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

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
I guess you forgot about the very low unemployment, middle class moving into upper middle class, etc. The bush years, specifically because of the tax cuts saved us and brought in a new level of prosperity for all. SPECIFICALLY the lower and middle class. Allowing them to lapse would send us into economic doom (but then again that is what Obama wants, his actions are willful and targeted...remember naw, naw, naw! Reject middle class Americka!)

I for one want those good times back and not this shit hole that is Obama.
Delusion
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
I guess you forgot about the very low unemployment, middle class moving into upper middle class, etc. The bush years, specifically because of the tax cuts saved us and brought in a new level of prosperity for all. SPECIFICALLY the lower and middle class. Allowing them to lapse would send us into economic doom (but then again that is what Obama wants, his actions are willful and targeted...remember naw, naw, naw! Reject middle class Americka!)

I for one want those good times back and not this shit hole that is Obama.
It wasn't called the bubble economy for nothing- it was a house of cards- very, very profitable to a very, very few. When the financial elite find a way to take 20 years of profits in 8, well, there's gonna be a letdown...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,764
784
126
It wasn't called the bubble economy for nothing- it was a house of cards- very, very profitable to a very, very few. When the financial elite find a way to take 20 years of profits in 8, well, there's gonna be a letdown...
Although I agree with you, it wasnt just an elite few who profited. Anyone who had an IRA or 401k (ALOT of middle income America) saw explosive growth, and anyone who was lucky enough to buy a bigger house than they could realistically afford and turn it also profited. Many many people turned quite a few houses in a decade.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
Although I agree with you, it wasnt just an elite few who profited. Anyone who had an IRA or 401k (ALOT of middle income America) saw explosive growth, and anyone who was lucky enough to buy a bigger house than they could realistically afford and turn it also profited. Many many people turned quite a few houses in a decade.
Heh. My own highly diversified retirement funds did nicely, until it all fell down- only the insiders knew when to jump off the pony, which was the whole point- transfer our money to their pockets... Good thing I didn't need to retire, because I'd have been screwed.

Flippers? Many got screwed, because they didn't know when to jump off, either.

Boom/bust is peachy if you're ultra wealthy, spend only a small % of your income to live, even if you live lavishly. You're never really busted. Lots of middle and working class families are, unfortunately. We need to redefine the partnership between capital and labor, because right now that relationship is pretty much a one way street, sending it all to the top. What we need is steady conservative growth, something people can depend on, something w/o the destructive aspects of the current way of doing things... something where work as well as connivance are rewarded...
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Dodge,parry, block!
And I love how you spin these as tax cuts, but then say the things in the stimulus bill aren't tax cuts, and believe it. When in reality they are two sides of the same coin, since neither was paid for. Hypocrisy FTW!
OK...I'll play your little game for a while. Where did I ever say that "the things in the stimulus bill aren't tax cuts"? Show me exactly where I said that or admit that you made it up and that you're a pathetic liar.

The dementia is strong with you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Although I agree with you, it wasnt just an elite few who profited. Anyone who had an IRA or 401k (ALOT of middle income America) saw explosive growth, and anyone who was lucky enough to buy a bigger house than they could realistically afford and turn it also profited. Many many people turned quite a few houses in a decade.
You're pretty wrong on the facts.

For one, while many people own some stocks/mutual funds, the ownership is very concentrated with a few owning almost all, and many owning a tiny bit.

That was not enough for it to be anything but a great increase in the concentration of wealth at the top, as has been posted many times.

Second, on a net basis, the average American took on massive new debt that inflated the bubble, wiping out the 'gains', while the ultra rich actually did get far richer.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
Fern thinks the reason those at the top pay very low taxes is because of stock options, when it's capital gains and dividends.

He thinks Hedge Fund managers pay regular rates on their fees, when in fact they pay capital gains rates on much of it- reference "2 and 20" compensation schemes-
Can't read?

I'm the one who was pointing out that fund managers (like Buffet) are taxed at LT cap gains and arguing why that's wrong. Quite the opposite of what you say above.

As far as "those at the top paying low taxes" YES, it is stock options. As I've gone at length explaining they are taxed at LT cap gains rates (but you've gotta meet the holding period).

