jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (185 posts)

Extending Bush tax cuts failed in the Senate:

  1. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that increasing taxes on the upper economic class will stifle jobs, while others say that the nation simply can't afford the tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm not an economist, so I don't know what to believe. What do you guys think will happen?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know, but I wish Obama would "man up" and call the GOP's bluff and allow all the tax cuts to expire.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "I wish Obama would... allow all the tax cuts to expire."
        Obama doesn't have to do anything. Congress must do something to stop the cuts from expiring: they must pass a law that lets them continue.

        If they do pass that law (doubtful, in the current climate of partisanship*), Obama can veto it.


        *I'm beginning to think the word 'bipartisan' means 'doubly partisan,' as a biplane has double the wings.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Habee - here's the ethical issue as Teddy Roosevelt saw it. BTW, Teddy was a republican.

      "At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth......

      "No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar?s worth of service rendered?not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, or within his own country, pays not a farthing of taxto the General Government ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, &c., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings. "

        Thomas Jefferson

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Doug, that's a great quote. From which of Jefferson's works does it come?

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?do … cyclopedia

            It's indexed by topic alphabetically - this quote is under Tariff

            The original source is from correspondence to -
            To General Kosciusko. Washington ed. v, 586.
            (M. 1811)

    3. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Here is my take.

      First, people who make 250K a year are NOT rich! They are financially independent, but really live little different than the rest of us. The same can be said for those whose NET WORTH is less than 250K. The point is that all this arguing about tax cuts for the rich is simply Congress' way of keeping the electorate divided.

      So why haven't the "UBER" rich created jobs with their tax cuts? The answer is, they have, just not here. Why? NAFTA and UNIONS.

      If we extend the so called cuts for the uber rich will they start creating jobs? No. Why? Becuause of NAFTA, UNIONS and now Healthcare. This country has lost it's manufacturing base. Employers are in the business of making money. When a country puts up too many roadblocks to profit, they will take their business elsewhere.

  2. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    Well, letting the rich enjoy these cuts all these years sure hasn't produced any jobs, has it?

    We need the money.  They have it.  The purpose of giving the cuts was based on the old idea that they will use it to do good things. They have not, and they will not.  Eliminate their handout.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting concept, here.  We want someone's money.  They won't give it to us.  Take it anyway.

      We will define how money should be used instead of the owner, and if they do not agree why then take their money to do with as WE like.

      The rich only pay multiples of their share as it is; we want more.  It isn't enough that they already pay far more per person than others or that they already pay far more per person as a percentage of their earnings.  Take more anyway and call it a handout elimination to assuage our conscience.

      Sorry, PC, but when the rich already pay more in taxes than most people's total income it is hard to reconcile it with the concept of a handout.  A handout is generally considered as charity; the rich give it (albeit often through force) while the rest of us take it.

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No - we gave them a tax cut on the theory that it would benefit the nation.

        It didn't.

        Time to take it back.

        Sorry, but the rich STOLE this money from the middle class. It is time for us to take it back.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Outside of a handful that literally stole the money from others, the rich have generally earned their income from their own effort.  It doesn't belong to the middle class or anyone else except the rich person that earned it. 

          To claim a right somehow to the earnings of someone else is theft, and that is what we have done to the rich for decades; use the fruits of their labor to build our country and supply our poor (with luxury cell phones, yet!)

          The tax cut you refer to merely brought the tax burden of the rich more in line with the same amount the middle class pays without ever coming close to equalizing them.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "The rich have generally earned their income from their own effort."

            Correct: from their own successful efforts to create every imaginable tax loophole from themselves. There has been a massive redistribution of income and wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich during the past 30 years since Reagan. Income tax rates are the lowest in modern history and the tax code is riddled with special interest loopholes.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              How much of that redistribution has come about as people find they can live off of welfare and other charity so they don't work?  No way of knowing, of course, but when we have multiple generations living off the rich that are willing to work and improve their lot, I have to wonder.

              And no, their income does not come primarily from exploiting loopholes.  The loopholes merely begin to bring their tax burden down to the same as yours or mine, not to anything less.  There are exceptions, of course, but most rich pay far more taxes than I earn in total; loopholes and all they still pay far more than their share.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                If the present situation continues, it will eventually come to a point where all of the money is in the hands of a few people.  Raw, unregulated capitalism will always have this end result.  The children of the ultra rich, their children, and so on down thorough the generations, do not have to work or be productive citizens at all.

                They live off of the labor of others because their parents and even great-great grand parents earned exorbitant amounts of money, many illegally as we know.  While others who work hard are penalized by being born into a poor family.

                We are heading more and more into a situation which mimics the royalty of those countries we came here to escape.  There is no escaping the need for some socialist programs in order to make sure children do not suffer needlessly in this crazy world.

                If a few people had all of the food, would you have a different outlook?  Money is food today, there is no getting around it.  Would you be okay with everyone starving because they couldn't afford to buy food?  Even though the rich could not eat it all?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you exaggerate.  Consider that the richest man in the country was virtually forced, by popular opinion, into philanthropic actions.  Nor will the rich ever have all the food; riots will prevent that.

                  They certainly will control a great deal, and you're right - that is the nature of capitalism.  It is certainly not perfect, but it is the best we've seen anywhere in the world.  A very few nations have a better standard of living and most of that comes from unusual natural resources. 

                  I think one of the problems is that high standard of living; we have decided somehow that everyone needs what were luxuries only a few decades ago just to survive and that the rich shall provide it.

                  This has nothing to do, however, with actual necessities.  Overall, food, housing and clothing is provided one way or another to very nearly everyone that wants it.  It may take a little time to clear the paperwork and all, but it is available.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "the tax code is riddled with special interest loopholes."

              The tax code written by Charles Rangel.

              Just like Obama said, we are in charge now democrats have to ride in the back of the bus.

          2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
            JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            somehow i think that you have lived in a country that didn't have to pay taxes. you talk about this as though we are bad because our gov't runs on taxes. noone likes taxes but we all know how it is and it's "NEVER" going to go away.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "you talk about this as though we are bad because our gov't runs on taxes."

              No, the government isn't bad because it runs on taxes, it is bad because of what it does with the money.

        2. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          As I said, I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be, but why was unemployment lower under Bush?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            At what point?  This graph may give some insight as to what Obama inherited.  Notice Clinton's section!


            http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/ho … ation-and/

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              According to the unemployment graph in your link, W's and Clinton's data are almost identical. When it came to job creation, Clinton was far superior, especially after he got a Republican Congress! lol. New jobs were created by Bush from 2005-2009, when he had a Democratic Congress. If you noticed, Obama's job creation data was all below zero, according to the graph you provided.

              Maybe the info from the charts suggests that our government functions best when one party has the WH and the opposing party has Congress? I guess we can hope so!

              1. OpinionDuck profile image60
                OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The point that the chart doesn't make was it was during the Clinton presidency is when all the bad stuff was setup. It didn't fall under he left office, and then we has 911, and the dot com bust.

                This last decade was just abominable from the standpoint of Congress and Wars.

                The end of 2006 till September of 2008 was just two years of presidential and party campaigning where Congress was not doing their job, they were trying to get their party in control and their president as well in 2008.

                They were not looking at taking care of the country as evidenced by the total failure of the economy, And now two years later the economy is still crippled.

