Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Bush Tax Cuts

  1. #1
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560

    Bush Tax Cuts

    http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/artic...dvice_strategy

    I love this ending.

    "The Bush tax cuts don't just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board."

    Havakasha has been asking what did Bush do? I think he signed this whopper as well

    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

    Anyway I digress. What do YOU want to happen regarding these taxes?

    And did you hear the what the IMF said about the US? They want higher taxes and reduced spending. VAT appears to be gaining strength as does a 1% transaction tax with the dems. True blue I suppose - tax and spend.

  2. #2
    Havakasha is offline
    Werent you supporting Europe"s approach to deficit cutting over Obama's (in the immediate future he thinks we need more stimulus)? They are raising taxes and cutting spending. IMF is proposing for the US what Europe is now doing.

    The Yahoo article is very speculative. Maybe we should wait a little and see what actually happens. The writer seems like someone who supports the Bush cut and opposes its lapsing.
    An opposing point of view is out there.

    "Just a few months ago, it seemed like a safe bet that Congress would make a fix to keep the exisiting 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rate brackets to help out lower and middle-income folks. THAT BET IS NOW LOOKING IFFY".

    Well, i wonder first of all is this accurate? I quess we will have to see. Obviously i support the
    expiration of the Bush tax cuts paticularly on the higher tax bracket.
    (notice they scale up the increase which seems fair.At the higher bracket it goes back to
    39.6 versus 35%, all the others would go back up 3%)

    Some history and i know how much you love that. In 1981 Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the VERY wealthy, and lowered tha marginal tax rate rate from 70% to 50%, in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt inccreased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 yo 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6% in 1984, 1985, and in 1986 it was around 5%. Reagan ended up having to raise taxes to compensate for the budget problems and acknowleged that "trickle down economics" results were "the greatest disappointment of his presidency".

    My point of posting that is to suggest that there are tax rates that are TOO low as well as too high. Novel idea huh? People will obviously disagree about what those rates should be, but its also clear that tax rates for the wealthy were much higher in the past than what they would even be after the lapse of the Bush tax cuts.

    I read that Geitner said that the capital gains and dividend tax rate would go to 20%. Seems right to me. Remember that Buffet was shocked to find out that his secretary was taxed at a higher rate then him because most of his income is capital gains. Also remember that Buffett, Gates, and Soros and many others are in agreement that the very wealthy pay too little in taxes.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 07-08-2010 at 12:07 PM.

  3. #3
    candleman is offline
    Mentor
    candleman's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2009 Location: Outer Banks of North Carolina Posts: 1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong View Post
    http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/artic...dvice_strategy

    I love this ending.

    "The Bush tax cuts don't just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board."

    Havakasha has been asking what did Bush do? I think he signed this whopper as well

    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

    Anyway I digress. What do YOU want to happen regarding these taxes?

    And did you hear the what the IMF said about the US? They want higher taxes and reduced spending. VAT appears to be gaining strength as does a 1% transaction tax with the dems. True blue I suppose - tax and spend.
    Whomever signed the tax law that got us DOWN to less than half of us paying Federal Income Tax is a prick plain and simple.

    Whatever new tax laws are created should tax ALL of us equally....or....at least make sure that even the poorest of the poor pay something. I'm sick and tired of the free ride that tax cutting has given to SO MANY people. It's wrong. Tax cuts that left only half of us paying Federal Income Tax created an entire generation of WELFARE recipients. That's right, anybody who works and doesn't pay Federal Income Tax is living on the welfare of the rest of us that do pay those taxes.

  4. #4
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Well, the Obama regime has spoken. The tax breaks will expire. We will all be paying more taxes. Obama needs to finance his big government progams that some call '"achievements". LOL. Too funny. This is a stereotypical tax and spend regime. What a pity. I thought we were in for change.

    Change =

    MORE debt
    MORE taxes
    MORE welfare
    MORE regulation
    MORE government
    MORE waste
    MORE corruption

    But, it's all Bush's fault!!! Yeah, look at this graph and tell me it's all Bush's fault.

    http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...debt-skyrocket

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    The biggest tax cuts in history under Obama.
    I quess you forgot that huh?

    The heritage foundation is the equivalent of FOX news. Completely biased. I can show you competing charts. Yes the Bush recession put us in this mess. To deny that is to be utterly
    devoid of any honesty.


    February 12, 2009
    BIGGEST. TAX CUT. EVER.... A few weeks ago, when the House approved the economic stimulus bill without any Republican votes, David Weigel noted that he literally couldn't remember "a time when the entire Republican conference in either house voted against tax cuts."

    That's true, but let's go a little further. The compromise plan announced last night includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years. With that in mind, Steven Waldman argues, persuasively, that when the vast majority of congressional Republicans oppose the package, they'll be voting against the biggest tax cut "in history."

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others.

    Now, perhaps some new analysis will show that the tax cuts end up not quite being the largest in history by this measure or that. But it's clear they're massive.

    I'm ducking the debate on whether this is economically a good or bad -- but surely it ought to be a big story.

    True. Waldman also notes that this is also an example of a liberal Democrat delivering early on a tax cut he promised during the campaign, a pledge "few Republican thought he'd keep."

    What's more, let's also not forget that Obama's tax-cut plan in the recovery package is not only arguably bigger than previous cuts, but also better targeted. George W. Bush's tax cuts were long-term income-tax rate cuts, which amounted to a generous break for those at the top, since the wealthy pay most income taxes. Obama's tax cuts, meanwhile, are short-term refunds paid directly to working and middle class families (some of which Republicans have denounced as "welfare").