I've also pointed out how your beloved federal goverment likes stock options and how it benefits from the current taxation scheme.

Liberals love quoting articles about the excessive pay of execs, but somehow they just can't seem bothered to read further than the headlines or they know that in most cases the great bulk of that compensation is stock options (not gauranteed wages./base pay).

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
You're pretty wrong on the facts.

For one, while many people own some stocks/mutual funds, the ownership is very concentrated with a few owning almost all, and many owning a tiny bit.
That's ridiculous. Pensions funds and the average investor own far more than the relatively few ultra rich people.

Fern
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
That's ridiculous. Pensions funds and the average investor own far more than the relatively few ultra rich people.

Fern
You are forgetting the most important fact.

It's not just the amount of money the few ultra rich have, it's about the power and control over everything they have over you and I.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
And the delusion that the individuals in question can and will somehow get rich someday if they let those currently rich have it all speaks for itself.
You seem to be on some 'jihad' against the rich. It might be worth remembering that when people agreed to the 16th Amendment (authorizing an income tax) it was promised to be only for the ultra rich. Now how'd that work out?

And here you wanna start back on the whole "let's tax the rich more". Some us expect it won't stop with just them.

Remember Bill Clinton's "millionaire tax"? Funny how that kicked-in at $250k.

Also, bear in mind that everyone agrees that at a certain point higher tax rates are counter-productive. We'd start seeing less revenue, not more. Considering federal, state and local income taxes (and medicare) those in the top are damn near 50% now. Personally, even as a conservative I don't mind squeezing out a few more points from the high earners (say $250k or there abouts), but I don't see a lot of room. Anyway, there are so few of these poeple it's not gonna raise much any way.

So, I get the impression this whole "raise taxes on the rich' is more about some kind of 'punishment' than any kind of fiscal common sense.

The phenomenon of America's wealthiest taking bigger and bigger slices of the pie isn't a function of big govt, at all. It's a function of taxes and offshoring.... -snip-
I understand how the government's taking money from rich people makes them less rich. But how does that translate into poorer people earning more?

"Offshoring" is nothing more than importing/exporting which has been going on for thousands of years. The term is being used for fearmongering etc by the left.

But I don't get it, you guys always wanna send our tax money to poor people in other nations, so why not jobs? What do you have against those poor people?


What we're going to see in congress are various attempts to preserve all or part of the Bush taxcuts made to the middle and working classes, held hostage by repubs to the taxcuts made at the tippy-top. If the tax rates of the whole population go up, that'll be the reason, and none other. Faced with that choice, Dems will likely allow all of them to expire, or at least I hope so. It's the fiscally responsible thing to do, given the alternative, which is to allow the govt to go broke, crash the dollar, enhance the power of wealth even more. Whick is precisely what Repubs have been working towards for 30 years- a way to starve the beast.
What Democratic party tax bill is before Congress?

I haven't heard of it.

The Dems have the majority they need to get any tax bill out of the House (where legislation must originate). There's no way the Repubs can stop it. It's simple math, the Dems don't need a single Repub vote - period.

Over in the Senate I see no way for the Repubs to stop it either. Tax bills can go through the Reconcilliation process; that's what the process was established for. Here again, the Dems in the Senate don't need a single Repub vote to pass it.

So, please explain how the Repubs are stopping anything.

And we get the usual fearmongering about how higher taxes on capital gains and dividends will stifle creativity. Creativity flourished in the 50's, 60's, and 70's when rates were much higher.
Firstly, looking at just tax rates is horribly misleading.

Yeah, the top rates were higher, but there were a butt-load of deductions too.

Reagan lowered the rates, but also eliminated the deductions. The net effect was close to zero. Look up the gov revenue before and after the cuts. There was barely a hiccup and then collections went right back up.

The whole "tax rates" stuff is BS 'talking points'. People bacisally paid the same before and after.

Capital gains should be taxed at regular rates only after the effects of inflation have been stipped out. As as I've explained above Congress doesn't want to fool with it. Instead we've traditionally had the cap gains taxed at half the regular bracket, pretty close to what it is now.

I think a better discussion would be should cap gains and other non-earned income be hit with a Medicare/Medicaid type tax because those programs are are being funded with general revenue (Medicare only about). Since they are generally public support programs, why should only working people fund them?

