2
   

The Debate About Ending Or Not The Bush Tax Cuts.

 
 
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 07:58 pm
The Congress reconvenes today (Sept 13) for a very short time before they head off to campaign. Something like 14 days of work in what I call the pre-lame duck session before November 2nd. Election day.
After that, we will have the lame-duck session until new members of Congress take office in January.
The Bush era tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the calendar year. There is much debate about whether they should be extended and whether or not the cuts should be limited to exclude some taxpayers.
Lots of economic conjecturing.
Any comments?

 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 08:17 pm
@realjohnboy,
Saw this on Politico today:

Democrats Challenge Nancy Pelosi on Taxes

Seems a few are maybe wanting to keep things as they are for the short term?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 08:17 pm
@realjohnboy,
The existing structural deficit problem clearly shows that the overall tax rate is too low. I'd be in favor of removing all the W. Bush tax cuts and go back to the Clinton rate or the Reagan rate. Starting by letting these cuts end on schedule would be a good move. Extending the cuts for low income would be ok for continued economic stimulus, but eventually, we all have to pay our share.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 06:00 am
@engineer,
Seems like a sensible view. However it don't sound as good as saying "tax cuts" in campaigns. Kind of like the class president in high school saying, "and longer recesses and lunch breaks."

In related news:

Bill to aid small business advances in Senate

engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:33 am
@revelette,
This is the exact problem with the current Tea Party movement. There doesn't seem to be a basic understanding that taxes are critical to building infrastructure and setting up the basics for having a functioning society that can provide basic building blocks for economic success. You have to have public education, good roads and bridges, a decent military, a solid framework of business rules and regulations including enforcement, police, fire, military, etc. You can look at a few wasteful projects representing 0.1% of the budget and declare that there is waste in government, but the reality is that we are not taking in enough taxes to meet our basic financial obligations. We've gone from a surplus 10 years ago to a whopper deficit, not just a deficit due to emergency stimulus spending, but a structural deficit that will persist regardless of how the economy does. This is the legacy of the Bush tax cuts and we have to let these cuts expire to start righting the ship.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  4  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:38 am
@realjohnboy,
The Bush tax cuts should expire.

Additionally, we should have more tax brackets beyond the $375,000 point. This article really convinced me:

Excerpt (but read the whole thing):

James Surowiecki wrote:
At the moment, we have a system of tax brackets well suited to nineteenth-century New Zealand. Our system sets the top bracket at three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, with a tax rate of thirty-five per cent. (People in the second-highest bracket, starting at a hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars for individuals, pay thirty-three per cent.) This means that someone making two hundred thousand dollars a year and someone making two hundred million dollars a year pay at similar tax rates. LeBron James and LeBron James’s dentist: same difference.

This makes no sense—there’s a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates. (The most obvious bracket to add would be a higher rate at a million dollars a year, but there’s no reason to stop there.) This would make the system fairer, since it would reflect the real stratification among high-income earners. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue.


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/08/16/100816ta_talk_surowiecki
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:07 pm
I'm listening to the news and discussions surrounding this issue and one thing is driving me crazy!!

Republicans are arguing that tax cuts create jobs, increasing taxes will hurt small businesses and prevent them from creating jobs.

Why isn't anyone pointing out that the tax cuts ARE currently in affect, and have been since 2001 / 2003 and they ARE NOT creating jobs? I haven't heard anyone point that out.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:19 pm
@squinney,
good point, wonder where the leftist media is?
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:48 pm
@realjohnboy,
Peter Orszag says we have no choice but to let the tax cuts expire in two more years.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11204

Click on Orszag's picture on the website to see the interview.

The alternate view is that this is a bad time to allow taxes to rise. It sounds like the rock and the hard place scenario.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 07:13 pm
Ah-HA! Keith Olberman just addressed my point on his show. Sounds like the numbers support allowing the tax cuts to expire for the rich and continue for the middle class. Not sure if that segment is available yet to link to on msnbc, but will check and see.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Debate About Ending Or Not The Bush Tax Cuts.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/15/2019 at 04:00:34