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

[Fern]

So, Fern, if your employer says, "I'm giving you a bonus - for the next 6 months, you will get an extra $1000 a month", then when that ends, are you getting a pay cut?

The 'Bush tax cuts' have never been permanent tax rates. They have always been temporary rate adjustments scheduled to end. When they do, it's not a "tax increase".

Rather, it's the always-planned end of a tax reduction.

I don't think your analogy too accurate.

If that extra $1,000 was received for ten years do you think when it ended the employee would feel like they were getting a pay cut? I sure do.

As far as taxes increasing not being a 'tax increase', I think you're firmly in the world of political self-delusion.

I just honestly don't think the general public will buy it.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't take long to see who the far-left spinners are around here. 😀

When taxes go up, it is a tax increase. Period.

Very interesting way of looking at things. Does that mean that when Bush passed that stimulus bill back in 2007 that gave everyone a few hundred dollars, that in 2008 when that didn't happen again our taxes were increased?

Now I know that it's pretty obvious that the people who drafted this bill wanted to have it this way. They put the sunset in for PR purposes and for reconciliation rules, with the hope that 10 years later they could paint allowing the bill to transpire ]B]exactly how they wrote it[/B] as a tax increase.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think your analogy too accurate.

If that extra $1,000 was received for ten years do you think when it ended the employee would feel like they were getting a pay cut? I sure do.

As far as taxes increasing not being a 'tax increase', I think you're firmly in the world of political self-delusion.

I just honestly don't think the general public will buy it.

Fern

You do realize that 'the general public' is in favor of letting the tax cuts on the rich expire, right?

You honestly think that the Republicans actively working to thwart the Democrats' attempt to do exactly what the public wants will be blamed on the Democrats? That them saying 'we will work to make it so taxes go up on everyone if you won't include the richest 2% of Americans' as something bad about Democrats? That's a tough sell, even in the world of political self-delusion.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think your analogy too accurate.

If that extra $1,000 was received for ten years do you think when it ended the employee would feel like they were getting a pay cut? I sure do.

As far as taxes increasing not being a 'tax increase', I think you're firmly in the world of political self-delusion.

I just honestly don't think the general public will buy it.

Fern

I'll split the difference with you.

Technically, it IS a temporary tax cut, and it's not a 'tax increase' if it ends.

But 10 years IS a long time to get used to it, and it's merely on Republican gamesmanship to hide the cost that it ever had an expiration.

It 'feels like' a tax increase. And it is only a technical distinction between whether the increase in rates is the Democrats voting for that change, or built in the law already.

I'd be happy to give you those points, but you can't be reasonable and admit the facts, you have to try to deny the fact is it technically the end of temporary cuts.

 

[brencat]

the issue for me is the $250,000 number. There are dramatic differences in cost of living across the country and while $250,000 is rich in some parts, it's clearly middle-class in other parts. If Obama were smarter, he would propose extending the Bush tax cuts to everyone except for those making over $1,000,000.

Yep. This is the point I have been arguing now for close to 2 months. Raise the threshold to $750k or $1 mil like you suggest and the Repubs will have a much weaker case for continuing to maintain the lower marginal rate at the top.

However...

This still doesn't address the real problem, which is the concentration of wealth at the top 0.05%...like the CEOs or high level execs paid *mostly* in stock that is taxed at the lower 15% long term cap gains rate. Or the idle rich living off tax free muni interest or investment income also taxed at a max rate of 15% (long term gains). Sunsetting the Bush tax cuts will NOT affect these guys at all, except maybe if some croak and the inheritance tax bites them a lot harder when those rates go back up next year too.

If we don't start thinking about a phase out of the 15% favorable cap gains rate above a reasonable threshold level -- suggestion: start phasing out at $3 mil income, completely eliminate it at $10+ mil income -- then all I really see happening is the concentration of wealth at the very top 0.05% becoming solidified while the upper middle class and lower-upper classes (top 2% to the top 0.05% range) pay the lion's share of the extra burden.

 

[thraashman]

Remember, remember, We The People neutered Obama in November.

Or have you forgotten?

You mean the 49.3% of the electorate that voted for Republican senators vs the 45.1% that voted Democrat?

Or the 52.1% of the electorate that voted for Republican representatives vs 44.8% that voted Democrat?

Note, the larger difference is 8% (actually less than 7.5%) of the electorate which was about 82million. With a population of 310million, that's slightly more than 25% of Americans. So we're talking about approx 2% of Americans difference. Wow, yeah, 2% of Americans made a HUGE statement!

And do you take the 2008 elections where the Democrats had gains and won the presidency when one of their biggest platforms was healthcare reform to mean that "We the People" want healthcare reform that was blocked in almost every format by the Republicans until the people got something that wasn't what they wanted. Because of Republicans.

Or are you, as I've already stated, simply crazy as shit like we all already know in P&N.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep. This is the point I have been arguing now for close to 2 months. Raise the threshold to $750k or $1 mil like you suggest and the Repubs will have a much weaker case for continuing to maintain the lower marginal rate at the top.

However...

This still doesn't address the real problem, which is the concentration of wealth at the top 0.05%...like the CEOs or high level execs paid *mostly* in stock that is taxed at the lower 15% long term cap gains rate. Or the idle rich living off tax free muni interest or investment income also taxed at a max rate of 15% (long term gains). Sunsetting the Bush tax cuts will NOT affect these guys at all, except maybe if some croak and the inheritance tax bites them a lot harder when those rates go back up too.

If we don't start thinking about a phase out of the 15% favorable cap gains rate above a reasonable threshold level -- suggestion: start phasing out at $3 mil income, completely eliminate it at $10+ mil income -- then all I really see happening is the concentration of wealth at the very top 0.05% becoming solidified while the upper middle class and lower-upper classes (top 2% to the top 0.05% range) pay the lion's share of the extra burden.

As I have gone over before, there is no county in the United States where making $250,000 is not at least around 350-400% of the median income. (well, there might be one that's really small somewhere.) Even in Manhattan you are making 4 times what the median household makes.

And remember, this is how much you need to be making for this change to increase your taxes EVEN ONE CENT. So when you alter the amount being paid by 3-4% for each dollar over $250,000, in order to pay even $1,000 extra in taxes you need to be making close to $300,000 a year, about 500% of the median income in one of the richest areas on earth.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

 

[werepossum]

Very interesting way of looking at things. Does that mean that when Bush passed that stimulus bill back in 2007 that gave everyone a few hundred dollars, that in 2008 when that didn't happen again our taxes were increased?

Now I know that it's pretty obvious that the people who drafted this bill wanted to have it this way. They put the sunset in for PR purposes and for reconciliation rules, with the hope that 10 years later they could paint allowing the bill to transpire ]B]exactly how they wrote it[/B] as a tax increase.

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.

We are speaking of tax tables being cut across the board; this is not equal to a one-time stimulus payment, but is a reduction in the actual tax rates. Similarly, a revision of the tax tables to higher "contributions" is a tax increase. Even semantics cannot be stretched far enough to avoid these facts.

 

[fskimospy]

We are speaking of tax tables being cut across the board; this is not equal to a one-time stimulus payment, but is a reduction in the actual tax rates. Similarly, a revision of the tax tables to higher "contributions" is a tax increase. Even semantics cannot be stretched far enough to avoid these facts.

Right, a reduction in the tax rates deliberately constructed to happen ten times and then stop.

Like it or not, the stimulus in 2007 was effectively a $300 (or whatever) tax cut for everyone. When it didn't happen the next year, why was that not a tax increase? It's either money or it isn't.

 

[brencat]

As I have gone over before, there is no county in the United States where making $250,000 is not at least around 350-400% of the median income. (well, there might be one that's really small somewhere.) Even in Manhattan you are making 4 times what the median household makes.

It's not about how much I make relative to the median here, it's about what my okay income is able to buy me living in a high rent area like NJ-NY where property and income taxes along with housing are sky high.

 

[Fern]

You do realize that 'the general public' is in favor of letting the tax cuts on the rich expire, right?
-snip-

Nope.

The poll results I looked at indicate a pretty even split.

By the time you filter out those that think the cut-off should be at $1M or $500K you're looking at a minority who supporting raising taxes on those making $250K.

Fern

 

[Zhaoan]

so if some "middle class" making 260K in lets say NYC, gonna suffer when he has to pay 3% more on that 10K difference? meaning what he is paying now for $250K still stays the same, he only pays an increased percentage for whats over the 250K..