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
You are forgetting the most important fact.

It's not just the amount of money the few ultra rich have, it's about the power and control over everything they have over you and I.
I'm not forgetting it. I'm directly addressing Craig's assertion that rich people own the majority of stocks.

But yeah, money = power, and power = money.

The rich get to influence those with the power. And those with the power get the money. I've noticed how Bill Clinton's net worth has gone up.

Fern
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
You seem to be on some 'jihad' against the rich. It might be worth remembering that when people agreed to the 16th Amendment (authorizing an income tax) it was promised to be only for the ultra rich. Now how'd that work out?

And here you wanna start back on the whole "let's tax the rich more". Some us expect it won't stop with just them.

Remember Bill Clinton's "millionaire tax"? Funny how that kicked-in at $250k.

Also, bear in mind that everyone agrees that at a certain point higher tax rates are counter-productive. We'd start seeing less revenue, not more. Considering federal, state and local income taxes (and medicare) those in the top are damn near 50% now. Personally, even as a conservative I don't mind squeezing out a few more points from the high earners (say $250k or there abouts), but I don't see a lot of room. Anyway, there are so few of these poeple it's not gonna raise much any way.
You're referencing the Laffer curve, and we're nowhere near that point Total taxes on the rest of the First world's rich is considerably higher than our own, and those nations haven't either. 50% total taxes? How about a lot less than that? How about an almost flat total taxation rate from the 40th percentile up?

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/fsl2004.pdf

That was for 2004- I seriously doubt that effective taxes have increased at the top... It also seems likely that total taxation for the top .1% is actually lower than for the rest of the top 1%, following the federal income tax pattern.

Considering that the top 1% earns roughly twice the total income of the bottom 50% combined, raising their taxes by 5% of income would have the same effect as raising that of the bottom 50% by 10% of income... Table 3-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

So, I get the impression this whole "raise taxes on the rich' is more about some kind of 'punishment' than any kind of fiscal common sense.
I understand how the government's taking money from rich people makes them less rich. But how does that translate into poorer people earning more?
It translates into some direct monetary transfers, but it also translates into food subsidies, educational grants and subsidies, infrastructure of all kinds and the jobs to maintain that infrastructure. In the very near future, it will be necessary to supplement SS revenues, as well, with payments to the trust. The list goes on from there. Transit. Parks, national forests and monuments. Law enforcement. Farm subsidies. Urban renewal. Flood control and disaster relief, just to name a few. You don't necessarily have to increase personal incomes to increase quality of life, anyway, if the whole social environment gets upgraded.

"Offshoring" is nothing more than importing/exporting which has been going on for thousands of years. The term is being used for fearmongering etc by the left.

But I don't get it, you guys always wanna send our tax money to poor people in other nations, so why not jobs? What do you have against those poor people?
Sorry, Fern, but that's obfuscational. Offshoring is more than just importing/ exporting, considering the huge balance of payments deficits currently happening, and the annihilation of the manufacturing sector of our economy. Classical models of trade balance go out the window with false high dollar valuation and debt financing.

It's easy enough to pooh-pooh the offshoring of jobs when the person doing it still has a job. With a little more work and ingenuity, I'm sure that smart Indian accounts will be able to service your clients in an entirely satisfactory fashion, at much lower cost. If you have the capital and the connections, you can set that up so you'll benefit... If not, well, somebody else will, and they'll probably dismiss your loss as easily as you dismiss that of other Americans. It's the same for any occupation that doesn't demand actual hands-on participation.

What Democratic party tax bill is before Congress?

I haven't heard of it.

The Dems have the majority they need to get any tax bill out of the House (where legislation must originate). There's no way the Repubs can stop it. It's simple math, the Dems don't need a single Repub vote - period.

Over in the Senate I see no way for the Repubs to stop it either. Tax bills can go through the Reconcilliation process; that's what the process was established for. Here again, the Dems in the Senate don't need a single Repub vote to pass it.

So, please explain how the Repubs are stopping anything.
Cloture.

Firstly, looking at just tax rates is horribly misleading.

Yeah, the top rates were higher, but there were a butt-load of deductions too.

