let all of the tax cuts excpire
 

just heard Gibbs on the news state that Obama was "opposed to the government borrowing 700 billion" to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper wage earners....

It's about $700 billion over 10 years. That's for the top 2 percent; of earners I believe...(what's wrong with the percent sign?). Obama can spend that in one trip overseas...

but what about the other 98 percent ?

the total cost of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is how much the government will have to "borrow"...according to Obama's logic, if we renew all of the Bush tax rates....so we can either pay it now or pay it later(or our children) with interest....

I think the 98 percent are greedy...they can live without a muffler...PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE

don't renew the Bush tax rates...I don't want Obama borrowing any more money!!!!

sorry Jimmy

See, right away he thinks the answer is borrowing more to get out of a jam rather then finding ways to cut and save the money to pay for it.

By rescinding the tax cuts we are getting a tax increase, which will show
up as an increased payroll holding deduction in Jan when we can least afford it as
Christmas gift bills are due.

With the economy teetering on the abyss, this is no time to raise
any one's taxes rather then re-introduce the class warfare card.

I don't think the politicians still got the message from the election
where the American people voted for smaller gov, reducing the deficit,
and less taxes.

no, the voters were just angry and irrational and scared and really had no idea what they were voting for...thus the huge screw up...oh, and if Obama had just articulately explained the values of his policies better, everyone would have fallen right into line, or in some cases..on their knees.....:uhuh:

Speak for yourself. I know exactly what I was voting for.................

You (and Obama) are assuming that as tax rates change, nothing else changes.

Hogwash. The fact is, when Bush cut tax rates for everyone, tax revenues (meaning tax dollars collected) went up. Why? Because if done smartly, tax cuts can be stimulative.

If increasing tax rates always meant more tax revenue collected, why are all the European nations on the brink of bankruptcy? Whay are states like CT and Mass (with high tax rates) so broke? Because higher tax rates can cause the economy to retract.

I believe in paying my fair share.

You (incorrcetly in my opinion) think the solution to our problem is to raise taxes. In my opinion, we need to cut spending. As the brilliant Gov Christie from New Jersey says "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem".

Ah. So if voters disagree with liberals, it necessarily means they are being irrational. i know that's what Obama thinks, he said so. It's a very elitist thing to think.

As Obama was so fond of saying after he got sworn in, "elections have consequences". Funny how he isn't saying that anymore.

Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.

I look at it as more of an issue with the spending we've had over the last 6 years.

If you cut out the fat you need less tax revenue. I don’t think anyone can argue (Dem, Ind, Rep) that there is too much money wasted in Government. More tax revenue adds fuel to that fire. It doesn’t make people look at the real problems and doesn’t make them look at areas where there is too much waste. It enables status quo and usually more spending.

A very small example: The town I live in had a question a few years ago on a School budget issue and the School committee said “If we do not get more revenue from the town, teachers will lose jobs. “ Citizens said no new taxes and basically told the school committee to figure it out. Miraculously, the school system was able to figure it out. They decided to stagger the start times of schools so that not all schools opened and closed at the same time everyday. This meant a reduction in 2/3 the amount of school buses need. (one bus could handle 3 routes vs 1 route b/c kids didn’t need to all be picked up and dropped off at school at the same time). Anyway, this savings (near $1 million) was able to cover the shortfall and no teachers were laid off. If taxes were increased, this solution would not have happened and taxes would have been raised.

Raising taxes is the lazy and easy way out in my opinion, we need to look at all the waste and make everything lean again. When that happens, we will not need as much tax revenue.

I’m not an account or economist, I’m a sales guy so what do I know anyway. :)

I'm no economics expert, either...

"we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper... "

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed. It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected. The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

I get it Jim, just playing with the current Obama logic a bit :stir:...if we can't afford the money that would be collected from the top 2 percent and will have to borrow to replace it.... then we certainly can't afford and will have to borrow what we won't be collecting from the 98 percent if we extend their tax rates.....maybe "it's the spending stupid"......