      2. Moonchild60 profile image83
        Moonchild60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They pay more because they can afford more.  There is something disgustingly immoral about expecting those with less to do more and those with more to just oh, do their fair share.  How much disposable income do you think these people need?  As I have said before, I don't mind paying more if it eases the burden (that I sure as hell am not feeling) on the middle classes.  What these top 2, 10 or even 20% pay in taxes without tax cuts, I promise you, they do not miss it.  Stop acting like it is stealing, Republicans are constantly waving the flag, fine back that up by really helping support your country and fellow countrymen.  Period.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      pc - you're the type of person that would literally rob food from me if I had it and you didn't.  How dare you.  And you refer to 'they' as though you didn't get a tax cut as well.  We all got it.  Let us all keep it.  I don't know about you, but the tax cut I got (having less money taken out of my paycheck) certainly benefited me.  And I am the nation.  1/300,000,000th of it.

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What the Dems wanted to do was let us keep it.

        But greedy Republicans don't want that.

        Again, you misunderstand the concept of progessive taxation.  Those who are struggling - which is almost all of us now - are given tax relief.

        There is no reason to keep giving relief to the rich. The only rationale is that they would use the money to create jobs - they have not.  Handouts to the rich mystery end.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image61
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Pc - I do understand well the concept of progressive taxation.  I also agree with it to a point.  What I disagree with is the idea that I should keep my money while someone else should not.  It's simply a matter of principle.  Republicans want you to keep it as well.  They want everyone to keep it.  For some reason you have an axe to grind with wealthy people.  They are not all greedy, nor are they all bad, stealing at every turn to increase their own wealth.  Government has no right to 'give relief' to some and not others based on what government thinks those people will do with their own money.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And this only happened in 2001, 2003-- in the midst of a war, and prescription drug benefits,none of it paid for!
            WE are paying the bill now...but you want to keep giving them more more more more......none  of it paid for!
            We will borrow money from China so Beckles can have more than the 35 mil he already makes.
            It's mind-bogglingly idiotic and perverse.   hey! just like Beckels himself!!

            But, oh no---those unemployment checks are welfare and must end.

            Those education benefits must go. After all--let's go back to the old days when only the rich could eat, get an education and keep their families warm.


            Hail to the Monarchy....the American Corporate Elite!

    3. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The economic recovery will be based on increased consumption. When we talk about a 'growing economy', we are talking about  people buying  more stuff, which creates jobs for the people who make and sell stuff. Stuff like food and housing and clothes. The estimate of the CBO is that a tax break for the top 2% will have very little stimulative effect because the top 2% are not spending that money or investing in any way that creates jobs.  When those taxes are distributed as benefits - unemployment or medical or food stamps, ALL that money goes into the economy as consumption and that has a far greater economic benefit to the country. That's the economics.

      Morality is a personal matter. If we slash benefits by the formula of conservatives, unemployment and food stamps and any housing assistance will be eliminated. There are ten applicants for every job offered (on average). Cut their lifeline and we are talking about tent cities and soup kitchens for millions. The idea that the rich should not pay more in taxes than the poor, will create a class of poverty in America we have not seen since the Great Depression. I consider that to be immoral - as did Teddy Roosevelt & Thomas Jefferson.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        At every point:

        The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[55] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed.[56] And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years.[57]

        Under Bush, unemployment never rose above 7.6%. It's now 9.8%. Average unemployment under Bush and Clinton was 5.2%. Under Obama, the average is 9.43%.

        http://www.openmarket.org/2010/10/25/un … -and-reid/

    4. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Eliminate their handout."

      Once again you show the true colors of a liberal. Money does not originate in Washington D.C., Obama is not writing checks and giving it to rich people. The money that the wealthy have is their own and the only people looking for a handout are those who have never and will never remove themselves from the government teat.

      As Dennis Miller said.

      "We want to help the helpless not the clueless!"

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Let's try a mind experiment.  Imagine for a moment that there are no tax collections, at all, anywhere for anything.  All federal, state and local taxes are not collected.  To whom does the money belong?  Isn't money a measure of one's productivity whether through manual toil, intellectual endeavor or financial risk?  Isn't money and therefore property and wealth, a product of rational actions undertaken by individuals?

        Now collect taxes.  From whom is the money taken?  Who takes the money?  To whom is that money given? 

        Isn't poverty, therefore, a product of one's own actions and decisions- including self-destructive actions and in-actions as well as poor decisions and in-decisions.  When poverty is the outcome of events over which the individual has no control isn't that a cause for moral action on the part of his fellows, family, friends, church, community?  When does it become justifiable to confiscate the proceeds of my personal, moral, wise, industrious actions to benefit someone who refused to use their own abilities wisely?  Isn't it incumbent upon me to act morally regarding those who are genuinely unable to provide for themselves?  When is it appropriate to force someone to do that which another deems to be his moral duty?  Doesn't duress negate any moral component of such action?

        It is in the philosophy of liberalism that the fault lies.  It is the most basic and fundamental understanding of action, reason, people and things that divides liberal from conservative.  That is why it is no use talking to liberals.  There is no shared universe of discourse and therefore no understanding possible.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Isn't poverty, therefore, a product of one's own actions and decisions- including self-destructive actions and in-actions as well as poor decisions and in-decisions."
          It can be. It can also be a result of getting sicker or more injured (through no fault of one's own!) than one's health care package covers.
          It can also be the result of being defrauded (by, say, a Bernie Madoff-type guy).

          And on the other side of the coin, wealth can be a product of one's own actions and decisions. It can also be the product of inheritance and privilege, that is, utterly unearned. There are plenty of rich folks who were born on 3rd base. They didn't get to 3rd base by hitting a triple. Did they earn their wealth by the sweat of their brow? Are they entitled to their wealth because their father or grandfather earned it?

          And then there's the case of the relatively-wealthy-but-not-quite-rich. They might have become so through their own industry and discipline, or possibly they became so because they were able to start out in life with a good education and no debt because of a relatively privileged upbringing. That is, they may have hit a single, but the batter after them also hit a single, and so on. And that's how they got to 3rd base. (The baseball analogy breaks down a bit, since the folks who got the guy to our metaphorical 3rd base actually 'went to bat' before the guy we're talking about in the real world, but there we are.)

          So, inherited wealth? Starting from a position of privilege? Does the person who enjoys one or both of those conditions also benefit from having 'earned' his wealth with 'no help or handouts' from anyone?

          There seems to be this idea that anyone who is wealthy has earned all of his wealth by the sweat of his brow, and hasn't had any assistance from anyone, along with the idea that anyone who is poor deserves to be poor because they must necessarily be an undisciplined, lazy slob who expects others to look after his needs.

          No doubt there are some poor folks who are poor because of their own poor choices, and some rich folks who are rich because of the sweat of their own brows. I know personally at least one person in both categories.

          But the far greater share is made of of folks who are wealthy or not as a result of a combination of factors, including their own industry (or lack thereof), their own good (or bad) choices, a privileged (or underprivileged) upbringing, connections (or none) in business, and random good (or bad) fortune.

          Let's not pretend that all poor people deserve to be poor, or that all rich people deserve to be rich, shall we?

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ooooh--Good one!

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yep! As Thomas Aquinas said, "Seldom affirm. Never deny. Always distinguish."

          2. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Let's not pretend that all poor people deserve to be poor, or that all rich people deserve to be rich, shall we?"

            Jeff - you can care that in stone.