By that argument, why extend any of the tax cuts to anyone? Say a family making $200,000, are they gonna suffer paying 3% more on the 10k difference? The argument Obama is making is that he doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle class and a family of four in NYC making $260,000 still needs to struggle and sacrifice if they want to buy a house or send their kids to college. They are middle class and should not be getting a tax increase.

Edit: I support raising taxes on those making over $1million instead of just $250,000 because there is a clear difference in lifestyle between those 2 income levels.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I'd be happy to give you those points, but you can't be reasonable and admit the facts, you have to try to deny the fact is it technically the end of temporary cuts.

Craig234,

We're not talking about what you and I know - we're political junkies. We know what the reconcilliation process is, but I'd bet +90% of Americans don't. (And I bet if it were explained to them their 1st question is going to be why the h3ll didn't the Dems use it to get their bill passed this year.)

Again, my point is that I believe the perception of the general public is going to be one of a tax increase, not some fancy stuff about the expiration of a tempororay tax cut etc.

I rather suspect that many, if not most, Democrats in Congress agree with me. I.e., they fear the general public's perception.

So they've got a problem because they know the majority of their base wants a tax increase on high earners.

Someone above has said the Dems hold all the cards. I'd agree, but only if they're willing to use reconcilliation process. If not, they now seem to only have the choice betweening extending to all, or to no one. I think they're smart to fear the latter, at least those not in heavy Dem/Liberal districts.

I also wonder about the potential complications of adding other things to this bill, like the extension of unemployment benefits. Without that stuff, a bill extending to all can be passed and the progressives can take cover by recording a 'no' vote. But if unemployment benefits are attached, do they wanna vote no? They'll take a lot of heat for that, and I don't think those who unemployed in their district are going to appreciate it.

Fern

 

[Generator]

The tax rate should be much, much lower up to 250,000. I'm talking like 15% at most, basically a rate that has compliance. The IRS often talks about compliance with taxes and people are willing to pay 15% in Federal tax.

But like wealth which increases exponentially so should the tax rate after $250,000 to $500,000. Hammer these rich motherfuckers for 50% federal rate. They can pay it.

Regardless it looks like this is all moot because we are assuredly headed to bankruptcy. Liberals don't want to make cuts, Republicans don't want to pay a fair tax. Anything but Clinton taxes and massive cuts will stave off this bankruptcy.

It all depends on the Walstreet Waterboy Obama. He sets the tone this December for years to come. Basically anything that perpetuates any Bush policies will doom this country financially and spiritually. When Obama sellouts it will be time to FEED THE BEAST. Do whatever you can to get yours and fuck everyone else. Bankrupt this country now and let the Baby Boomer reap what they've sewn.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope.

The poll results I looked at indicate a pretty even split.

By the time you filter out those that think the cut-off should be at $1M or $500K you're looking a minority who supporting raising taxes on those making $250K.

Fern

Interesting how you mention a pretty even split, but neglect to mention that its one that consistently supports extending it up to $250k.

Then you try and water down the Republicans' position into something they aren't even supporting in order to find a position that a majority would like. The percentage that support raising taxes on those making $250k+ is higher than the proportion who want to extend them all. (or even those who want to make the Schumer compromise). Instead of inventing new policies that no one is pushing in order to discover a plurality, just admit that the Democrats' proposal is more popular than the Republicans'.

All this is without even mentioning the expert opposition to extending these tax cuts.

 

[fskimospy]

By that argument, why extend any of the tax cuts to anyone? Say a family making $200,000, are they gonna suffer paying 3% more on the 10k difference? The argument Obama is making is that he doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle class and a family of four in NYC making $260,000 still needs to struggle and sacrifice if they want to buy a house or send their kids to college. They are middle class and should not be getting a tax increase.

Edit: I support raising taxes on those making over $1million instead of just $250,000 because there is a clear difference in lifestyle between those 2 income levels.

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'.

 

[Fern]

Nope.

The poll results I looked at indicate a pretty even split.

By the time you filter out those that think the cut-off should be at $1M or $500K you're looking at a minority who supporting raising taxes on those making $250K.

Fern

Interesting how you mention a pretty even split, but neglect to mention that its one that consistently supports extending it up to $250k.

Then you try and water down the Republicans' position into something they aren't even supporting in order to find a position that a majority would like. The percentage that support raising taxes on those making $250k+ is higher than the proportion who want to extend them all. (or even those who want to make the Schumer compromise). Instead of inventing new policies that no one is pushing in order to discover a plurality, just admit that the Democrats' proposal is more popular than the Republicans'.

All this is without even mentioning the expert opposition to extending these tax cuts.

This is the poll I'm looking at:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144989/Vast-Majority-Wants-Aspect-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Extended.aspx

I believe I've accurately characterized it and it's results.

Perhaps you're looking at a different poll. But you provided no link in your post above, so I googled and that's what 1st popped up.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Right, a reduction in the tax rates deliberately constructed to happen ten times and then stop.

Like it or not, the stimulus in 2007 was effectively a $300 (or whatever) tax cut for everyone. When it didn't happen the next year, why was that not a tax increase? It's either money or it isn't.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Right, because if they hadn't been crafted that way they wouldn't have passed at all. So, in order to be an item acceptable to Congress under the rules they all accepted, they were deliberately crafted to end after 10 years.

The filibuster isn't so great when it's used on things you like, huh.

 

[shira]

By separating the 98% and 2% tax-cut extensions into two bills, the REAL loyalties of the right will exposed for all to see. On what basis can the right possibly vote AGAINST a bill that extends tax cuts for the lower 98% when that bill does NOT deny tax extensions to the top 2%? If the right insists on connecting the two bills, and thereby denies the lower-98% their tax-cut extensions, 2012 will be an interesting election year indeed.

 

[werepossum]

Right, because if they hadn't been crafted that way they wouldn't have passed at all. So, in order to be an item acceptable to Congress under the rules they all accepted, they were deliberately crafted to end after 10 years.

The filibuster isn't so great when it's used on things you like, huh.

The filibuster is merely a tool like any other, not inherently good or evil. I generally like it, and I have no problem with the Democrats using it to push their Marxist agenda of empowering government. My problem is with the agenda itself, not the tools used, as long as their agenda is pushed within the rules. My major problem with the filibuster is that I think Senators wishing to filibuster should be required to keep the floor and actually speak, not merely indicate a willingness to do so. That really has nothing to do with this issue, though. And I have no problem with the Republicans taking what they could get within the rules. I'd advise them to take what they can get now as well. And I have no problem with the Democrats taking what they could get within the rules, a time limit on the hated tax cuts, as long as they take blame or credit for the subsequent tax increase.

 

[boomerang]

By separating the 98% and 2% tax-cut extensions into two bills, the REAL loyalties of the right will exposed for all to see. On what basis can the right possibly vote AGAINST a bill that extends tax cuts for the lower 98% when that bill does NOT deny tax extensions to the top 2%? If the right insists on connecting the two bills, and thereby denies the lower-98% their tax-cut extensions, 2012 will be an interesting election year indeed.

OMG! That's pure genius. You should be the head of the DNC.

I can't believe there is so much entertainment here for this paltry price.

 

[Craig234]

Again, my point is that I believe the perception of the general public is going to be one of a tax increase, not some fancy stuff about the expiration of a tempororay tax cut etc.

If that's all you want to claim, that they'll be perceived by many as an increase even though they're technically not (though you didn't say that), then I agree.

You should make it clear that it's not an increase, to help correct the problem.

 

[werepossum]

OMG! That's pure genius. You should be the head of the DNC.

I can't believe there is so much entertainment here for this paltry price.

Actually that seems pretty smart to me. Certainly it's good politics, and arguably it's good policy that when both sides fundamentally disagree, you break the bills into parts and pass what has support rather than load one big bill down with enough pork to buy enough votes to pass. I'm about as far politically from Shira as is anyone and I'd prefer making all the lower tax rates permanent*, but I think he has a clever idea and I have no problem crediting him.

* At least until Congress shows that it can significantly cut spending and the recession passes, at which time I'd support higher taxes if they went purely to pay off the debt.

 

[boomerang]

Actually that seems pretty smart to me. Certainly it's good politics, and arguably it's good policy that when both sides fundamentally disagree, you break the bills into parts and pass what has support rather than load one big bill down with enough pork to buy enough votes to pass. I'm about as far politically from Shira as is anyone and I'd prefer making all the lower tax rates permanent*, but I think he has a clever idea and I have no problem crediting him.

* At least until Congress shows that it can significantly cut spending and the recession passes, at which time I'd support higher taxes if they went purely to pay off the debt.

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 being too high. It would be laughable if it wasn't such a damned serious situation.