I thought that part of the American Revolution was fought over taxation, amongest other things. Once the Bush taxes go away we will be taxed and taxed again. Both the state and feds want to increase the tax on gasoline, capital gaines will almost double. Starting in 2011 if you sell your home you will pay 3.8 per cent of the sale price to the feds.

Interesting to note that your president wants to curtail wage increases to federal employees for two years. I agree.

Your president wants to exclude military personal. I agree. Married military are on welfare and food stamps now.

Your president also is excluding congressmen. I do not agree they are part of the federal government. They are eating caviar

Those who are on social have been cut off from a 5.8 percent cost of living increase for two years because of your president. The average social check is eleven hundred and some change closer to 1200 so we will round it to 1200. That is 1200 x 12 months = 14,400 x 5.8 = 835.20 of which the average social retiree is out per year.

And your president feels that congress should be able to get a pay raise. There is something wrong with this.

As usual, your logic is impeccable (notice I say as usual, not always--wouldn't want PaulS to attack my syntax--though he might object to usual as well--uh, oh, getting long winded and probably boring here--but he most likely won't read this since he doesn't read most of my posts).

But . . . the Obama administration, I think, believes that allowing the middle class portion of Bush's tax cut to continue will stimulate the economy because they will spend the money, thus producing a $3.8 trillion ($380 billion/yr) influx into the economy, and that the same cannot be said for the "rich" since they won't spend it, since they don't need it. The administration says that the rich have had the tax break for 6? or 7? years and it is not producing jobs (although they're bragging that jobs are being produced, just not as fast as . . . well . . . as fast as they were under Bush before the "crash.") It would be nit-picking, I guess, to say that the middle class cuts were also in effect as well all that time and we're still not producing those jobs.

But let us leave aside the obvious and digress into theory. If the middle class will spend their tax cut, wouldn't it be even better to not only maintain their current rate, but to cut it even more--maybe get as close to zero, if not actually zero, as possible? Thus creating even more stimulative spending and creating an economic boom that could help to not only eliminate the deficit, but decrease and eventually eliminate the debt. And if that stimulation would not be quite enough, we could just tax the rich even more than just letting their current rates expire. We could go back to taxing them progressively at higher and higher levels after incremental amounts as high as 99 percent after X million in income. After all, they have too much, they don't need it, they horde it, such wealth is obscene, and, more importantly, we outnumber them and there is nothing they can do about it.

The minor problem that congress has this benevolent need to give money away rather than reducing debt--is minor.

I'm not too sure on the exact numbers, but I wonder if fighting two wars had anything to do with it. As the principle driving force to go to war, those costs are on him.

Are you saying that if we had not spent the money on the wars, the banking meltdown would not have been a spending problem? I suppose, then, you could say that if it had not been for the TARP the wars would not have been a spending problem. The wars did come first, and the economy was booming while the war expenditures were in place. Wars happen and they have to be payed for. Argument on whether the wars are "legitimate" is another matter, and one that you won't find agreement on. Now, under this new administration, we not only have the two wars, we have massive stimulus much greater than the TARP (which is supposedly being paid back and not as expensive as initially).

Bingo! In NJ Christie IS cutting Spending Across The Board and no one is exempt.

Every NJ resident has to tighten their belt no matter who they are and he won't take no for an answer.

It would take a President of his charcter to straighten out our economy, imho.

But that would mean sacrafice by ALL Americans to give up their Nanny Addiction
and unfortunately I don't see that many that would be willing to do so.

When capital gains expires prepare for a stock market crash as people dump stocks before 1/1

Newest unemployment report up to 9.8 percent and there
are STILL those who want the Bush tax cuts recinded. :huh:

Most don't want them completely rescinded. The Dems want to put an income limit on who gets the cuts and the Republicans want the cuts extended across the board.

With the incoming shift of power, I'd be willing to bet that the cuts get extended for everyone and the Dems require some of their other agenda items, like extending Unemployment, get piggybacked into the extension.

I think your right JD. Don't count on borrowed money to extend unemployment though.

I'm not sure I see the connection...

Hmmm, see attached chart.

Wow, you were a hair away from blaming George Bush until you snapped back to your senses. I'd bring up that whole notion of the "ownership society" but I promised myself I wouldn't go there.

-spence

looks like it JD. Anyone watch Obama today. I really cant stand that guy. He has to once again slam the Republicans while discussing the compromise. Two weeks ago he admits he messed up, now hes back on his high horse pointing fingers.
Pelosi and dems once again with the "it will cost us" "why should we GIVE the wealthy" WTF???? GIVE??????????? ITS THEIR MONEY!! NOT YOURS!!!

What is the logic behind the 200K indiviudal vs 250K family? Some deep analysis or some off the cuff remark Obama threw out that is now some benchmark? So, according to the Democrats - a single person making 180K a year pays less percentage than a couple making 275K and 3 kids? WTF!
Extend the cuts, fund them by making cuts in the government. DEEP cuts.

I agree. The figure doesn't make any sense. I could get on board with putting the limit at $1M. None of this will get paid for without the government being forced into it. Two wars, a garbage economy, sky-rocketing social services... cuts won't happen until the entire country is in the same (or worse) economic state as California and the feds hands are forced.

I agree JD, as usual the Govt. always waits till there is a last minute
crisis before they act. There is no forward looking plan like a 5 and 10 year business plan.

With all the so called intellectual elites, their only plan is to do enough in their term to get re-elected.

I like what ScottW said, they don't get it, "it's the SPENDING stupid."

We all seem to accept as a given that the tax rate will increase incrementally as you make more money. What bothers me about this whole discussion that everyone seems to believe there is some logic in the incremental rate increases stopping at 200/250G. The Republicans have done a great job as selling this as a middle class/small business issue. Only 2.9% of the country are over the 250G mark. There should be increases in the rate as your income goes up with maybe a cap at 50% at the level of 20 million. It will not significantly change the deficit picture, which must be addressed by spending cuts and elimination of subsidized tax breaks, but it will bring a level of fairness to the process.
The biggest thing that will effect all of us and was left out of the compromise announced by the President was any extension of the Build American Bond program. Over 20% of state and local government debt issued in the last year took advantage of this program. If it goes away, as the Republican insist, state and local governments are going to be hard pressed to raise the money they need any any break we get from the Feds will not cover the state and local tax increases.

moshulu, you believe the Feds should tax up to 50 percent??? and then add on state tax!
So wealthy people work for 40 percent of the money they earn? Thats insane. 40 cents on every dollar? makes me puke in this country.

How about an alternate plan
Tomorrow:
Eliminate the National Foundation for the Arts - if art cant make $ on its own, not the govt problem
Cut foreign aid across the board by 30%. Period
Institute 401ks for ALL federal employees, give them a 10% match, close the pensions
Thats a start. Get er done!

I just threw that number out there as an example I do not care really where you set it as long as the incremental rate increases at levels above 250.
I think there is a lot of cutting that should be done as well but the main thing we need to do is simplify the tax code by going to a flat or three tier tax structure with no deductions.

Just as an FYI, they have already done that. Only those government workers Grandfathered in will get pensions. New employees for the government go into a 401k style plan.

not sure of the match....don't think its as high as 10% though.

does that include congress?

I knew that was going to be your next statement...When I posted it I almost included that as a disclaimer :hihi:

50 percent tax on all income(earned and investment) above $ 267,492.87 while you are alive(this is REAL compromise..half for you...half for me) and 100 percent on all assets at the time of death, once you are dead you no longer need whatever you've accumulated and since the government prints the money it IS actually THEIRS and the government is better suited to decided what should happen to it...you probably gained it illegally or at someone elses's expense anyway, particularly if you are "rich"