          3. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How does one determine "deserves?"  If I own property and choose to give it to my children why do I not "deserve" to dispose of that property as I see fit, since it is, after all, mine.  From where does the "state" derive the power to take from me based on what another decides is "fair" or "deserved" and award it to someone who did nothing to produce it or "deserve" it.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Unless you don't believe we should have a military to protect ourselves we should just keep all of our money.  No roads, no schools, no military, no country.  Or we could all just build our own roads, power dams, water systems, etc .  Frankly Scarlett, I think I'll build a dam!

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                When we discuss the functions of government it is not those functions that benefit every citizen and require resources beyond those available even to the wealthiest, such as the interstate highway system or the fire department, that are troubling.  It is not the necessity of a society to defend itself and its members from violence and violation from without or within.  It is not the military or the police. 

                When we discuss the functions of government and fall back on ideas of "fair" and "deserved" it is because we are seeking to take property from one citizen and award it to someone else who did not own it in the first place, did nothing for it or did not exercise sufficient effort of their own to produce its equivalent.  We are discussing stripping one citizen of the right to his property not as a necessity to preserve his liberty, his life or the overwhelming majority of his remaining property  but to give it to another citizen based on someone's notion of "fairness" or "justice" or "deserving-ness."  Someone's notions whose sole claim to that property is the exercise of power to TAKE from one and give to another at the point of a gun - real or implied.  That sounds like theft, not service and government is supposed to be the servant not the master or the thief.

            2. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What makes it yours?

              Ownership is a human concept.  We decide as a community what things you can and cannot own.

              Additionally, the community provides numerous things to you - including the concept of ownership.  Without the rest of us, you own nothing.

              In exchange, we demand things from you, including taxes.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So the meaning of everything derives from the communities definition of that thing. So slavery is only wrong when the community decides it is wrong.  The status of women as property is only wrong when the community decides it is wrong.  All things derive from the definitions of the community.  So, if the community decides that killing and eating the rich is a good, than it is good.

                This is precisely the concern the Founding Fathers had regarding democracy.  When we subject all moral ideas to majority vote how does freedom survive.  Perhaps all of us who make less, own less, work less should organize and force all those who make more, own more and work more to give all their "surplus" to us.

                Isn't confiscating the proceeds of another's labor through the power of majority rule another name for slavery.  I wonder if, since the November mid-term elections, you are so willing to abide by the decisions of all of us.  Aren't all of us saying through those outcomes that you are taking too much of OUR property?  But then again we are all foolish automatons and need the guidance of wise liberals in the appropriate disposal of our property.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This seems to be the main disagreement here - some actually do feel that any money the rich have actually belongs to "the people" and must be spent as "the people" desire.  Private ownership of any but tiny amounts is not to be permitted and must be removed from its rightful owners and put into the public coffers.

        This has the double benefit of not only supporting the huge non-contributing mass of people (whether they actually need that support or not) and of getting the politician stealing the money re-elected.

  3. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    I agree Pcunix. It was a "thank you", a "high-five" from Bush/Cheney to their base. Nothing more. No need of it, and only bad came out of it.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lmc - with respect, if that were true then only those who voted for them would have received the tax cut.  There's nothing wrong with a "thank you" now and then.  It's what I want from my government, which I support financially.

  4. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    Habee, both seem evident to me.  I don't know of any poor with a stable of employees (out of a very few small employers still trying to just hang on). 

    I also know the govt. cannot afford a tax break to anyone at all; on the contrary the government will spend more than any possible tax increase.  Were the total GDP confiscated it would not be enough to assure the politicians re-election and they would demand more.

    Until our leaders learn fiscal control (not likely!) taking more money from the rightful owners will do good at all.

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Rightful owners..

      No, the rich are not "rightful owners" of a tax break.

      You have the whole idea upside down. It's not that the rich are asked to pay more than their fair share - it's that those who cannot are given breaks.

      You also take the typical 'government is out of control' line.  It isn't. We want the things we want and it takes taxes to pay for them. Of course their will always be some waste and corruption, but those are minuscule elements.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The rich don't own their "tax breaks", but they own their income.  Until we take it away by force.

        Of course we take more (not "ask" - TAKE) more than their share.  Their share is the same as yours; whatever they get back in benefits.  They get the same roads, army, infrastructure, etc.  The middle and poor class gets all the handouts as well.

        Using your tax break theory, why don't we just tax at 100% rate, then give a "break" back down to only 80%? 

        If you can't afford the things you want, then you can't have them.  When the country decides that the poor with too many kids to support and an unwillingness to work or educate themselves some "needs" a cell phone and therefore the rich must provide it they have crossed any humanitarian line and are merely stealing from the rich.  The "needs" of the poor and middle class have lost contact with what is a need and what is a luxury while demanding that the rich pay for anything they want.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          the same can be said for education, no?  Why not make the poor pay for their own education?  The rich shouldn't have to contribute to poor folks enlightenment. 

          And are you suggesting the poor have as much influence upon the politicians as the rich?  Or that the ultra wealthy do not spend money making sure politicians pass legislation which benefits them more than the less fortunate?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My own rationalization is that an educated population is necessary for the continuation of the country; call it a part of the infrastructure.

            Of course the ultra rich have more influence; if they didn't there is little doubt that the politicians would confiscate all that they have as well as any possibility of earning more.

            It is somewhat amazing to me that our free enterprise system that has worked so well (compare US standard of living to other countries of any size) has degenerated to simply confiscating any amount of money we want from anyone that has any without giving anything back in return.

            There is also the fact that if the government takes much more from me I will have little or no reason to be a productive citizen - rather I would be better off joining the masses that demand someone else pay for both their needs and wants.

        2. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I guess that depends on what you mean by "handouts."

          The Forest Service routinely sells land to logging, oil, and mining companies for less than the cost it spent surveying it.

          The Department of Agriculture spends billions every year on subsidies that mostly go to the largest farmers, allowing them to drive smaller farmers - both here and abroad - out of business by selling corn, soy, and other crops for less than the cost of production.

          The Department of Defense is now notorious for awarding government contracts to companies like Halliburton that proceeded to do faulty or incomplete work. For example, a shoddily completed electrical contract (cost: $80 million) given to Halliburton subsidiary KBR (the same subsidiary, by the way, that covered up the gang rape of one of its employees by fellow employees) resulted in the electrocution deaths of 18 soldiers in Iraq.

          Speaking of businesses connected to George W. Bush, much of Bush's fortune was amassed through eminent domain - the government taking land from one person and giving it to another. He used eminent domain to get his hands on 200 acres for a stadium and entertainment complex for the Texas Rangers. Part of the deal was that the Rangers would get the right to buy the stadium from the city for $60 million, despite the fact that it cost taxpayers more than 3 times that to build.

          I could go on for hundreds of pages here. (Some have.) The rich have converted the US government into an anti-Robin Hood - an entity that takes money from the poor and middle classes and gives it to the rich. Remember, more than 60% of US corporations pay no federal taxes at all, and any rich person worth his salt knows how to move his money around to minimize taxes - for example, Buffett taking advantage of the 15% rate on capital gains to pay an average tax rate of 17%.

          We liberals are just saying that the country is in trouble and it's long past time for them to give back.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You have given good reasons for smaller less intrusive government.

            Although that probably wasn't your goal.

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Anarchist tendencies over here, remember? I oppose subsidies and corporate welfare and think the main role of government in the economy should be protecting citizens and the environment against the worst abuses of corporations, and otherwise pretty much letting corporations be corporations and government be government. Instead, thanks to corporate lobbying power, the "revolving door," and other forms of corruption, the government is frequently complicit in corporate abuses.

              In an ideal world we wouldn't be throwing billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayer money into corporate hands via stupid wars, stupid ag policy, stupid conservation policy, and stupid sports teams inthe first place and I might be more sanguine about tax cuts that benefit only the super rich, but this isn't an ideal world, so I consider it the height of indecency that the top 1% of American society should demand not only that the poor and middle class (mostly the middle classes, truthfully) should continue funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into their pockets every year, but ALSO extend a tax cut that did no obvious good to anybody BUT the top 1% while ensuring that the rest of us will be in debt to the Chinese for decades.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "In an ideal world we wouldn't be throwing billions upon billions of dollars of taxpayer money into corporate hands via stupid wars, stupid ag policy, stupid conservation policy, and stupid sports teams inthe first place"

                So I'm assuming you were against the 787 Billion stimulus bill?

                1. kerryg profile image87
                  kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "In an ideal world" is kind of the key part of that sentence. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have needed it in the first place because the government - at the behest of Wall Street lobbyists - wouldn't have deregulated areas that needed to be regulated and regulated areas that didn't.

                  In this world, I thought it was poorly apportioned, for the most part, but at least it was spent on things like infrastructure that theoretically benefit everyone instead of just the top 1%. I was considerably more annoyed about TARP.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "but at least it was spent on things like infrastructure that theoretically benefit everyone instead of just the top 1%."

                    Well, you did say "theoretically".

                    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38903

                    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report … ized-Labor

                    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124942875620406143.html

                2. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That went to American citizens. Normal everyday people....and 60% was....drum roll....Tax Cuts!!!!!

                  JUST what you are fighting for now!


                  Just went to the wrong people huh? Up to one quarter mil though...none too shabby.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No it didn't.

              2. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Bravo!

          2. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Excellent post, and right on the money.

            And they take SO MUCH...SOOOO MUCH!!!

            Yet, $290.00 a week for people whose jobs were lost by out-sourcing, so these same multi-millionaires could reap bigger profits, is just "too much to ask for". It's enough to make you sick. And SURE makes you angry!

    2. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      wilderness - I agree with you.  Spending more than I have on credit doesn't entitle me to take someone else's to pay for my bills (sugar daddys excepted).  My government needs to stop giving money to foreign countries, paying for their needs and expecting more money from me to pay for their debt.  Their debt is not my debt.  The only debt I accept is that which pays for infrastructure, government salaries, defense, education, and some social programs such as Medicare for the elderly who may not have income to provide for themselves.  There may be other needs I have missed but surely this government of ours is out of control in many ways.  They have taken money from me long enough and have proven to be poor stewards.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You have listed the object of government.  Unfortunately, the liberals of the country will insist that anything anyone wants (fine housing, car to drive, cell phone, TV and Cable, etc) are also the object of the government.

        Humanitarianism is fine and necessary from a moral standpoint, but the line was crossed long ago when the poor began to demand (and get) luxuries that I cannot afford while working.  To soak the rich, or anyone else, to provide them is unethical in the extreme.

        This country does not operate on socialistic principles (although it comes closer every day); it is a free enterprise system and that is what has made it what it is today.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I guess you  that someone getting $290 per week in unemployment is doing it for the "fine housing, car to drive, cell phone, TV and Cable, etc".

          Seniors need need Medicare because the invisible  hand of the market gave them the finger. Under the old system - pre-Medicare, insurance was too expensive because old people tend to have expensive medical problems so they were a bad risk. SO we have socialized medicine for seniors and it's very popular.

          Social Security is - socialism - and it's very popular. If you are going to run for office on the platform of eliminating f Social Security, I suggest you hire private security. Old people will beat you to death with their canes.

          When seniors figure out that anti-socialistic conservatism is after THEM, it will be the stake through the heart of the GOP. The electoral base of conservatism in America is the economic target of conservatism in America and it's the elderly who will be the victims of conservatism.

          Be afraid - be very afraid of people who denounce socialism. If you are over 50, be assured - it's YOUR benefits they are talking about.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this
            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              from your citation -

              "However, 2009 tax collections, at 15% of GDP, were the lowest level of the past 50 years and 4.5 percentage points lower than Hauser's Law suggests."

              The article clearly suggests that revenues need to go up by, off the top of my head, 700 billion per year. Thanks for making my point.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No, spending needs to decrease by one trillion.

          2. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Be afraid - be very afraid of people who denounce socialism."

            It is so refreshing to finally see one of you admit to being socialists, the little secret wasn't that well hidden.

            We knew FDR and LBJ were socialists.

            That very popular social security you talk about is only popular because seniors have been paying into it their entire lives and want it back.

            Its their money, no, its whoever is working today's money, thier money was spent long ago. We are just paying it to keep it going so the next generation of suckers can pay us off.

            Can you say Ponzi scheme?

  5. profile image0
    Nelle Hoxieposted 6 years ago

    If we have to make a choice between giving the rich tax cuts and the unemployed a little help. I vote with the unemployed.

    I know that the money we give them will help families and local economies, because they have no choice but to spend it. If the unemployed stop buying groceries, gas and necessities, a lot of other people will lose their jobs.

    As Pcunix says, the rich have done nothing for this country. They've invested in the stock market, which has been run by a bunch of thieves. They have not built sustainable companies with good paying jobs, that treat people well.

    Of course, I'd throw in health insurance as well. So what do I know.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image87
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    politics as usual. it's misleading what the Rep. say and what they do.
    extending tax cuts above 250,000 for the most wealthy is a tax bonus that goes into their personal pockets, investments. they would already receive tax cuts for money made up to 250,000, but they want more.
    they have plenty of places to tuck that money away. it is not the money that creates jobs.

    what will most likely happen is an extension across the board for a couple/few years with unemployment being extended. that money goes back into the economy immediately.
    tax cuts will help the businesses that actually hire.

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What actually helps business is people able to buy what they produce.

      Henry Ford knew that, which is why he paid his workers well.

      Tax breaks for business can't create jobs if there is  no demand from consumers, consumers cannot demand if they cannot pay.

      The greedy rich have turned everything upside down.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, heaven forbid if somebody has the audacity to be successful, they will forever be tarnished as "greedy"....

  7. rebekahELLE profile image87
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    oh I agree, that's why unemployment will be extended otherwise you have millions of people who lose their homes and cause businesses to struggle even more.

  8. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    The "trickle down" economics theory doesn't work in our present situation.  When the large companies outsource so many jobs because of the higher profits gained by these actions, they have no reason to change their policies.

    If these tax breaks for the wealthy work so well, then why hasn't our economy shown such?  It's not like it hasn't been tried enough over the last few repub administrations.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The "trickle down" economics theory doesn't work."

      There; fixed it for you.

      "If these tax breaks for the wealthy work so well, then why hasn't our economy shown such?"
      There's no good connection between tax rates and economic expansion. The 50s and 60s had tax rates in the 90% range for the highest earners, and by all accounts, economic times were pretty good back then.

      Now, the top earners pay only about 35%, and we're just now coming out of a recession that started after the last round of big ol' tax cuts.

      I'm nit saying that the tax cuts caused the late recession, mind, but rather that there is no connection between high taxes and recession, despite what the water boys for the wealthy would have us believe.

  9. OpinionDuck profile image60
    OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago

    Everyone seems to be OK with the Personal Income Tax System, and then they start discussing the tax cuts or tax raises.

    This is a red herring that sidetracks the real issue.

    That issue is that the Personal Income Tax is unfair, discriminatory, extremely invasive of personal privacy in the guise of making sure we all pay our taxes. It also shifts the focus away from the fact that government should rely of spending cuts, and reducing their bloated and very expensive "work" force. None of these items are reflected in the GDP.

    A National Sales Taxes that would entirely replace the Personal Income Tax system would be fairer, totally less privacy intrusive, and the revenue would increase from that of the income tax system. The revenue would be obtained in real time and not require waiting a quarter, or a year to get the revenue. The IRS could be reduced, and so would the Internal Revenue Code that applies to individuals.

    The size of the government including its workforce has continued to increase even after 911.

  10. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Back to the original topic...I kind of like Schumer's idea to keep the tax cuts only for those making under a million a year. This seems like a good compromise to me. Republicans argue that tax increases would hurt small businesses and hiring. How many small businesses net over $1 million a year?? Unfortunately, Schumer's idea failed, too.

    I think the Dems who voted with the Repubs were all blue dogs, except maybe for Feingold. Isn't he a liberal?

    So what do you think BO will do? If there's a compromise, like say extending all the tax cuts for a couple of years, can the POTUS veto it? But if he does, won't the middle class lose their tax cuts, too? I'M GLAD I AIN'T THE PREZ!!!!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "How many small businesses net over $1 million a year??"

      A small business can have up to 500 employees, so quite a few "small businesses" net over 1 Million a year.

      My father started a business in 1980, at the height of the oil boom in the 80's he had 25 employees, that company netted well over a million a year.

      He sold his interest in the company to his partner in 1986 who still runs the business today, 13 of those 25 employees retired from the company, a plan my father put in place.

      Without the incentives Ronald Reagan offered to business in the 80's none of that would have been possible, only private industry will get us out of this economy and only after they know the water is safe to swim in.

      The "sharks" are leaving soon and the waters will be safe.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image61
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jim - you have a great understanding of how government and business works.  Most people just live day to day without a plan and want what they either haven't earned or what they simply can't have for any number of reasons.  They look to people who have earned what they have and become envious.  What about me?  What about me?

        I still don't get why many are looking at this as a tax break or a gift to the rich.  Everyone gets to keep more of their own money.  What in the world is wrong with this idea?  Why should someone else support me if I am capable of supporting myself?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It really is sad that more people don't understand that government is not your friend.

          Drive by any government building and notice the size of it, realize that 20% of federal employees are making more than 100,000 thousand a year (according to the Bureau of Labor statistics) and ask yourself what are they doing to that deserves that kind of pay.

          In business if you spend more than what you bring in you go out of business.

          Government does not have that problem, they have a continuous source of money.

          The American taxpayer.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Where did you get that statistic? I cannot find it.

            Even if it is accurate, so what?  The salaries of the highest-paid federal employees don't even come close to the compensation of the highest-paid private sector employees.  Are you also concerned about huge corporations that raid pensions while paying their CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses?

            Besides, like someone above said, according to conservative conventional wisdom, $250,000 isn't a high salary, so $100,000 must be downright puny.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "The salaries of the highest-paid federal employees don't even come close to the compensation of the highest-paid private sector employees."

              I said where the stat came from.

              The salary of the highest paid fed employee SHOULD never come close to that of a private sector employee.

              The private sector employee actually had to earn that money.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I've said it before, and I know it's only anecdotal, but I've worked in both the public and private sectors and I found public employees to generally be higher educated, more conscientious, and more dedicated to their work.  There are always exceptions, but that has been my experience.

                I don't know where you get your ideas about public employees.  Perhaps you could share how you know that public employees don't earn their money?

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Perhaps you could share how you know that public employees don't earn their money?"

                  From a lifetime of going to any government agency and observing.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah, I see.  That explains a lot.

                    roll

              2. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Wow---what an elitist thing to say.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you.

          2. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            As I have family in government earning more than 100k, I'll answer that: they are highky educated people who are working hard to make the world a better place for fools who think 'government" is the enemy.

            I'm proud of the work my daughter does and I'm proud to say that she is part of an agency that is providing real value to taxpayers - in spite of constant staff cutbacks, dwindling budgets and an ever increasing workload.

            Oh, and she's a liberal.  Like most smart people.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              A proud father how nice.

            2. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That's an elitist remark, Pcunix. Most smart people are liberals?? I know plenty of smart conservatives and moderates, along with a lot of dumb liberals. lol. From what I've seen, the dumbest and most narrow-minded people are found on the far ends of the political spectrum - the left AND the right!

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "the dumbest and most narrow-minded people are found on the far ends of the political spectrum - the left AND the right!"

                I think William F Buckley would take exception to that...if he were still alive.

                The far ends of the political spectrum do not decide intelligence.

                However, if you are ultra-liberal you would have to be, um, not too bright to think your views are going to be welcomed in the USA.

                As evidenced by our recent election.

                Unless of course you are in California or New York, then Katie bar the door.

                1. habee profile image91
                  habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Jimbo, I didn't say that EVERY far leftie or far rightie is dumb - I just think you could find a rather large concentration in either position.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not sure what would constitute the far "right."  I object to that term to begin with.

                  2. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I know you didn't say that, you may be right about finding a large concentration of dumb people who claim to be ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative.

                    Most who claim to be conservative are not. Examples..

                    George W Bush
                    Newt Gingrich

                    True conservatives know the difference.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Without the incentives Ronald Reagan offered to business in the 80's none of that would have been possible, only private industry will get us out of this economy and only after they know the water is safe to swim in."

        So much for pulling one's self up by one's own bootstraps...

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Instead of holding your hand out try pulling your boots up.

          Without the incentives Ronald Reagan offered to business in the 80's.

          What confuses you about that? The business was started with two peoples money, Reagan offered a positive climate for the business to thrive.

          Oh yeah, trickle down most certainly works, its trickle up that fails.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "What confuses you about that?"

            Not 'confuses', but 'amuses.'

            Check it:  you've been saying that the wealthy earned their money all on their own without help, and it's no fair to take it from them, but then you say that without Ronnie's incentives, your dad and his partner would never have been able to start that small business and not only become wealthy but employ a bunch of folks in the bargain.

            Now, I think it's great that your dad started a business. I also think it's great that there were incentives for him to do so. I further think it's pretty funny to say that your dad's wealth is the result only of his own work when you just said that government had a hand in it.

            Amusing, is all.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "I further think it's pretty funny to say that your dad's wealth is the result only of his own work when you just said that government had a hand in it."

              Did I say that? Could you point that out for me.

              I didn't say that...yet.

              My dads wealth was a result of his hard work.

              If he had not spent his money none of those who benefited would have.

              The only hand that government had in it was to take the hand out of it.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Here is where you said it:
                "My father started a business in 1980, at the height of the oil boom in the 80's he had 25 employees, that company netted well over a million a year.

                He sold his interest in the company to his partner in 1986 who still runs the business today, 13 of those 25 employees retired from the company, a plan my father put in place.

