I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefitte dthe rich?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich.

Certainly there's the well worn argument that tax cuts benefit "mostly" the rich, which may be interpreted as "tax cuts for the rich" in a class warfare context. I think we'd all agree that the top 10% pay a good share of the taxes already.

But, not the same thing.

The issue we should be discussing is this. As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending. Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?

Aside from some fantasy, I've yet to hear a real proposal that makes much sense.

-spence

Spence -

"I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich."

I have a million times. We all know it's not true.

"As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending."

You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?

"Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?"

That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.

[Jim in CT]

Likwid -

"Nobody who makes $250k pays that much in taxes, no matter how hard you spin it."

As RIJIMMY said, that's so absurd it's hard to describe.

Just for ha-ha's, here is a link to a CNN website that says that Pres Bush paid over $220,000 in federal income taxes in 2007.

Bush earned $719,000 in 2007 - CNN

Is that just "spin"?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Just for ha-ha's, here is a link to a CNN website that says that Pres Bush paid over $220,000 in federal income taxes in 2007.

Bush earned $719,000 in 2007 - CNN

Is that just "spin"?

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

Likwid, you said no one making that much pays that much in taxes. You never said anything about scrutinized people. Your changing your arguments afetr I refute them.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by likwid

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

All I've read of your posts are you scutinizing others posts with one sentence questions and no answers or opinions with substance. Why not provide some substance instead of one line questions?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Piscator

All I've read of your posts are you scutinizing others posts with one sentence questions and no answers or opinions with substance. Why not provide some substance instead of one line questions?

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

Fair question Paul S. I watch Foxnews, CNN, and MSNBC regularly, and I've heard that claim a zillion times. I don't work in a TV studio, so I don't have access to years' worth of video footage. I googled it, and found a ton of sites that said "despite the fact that liberals claim the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, here is the proof that's not true...". Alas, I couldn't find a site that listed all of the people who have told that lie.

So my opinion (I can't prove it with physical evidence) is that the liberals invented that lie to further their cause. If you say you never heard anyone say that, I can't do anything about it.

Here are some of these sites I described. None listed specific liberals who said that lie, but all address it in general...

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich
Why do so many liberals say that Bush's tax cuts only helped the wealthy? - Yahoo! Answers
Aren't liberals ignoring facts when claiming that Bush tax cuts helped the rich? - Yahoo! Answers
Tax cuts "for the rich" - Living Lake Country
American Thinker: Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts
Letting The Bush Tax Cuts Expire Will Only Hurt The Rich, Right? | Right Wing News
The Absurd Report Income Taxes: Liberal vs. Present
Did The Bush Tax Cuts Favor The Wealthy | Media | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

from the last link...

""It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy," said Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report. "The accusation does not match the reality."

There are a ton of sites out there that dispel the lie that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich. It stands to reason that something motivated all those people to do the research...i.e., there were those that claimed that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy.

As I said, I can't get youtube clips. But I've heard a million people say it, and it always bothered me. Take it or leave it, your choice.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

In my humble opinion, if yuo deny that the Democrats and the media have been making that claim for years, you have no credibility. Because it was everywhere, until the cuts were about to expire, causing 100 percent of us to see tax increases, and thus that myth was exposed as the lie it was.

If you say I have no credibility, I'll have to try and soldier on somehow...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In my humble opinion, if yuo deny that the Democrats and the media have been making that claim for years, you have no credibility. Because it was everywhere, until the cuts were about to expire, causing 100 percent of us to see tax increases, and thus that myth was exposed as the lie it was.

If you say I have no credibility, I'll have to try and soldier on somehow...

The pres. said it correctly hundred of times. If you can't back up your original statement you have no credibility. Seems your the only one lying in this post.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

oooops...I think he got ya Jim...clearly only most single democrats and Barney Frank has said this....

was that classy??

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

oooops...I think he got ya Jim...clearly only most single democrats and Barney Frank has said this....

was that classy??

for you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have a million times. We all know it's not true.

Then I'd expect you to be posting a million quotes. To day I've not seen you post one.

You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?

No, I'm simply looking at the balance sheet for this fiscal year. The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues at a time we're running a large deficit. It's basic math right?

Now certainly when earnings are up it's possible to see an uptick in net revenues with lower rates, but there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated.

