The Tax Cuts

[Westside Steve]

So what do ya wanna do?

A Keep 'em all in place.

B Keep em all in place for a period of time.

C Keep just the "middle class" cuts.

D Let em all expire because we can't afford them.

 

Just curious.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

I choose "A".

 

A lot of those over 250,000... are small business owners who went into a lot of debt and expense to

 

build a company, and they finally get to get paid back those huge expenses... and they

 

EMPLOY PEOPLE, unless taxes go way high again.

[Mr. T]

Keep them in place and reduce capital gains tax by half of where it is now.

 

I would raise the bar on the 250k as being rich to a million. 250 k is not a lot of money. Nationwide, the median home price was $174,000 before a 14.9% decline since Obammy took office.

 

If you reduce capital gains taxes you will see a faster recovery.

[Westside Steve]

Here it is.

What do ya say Heck?

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

My vote is keep them in place for people under $250,000. Although I agree with T that it should be raised perhaps to $500,000.

[VaporTrail]

Don't know enough about them. Doesn't the money need to come from somewhere? How does cutting taxes help the nation out with debt?

[Westside Steve]

Don't know enough about them. Doesn't the money need to come from somewhere? How does cutting taxes help the nation out with debt?

 

Well ya got the two schools of thought.Cut taxes and the economy rolls hence more revenue.

Or take it from those who have too much and revenue accrues.

 

I'd assume there are noteworthy economists on both sides.

I also assume that both groups are called hacks by their opposition.

 

I'm not asking for a really in depth resopnse just a general take.

Actually just curious.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I guess this is what I'm supposed to answer, right?

 

My answer would be that there's no sense in going by the old rates that Bush devised, or only subtracting the cuts for people over $250,000, as if those are our only options. He shouldn't be bound by that structure. But these are political questions, the same way "putting the rates back where they were under Clinton" is.

 

The reality is that you're going to need more revenue to close the budget gap, and we couldn't afford the Bush cuts in the first place. I'd let the ones on the richest Americans expire, though you may want to delay that while the economy putters along, even though money given to the rich isn't as useful to spur demand as money given to the middle and lower classes since the rich save a good portion of it rather than spend it. But it is money taken out of the economy (though re-spent by the government) at a time when we need more money in the economy, not less, and more demand. You're always balancing these two problems.

 

The way to a balanced budget has always been a compromise between higher taxes and lower spending, and that means higher taxes on the people who can afford it, and it means entitlement reform, and cuts in defense spending.

 

I'd also look at a temporary cut in the payroll tax. The economy isn't going anywhere, and isn't going to for a while. It needs more demand for goods, and nobody's got any money to give - credit card debt, homes underwater, health care costs, college, etc.

 

It's a pretty big nightmare with no easy solution.

 

Conservatives like to dream that you just cut taxes for wealthy people and everything takes care of itself, and they've even convinced unemployed farmers like Cal that this is how it works. Oh, and eliminate the estate tax too.

 

It's a nice scam if you can benefit from it.

[calfoxwc]

Heck, I am not an unemployed farmer.

 

I really do wish you would visit our farm sometime. I'd like to use you for a plow. LOL

 

But seriously, the idea that the rich have to fork up the money for a change to pay off the national debt...

 

and pay for entitlements, etc...

 

is as dumb as any idea libs have come up with.

 

The % of revenue for our country from "the rich" is already nearly 80-90 %, whatever the exact number was.

 

Cut defense spending? Yeah, that's what Carter and Clinton did.

 

Then you have to increase it again, after prices are higher. Cut the freakin gov.

 

Get rid of the Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy... we don't need a bijjilion depts in our gov.

 

The stimulus FAILED, the mortgage bailout FAILED, banks are STILL closing, and unemployment is STILL

 

higher and climbing in a lot of states.

 

Your idea to go after corporations and defense is so liberally inane, it's hard to believe you keep thinking you have

 

all the answers. What you have, is "moveon.org" and "media matters" and George Soros funding to undermine our country.

 

Does...not....work.

 

See the results in Nov.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party base.

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

" I am a lilly livered little geekmiester who is afraid of Steve always making me look like a lilly livered geemeister"

[Westside Steve]

Well that answer wasn't unreasonable; of course it's complicated and of course it will require pain on both sides.

 

The current administration as yet hasn't shown a desire for compromise.

 

But my plan would be extend them all for a periiod of time.When (and if) thge market rebounds you can inch the rates back up.

Still with huge majorities in the houses neither party will take that initiative.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well that answer wasn't unreasonable; of course it's complicated and of course it will require pain on both sides.

 

The current administration as yet hasn't shown a desire for compromise.

 

But my plan would be extend them all for a periiod of time.When (and if) thge market rebounds you can inch the rates back up.

Still with huge majorities in the houses neither party will take that initiative.

WSS

 

Steve, come on. The Republicans suggest a bipartisan deficit commission. Then Obama proposes a bipartisan deficit commission. Then the Republicans vote against it, including some of the same ones who suggested the very same idea. So Obama has to appoint the commission by executive order and without the approval of Congress.

 

There is no good faith effort on the part of Republicans to compromise on anything, and not just because that's their stated political strategy, but also because the party is now filled with guys like Cal who think Obama is something horrible and unamerican.

 

If you're really half the realist you think you are, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Their strategy is to give him nothing, cooperate on nothing, and at every turn. And it's worked. Republicans are certain to take back the House, might even take the Senate, and have severely limited what Obama can do politically.

 

The idea that Obama didn't want to compromise is completely off the mark. He wanted nothing more, especially at the beginning, but it soon became clear to everyone that there was no help coming from the other side and that they'd have to do everything on party line votes.

 

Republicans will happily admit this to you, and in person, because that was the whole idea.

[calfoxwc]

Heck,

 

It is indisputable - Obamao threw bipartisanship out the freakin 28th story window with a cement block tied to it.

 

He is the most divisive and arrogant and corrupt president in the history of our country...except for Wilson, who was

 

even worse.

 

And the Dems who loudly applauded in Congress when Obamao dissed the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT for

 

not letting him tell them how to vote... also threw bipartisanship out that same freakin window.

 

Dream on, Heck. But do stick around after the election.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I love the Woodrow Wilson stuff. If there's any better evidence that you can take something no one was thinking, that no one was talking about, and then quickly make it something everyone at the bottom of the totem pole thinks and believes and obsesses about if you want to. Even Woodrow Wilson.

 

The right-wing's message delivery devices really are a thing to behold. You put it in a shitty book of questionable scholarship, relentlessly pimp that book on Rush, Levin, Beck, and Drudge, and presto - someone actually pretends to hate Woodrow Wilson all of a sudden.

 

You could make guys like Cal go from not caring at all to taking to the streets with a sign reads "Henry David Thoreau!" with a red line through it in a matter of weeks, if that's what you wanted. Just pick someone at random.

 

"Henry David Thoreau = socialism = Obama!!"

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

"dammit, first Steve kicks my ass, then Cal kicks my ass... "

[heckofajobbrownie]

There's nothing quite like the smugness of a fool.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, come on. The Republicans suggest a bipartisan deficit commission. Then Obama proposes a bipartisan deficit commission. Then the Republicans vote against it, including some of the same ones who suggested the very same idea. So Obama has to appoint the commission by executive order and without the approval of Congress.

 

There is no good faith effort on the part of Republicans to compromise on anything, and not just because that's their stated political strategy, but also because the party is now filled with guys like Cal who think Obama is something horrible and unamerican.

 

If you're really half the realist you think you are, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Their strategy is to give him nothing, cooperate on nothing, and at every turn. And it's worked. Republicans are certain to take back the House, might even take the Senate, and have severely limited what Obama can do politically.

 

The idea that Obama didn't want to compromise is completely off the mark. He wanted nothing more, especially at the beginning, but it soon became clear to everyone that there was no help coming from the other side and that they'd have to do everything on party line votes.

 

Republicans will happily admit this to you, and in person, because that was the whole idea.

 

 

I'm commenting on more than one level Heck.

What I tthink will need to be done (which might share components with your ideas) and what I think political organizations will accept.

No I don't think any party with a huge majority will want to do any real compromise. Mostly because they don't need to and they scare off the base.

Same with the party with no power. Why bend over? Their base won't like that either.

I think the health care bill was a great example.

Here's another. The French (who some love to wish we were more like) are having a shit fit that they might have to work a couple more years.

That's what happens when you pass out more entitlments than you can pay for no matter what the reason might be.

 

So I doubt either side will offer any real (note real) compromise until tjhere's divided government again.

 

No (or very few) politician willingly goes down because he fought the good fight.

Oh there might be some idealogues out ther and Obama may be one but the 99% of party hacks aren't gonna put up with giving up a sweet job.

 

That's reality IMO.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Rioting over having to work to 62 when your country's finances are in ruin is a rather comical response indeed. But that's the French.

 

And yes, there are some aspects of French life that are wonderful, and superior to ours, IMO.

[heckofajobbrownie]

By the way, the CBO recently looked at eleven different policy proposals to stimulate the economy. Guess which one came in last?

 

Yup. Extending the Bush tax cuts on high end earners.

 

So what are you really concerned about as you tout the Bush tax cuts on high end earners? You seem to think they're great for stimulating the economy. That's certainly the Republican Party line, right? It's not that they're doing the bidding for rich people - no, no. It's because what happens to be good for rich people is also good for middle and lower class people, too! They've not only got Cal convinced of it, they got you too.

 

So if you see a study that says they're not the best option for stimulating the economy, and you know extension has serious and negative budgetary implications, why are you for them?

 

Well, because what you really hate is when people hate on Bush. Therefore, what he did was great, and all of the people trying to undo it are partisan hacks.

 

It's certainly not about the economics of it, is it?

 

[Mr. T]

The CBO only does what they are told to do. When they become an independent from those in power then they may carry a little more clout.

 

As a note, whenever we have had a democratic controled government I have always had to pay extra in taxes.

 

Are you ready for the marriage tax penalty? How many married couples will have to pay more in TAXES just on that. The marriage tax penalty crosses over all incomes and not just those self employed who own small businesses that gross more than 250K.

 

How many more Taxes will we have to pay under the Obamao regime? Why in the hell cant these bums stop spending money we dont have.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Your taxes went down under Obama, T.

 

And the marriage penalty isn't coming back.

[Westside Steve]

By the way, the CBO recently looked at eleven different policy proposals to stimulate the economy. Guess which one came in last?

 

Yup. Extending the Bush tax cuts on high end earners.

 

But they were on the list of economic growth plans correct?

What were the opther 10?

 

So what are you really concerned about as you tout the Bush tax cuts on high end earners? You seem to think they're great for stimulating the economy. That's certainly the Republican Party line, right? It's not that they're doing the bidding for rich people - no, no. It's because what happens to be good for rich people is also good for middle and lower class people, too! They've not only got Cal convinced of it, they got you too.

 

So do you actually buy into that class warfare bit Heck, or is it just a campaign tack?

 

So if you see a study that says they're not the best option for stimulating the economy, and you know extension has serious and negative budgetary implications, why are you for them?

 

Well, because what you really hate is when people hate on Bush. Therefore, what he did was great, and all of the people trying to undo it are partisan hacks.

 

It's certainly not about the economics of it, is it?

 

Is it?

Or are both parties playing to the base?

Especially for the next few days...

WSS

[calfoxwc]

As soon as the Bush tax cuts expire, the marriage penalty comes back.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba627

[Mr. T]

Your taxes went down under Obama, T.

 

Bullshit.... I lost $XX,000 and had to pay taxes in 2009

 

And the marriage penalty isn't coming back.

 

And More Bullshit

 

Check the post above and you will see not only will the Rich of $250K or more will be taxed to death, but the Majority of TaXeS coming out of this will be from Small Business Owners who employ more than half of all Americans. Along with Families getting screwed once again under a Progressive President and a bunch of his minions like Pelosi and Reid, who are about as smart as a box of rocks.

[heckofajobbrownie]

T, I'm assuming you don't make over $250,000, so your federal taxes went down this year. It was in the stimulus bill.

 

And the marriage penalty isn't coming back. Those laws will be re-upped after the election.

[longhorn]

How about extend the tax cuts for people earning over 250K when they are the owners of small businesses showing a profit over the prior two years, have a minimum of 10 fulltime employees receiving benefits and then mandating a yearly growth in net profit of 10% over the prior year and a growth of at least 10% in the # of full time employees with benfits over the prior year. For the rest over $250K, the tax cuts are repealed. We don't needs tons of small businesses that are not profiting or growing, we need good, growning ssmall businesses.

 

 

Then include a provision for an automatic full scall IRS review of any elected officials whose income grows by 25% or more in a single year or 50% during his or her term in office.

[Mr. T]

T, I'm assuming you don't make over $250,000, so your federal taxes went down this year. It was in the stimulus bill.

 

No I lost money this year. Now I do own my own business and 250k is not a lot of money, so why do you want to rape small business owners in this piss poor obama economy?

 

Another correction, Comparing the stimulus bill and claiming the Bush tax cuts are not the same.

 

And the marriage penalty isn't coming back. Those laws will be re-upped after the election.

 

I'm not holding my breath until the elections are over, and we will have to remember that there will be a bunch of lame ducks who wont give a shit about marriage tax penalty or anything else as long as they can say they did something about the deficit they will be happy. maybe they should place a freeze on their spending habits like the rest of America has done in this Obama Recession

/quote]

[calfoxwc]

That marriage penalty WILL come back, unless the Reps take enough seats to take control.

 

"The Dems will do great things after the election" sounds extremely dumb, since the Dems have controlled

 

Congress plenty long enough to have extended those Bush tax cuts...

 

Nov 2. The Day Americans made the good ship America put their course back on track, so they would

 

stay on their AMERICAN destination.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Democrats are not for the marriage penalty. It's not something they're for. They don't want it back. It was a flaw in the tax code that everyone wanted fixed, and they fixed it. It's not basically eliminated anyway.

 

It's not going to come back.

 

As for "raping small business owners", you don't seem to understand that small businesses have received a number of tax cuts as well.

 

If you lost money, how did you pay more in tax than you did when Bush was in office? Please explain.