                Without the incentives Ronald Reagan offered to business in the 80's none of that would have been possible,"

                So, either government incentives made the business possible, or  your Dad did it all by himself without any government incentives.

                According to you statement, "Without the incentives Ronald Reagan offered to business in the 80's," the business wouldn't have been possible.

                Did you mis-speak?

                And then there's this:
                "The business was started with two peoples money"

                If your dad and his partner only used their own money to start the business, then it seems pretty likely that they were fairly well-off to start with. Either that, or they actually borrowed to start the business, in which case the used other folks' money as well as their own.

                So did these two men start their business alone, with only their own money (that is, from a position of pre-existing wealth), with no government incentives working for them? Or did they borrow money, and benefit from government incentives?

                Either way, it takes nothing away from their achievement. Running a business and building it up isn't easy, even if you start with a comfortable nest-egg.

      3. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Making over $1 million a year in profit doesn't sound "small" to me!

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's actually quite a problem: not everyone agrees on what a 'small' business is. Is it a business with a net profit of under $X? (Where X is some number bigger than a breadbox but smaller than Microsoft.) Is it a business that employs under Y people? Is it a business with fewer than Z customers? That moves less than N tons of product? Nobody really knows.

        2. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Then what would you consider a small business?

          If a company of two people nets a million do you think its a large company?

          Money earned is money earned.

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I understand the technical definition of a small business. Subjectively, however, I think of a small business as one like my husband's or those owned by friends. They don't clear $1 million a year!

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ok, I don't know what to say about that.

              Businesses are not all created equal.

              The ability to grow a business and the potential earnings do not reside in all of us.

  11. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    OK....rich got a tax CUT up to one quarter million dollars. That's not enough?????
    Rich pay FICA on $103,000 of their earnings/savings/inheritance only.
    QUITE a nice little dibby, since FICA is more that fed and state COMBINED.
    In this country, you can earn 5 million dollars and pay 0 FICA on 3 million 9 hundred and 97 of it.

    The most regressive tax since 1970 has been FICA.

    Incomes are at their highest disparity since the 1930's. That did not happen by accident...it was made that way by our policies.

    I hope you realize what you are supporting here.

    Rich have gotten much richer, while the middle has fallen, and the poor have sunk even lower. The median income for seniors is $18,000.
    This will be cut so Rush Limbaugh can add 2 million to the 59 he already makes.

    This is NOT democracy, it is Feudalism! Rich and serfs.

    It's disgusting, greedy and unconscionable.

    Poor workers earn their money too---how come they can't afford the high cost of living? Who's making sure THAT doesn't rise?????

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because they're poor.  So that's not a mandate for someone else to pay for them.

  12. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I'm trying to learn more about the proposed increase in estate taxes, too. It won't affect me, but I have friends and relatives with large farms that have been in the families for years.

  13. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "At the level proposed in the Obama policy, all but the largest estates -- fewer than 2% of annual deaths -- would escape taxation."--WSJ

    Fewer than 2%.
    98% won't be affected.

    "Under the Obama plan detailed during the campaign, the estate tax would be locked in permanently at the rate and exemption levels that took effect this year. That would exempt estates of $3.5 million -- $7 million for couples -- from any taxation. The value of estates above that would be taxed at 45%. If the tax were returned to Clinton-era levels, it would exclude $1 million from taxation with the rest taxed at 55%."--WSJ


    Meanwhile-whos'e going to stop fuel and electricity prices from going up?
    Cost of education? Cost of every necessity of life?

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Meanwhile-whos'e going to stop fuel and electricity prices from going up?"

      I can tell you who wont prevent the prices from rising...government.

      Free market competition will keep prices down.

      All of this has been explained to you time and time again, you do not want to see the truth.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image61
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Amen.

    2. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Have you priced land lately?? It wouldn't take long for a farm to realize a worth of over $3.5 million.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Can you give one real-world example of a farm that was destroyed by the estate tax?

        I ask because I never hear ex-farmers complaining about how the estate tax wrecked their family farm.

  14. Petra Vlah profile image61
    Petra Vlahposted 6 years ago

    With high unemployment and an ever shrinking middle class (with little or no buying power) I wonder what the rich would do next?
    Screwing each other royally I suppose, since they have more than enough experience and had successfully practiced it on the rest of us for way too long.

    1. JOE BARNETT profile image60
      JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ha ha ha petra!

    2. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Screwed the rest of us?  By providing jobs and income?  Yeah, sounds like a bunch of dirty snakes to me....

      Still waiting to hear from anybody who ever got a job from a poor man....

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I did, I did! It was realy easy but it didn't pay worth a crap. Each month I had to pay his mortgage, utility bill, car note, grocery bill, healthcare cost and make sure he had some "walking around" money.

      2. Moonchild60 profile image83
        Moonchild60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Tax cuts do not generate jobs.  Many businessmen have publically stated that what they pay in taxes has never determined hiring or laying off of employees, many other factors come into play, but that has never been one of them.  My husband says it does effect his decisions regarding his business either.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What does your husband say about President Reagan cutting taxes in the early 1980s, and the results being 19 million new jobs created during his eight years in office?

          Or his opinion on President Kennedy cutting taxes in the early 1960s, and the economy experiencing growth with increased wages and lower unemployment?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Taxes were higher under Kennedy and Reagan than they are now. And the economy under Reagan was coming out of a recession.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Reagan brought about the end of the recession.

              Quit trying to rewrite history.

        2. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The driving force is demand. If there is no increase in demand, tax cuts wont help.
          If there is demand but the price is too high any decrease in overhead, taxes included will encourage growth to meet demand.

          To speak in absolutes regarding the effects of taxes on business growth is deceptive and simplistic.

          Of course that's not the problem in the US. The problem in the US is that too many jobs have left the country. Why? Because of taxes and over regulation. To reduce taxes now won't really spur job creation in the US at this point. Trade regulation via tarriffs will.

      3. Friendlyword profile image59
        Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In the eight years of tax cuts for the rich; this country has decline to the likes of a third world country for the working class here in US. What benefit has the tax cuts been to us? Millions of jobs have been lost, and the country is in a depression.  What job has anyone that lives here in America(North America)gotten from a rich person?

        1. Misha profile image73
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          All but government jobs come from more or less rich persons. Government jobs in the most part are funded by rich, too. smile

          1. Friendlyword profile image59
            Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I repeat...MILLIONS OF JOBS LOST IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS!!!
            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NOW A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!!!
            How has tax cuts for the rich helped this Country in any way?

            1. Misha profile image73
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Do you copy? I did answer your question.

            2. Misha profile image73
              Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, and the dog that tries to bite on a feeding hand does not get much food big_smile

  15. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    Wel, we have seen the expected responses from the conservatives.

    When we have completed this madness and actually are a third world country, I wonder if these folks will realize even then how the billionaires manipulated their ignorance to put themselves totally in control.

    No, they won't realize, because Fox News will tell them that they should be grateful that the Masters still let them scavenge the dumps for their supper.  That's "trickle down".

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this
      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In early November you may have noticed that the 4 year attempt at class warfare didn't work.

        Democrats didn't accomplish anything of value and they were kicked to the curb.

        It might be a good idea to learn from this instead of continuing to do the same thing over and over.

        If those elected didn't learn from the Republican mistakes they too will be kicked to the curb.

        Its a revolution...

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          My view of what happened is different than yours. 

          And I would hardly call alternating between Democrats and Republicans every two years a revolution.

  16. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    They privatized some of the power companies in Canada a few years ago, prices have never been higher.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't everything more expensive these days?

  17. theirishobserver. profile image57
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    America is continuing to invest in Ireland and so I can only say thanks to America for its faith in Irish industry and Irish people smile God Bless America smile

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for verifying what I said earlier that the U.S. must stop bailing out those we have no business bailing out.  With all due respect to the lads and lassies of Ire.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What about Israel? That 3 billion a year we send them (not including weapons)...Cantor wants to make it a permanent expenditure in OUR defense budget!
        Guess "keeping an eye on Obama" for BiBi, isn't enough for him.

        Can you defend that 3 billion a year?
        If so, why NOT Ireland?
        And how can you, while you slash medicare, social security and disability help for AMERICAN citizens?

        1. Petra Vlah profile image61
          Petra Vlahposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          3 billions would be considered small change by Israel; try 21 billions a year!

          1. couturepopcafe profile image61
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, lmc, I don't defend it.  I said we have no business bailing out.  To me that means every other country, not just Ireland.  I think it's an affront to the American people, who pay for this, to make the Israeli expenditure a permanent part of the defense budget.  I also don't want to see SS, Medicare or DB slashed.  The spending on this country's needs is justified.  Bailouts, foreign aid, investment in foreign countries, and so on are not justified.  We could be in a better position economically if the feds stop the unjustified spending.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I loved the time I lived in Ireland, which was right at the beginning of the Celtic Tiger period. I very nearly stayed.

  18. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "20% of federal employees are making more than 100,000 thousand a year "

    But wait--that's not a lot is it? I mean, one quarter Million is poor to you isn't it?

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    I wish Obama would tell the GOP to get stuffed and let all the tax cuts expire as scheduled by George W. Bush.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's funny.  I love it when members of Parliament start yelling at each other, especially with the British accent.  What a hoot.

  20. eovery profile image62
    eoveryposted 6 years ago

    Who is stupid enough to tax a country that already has 9.8% employment.  The tax increase will make the rate go up greatly.

    We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem  We are way over spending.  This has to be stopped.

    Democrats make deal of the revenue lost, put encourage the deficit spending.  This is total crazy.  And we the people going after them.  This was the statement in the 2010 elections, but many congressmen are not listening and are ignoring "we the people."

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      See my latest thread about this!

  21. katiem2 profile image57
    katiem2posted 6 years ago

    I have no problem with paying taxes and understand the tax cuts should come to an end given the crisis of our people.  Here in Ohio an extreme number of people are losing their unemployment benefits, and where will they turn, to welfare no doubt as what choice do they have.  This all comes from our tax dollars and how do we expect to be a civil country if we don't take care of those suffering in this economy.

    I think of those still without work and I say RAISE everyone's taxes and for those of you paying them be THANKFUL you have a job, business and the good fortune to do so.

    We no doubt live in a time of doing more with less and this trend will not change, it's the wave of the future.

    Just saying...

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No one has ever stopped you from paying higher taxes.  If you feel strongly enough about it you should.  We conflate our personal desires with everyone's desires.  Everyone who wants taxes to be hirer should go ahead and pay more and leave everyone else alone.

      1. Friendlyword profile image59
        Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Here's a new idea! How about everyone pay their fair share of taxes?  Warren Buffet said he pays about 15% of his income in taxes, while some of lowest paid people that work for him pays 30% of their income in taxes. 
        Even with the enormous amount of money he could save by not speaking out against tax cuts for the rich; he knows it's just wrong.

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Buffet is begging for an audit! He's paying 15% on dividends and capital gains. Not income as defined by the IRS. Basically he's saying that he's making all his money from investments and the sale of holdings.
          What income he does make he's able hide/protect from taxes via an army of accountants and lawyers. There in lies the problem. Loopholes. I'ts long been a Democrat Strategy to plug loopholes. They apparently have abandoned it. They would do themselves well to revisit this policy.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            His salary is $100,000/year. The rest is capital gains. I don't think Berkshire pays dividends.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What is "fair?"  Who gets to define fair?  Do you get to decide what is fair?  Obviously Warren "I get to be a sanctimonious ass" Buffett gets to decide that he isn't paying his fair share and also gets to ignore his own observation and continue along in his unfairness.  Perhaps Warren Buffett should just pay more taxes all the way up to where he thinks it is fair.  He is not being stopped in anyway from paying more.

          If all those who believe they are not taxed enough would just pay more than perhaps I wouldn't have to listen to a billionaire tell me I am not taxed enough while he continues to pay what he considers a pittance instead of what he wants the government to force him to pay.

          The liberal says "I am not taxed enough so everyone's taxes must rise instead of me simply doing what I believe is right and paying more I must insist that everyone be forced to do what I think is right."

          The liberal insists that everyone be made to meet his expectations.  Liberalism is tyranny.

  22. BillyDRitchie profile image60
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    It is truly mind boggling to read posts from people who have no problem giving over even more of their hard earned money to the government, a government that has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with money in any meaningful way....

  23. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Say you have a small business...
    Your employee's have been with you for years, sticking it out with you, working for low pay, no raises, just to get the business going.
    Once you make it though, you don't feel obligated to share the wealth.
    It's MY company, you say. I did it.
    Your kids go to the finest schools, you have vacations at least three times a year, and you leave running the business up to your loyal employee's.
    But you don't increase their pay commensurate with your business growth.
    It's 90% you---10% shared by all the rest.

    That is an analogy of what is going on here in this country.
    Most of the growth in wealth and prosperity has been to the top few. And that is no accident.

    And all the things that the former adminstration did was put on Credit Card China/Saudi Arabia/Arab Emirates/Japan.
    Dems coms in and are "glued to the CBO".
    Paying for things is a lot harder, and a lot less popular than getting them on credit.

    And now that the Repubs are back in power, we are back to buying on credit again.
    For those same people that benefitted before.
    We will have to borrow more so that very wealthy people can sock more away in the bank. It's stupid!
    They should be happy with their tax-cut up to $250,000.
    And they should stop paying lip-service to patriotism, and actually show it for a change.
    OR--they want to add 700 billion to the deficit, let them take it out of THEIR gvt programs!!!
    Plenty of corporate welfare going around.

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Suppose I do not feel "obligated" to share the wealth.  Nobody should if they don't want to.  Charity begins in the heart.

      Yes, I think giving is a good thing, but you do so because you want to, not because government thinks it knows how to spend your money better than you do.

      1. Friendlyword profile image59
        Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        False premise!!! You pay your taxes for the privilege of living in the country you are in, and for the services that country provides to you and its' other citizen. The money that is left after you pay your taxes is what you should worry about spending. AND ANOTHER THING!...I'm sick of hearing people say they dont want their tax money spent on this or that...IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!"

          Yes it is, and we certainly have a say in how its spent.

          The last election was our say.

          Cool huh?

  24. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "In the New York Times tonight, David Kocieniewski's got the hard numbers, and finds that the deal is actually a very good one, as long as one or more of the following terms describes you:

    --"the highest earners"
    --"the wealthiest 1 percent of the population"
    --"the wealthiest Americans"
    --"hedge fund managers and private equity investors"
    --"an individual earning $110,000"
    --"4 million taxpayers with income in the mid- to high six figures"
    --"Estates over $5 million"

    To those of you who fit the descriptions above, congratulations! Really, is anyone not making out like a bandit, with this tax-cut compromise?

    In fact, the only groups likely to face a tax increase are those near the bottom of the income scale -- individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000."



    It's all so predictable. Over and over and over and over again we go through the same thing.
    La'Merica....I used to know you.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Really, the poor will pay more in taxes -AWESOME!!!!!!! no better way to shake people out of their complacency and get them to reach more of their potential.

  25. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    You answered one of them....not the important one either.

    I would like to know that too.....How did those tax cuts help America?

    1. Misha profile image73
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      True. There was a second question, too - mostly rhetoric cause answering it goes way beyond the limits of a forum thread. I thought I am allowed to answer what I feel like answering and not been shouted at. Guess I was wrong.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Shouted? Nah, if I was shouting it would be all caps.

        But I can answer it easily...Nothing. It helped the top 2% sock more money away...that's it.

        1. Misha profile image73
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LOL I did not say you were shouting. The dog was. Or should I say barking? big_smile

      2. Friendlyword profile image59
        Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry Misha. The question and the answer were directed at the person that asked the question. BillyDrichie. But your answer was not satisfactory at all. Address the question of how the tax cuts for the rich has help us in the last eight years.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Once again its not a tax cut for the rich. It was a tax cut for everyone.

          We will never know what would have happened if 9/11 had never occurred and fighting two wars didn't help our economy at all.

          However, when the democrats took control of the house the unemployment rate was 4.8 and has been getting higher ever since.

          Fine job democrats.

  26. TMMason profile image65
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I am still wondering how we're going to be a great Socialist eutopia. When we cannot even afford the welfare state social programs we have now.

    We cannot collect enough taxes to make the Left happy.

    1. Friendlyword profile image59
      Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      yes, that's true too.  But it's the rights tax cuts for the rich that is destroying this Country right now.

  27. TMMason profile image65
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I think that bill was dead on arrival anyway, man.

    The House was going to add to it, and then there would have been no compromise. Reid stated as much all week.

    As to tax cuts in general. I believe they stir growth. But we would need to cut them all across the board. Including corporate, capitol gains, etc.

    This arguement, over this tax increase, is BS. The next Congress willl fix it retro, in Jan. The Dems could have taken it up all year if they really cared about it. They could have rammed it through with their Health-Care and Financial Bill. And no I do not hold the Republican guiltless... but the Dems had majorities and the presidency for 2 years.

    Its all a big game.

    1. eovery profile image62
      eoveryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The dems can spend trillions on stimulus that does nothing, but when it comes to something that works, they wimpout.

      We do not have an revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

      What do the rich do with their money. DAAAHHH  they invest it and cause growth and jobs.   This is what we really need right now.

      1. Friendlyword profile image59
        Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What do the rich do with their money. DAAAHHH  they invest it and cause growth and jobs... IN MEXICO, CHINA, INDIA...ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHER,EXCEPT HERE IN AMERICA! The rich here in America wants tax cuts and slave labor.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          POW!

        2. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The rich don't want tax cuts.

          This entire debate is built upon the lie Obama spreads day in and day out.

          There is no tax cut up for vote.

          Its very simple, the tax rate has been the same for 10 years, the cut occurred then. We all got a tax break and all includes the rich.

          The rich are citizens of the United States just like you and I, its only fair they get the same things we get.

          I know you aren't really interested in whats fair but rather what government can provide you at the expense of someone else, you have to get used to the fact that most Americans are not going to put up with the government spending recklessly anymore.

          By the way, extending the current tax rate does not cost a single penny, you have to quit listening to Democrats, they lie.

  28. Quilligrapher profile image91
    Quilligrapherposted 6 years ago



    Hi Habee.  You always succeed in generating an interesting debate!

    Someone once said, "Politics is the art of compromise."  Maybe it was I.  I can’t recall. But the GOP was the first to recently declare they would block ALL bills until the tax cut extension issue was settled. Then a bunch of Dems came out of caucus to declare they too were unwilling to accept ANY compromise measure.  Such polarization is exactly what American voters say they want to see ended.  Neither group, it appears, is willing to collaborate on a compromise that is in the interests of the country so they must be working in the interest of some other group.

    I totally agree with President Obama and with Senator Schumer’s efforts to find a compromise.  On one hand, the government sorely needs additional tax revenue in order to deal with the rising cost of carrying our enormous national debt.  On the other hand, the lagging economy continues to struggle because billions of stimulus dollars are being hoarded by big business to cover future balance sheet write-offs of bad investments.  Our emaciated economy is suffering from a lack of consumer spending.  There is an immediate and a obvious need for congress to stop posturing and start building the ladder that will get us out of this hole. 

    I think compromise is the first rung of that latter.  If government coffers need more revenue and the economy needs more spending, I see wisdom in Senator Schumer's two-part compromise.  It has the richest segment of our society paying a little more into the treasury by eliminating the tax cuts for them, and allowing middle and lower income earners to keep and to pass their tax reduction back into the economy.  While I can imagine a person already earning over a million dollars a year using his hundred thousand-dollar tax-cut to increase his investments, I see the average American using his to buy food and other necessities.  While I am neither a democrat nor a republican, I have been a capitalist my whole life.  I believe, in these truly hard times, empathy for struggling Americans should trump greed.   
    Q.

    1. Friendlyword profile image59
      Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Here! Here!  You need to run for something.

  29. SparklingJewel profile image64
    SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago

    Swindle of the Year

    By Charles Krauthammer (Archive) · Friday, December 10, 2010

    WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 -- and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years -- which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

    If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years -- $630 billion of it above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts.

    No mean achievement. After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing debt. And this budget busting occurs less than a week after the president's deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.

    Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way -- mostly tax cuts -- rather than the Democrats' spending orgy of Stimulus I. That's consolation? This just means that Republicans are two years too late. Stimulus II will still blow another near-$1 trillion hole in the budget.

    At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.

    Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own re-election chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

    And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate tax rate of 35 percent -- it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 -- that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

    No, cries the left: Obama violated a sacred principle. A 39.6 percent tax rate versus 35 percent is a principle? "This is the public option debate all over again," said Obama at his Tuesday news conference. He is right. The left never understood that to nationalize health care there is no need for a public option because Obamacare turns the private insurers into public utilities. The left is similarly clueless on the tax cut deal: In exchange for temporarily forgoing a small rise in upper-income rates, Obama pulled out of a hat a massive new stimulus -- what the left has been begging for since the failure of Stimulus I, but was heretofore politically unattainable.

    Obama's public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 -- and abandoned the Democrats in 2010 -- is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the left.

    Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the "professional left" for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama's Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity -- their ideological stupidity and inability to see the "long game" really do get under Obama's skin -- but a decidedly calculated quality, too. Where, after all, does the left go? Stay home on Election Day 2012? Vote Republican?

    No, says the current buzz, the left will instead challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination. Really now? For decades, African-Americans have been this party's most loyal constituency. They vote 9-1 Democratic through hell and high water, through impeachment and recession, through everything. After four centuries of enduring much, African-Americans finally see one of their own achieve the presidency. And their own party is going to deny him a shot at his own re-election?

    Not even Democrats are that stupid. The remaining question is whether they are just stupid enough to not understand -- and therefore vote down -- the swindle of the year just pulled off by their own president.

    (c) 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group

 
working