Reagan lowered the rates, but also eliminated the deductions. The net effect was close to zero. Look up the gov revenue before and after the cuts. There was barely a hiccup and then collections went right back up.

The whole "tax rates" stuff is BS 'talking points'. People bacisally paid the same before and after.

Capital gains should be taxed at regular rates only after the effects of inflation have been stipped out. As as I've explained above Congress doesn't want to fool with it. Instead we've traditionally had the cap gains taxed at half the regular bracket, pretty close to what it is now.

I think a better discussion would be should cap gains and other non-earned income be hit with a Medicare/Medicaid type tax because those programs are are being funded with general revenue (Medicare only about). Since they are generally public support programs, why should only working people fund them?

Fern
Sigh. I suppose I need to be very careful to be very specific so that people who don't want to see the truth can see it and represent it to be some other way. I really should have specified "effective tax rates" so that you wouldn't have been able to generate a stink cloud... see the Taxfoundation link above, which I've posted many, many times. Effective top tier federal tax rates have fallen steadily as their incomes and share of income have exploded. Dance around that all you want- the truth won't change.

You'd do well to look beyond the end of your nose wrt medicare. In general, people who are the recipients were workers in the past, and paid for the care of their elders. It's a generational issue. You may well collect medicare yourself, someday, if we don't let the financial elite rob us all blind in the interim.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,764
784
126
You're pretty wrong on the facts.

For one, while many people own some stocks/mutual funds, the ownership is very concentrated with a few owning almost all, and many owning a tiny bit.

That was not enough for it to be anything but a great increase in the concentration of wealth at the top, as has been posted many times.
Im not wrong at all. The fact is, if over 5 years someone who invested 10 million or 10,000 in the same investments, they made the same percentage. Who owns how much is irrelevant. A 100% profit is 100% of whatever was invested. This made for some nice profgits for middle income America.

Second, on a net basis, the average American took on massive new debt that inflated the bubble, wiping out the 'gains', while the ultra rich actually did get far richer.
We have been a debt based society for 60 years. Look at our governemtn-they do the same. The idea of ownership in this country went the way of the dodo bird.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/109093-greenspan-says-bush-tax-cuts-should-expire?sms_ss=reddit

Greenspan: Bush tax cuts should expire

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that President George W. Bush's tax cuts should be allowed to expire because of the ballooning budget deficit.

As Fed chairman during Bush's presidency, Greenspan oversaw the nation's monetary policy and endorsed the cuts before they were enacted in the early 2000s.

"I think they should follow the law and let them lapse. … Taxes go up," he told Bloomberg television in an interview to air Friday. "The problem is, unless we start to come to grips with this long-term outlook we're going to have major problems. I think we misunderstand the momentum of this deficit going forward."
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
Im not wrong at all. The fact is, if over 5 years someone who invested 10 million or 10,000 in the same investments, they made the same percentage. Who owns how much is irrelevant. A 100% profit is 100% of whatever was invested. This made for some nice profgits for middle income America.
Big "If". If you had the required net worth to invest in hedge funds. If you had sufficient capital to invest in derivatives. If you were a big enough player to engage in naked shorts, have your broker cover for you. If you had insider knowledge, and if you did it every day.

We have been a debt based society for 60 years. Look at our governemtn-they do the same. The idea of ownership in this country went the way of the dodo bird.
Not exactly. There are 2 sides to debt, lenders and debtors. I won't argue that the vast majority of the population doesn't live on debt. They do. Somebody lent them the money, however, and somebody holds securities covering it as bonds or some other financial implement. Those people have assets, obviously, and it's foolish to think that they don't.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
OK...I'll play your little game for a while. Where did I ever say that "the things in the stimulus bill aren't tax cuts"? Show me exactly where I said that or admit that you made it up and that you're a pathetic liar.

The dementia is strong with you.
I made it up and I'm a pathetic liar. Honestly I made a bad assumption, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I lumped you together with conservatives who praise the Bush "tax cuts" and dismiss the stimulus bill tax provisions as "tax credits", both of which in my view are the same thing. I've heard so many people say that lately that I used poor judgment. It does seem that you are against the stimulus bill as a whole based on your posts, but perhaps you liked the tax provisions in it.

