Why didn't the Republicans make the Bush tax cuts permanent?

[BoberFett]

So what? People used to pay taxes upwards of 70% in this country back when it was great. Now we pay 20% and it is a shithole. Give us the government we wanted since the private sector has proven they will not give us the capitalist economy we wanted.

No they didn't. Nobody ever actually paid that rate effectively. As we all well know, the top rate is 35% but as the Democrats were so helpful to point out thousands of times per day, Romney didn't pay that rate. So no. Nobody actually paid 70%.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

No they didn't. Nobody ever actually paid that rate effectively. As we all well know, the top rate is 35% but as the Democrats were so helpful to point out thousands of times per day, Romney didn't pay that rate. So no. Nobody actually paid 70%.

No but that was the actual starting rate, just like you just claimed people actually pay 35% now...lol

 

[BoberFett]

No but that was the actual starting rate, just like you just claimed people actually pay 35% now...lol

/facepalm

You're the one who claimed that the country was better when people paid a 70% tax rate, when in fact they did not. Hell, we could enact a 100% tax rate and put enough holes in it to let the wealthy pay an effect 1% if we wanted. Would that make the country better because we had a 100% tax rate?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

/facepalm

You're the one who claimed that the country was better when people paid a 70% tax rate, when in fact they did not. Hell, we could enact a 100% tax rate and put enough holes in it to let the wealthy pay an effect 1% if we wanted. Would that make the country better because we had a 100% tax rate?

Talking in circles bores me. There were far less loopholes when we had the 70% rate than now with our "35"% rate. My point was that the country clearly voted in favor of more taxes when we chose Obama. Whether it is 100% or 4%, as long as it is more, especially on those who can afford it.

We need more revenue and we need it now. If the private sector would get it's shit together and stop screwing over the people in this country that would greatly raise revenue, but we know now that we cannot count on them doing the right thing anymore than we could count on the Republicans to stop being homophobic bigots.


I suppose you are one of those who actually believed Romney's bullshit line about reducing loopholes on top earners. Well hey man, I've got some ocean front in Nebraska if you're interested.

 

[Fern]

Talking in circles bores me. There were far less loopholes when we had the 70% rate than now with our "35"% rate.
-snip-

That is 100% incorrect.

When the rate was dropped a lot "loopholes" were eliminated.

And since then a lot of anti-tax shelter type laws have been passed severely curtailing the abusive schemes so common back then. Likewise with foreign investment activity (.g., see the Passive Foreign Investment Company rules.)

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Talking in circles bores me. There were far less loopholes when we had the 70% rate than now with our "35"% rate. My point was that the country clearly voted in favor of more taxes when we chose Obama. Whether it is 100% or 4%, as long as it is more, especially on those who can afford it.

We need more revenue and we need it now. If the private sector would get it's shit together and stop screwing over the people in this country that would greatly raise revenue, but we know now that we cannot count on them doing the right thing anymore than we could count on the Republicans to stop being homophobic bigots.


I suppose you are one of those who actually believed Romney's bullshit line about reducing loopholes on top earners. Well hey man, I've got some ocean front in Nebraska if you're interested.

You're one of the worst posters this forum has seen in a long time. At least Dave's brand of crazy is amusing. You're just annoyingly unintelligent and wrong.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Repubs had to use the Budget Reconciliation process to pass the tax cuts. There are no Senate filibusters allowed in the Budget Reconciliation process. The Reconciliation process requires that bills be limited to 10 yrs maximum. This 10 yr limit was part of the Bryd rule.

Why didn't they repeal the Byrd rule then?

I had thought I made a thread with the same question before, I'm sorry for posting it again.

 

[BoberFett]

That is 100% incorrect.

When the rate was dropped a lot "loopholes" were eliminated.

And since then a lot of anti-tax shelter type laws have been passed severely curtailing the abusive schemes so common back then. Likewise with foreign investment activity (.g., see the Passive Foreign Investment Company rules.)

Fern

What would you know, Mr. CPA? This clown knows in his heart of hearts that the country would be better off if everything was like it was in the olden days.

Wait, does that make him a conservative?

 

[Fern]

Why didn't they repeal the Byrd rule then?

I had thought I made a thread with the same question before, I'm sorry for posting it again.

The Repubs didn't have enough votes to change the Senate rules. It takes 67 votes to change them. If they couldn't get 60 to avoid a filibuster they sure couldn't 67.

Fern

 

[Sonikku]

I just saw a report on the news this morning on her show:

I'm sorry, did you just say something?

 

[Engineer]

Then why do the Democrats want to continue them? Oh right, you just want to continue the irresponsible cuts that win you votes.

Taxing the rich will only get you so far. There's still a massive deficit that will require large tax increases on everyone.

Feel the pain bitches, Americans are getting the government we wanted...

I agree. If you want it, pay for it....everyone!

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You're one of the worst posters this forum has seen in a long time. At least Dave's brand of crazy is amusing. You're just annoyingly unintelligent and wrong.

Coming from a guy with Ron Swarson as his avatar and name like BoberFett, I will take that as a compliment.

That is 100% incorrect.

When the rate was dropped a lot "loopholes" were eliminated.

And since then a lot of anti-tax shelter type laws have been passed severely curtailing the abusive schemes so common back then. Likewise with foreign investment activity (.g., see the Passive Foreign Investment Company rules.)

RightWingShillMod

Yes, then they found other loopholes to use. Dividends tax needs to go way up and rates in general need to go up. I know you guys probably hate hearing that, but you can blame the private sector and the right wing that has had control of this government pretty much since the 80's and run up a gigantic bill for our kids. They run around spending money like crackheads with a black card, the private sector is so anti-working man it is ridiculous, and the pair of them have put this country into a corner that could be a danger to all of our children and grandchildren if we don't make some drastic changes now.

If you think that is wrong BubbaFett, you are only showing how obliviously partisan you really are.

What would you know, Mr. CPA? This clown knows in his heart of hearts that the country would be better off if everything was like it was in the olden days.

Wait, does that make him a conservative?

I am a conservative moron. I thought you knew so much about me with your other "pr0d1gy is the worst poster in this forum" statement.

 

[BoberFett]

Coming from a guy with Ron Swarson as his avatar and name like BoberFett, I will take that as a compliment.

If avatars and pseudonyms are the basis for our believability, I think I'm well ahead of you Mr. Leetspeak-Video-Game-Tard.

Haha, nice edit to your post. Childish edits. Way to prove how right you are.

Good god you're unintelligent.

 

[shira]

I just saw a report on the news this morning on her show:

that said they Republicans were asking for a slight reduction in Social Security and the example they gave showed that someone receiving 1306 a month would now receive 1276 or so, don't remember the exact numbers. Anyhow, I don't see that as a bad thing at all. As someone who voted for Obama and who received SS since my childrens' mother died, I could certainly get behind that small cut if it would help our nation.

As for the Bush tax cuts, the tax rates are already way too low on the top earners. Most people in this country, especially on the right, are COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to the fact that the top earners in this country were paying 70% income tax before Reagan got into office and whored our country out to corporate interests. They should raise the dividends tax and get rid of all loopholes that aren't family based, other than business loopholes for bringing jobs back to America.

You're referring to the difference between the CPI as currently used to adjust SS payments and tax brackets and Medicare/Medicaid payments and the so-called Chained CPI, which would be used instead of the CPI.

The Chained CPI attempts to model the real-world purchasing behavior of people confronted with inflation. For example, the existing CPI assumes a person will purchase the same basket of goods and services over time. The Chained CPI assumes that as the price of a good or service increases, a person will try to find a lower-priced substitute Over many years, the difference between the two measures of inflation gets larger and larger, hence the claimed $300 billion in savings over 10 years by adopting the Chained CPI in place of the current CPI.

But note that that $30 difference in SS will grow over time, and the same person's taxes will increase over time, too, because the boundaries of tax brackets will move up more slowly.

Converting to the chained CPI is probably a good idea, but the difference between it and the current CPI is not going to be trivial 100 years from now.

 

[wirednuts]

^^ I forget what this tread was about.

its about huge boobs

 

[wirednuts]

i was going to add something but i forgot

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Converting to the chained CPI is probably a good idea, but the difference between it and the current CPI is not going to be trivial 100 years from now.

Well hopefully we would correct that before it begins to become a problem, but I could live with it for a decade or two for sure. I'm not sure what the percentage difference would be 10-20 years from now but as long as it isn't severe then I see no reason not to cut that little extra off.

If avatars and pseudonyms are the basis for our believability, I think I'm well ahead of you Mr. Leetspeak-Video-Game-Tard.

Haha, nice edit to your post. Childish edits. Way to prove how right you are.

Good god you're unintelligent.

Dude, nobody cares what you think. Ever.

 

[DCal430]

The worst was when democrats, republican and Clinton slashed Capital gains tax by almost 1/3 FOREVER.