You could also argue that tax incentives for lower brackets are much more likely to be pushed back into the economy than those at the top who will just park it long-term. It's not like we're talking about a massive restructuring of the tax code that could cause a shift in how people invest, this is just an increase back to about where things were 10 years ago when I seem to remember the economy doing quite well. Besides, businesses (bigger) have tons of cash right now...a lack of money at the top isn't the problem with the economy.

Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. Any potential gain from stimulative effects has to be balanced against the increasing costs of servicing that debt.

I think the fair question for Obama would be, if you're going to argue the rich need to pay more because we can't afford it, why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?

That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.

Aside from some making election cycle hay, I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs. Most of the GOP (elected, not punditry) are just as glued to the fat they can suck for their own interests as the Democrats.

It's going to be fun watching the incoming Republicans play with the old guard.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that...

"there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated."

You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress.

"those at the top who will just park it long-term."

Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump.

"why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?"

Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend...

" I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs."

When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns.

Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him.

Good, fair, probing questions.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;808490]Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

this is because they already have the money spent that they were planning on getting when the tax cuts expire, so in their minds they are "losing money" the same way that they raced to spend the supposed budget surplus projections at the end of the Clinton admin. before the surplus ever even materialized.....

they need to be cut off like addicts

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that...

See addendum in previous post.

You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress.

Sure they will. Household savings are way up and I'd think that a lot of this is in cash or safe low yield investments. It might as well be in the mattress.

Obviously people can't spend if they don't have any money, but what they do with it and the time of the benefits isn't an easy equation.

Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump.

The point I made above is that big business already has a lot of cash but isn't expanding for other reasons. If it's uncertainly or just a more realistic picture of our economic picture I'm not sure...probably a factor of both.

Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend...

The agenda isn't to spend, it's to provide beneficial services in a manner deemed to be most effective. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to like to spend while at the same time they argue over what's most effective and or constitutionally appropriate.

Don't see a lot of difference between the two in practice.

When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns.

Seniors have a reasonable expectation of necessary benefits from a system they paid into. Just simply stating you must cut isn't a solution to the problem, which is really the point. How do you apply conservative thinking to transform the system rather than just bitch about how good things would be if liberal ideas never existed.

Ultimately, it's probably more a matter of good management over ideology.

Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him.

Agree you have to play hardball with the unions as they are very effective in using centralized power.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. -spence

A lot of people in the Oval Office, and in Congress, would disagree. I don't see how you can disagree, but they do...

[Jim in CT]

Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.

Look On a mathematical basis I didn't say your marginal % decrease was wrong. By using the % you are misleading most people.

Fact is you make it seem like the US Gov't is doing big favors to those in the low bracket. We all know the tax code favors those with wealth.

I was at a tax seminar in Sept where this tax attorney from Chicago
coud not believe George Steinbrenner and this oil baron from TX died in 2010 and their estates paid ZERO TAX! BTW estate tax in '11 reaches 55% on top end.

I lost 2 blue collar uncles this year and they also paid ZERO ESTATE TAX(and would have paid zero in '09 and '11)

I guess that is the same benefit huh?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by stcroixman

We all know the tax code favors those with wealth.

?

How can you say that? When something like 35% of the population pays nothing, and others pay 10% federal tax, and those at the top pay 35%, how does that favor the rich?

I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe the wealthiest SHOULD of course pay more, and in our current system, they do. If our system gets any more progressive, we become an awful lot like socialist europe, and all of those countries are facing collapse.

I guess we just disagree, and I apologize for throwing my career choice in yoru face, that was uncalled for.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How can you say that? When something like 35% of the population pays nothing, and others pay 10% federal tax, and those at the top pay 35%, how does that favor the rich?

I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe the wealthiest SHOULD of course pay more, and in our current system, they do. If our system gets any more progressive, we become an awful lot like socialist europe, and all of those countries are facing collapse.

I guess we just disagree, and I apologize for throwing my career choice in yoru face, that was uncalled for.

But then there is a drop off, right? Like the ubber rich (I forget the number, 100's of millions?) who make a majority of their money as hedge fund manager, who pay capital gains rather than income on a lot if it. I heard Robert Riech talking about the drop off.

Are we also still WELL below the % (I think, I'm not a CPA or Actuary) of tax from pre-Clinton? (including the Regan years that had a higher tax % even without the Bush tax 'cuts'?) I thought I remember hearing in the same piece that in the 50's the tax % was over 50% for upper income, so it seems we've come a long way to benefit everyone, including the upper 1% of the population, no?