    As such, GOP lawmakers are going to reject one of the largest, if not the largest, tax cut ever proposed by a president -- which just so happens to be targeted at the working and middle class families Obama vowed to look out for.

    When the economy recovers, I suspect many on the right will argue, "Obama's policy only worked because he passed a quarter-trillion dollars in tax breaks." That will surely make them feel better. But how will those same conservatives respond when it's noted that Republicans stood up to oppose one of the biggest tax-cut plans in American history?

  6. #6
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    And because Havakasha is sooooooooooooooo thickheaded, I'll remind him once again.

    How Much Government? Parade Magazing 5/9/2010

    Seventy-five years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was eager to weave a safety net under millions of impoverished Americans who were retired and had no savings. On his left, supporters called for a massive new government program. On his right, Republicans argued that it would bankrupt the country and undermine people’s habits of thrift and self-reliance.

    Sound familiar?

    FDR, ever the master, came up with an ingenious solution: create a program in which Americans would be asked to contribute to a social savings account that government would manage on their behalf and would be there for retirement. Instead of big government, it was to be a partnership that would encourage individual thrift and responsibility. Thus was born Social Security, overwhelmingly supported in the Senate by Democrats and Republicans (77–6 on final passage) and the most popular social initiative in the country’s history.

    Where is that spirit of creativity and collaboration when we need it again? Today, many citizens are at dagger points as we argue over a question that has hung over us since the founding of our nation: How much government is good for America?

    Democrats argue—with justification—that in the elections of 2006 and especially 2008, voters sent a clear signal that they wanted more government (oh really?). Candidate Barack Obama asserted that free markets were broken and promised that Washington would ride to the rescue, saving the economy, overhauling health care, stopping global warming, and reforming K–12 education. Voters not only gave him 53% of their votes—the highest total for a Democrat in 44 years—but returned swollen Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

    Democrats can well say they had a mandate, and they insist that after throwing trillions of dollars at our problems, we are beginning to see success. The economic engines are indeed starting to rev up, and slowly—painfully so—people are finding work. So Democrats feel they will ultimately be celebrated.

    But it is equally clear that, for now, these massive efforts are scaring the dickens out of a growing number of Americans, prompting a significant backlash. Republicans now argue—with increasing justification—that we are creating more government than we need, more than we want, and certainly more than we are willing to pay for. Consider just a few statistics.

    • Public spending by federal, state, and local government was 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1950, 35% before the Great Recession, and could hit 44% this year.

    • The Tax Foundation estimates that 60% of all Americans now receive more in income benefits from government than they pay into government, and that with new policy directions, the number will grow closer to 70%.

    • The Tax Policy Center has found that while everyone is expected to pay payroll taxes, only 47% of American households now pay federal income taxes.

    • The European Union has agreed that it is dangerous for a country to allow its publicly held debt to exceed 60% of its GDP. The Congressional Budget Office says that the U.S. could hit 60% by the end of this year, and on its current course could hit 100% by 2020.

    • Meanwhile, The Economist estimates that the federal government now employs a quarter of a million people to write and enforce regulations.


    Personally, I find these trends troubling. If they continue, we will diminish both the vitality and prosperity of the nation. Government should be compassionate and yet lean. But I recognize that others who care just as much about the country’s future sharply disagree. Our challenge is whether we can put down our daggers and once again work together in a civil, creative spirit. We clearly have the means to solve our problems; what is less clear is whether we have the collective will.


    David Gergen is a professor of public service at Harvard and a senior political analyst at CNN. He serves on the board of Teach for America and has advised four Presidents.

  7. #7
    Havakasha is offline
    Tax cuts for rich under Bush which increased our debt tremendously are supposed to lapse under Obama. i hope they do sooner or later.

  8. #8
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    The biggest tax cuts in history under Obama.
    I quess you forgot that huh?

    The heritage foundation is the equivalent of FOX news. Completely biased. I can show you competing charts. Yes the Bush recession put us in this mess. To deny that is to be utterly
    devoid of any honesty.

    But posting articles from your liberal sites is fine, right?

    I have not received any tax break since Obama took office and come Jan 2011, my taxes will increase. WTF are you talking about?

    And by the way, the graph is consistent with what I have seen from the private sector. The beginning of the steep ride up begins remarkably with Obama's term.
    Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 07-22-2010 at 01:06 PM.

  9. #9
    Havakasha is offline
    I believe in lean but compassionate govt. It cant happen easily when a country's economy has collapsed as bad as ours did. Over time, if the economy grows normally we can attack the debt. Not now.

    Peter Schiff argues the recession we just had was small in comparison to whats coming. Do you agree? You seemed to be arguing differently with
    Big Ben.

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong View Post
    But posting articles from your liberal sites is fine, right?

    I have not received any tax break since Obama took office and come Jan 2011, my taxes will increase. WTF are you talking about?
    Because you missed the BIGGEST TAX CUT (or close to it) in our history doesnt mean it didnt happen. Your tax rate is going back to what it was in the early days of Bush. You protest too much.

    As i told you over and over and over again, when you can you show me heritage foundation and fox criticiziing Republicans or Bush i will listen to your
    postings. Daily kos and Huffingtonpost beat up on Obama all the time. That means those sites are more nuanced in their points of view.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 07-22-2010 at 01:09 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •