payers' money and thus deserves less until it is a good steward. It no more deserves more money than a college kid who habitually runs up his credit card and whines to his mother who, stupid and enabling, gives it to him, which he just uses to buy more crap and never gets himself out of debt with.

No no no.

This is the mantra.

Corporations evil, government good. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Part of "the program" whatever that is, is to drastically increase Medicaid. That's going to cost $$$$. Health care? $$$$ (and I have a nice bridge to sell anyone who really believes that government is going to save on the TCO of health care- Medicare projections vs. actual costs for example).

Yes, we're going to spend spend spend out way out of this financial situation, but we're going to increase taxes and that's going to decrease what the government (read us) owes.

Show me on paper how that works.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,744
53
91
the cost of all goods and services will increase and more lay offs will occur. Small and medium size business will cut back and lay off to reduce costs. Consumer discretionary spending will dwindle as people struggle to pay more fed/state and local taxes and fees. Cap/trade hoax and VAT will hammer employers and tax payers yet again as another tier of lay offs and downsizing occur to compensate.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Bahahahahahaha

You never said this when your hero Bush was in control.

Dave, he's from Canada. How many Canadians (current or past) have been hard core Bush supporters? Three?

I'd be impressed if you can find a pattern of posts suggesting that Skoorb is a Neocon.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
No no no.

This is the mantra.

Corporations evil, government good. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Part of "the program" whatever that is, is to drastically increase Medicaid. That's going to cost $$$$. Health care? $$$$ (and I have a nice bridge to sell anyone who really believes that government is going to save on the TCO of health care- Medicare projections vs. actual costs for example).

Yes, we're going to spend spend spend out way out of this financial situation, but we're going to increase taxes and that's going to decrease what the government (read us) owes.

Show me on paper how that works.
Show me on paper how cutting taxes for the wealthy works.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Well, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are mandatory spending... so they can't exactly cut those. :p

Defense is discretionary and so they should. :p I'd like it if we didn't have wars u know? :p

Oh, and I would prefer it if we took care of these loopholes and shit that is flawed. What I don't understand is why it's not being done.
You really don't understand it? Its actually quite simple and, at least I thought, obvious.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Thanks for the baseless ideological pontificating. You know what won't pay down the debt for sure? Not raising the money to pay it down.
Wanna know what also won't pay down the debt for sure? Increasing spending.

We can't tax enough to make up for our current deficits. I am all for a balanced budget but without the spending cuts to go along with the tax increases it isn't mathematically possible to pay down the debt. Hell, I am willing to place a wager in any amount you can afford that we continue going into debt even after increased taxes. Of course you won't make that bet because you are smarter then that.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Show me on paper how cutting taxes for the wealthy works.
It looks like the tax brackets are going to get bumped up and not just at the top. That means it just isn't about taxing the wealthy.

For a moment let's look at how it works.

Suppose someone has an income of 20 million a year and their tax rate were to go up 10%. How much does that affect their ability to put food on the table or buy a car or send their kids to college? Not much.

What about people who don't make that much but and are paying for the above? Adding to their tax burden makes a cut in disposable income and that is felt. The amount of disposable income is far less than the wealthy and dollars count.

Putting philosophical arguments aside, what about those who depend on their income more for food than yachts?

If I were to take 100 dollars from your pay, I'd wager that it would make more of a difference than taking 10K from the millionaire of your choice, and that's something that affects a great number of people.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY