My proposal on the Bush-era tax cuts . . .

[IBMer]

It's his typical tunnel vision. His goal is not what could possibly be best for the country, it's to make the evil Republicans look bad. It's juvenile. Read the first post, he toned it down in the second iteration.

I see it as a responce to a group that want to stop any legislation from going through unless they get "their way". Maybe you haven't been paying attention?

 

[werepossum]

I think you've misinterpreted his post, but I'll leave that up to you to decide. I will say that IMO, his idea is solely to make one party look bad and that there is no other purpose. It's his typical tunnel vision. His goal is not what could possibly be best for the country, it's to make the evil Republicans look bad. It's juvenile. Read the first post, he toned it down in the second iteration.

No, my post was an obscure reference to him having to state his idea twice in the same thread. I felt he was looking for some recognition and I gave it to him. Not in a positive way, but recognition nonetheless.

BTW, I don't agree with extending tax cuts for "the rich", but I do have an issue on where that line will be drawn. I don't look at it from the perspective of the individual, but from the perspective of a businessperson that employs people. That's a very important aspect of this and one that many can't seem to get a grasp of.

Regardless, it's not enough money to make any measurable difference and as I stated earlier and as you also feel, without a means to "earmark" the money for the deficit, it will be wasted - as is the norm.

It's really nothing but symbolism for left leaner's. The practicality of it has no meaning to them and I'll go further and say that they can't even comprehend it. The deficit is meaningless to them and without the recent shift in power in the House, it would be full steam ahead with the social agenda eclipsing everything else with no price too high. It would be laughable if it wasn't such a damned serious situation.

Oh, I have no doubt you're right about Shira's intentions, but it IS an elegant solution to the dilemma Obama and the Dems face. They (and no doubt Shira) want to sunset all the tax cuts and increase rates besides, but they don't want to pay the political cost to do so. This is a clever way to avoid some of the political costs while likely losing only that part they least hate - tax cuts for the majority of Americans is better than tax cuts for the "evil rich". It would allow Obama to take at least partial ownership of the tax cuts for the majority as well - they might be the Republican tax cuts, but Obama would be visible in preserving them for the majority.

Normally I'd oppose stunts just for political advantage, but preserving the tax cuts for most taxpayers would have a beneficial effect on the country, so I'd support Shira's proposition even knowing that Obama and the Dems would benefit politically. Remember what Reagan said, you can accomplish a lot of good if you don't care about who gets the credit.

 

[jrodson69]

What should be pretty obvious to anyone not writing an election season attack ad is that not voting to cut taxes is not the same as voting to increase taxes.

A distinction without a difference. The effect is the same.

 

[jrodson69]

The tax cuts were deliberately constructed to end after ten years because that's the most the Republican Congress could get through under the rules of the Senate. Anything beyond ten years was subject to a Democrat filibuster, they never had a filibuster-proof majority (unlike the Dems), and Dems can be solidly counted on to never support anything that removes money or power from government on more than a temporary basis.

But regardless, a tax cut is a decrease in tax rates; a tax increase is an increase in tax rates.

QFT. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

A distinction without a difference. The effect is the same.

There's a big difference.

 

[jrodson69]

There's a big difference.

Please, elaborate. The net effect is exactly the same - a higher tax bill.

 

[sandorski]

Please, elaborate. The net effect is exactly the same - a higher tax bill.

Calling it a "Tax Increase" is inaccurate and some might say, a lie. Calling it "the end of a Temporary Tax Cut", is accurate and the Truth.

 

[jrodson69]

Calling it a "Tax Increase" is inaccurate and some might say, a lie. Calling it "the end of a Temporary Tax Cut", is accurate and the Truth.

Again, net effect is the same. A distinction without a difference when it comes to tax bills January 1.

 

[Mursilis]

Do you live in NYC? I do. I also know a number of people making considerably less than $250k who don't need to struggle at all to buy a house, and their kids' college funds are doing just fine.

What data are you basing it on that makes you think this? I want you to take the median housing price, calculate out mortgage payments and costs, and make me a budget where a family of 4 making $260,000 is 'struggling and sacrificing'.

I'd also love to see the response to this, but we probably won't see it, because there's NOWHERE in the US that $250K is "struggling". The idea is simply laughable. Anyone who believes $250K is middle class in any county in the US is simply ignoring the data on income. I work in a high-cost city for much less than $250K, and it's no struggle for me or my fellow workers to live out in the burbs and commute into the city everyday. Heck, I could probably afford to live within the city, but I wouldn't like the neighborhood or the schools, so I choose to live outside it, but I'm certainly not struggling at well under $250K!

 

[piasabird]

There is no real reason to for a compromise on the tax cuts. The republicans should just say make them permananent because we are not going to sign anything else. Signing another temporary extension is just a big lie and a trap to fall into that puts the entire country into a state of fear once again when the extension runs out.

Why should the democrats be able to hold the country hostage? The Republicans will be able to stop any democratic bill from being signed that does not create stability. There is no reason to compromise at all. There is no democratic bill they will offer that will not be considered class warfare and add more red tape and grow the federal government.

 

[Anarchist420]

If letting the Bush tax cuts expire actually brought down the deficit, then I'd be for it. But that's not how it works. 39.6% is surely on the 2nd half of the laffer curve.

If Obama really cared about jobs and the deficit, he'd repeal the fucking corporate tax. That revenue would be more than 100% recaptured via other taxes.

Cutting spending and/or repealing the corporate tax is the only way to reduce the deficit.

 

[fskimospy]

If letting the Bush tax cuts expire actually brought down the deficit, then I'd be for it. But that's not how it works. 39.6% is surely on the 2nd half of the laffer curve.

If Obama really cared about jobs and the deficit, he'd repeal the fucking corporate tax. That revenue would be more than 100% recaptured via other taxes.

Cutting spending and/or repealing the corporate tax is the only way to reduce the deficit.

You are an idiot. If that were true then keeping the tax cuts would increase government revenues over the next 10 years, something no reputable economist predicts.

But by all means, undergrad from a tier 4 liberal arts school, teach us about the economics of taxation.

 

[sandorski]

Again, net effect is the same. A distinction without a difference when it comes to tax bills January 1.

Sure, just stop obfuscating about it.