Should we let the Bush Tax Cuts expire?
 

any opinions?

Letting people keep their own money is never a good idea.

Keep in mind - everyone who is making $250,000 per year or less gets a substantial tax break.

Barry needs that money to pay for another stimulus

By extending them, Business's will know the money they have can be invested without going to pay for another stimulus package. Then they will feel better about hiring, expanding and investing

So? And those who do not pay taxes at all get a lot too.

What is worse in your mind. Getting to keep more of your money or having your money taken from you to be given to someone who does not pay taxes?

It's terrible timing for raising taxes, they should wait at least a year till the economy recovers... :2 cents:

The federal government is a huge money sink. The less money they get........ the less damage they can do. Starve the beast.

Oh, they don't need money for that anymore. The Fed is monetizing the debt :Oh crap

Goddammit! You made me spit some of my adult beverage onto my keyboard! Good thing I keep a reserve of keyboards!

http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/a...30-10_opt2.jpg


Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context

More needs to be done to put the numbers involved in extending the Bush tax cuts in context, so consider this: There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.

The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done. An indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts is, well, indefinite. It will cost $3.9 trillion in the first 10 years. And then it will cost more than that in the second 10 years. Call that number Y. And then it will cost more than Y in the third 10 years. And so on and on into eternity. Comparatively, the stimulus bill is a tiny fraction of that. The bank bailouts, which were passed by George W. Bush and the Democrats in 2006, will end up costing the government only $66 billion. The health-care bill improves the deficit outlook.

Republicans and tea party candidates are both running campaigns based around concern for the deficit. But both, to my knowledge, support the single-largest increase in the deficit that anyone of either party has proposed in memory.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...on_extens.html

You neglect to mention the whole cutting spending part of the equation, but carry on :)

I guess he didn't hear about the 1.3 trillion dollar budget deficit either?

Tax cuts "cost" nothing.

There is an idiot segment of the population that believes it, however

very true
ds

Of course they should expire. They're just going back to what was being paid under the Clinton era, and the economy was booming then. So this notion that it's going to cripple the recovery effort is ridiculous, if not simply wrong.

For example, ExxonMobil was doing just fine during Clinton, and will continue to do just fine if the tax cuts expire. Does anyone really believe that is someone like ExxonMobil gets to keep their $15 billion/year tax cut, it's going to help rejuvenate the American economy, or something? If anything, that money will go to things like greasing the palms of Russian politicians, with hopes of obtaining exploration & drilling rights in more parts of Siberia.

Fuck guys like Exxon, take the money from them, and give it back to small entrepreneurs. You know, the small businesses who are going to come up with the next Google, or an awesome solar panel, or a new bio-fuel, or whatever. They're going to advance the US economy far more than guys like Exxon will.

I think they should keep the tax cuts, after all, they have already done such wonderful things for our economy.

and when the jobs dont come back? because they arent coming back.

Is that based off the theory that lower personal taxes sparks more spending, investing, thus they collect more in taxes? Because that isn't what has been happening with the current tax cuts, didn't happen in the 80's either when we had the lowest personal tax rate in modern history.

When our Country collects $2.7 trillion a year in all taxes, and we are $13 trillion in debt, and before everyone bitched about big gov (and before wars, Katrina, oil spills, etc) it cost us $800b a year to run this bucket.

I don't care who you are or what math class you took... you can lower the rate to the floor, make it a flat tax, do whatever - lower isn't going to spark $10 trillion in "taxed" spending when they only collect $2.7 trillion at the rate bitched at now. If you cut the rate in half, and everyone spend twice as much, we aren't collecting anything extra to pay off crap.

A reduction in Gov/spending would stop the growth from happening, it does nothing for the damage already done.

Incorrect, as usual.
No country has EVER taxed itself our of a recession nor does government spending grow an economy.
Taxes don't create jobs.
Taxes don't create jobs.
Taxes don't create jobs.

With that idiot logic, let's go with the income tax rates of 1900 when the economy was booming and the government ran just fine

tax or no tax, in the end, we all pay for everything... nothing is free (except porn)

the real question is, do we want the government as middleman and taking or money and giving it to institution A or should we just give the money to institution A because they provide something valuable that we desire

also regarding taxes, consider that the government collects part of our income and takes this to pay soldiers salaries... which in turn are taxed by the government... compare it to a rake in poker... and if there is only a fixed amount of money at the table, the dealer will eventually have raked it all

the house always wins...We the People lose

Dear idiot, exxon was not effected bu the Bush tax cuts nor will they be effected by their expiration.


Amazing that no understanding of the topic doesn't keep you from posting.

Son, since it costs nothing, all taxes should be abolished.... :2 cents:

You're right, idiot.
Are you smart enough to realize that the united states had zero income tax for most of it's existence?
And got along just fine

No one replies to my logic. I see what you did there.

Yes, and the rising price of gold has destroyed our economy as well...

What logic?

This YouTube guy is now an expert on the economy? There is so much fail in this video I do not even know where to start.

I thought the price of gold went up because Glenn Beck screamed at the TV that it would. The sheep...err, his viewers.. bought it, so he made lots of cash. No?

Yeah Soros is a huge sheep..... The entire world does not watch Glenn Beck. :1orglaugh

Yeah, the Glen Beck Show determines policy for central banks around the world as well as sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds and people like me who really can't stand the guy.

Where do you get your information from?

Huffington Post. :upsidedow

Wow, I have neg rep for trolling idiots in a political thread. LMAO

I'm sure your idiocy transcends topics.
So.....

Don't mind 12clicks, he thinks that most of it's existence means the 85 years the US went without income taxes, that is, the least prosperous part of the United State's history.

85 years isn't most of its existence - 12clicks just spouting things again with no real actual knowledge of ANYTHING. LOL LOL

For him the time when there was no taxes is the greatest time because it was a time when he would have been able to practice racism to the full extent he wishes he could.

Most people refer to them as the dark ages of the United States when you weren't a super power but I guess to 12clicks the US 'got along just fine.'

Don't make things up 12clicks.

So, the reason the US was not a superpower during the first 80 some odd years of existence is because there were no taxes? Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Gold did not go up .... The US$ went down ...
So for Americans that have gold, they are making a gain ( minus the lost of ROI ) :2 cents:

I know this... :)

Incorrect on what? Great argument as usual.

I never said a Country taxed itself out of a recession. But a Country has taxed the people to pay for its debts before, including ours.

I never said gov spending grow's the eco. You seem to be mistaken, I actually said it would stop the growth in the Gov from happening but wouldn't pay off our debts.

Who said taxes created jobs? At that... we've had much higher taxes before with much lower unemployment numbers, so your theory is just off - and I still didn't say shit about that.

Raise the rate, collect less. Pretend that's not the case :1orglaugh

We've had way higher taxes before and they collected a much higher percentage of the money. And they didn't collect less with the "higher" rates under Clinton - which is what we are returning to.

I think you may want to read up on some history.

Sorry clown. My dog knows more about economics than you do.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reag***t.htm

Oh look, the governments own website calls you a liar.

Now run along kid, once again you type about that which you know nothing

I'm always amazed at some people's ability to feed themselves with such limited intelligence.


""" The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases."""

Maybe so, however you know nothing.



That displays a totally different point, direction and view point of what I said. If you're going to call someone a liar at least attempt to get the argument right before you make yourself look stupid.

No run along and pretend that you have any type of clue about anything as usual.

Shut the fuck up and go away, silly liar.
Hahahaha

It must piss you of when you betters shut you down..




p.s. Regan's stupid as tax policy spiked our deficits larger than it had ever been in history... But hey, cutting taxes makes the rich spend so much more the deficits doesn't go up - no wait...

Listen idiot... spending may go up (for the top 1%), but if they don't collect enough money to pay the bills, it makes no difference.

Now get back to high school and learn some basic math.

"""Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes"""


There, that should help you're incredibly small mind.:1orglaugh

As a share of GDP, sure... first 4 years, sure and previous increases too? Maybe, of course that many years probably like 50 things factor in..... anyway what happened the 4 years after that? Well now, we know that story.

Speaking of small minds... you haven't made a valid argument yet.