I still maintain that you are being hypocritical, or at least unwilling to answer direct questions about why you've had a change of heart regarding the Bush tax cuts. And that is something that I am certain I didn't make up, as you yourself admitted that "they didn't help matters much." You've also said that it's important to think about what we leave for the next generation to clean up. You are in here advocating for a policy that you yourself don't believe worked!

So we've got that going for us, which is nice.

Best I can tell, you are advocating maintaining the same tax rate for the lower and middle classes, while restoring them to previous levels for the upper class. I'm sure most on the left would agree with that type of policy, however I'm not entirely sure such a proposal would work out to be budget neutral.

Logically, I cannot see how you can call something a tax cut without decreasing government spending to cover lost revenues. While it's true that a tax cut may eventually increase government revenues, history has shown us that it is impossible to predict if it will or does actually occur. Quite simply there are to many unknowns and by the time we do know the answer, we are usually in the middle of a new crisis. Simply put, there is no way to be close to anything resembling an accurate projection of a tax cuts impact on the budget because the economy is way too complex. Therefore, in my view, it's not a tax cut unless it's covered from a budget perspective on day 1 with concrete numbers, not predictions based in fantasy. That means its accompanies by an immediate reduction in spending. I consider this to be "fiscally responsible" and anything else to be...less so.

Put another way, I see the federal government borrowing money to give a tax cut as philosophically the same thing as an individual paying only interest on their loans. In this case, the loan was the tax bill, and since the Bush tax cuts occurred we've put nothing on the principal.

Continuing to expand the deficit to fund these tax cuts may provide some short term relief, but ultimately they will be harmful to the country when the bill comes due. In my opinion, our government will need both drastic spending cuts and tax increases in order to become fiscally neutral. Trying to do one without the other will just create a day of reckoning, when we face not just a prolonged recession, but total economic collapse. This isn't entirely the fault of Democrats and Republicans, I lay equal blame on a citizenry that believes it can have huge government programs and a small tax burden.

I do not see how anything I just said qualifies for dementia, and as someone who is expected to be an expert in Mental Health, I'm going to stick by that :) We simply have different definitions of what a "tax cut" is. As others have mentioned, there is a lot more to tax policy than the income tax rate. The income tax % is in many ways a distraction. Lastly, I'll say this. I would support borrowing money to temporarily lower the payroll tax, as the stimulus bill did, more than a bill like Bush's tax cuts. The payroll tax reduction puts money into peoples pockets immediately, where as we need to pray/hope that the other one trickles down. They both may be economically stimulative, but one would happen quicker.

You've yet to address anything I've said since that initial post, so I await your response.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I made it up and I'm a pathetic liar. Honestly I made a bad assumption, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I lumped you together with conservatives who praise the Bush "tax cuts" and dismiss the stimulus bill tax provisions as "tax credits", both of which in my view are the same thing. I've heard so many people say that lately that I used poor judgment. It does seem that you are against the stimulus bill as a whole based on your posts, but perhaps you liked the tax provisions in it.

I still maintain that you are being hypocritical, or at least unwilling to answer direct questions about why you've had a change of heart regarding the Bush tax cuts. And that is something that I am certain I didn't make up, as you yourself admitted that "they didn't help matters much." You've also said that it's important to think about what we leave for the next generation to clean up. You are in here advocating for a policy that you yourself don't believe worked!

So we've got that going for us, which is nice.

Best I can tell, you are advocating maintaining the same tax rate for the lower and middle classes, while restoring them to previous levels for the upper class. I'm sure most on the left would agree with that type of policy, however I'm not entirely sure such a proposal would work out to be budget neutral.

Logically, I cannot see how you can call something a tax cut without decreasing government spending to cover lost revenues. While it's true that a tax cut may eventually increase government revenues, history has shown us that it is impossible to predict if it will or does actually occur. Quite simply there are to many unknowns and by the time we do know the answer, we are usually in the middle of a new crisis. Simply put, there is no way to be close to anything resembling an accurate projection of a tax cuts impact on the budget because the economy is way too complex. Therefore, in my view, it's not a tax cut unless it's covered from a budget perspective on day 1 with concrete numbers, not predictions based in fantasy. That means its accompanies by an immediate reduction in spending. I consider this to be "fiscally responsible" and anything else to be...less so.

Put another way, I see the federal government borrowing money to give a tax cut as philosophically the same thing as an individual paying only interest on their loans. In this case, the loan was the tax bill, and since the Bush tax cuts occurred we've put nothing on the principal.

Continuing to expand the deficit to fund these tax cuts may provide some short term relief, but ultimately they will be harmful to the country when the bill comes due. In my opinion, our government will need both drastic spending cuts and tax increases in order to become fiscally neutral. Trying to do one without the other will just create a day of reckoning, when we face not just a prolonged recession, but total economic collapse. This isn't entirely the fault of Democrats and Republicans, I lay equal blame on a citizenry that believes it can have huge government programs and a small tax burden.

I do not see how anything I just said qualifies for dementia, and as someone who is expected to be an expert in Mental Health, I'm going to stick by that :) We simply have different definitions of what a "tax cut" is. As others have mentioned, there is a lot more to tax policy than the income tax rate. The income tax % is in many ways a distraction. Lastly, I'll say this. I would support borrowing money to temporarily lower the payroll tax, as the stimulus bill did, more than a bill like Bush's tax cuts. The payroll tax reduction puts money into peoples pockets immediately, where as we need to pray/hope that the other one trickles down. They both may be economically stimulative, but one would happen quicker.

You've yet to address anything I've said since that initial post, so I await your response.
Thank you for finally seeing that you made a "bad assumption"…it only took 3 posts of me specifically pointing this out to you in order for you to finally realize this. We'll chalk this one up as an example how simplistic stereotypes and partisan bigotry severely clouds one's ability to be objective and rational (one of my favorite rants btw).

OK, now that we got that cleared up…we need to figure out if I'm being "hypocritical, or at least unwilling to answer direct questions about why you've had a change of heart regarding the Bush tax cuts." I thought I was very clear in expressing my thoughts on this issue in previous posts and struggle with what you're perceiving as a 'change of heart' regarding the Bush tax cuts. You apparently want to convolute the meaning of what a tax cut 'truly' is…and I want no part of it. Most people understand the term 'tax cut' and its common usage…and I used it as such. Please specifically show me where I had a 'change of heart' regarding the Bush tax cuts and I'll be glad to discuss…but please don't twist the meaning of 'tax cut' into something I never intended.

As I said before…I believe that we agree on the fundamental issues. But again, please don't twist what I'm saying into things I didn't say...and then use that as a basis to attack my position.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Thank you for finally seeing that you made a "bad assumption"…it only took 3 posts of me specifically pointing this out to you in order for you to finally realize this. We'll chalk this one up as an example how simplistic stereotypes and partisan bigotry severely clouds one's ability to be objective and rational (one of my favorite rants btw).

OK, now that we got that cleared up…we need to figure out if I'm being "hypocritical, or at least unwilling to answer direct questions about why you've had a change of heart regarding the Bush tax cuts." I thought I was very clear in expressing my thoughts on this issue in previous posts and struggle with what you're perceiving as a 'change of heart' regarding the Bush tax cuts. You apparently want to convolute the meaning of what a tax cut 'truly' is…and I want no part of it. Most people understand the term 'tax cut' and its common usage…and I used it as such. Please specifically show me where I had a 'change of heart' regarding the Bush tax cuts and I'll be glad to discuss…but please don't twist the meaning of 'tax cut' into something I never intended.

As I said before…I believe that we agree on the fundamental issues. But again, please don't twist what I'm saying into things I didn't say...and then use that as a basis to attack my position.
Where I'm seeing hypocrisy is in your willingness to attack Democrats for not repealing the tax cuts earlier, and now your wish for them to be extended. It seems to be a lose lose. You are stating that you want fiscal responsibility and protect the next generation, but then you haven't really answered a fundamental question: how do we pay for extending the middle class tax cuts? It's not going to be free, and either we borrow or cut something. I'm assuming you want something cut, so my question is simple: what do you want cut?

Furthermore, while I'm not sure it is hypocritical, I do think it is odd that you want to extend a policy that you yourself seemed to admit didn't really help all that much. I find that perplexing, though of course times change and maybe your opinion has changed since you made those posts. Or perhaps you think that a "tax increase" on the middle class right now, regardless of the potential long term consequences of not doing so, do not outweigh the short term negative impact. I don't really know, and you haven't really helped clue me in to your position.

As for the definition of tax cut, I really don't believe I'm trying to confuse it in anyway. Perhaps it's simply your definition (or the traditional definition, if that is what you believe you are using) that has become convoluted. I don't really blame you for accepting that definition, but "tax cut" has become a talking point politicians use to sell a bag of goods. I truly believe it no longer means what it once did. Lower taxes today without spending offsets will equal higher taxes tomorrow. In that sense, how can we really call it a tax cut? It isn't permanent...it's a pay day loan. Wouldn't we agree that a more stable tax rate is preferable to one that changes based on what party is in power?
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Where I'm seeing hypocrisy is in your willingness to attack Democrats for not repealing the tax cuts earlier, and now your wish for them to be extended. It seems to be a lose lose. You are stating that you want fiscal responsibility and protect the next generation, but then you haven't really answered a fundamental question: how do we pay for extending the middle class tax cuts? It's not going to be free, and either we borrow or cut something. I'm assuming you want something cut, so my question is simple: what do you want cut?

Furthermore, while I'm not sure it is hypocritical, I do think it is odd that you want to extend a policy that you yourself seemed to admit didn't really help all that much. I find that perplexing, though of course times change and maybe your opinion has changed since you made those posts. Or perhaps you think that a "tax increase" on the middle class right now, regardless of the potential long term consequences of not doing so, do not outweigh the short term negative impact. I don't really know, and you haven't really helped clue me in to your position.

As for the definition of tax cut, I really don't believe I'm trying to confuse it in anyway. Perhaps it's simply your definition (or the traditional definition, if that is what you believe you are using) that has become convoluted. I don't really blame you for accepting that definition, but "tax cut" has become a talking point politicians use to sell a bag of goods. I truly believe it no longer means what it once did. Lower taxes today without spending offsets will equal higher taxes tomorrow. In that sense, how can we really call it a tax cut? It isn't permanent...it's a pay day loan. Wouldn't we agree that a more stable tax rate is preferable to one that changes based on what party is in power?
Years ago I saw countless ads/debates/interviews by the Dems criticizing the Bush tax cuts especially cuts for the top 1% income bracket. The vast majority of the tax cuts for the top 1% occur during the last 2 years of the bill which is set to expire at the end of this year. By that time, the Dems will have had 2 years majority in Congress under Bush and another 2 years majority in Congress under Obama (4 years total). All that time they have done NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...to change or repeal the bill...and you come to me with accusations of hypocrisy? I wanted the bill modified to mitigate the tax cuts for crying out loud! The Dems did NOTHING!

Now you say I wish the tax cuts were extended...simple as that...totally ignoring everything I've said about this. My main concern with cessation of the Bush tax cuts is how it will hurt the lower and middle classes who are already hard hit by recession...the timing couldn't be worse. The rich can handle the increase...no tears here. I would advocate a small increase now...and when times get better I feel that we'll have an opportunity to increase taxes for the lower and middle classes responsibly. You ask me how we pay for extending the middle class tax cuts...unfortunately, the only answer I have is the same way we are paying for the $787B 'stimulus' package. We are truly stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Raising taxes is one part of the equation...but there is little doubt that spending at these crazy levels will be our undoing if something isn't done immediately.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
The Dems did NOTHING!
Quite true. OTOH, it looks like political suicide to actively raise taxes during the worst economic downturn since the 1930's, at a time when the govt and FRB are actively trying to restore financial liquidity. Dems also fell far short of the number of Senators required to attempt cloture, prior to 2008, which repubs would obviously oppose, quite successfully. I think we can agree that they have better things to do than tilt at windmills.

Letting the cuts expire and then attempting to restore selected items turns the whole thing around, makes repubs the bad guys if the oppose such measures.

The whole idea of spending cuts sounds peachy, but lacks substance because when it comes right down to it, there's no consensus on cuts big enough to make a difference. Try it- lay out the political calculus necessary to make a package of substantial cuts. Mostly, the whole idea is just hot air from Righties who had no qualms about cutting taxes and simultaneously going to war only a few years ago- Let's see some concrete proposals with numbers attached before granting any credibility to those currently up on their soapboxes about it, OK?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY