Extending Bush Tax Cuts

[quote name='IRHari'] Why are they ignoring the will of the American people? [/QUOTE]

you could ask that with *insert topic here*

i have no problem with extending the cuts for some and allowing them to expire for others. seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise.
 
increasing tax rates does not necessarily create increased tax revenue (it might even decrease tax revenue). This is proven historically and logically.
 
Also note that "the rich" aren't necessarily people who make 250K+ in income. Being rich is dependent on one's wealth. In that, a CEO who has millions in his pocket but only takes home $1 in salary each year is not going to be affected by the expiration of the "tax cuts on the rich". Conversely, the small couple who make 125K each, who have worked their way up from the bottom, are going to be taxed even more if these cuts expire. They may make a lot, but their combined wealth could be very low with big debt and/or expenses.

^^ Just to clear things up.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Senate Republicans and some Senate Democrats are definitely against it. Why are they ignoring the will of the American people? Why are they shoving this tax cut down the throats of the American people?[/QUOTE]

For the Republicans, the logic I'm hearing is the argument that a tax cut for the wealthiest people helps stimulate the economy. It's basically the "trickle down" theory we've heard since the Reagan years.

For the Democrats, I think they're just afraid of even slightly looking like they want to raise taxes. I suspect the Democrats in favor of keeping the $250k+ tax cuts are the ones up for reelection in contentious areas, since having their opponent be able to say "he wants the tax cuts to expire!" will likely hurt them.
 
At least the democrats are conceding some of the tax cuts, seeing as how nearly all of them opposed them all.

If it werent for republicans there wouldn't be any tax cuts to keep though.
 
[quote name='Knoell']At least the democrats are conceding some of the tax cuts, seeing as how nearly all of them opposed them all.

If it werent for republicans there wouldn't be any tax cuts to keep though.[/QUOTE]

The stimulus contained in no small part tax cuts.

By all means though Knoell, continue your jihad against truth and common sense.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The stimulus contained in no small part tax cuts.

By all means though Knoell, continue your jihad against truth and common sense.[/QUOTE]

What part of my statement is untruthful? The part where I said democrats voted against the bush tax cuts, or the part where I said there wouldn't be any of the tax cuts to keep if it weren't for republicans?

You continue your jihad of misinterpreting and manipulating everyone's statements into your own version that you can rally against.
 
[quote name='tivo']increasing tax rates does not necessarily create increased tax revenue (it might even decrease tax revenue). This is proven historically and logically.[/QUOTE]

Um, no. Tax revenues, historically, increase year over year. Every year. I know this is a famous GOP talking point, but tax revenues go up every year. Taxes go up? Revenues go up. Taxes go down? Revenues go up. Annual rainfall breaks previous record by 10"? Revenues go up. McRib fails to make an appearance at your neighborhood McDonald's? Revenues go up.

Even when the Virtual Boy was released - you guessed it, tax revenues went up. Tax revenues increasing is a given. But you read a book once (you said so yourself), so I falsely concluded you would know such things.

[quote name='tivo']Also note that "the rich" aren't necessarily people who make 250K+ in income. Being rich is dependent on one's wealth. In that, a CEO who has millions in his pocket but only takes home $1 in salary each year is not going to be affected by the expiration of the "tax cuts on the rich". Conversely, the small couple who make 125K each, who have worked their way up from the bottom, are going to be taxed even more if these cuts expire. They may make a lot, but their combined wealth could be very low with big debt and/or expenses.

^^ Just to clear things up.[/QUOTE]

Oh, thanks for reminding me. Bring back the capital gains taxes, too, and fuck yo' loopholes.

[quote name='Knoell']What part of my statement is untruthful? The part where I said democrats voted against the bush tax cuts, or the part where I said there wouldn't be any of the tax cuts to keep if it weren't for republicans?[/QUOTE]

both. 10 house democrats voted for the tax cuts in 2001, and certainly a few in the senate. you seem to fancy yourself the expert on the matter, so I'll let you scour thomas for the voting records.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']


both. 10 house democrats voted for the tax cuts in 2001, and certainly a few in the senate. you seem to fancy yourself the expert on the matter, so I'll let you scour thomas for the voting records.[/QUOTE]

13 house democrats, and 12 democrat senators voted for the 2001 cuts

7 house democrats and 3 democrat senators for the 2003 cuts.

Here is where you should look at my post more closely instead of adding your own caption.

[quote name='Knoell']seeing as how nearly all of them opposed them all.[/QUOTE]

Unless they just wanted to keep out the highest bracket tax cuts and thats why they voted against it. But oh wait, as we have seen with the health care bill by your guys' logic no elected official should ever vote against a bill if they support any part of it.
 
you live and die by petty semantics (so you can have it both ways when called out on your bullshit) - and then throw up red herrings, long since disproven, such as you repeating that horseshit point about the HCRA.

You're so fucking pants-on-head dumb, and more importantly show such a tenacious dedication to your level of stupidity, you ought to have a radio show.

12 democrat senators is 24% of all democrat senators at the time. Now, please, go right ahead and lay all your debate chips on your vaguely worded "nearly all" and how that means you were *right* (ignoring that you would say such a vagary would allow you such a wide range of targets that being right in this instance is most certainly nothing to be proud of, like saying "it's going to rain today...or it's not. HAHAHA TOLD YOU SO!!!")
 
[quote name='Knoell']At least the democrats are conceding some of the tax cuts, seeing as how nearly all of them opposed them all.

If it werent for republicans there wouldn't be any tax cuts to keep though.[/QUOTE]
Republicans use tax cuts as an campaign platform. Like Bush; promised tax cuts, got it done, and he spent like crazy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']you live and die by petty semantics (so you can have it both ways when called out on your bullshit) - and then throw up red herrings, long since disproven, such as you repeating that horseshit point about the HCRA.

You're so fucking pants-on-head dumb, and more importantly show such a tenacious dedication to your level of stupidity, you ought to have a radio show.

12 democrat senators is 24% of all democrat senators at the time. Now, please, go right ahead and lay all your debate chips on your vaguely worded "nearly all" and how that means you were *right* (ignoring that you would say such a vagary would allow you such a wide range of targets that being right in this instance is most certainly nothing to be proud of, like saying "it's going to rain today...or it's not. HAHAHA TOLD YOU SO!!!")[/QUOTE]

So this both ways thing goes how? I said that no democrat congressman voted for it, and I said alot of democrat congressman voted against it? is that how it went? Or did I say nearly all voted against it which is truthfully the case.
I would say your BEST shot of 24% leaves you with a 76% voting against it record.
hmmm sounds like nearly all to me. How about the other shots?
6% of just democrats in the house for 2001.
3% of democrats in 2003 in the house.
And 4% of democrats for the senate in 2003.

I think my point still stands pretty well that nearly all democrats voted against it. Aren't you glad you took the time to viciously attack me for not specificly putting exact numbers out there even though we both knew I was right. Democrat defense force to the rescue!
 
[quote name='shosh']Republicans use tax cuts as an campaign platform. Like Bush; promised tax cuts, got it done, and he spent like crazy.[/QUOTE]

I agree they did it wrong when they didn't tone down spending.

What politician is going to campaign on cuts to the budget and lower taxes though. None and thats why we need to vote in people who are fiscally responsible which is why incumbants are getting destroyed this mid-term election on both sides of the aisle.

Watch them take this as an endorsement of a particular party. Gotta love these guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='tivo'] Conversely, the small couple who make 125K each, who have worked their way up from the bottom, are going to be taxed even more if these cuts expire. They may make a lot, but their combined wealth could be very low with big debt and/or expenses.

^^ Just to clear things up.[/QUOTE]

Not quite. A couple who make $250K (and really, who the fuck cares if they "worked their way up from the bottom"? It's irrelevant.) will have a taxable income of way less than $250K. Even if you are talking about someone who has a taxable income of $250,001 will only be taxed at the new rate for the money over $250k.

Our tax rates are progressive meaning everyone is taxed the same % on the same amount of money earned.
 
The "work their way up" myth is a red herring by people on the right, who, if that was relevant at all, wouldn't be such vociferous defenders of eliminating the estate tax.
 
Ok. you wanted to go there. I'm gonna talk black/white economics all over your a$$ (jk)....

[quote name='mykevermin']Um, no. Tax revenues, historically, increase year over year. Every year.
[/Quote]

True. Tax revenues have been roughly 19.5% of GDP and have therefore increased (except during the .com bust) while individual and corporate tax rates have fluctuated (but overall declined in trend) because of ever increasing social insurance program taxes. And so, because Lauffer's curve and Hauser's law predict a tax revenue ceiling around 20% of GDP (any more and it will negatively effect GDP and then decrease tax revenues) we've had the option to decrease either individual or corporate taxes (or both) to compensate for the ever increasing social insurance taxes. People want these individual tax cuts to expire? fine, but that will mean corporate taxes cuts will/should be made in equal proportion (to prevent GDP stagnation after exceeding the ~20% magic number). I didn't think it was fair to tax some individuals more than other people or smart to tax small businesses. But the "hey, as long as the gov. isn't increasing my taxes i don't care" philosophy seems to dominate American opinion)

So in recap, there is a tax revenue ceiling at around 20% of GDP which is mainly composed of individual, corporate, and social security taxes (and possibly VAT in the future). The ratio of these taxes is arbitrary but their combined revenue is limited. This is therefore not a red/blue argument. This is an argument of sustainability. Given the current debt, future obligations, and exploding health care entitlements, we are fiscally unsustainable. Politicians may bring in VAT for a short term surplus in tax revenue (to decrease the debt) but any more than ~20% GDP tax revenue will hurt the economy, cost jobs, suppress GDP and not succeed long term in lowering the debt. We need to focus on spending cuts now and not rely on increasing taxes for "the rich" to pay for social programs.

Those are the cold hard facts. I included my opinion at the end of the first paragraph about this particular issue but the rest is unbiased fact. If you have doubts, do your own research and you will see the validity in all of this and come across the problems with VAT (basically every $ spent on VAT is a $ less for a product, service, employee, consumer, etc.)
 
[quote name='Knoell']I agree they did it wrong when they didn't tone down spending.

What politician is going to campaign on cuts to the budget and lower taxes though. None and thats why we need to vote in people who are fiscally responsible [/QUOTE]

Emphasis mine.

So, if nobody is willing to cut spending, then wouldn't the fiscally responsible candidate be from the party that is willing to not cut taxes?
 
[quote name='Quillion']Emphasis mine.

So, if nobody is willing to cut spending, then wouldn't the fiscally responsible candidate be from the party that is willing to not cut taxes?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't have to be a party for one, and two the parties are polar opposites. Republicans will lower taxes and spend, and Democrats will raise taxes and spend. You may say "well wait don't democrats pay for their spending with those increased taxes?" Absolutely not, maybe with Clinton, but not nowadays. I like my chances with the ones that will let me control more of my money, but if someone ever comes around who will cut the ridiculous spending, and cut taxes, they have my vote. I often enjoy the media going on and on about how certain tax cuts are going to cost the government money. It isn't theirs to begin with, and it is saving us money individually..
 
gravity is a theeeory. ok, you brought up the capital gains tax earlier. look at how well the real life conformed so well to the laffer curve theory.....

bg1765figure3sm.ashx
9283DF3406BDDB07BD36B0095F1EFC9C.gif

Basically, in 1981 capital gains tax rates dropped 8% and capital gains revenues increased by 50%. Then in 1986 the capital gains tax increased and the revenues plummeted. Finally in 97, the tax was reduced and revenues increased. Its practically a perfect representation.

Admittedly, the 20% magic # was an estimate from '05 and it might have increased marginally since then but there IS some tipping point where people become taxed too much and it affects their habits, hurting the economy, and decreases revenues.

But the big issue here is not so much taxes but spending. We need to get that under control and I had proposed some ideas in the "how would you fix it" thread.
 
Only solution to our budget crisis is to both cut spending and increase taxes. We're too deep in the hole to do one or the other.

Let the tax cuts expire for households making $250,000 up, maybe put some exemptions in there for small businesses who expand to help get the economy on track, keep them in place for everyone under $250K.

Keep rapidly dialing back the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut defense spending dramatically after that with a strong policy of staying out of wars of choice/pre-emptive military action etc.

Trim government waste. Obama needs to live up to his campaign promises of going toward evidence-based policies. Really studying what works, what doesn't etc. and using evidence to cut programs that don't work and fund those that do etc. etc.
 
^ Look at my post on page 1. we can't just continue increasing taxes. there is a tipping point where this will hurt the economy and decrease tax revenues. It is almost all about spending, waste, entitlements, health care, medicare, medicaid, social security etc. stop ponzi schemes. STOP SPENDING!!!!!!!!!111!!1!
 
[quote name='tivo']^ Look at my post on page 1. we can't just continue increasing taxes. there is a tipping point where this will hurt the economy and decrease tax revenues. It is almost all about spending, waste, entitlements, health care, medicare, medicaid, social security etc. stop ponzi schemes. STOP SPENDING!!!!!!!!!111!!1![/QUOTE]

"Pffft no there isn't, 90% tax on those rich bastards will take care of that!" - One of these people won't have to type this out now. :lol:
 
[quote name='tivo']^ Look at my post on page 1. we can't just continue increasing taxes. there is a tipping point where this will hurt the economy and decrease tax revenues. It is almost all about spending, waste, entitlements, health care, medicare, medicaid, social security etc. stop ponzi schemes. STOP SPENDING!!!!!!!!!111!!1![/QUOTE]

So, to disprove his broad tax theory, you focus on capital gains taxes? Show us a graph where the top marginal tax rate increases/decreases and how it affects revenue.
 
Economy was growing at record rates through most of the later half of the 20th century with tax rates in the upper brackets MUCH higher than the pre-Bush cut levels.

Letting those cuts expire will not harm economic growth.
 
I love how Knoell doesn't even try to make points anymore but he just parrots some liberal talking point that he argues against in his head.

I'm with dmaul on the history of taxes and revenue though. Taxes were high before Bush and America steamed along except for a small blip in the late 70s. Taxes got slashed and the economy is the drain. We could blame this all on the myriad of other factors or you could just look at the facts at find the simplest answer.
 
[quote name='tivo']we can't just continue increasing taxes [/QUOTE]
Whose taxes have gone up in the last decade? Anyone? Bueller?

Reagan realized his tax cuts destroyed the balance sheet of America and he raised taxes. Bush realized Reagan's increase wasn't enough and went against a pledge to also raise them because it was the responsible thing to do. He lost his job for it. Clinton saw the red ink continuing and raised taxes.

The result was, as the naysayers remember, the greatest recession in the history of carbon based life. Oh wait.
 
For anyone to base economic activity strictly on tax rates is leaving out ... well, a lot.

Anyhow, I'm cool with extending tax cuts for everyone, and even cutting further for the first 50k of income. Of course, I'd like to see a 750 billion dollar reduction in our military and overseas expenditures, so yeah. When pigs fly.
 
[quote name='Anexanhume']So, to disprove his broad tax theory, you focus on capital gains taxes? Show us a graph where the top marginal tax rate increases/decreases and how it affects revenue.[/QUOTE]

you wanted it....
tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg


it seems like they are somewhat independent and in that sense we should tax at the lower end to encourage economic growth and improve GDP as Hauser has suggested. Jelveh has critiqued this analysis, claiming it was a bunch of other factors (other taxes) that kept up tax revenue which I repeated in my post on page 1. Regardless, as I stated earlier, this should not be a red/blue debate. Instead it should be about black and red economics which shows we cannot continue with the spending. Taxes will not compensate for these expenses. And, given the chance for Americans to spend their own money and the government to spend their money for them, I would pick the former every single time. It is stupid to rely on taxes from anyone to pay off the debt and this sort of hatred/envy for the rich with increasing their taxes so as to effectively redistribute wealth/ forcibly bring them down seems just plain wrong and unfounded to me. That's it. That's the division between red and blue. The left thinks the rich can handle it and know they wont personally feel the pain while the right thinks this is deleterious to the economy and small businesses, unfair to the "rich" which could negatively affect their work habits, and perpetuates a misconception concerning the ability of the government to be fiscally responsible, which it isn't, or that we can continue these champagne social nets. we cant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also claiming that the tax cuts will add to the deficit is typical politician doublespeak. The tax cuts wont pay off the exorbitantly high social programs which add trillions to the deficit.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Of course, I'd like to see a 750 billion dollar reduction in our military and overseas expenditures, so yeah. When pigs fly.[/QUOTE]

I love how the Tea Party crowd is all "Cut government spending!" and absolutely no one on the right except for Ron Paul says "Absolutely, let's start with all the money we flush down the toilet on defense spending", and they hate him for it.
 
[quote name='tivo']it seems like they are somewhat independent...[/QUOTE]

You seem to have forgotten to mention that the cuts to the top income tax rates were followed by an increase in taxes to build up the social security trust fund and used to mask the lost revenue.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']I love how the Tea Party crowd is all "Cut government spending!" and absolutely no one on the right except for Ron Paul says "Absolutely, let's start with all the money we flush down the toilet on defense spending", and they hate him for it.[/QUOTE]

Although there are cuts to be made, defense is one of the few actual responsibilities of the federal government.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Although there are cuts to be made, defense is one of the few actual responsibilities of the federal government.[/QUOTE]I'm sure the founders had "nation-building" in mind when they stated that defense is a responsibility of the federal government.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I'm sure the founders had "nation-building" in mind when they stated that defense is a responsibility of the federal government.[/QUOTE]

If you can't find an exact quote about it in the Constitution or the Bible, then neocons figure Jesus and George Washington were cool with it.
 
[quote name='Quillion']I'm sure the founders had "nation-building" in mind when they stated that defense is a responsibility of the federal government.[/QUOTE]

Nation building is crap, especially for the dogs in the middle east. But we will see what you say about joining the Monterrey Consensus, pushing Global Poverty Act, or being a part of the soon to be proposed Global Taxes on financial markets mislabeled as “innovative financing mechanisms” by the UN. *


* Basically, if you don't know what these programs are, they are the taxing of US to offer even more aid to people around the world, effectively "nation-building" by the fed. gov. - the exact same thing you just condemned but will probably support because Obama likes them.
 
Dude, you sound like my favorite neighborhood conspiracy theorist. You're the guy that never has any money, never graduated from college, and never has a decent job but claims that you have have everything figured out.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yay for letting the majority trample on the rights of the minority![/QUOTE]

welcome to democracy
 
[quote name='Quillion']I'm sure the founders had "nation-building" in mind when they stated that defense is a responsibility of the federal government.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure the founders had global anything in mind.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Dude, you sound like my favorite neighborhood conspiracy theorist. You're the guy that never has any money, never graduated from college, and never has a decent job but claims that you have have everything figured out.[/QUOTE]

You just described every con who posts on CAG.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I'm not sure the founders had global anything in mind.[/QUOTE]

So can we stop going back to the founders "mindframe" every time you hear about a Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Dude, you sound like my favorite neighborhood conspiracy theorist. You're the guy that never has any money, never graduated from college, and never has a decent job but claims that you have have everything figured out.[/QUOTE]

:lol: Well, it doesn't sound like you've faired much better, considering your neighborhood has poor,uneducated people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top