On a previous thread, I expressed my confusion about the Bush tax rates. No one mentioned that Obama's own economic advisors told him that ending the Bush tax rates for the wealthy would be bad for the economy in the present recession. Shame on you!
It isn't ending tax cuts. It is increasing marginal tax rates. Increasing tax rates will not generate greater revenues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law
There were no tax cuts.
There were adjustments of tax rates and those adjustments benefited everyone.
taxes were never designed to benefit anyone directly in this country. they were designed to pay the nations bills.those tax cutts reduced the nations ability to do that.
"Obama's own economic advisors told him that ending the Bush tax rates for the wealthy would be bad for the economy in the present recession."
"No they didn't because there were no tax cuts."
Yes, let's cut the defense budget. We spend more on defense than the next ten nations combined, and most of those ten nations are our close allies.
"Allies"... that come running to us every time they have a problem in need of a military solution, yet throw a fit should we try to handle our own business without their approval.
And I could be wrong on this one, but I'm pretty sure we spend more on "entitlements" (welfare) at this point than we do on defense... if not more, then pretty close.
Yes, Jeff, according to CNN, Obama's economic advisors told him that. I'll be glad to find the link for you, if you want.
I'm all for decreasing the military budget.
What an upbeat and friendly post for the Christmas season. And so well-referenced too--so we can check out the facts for ourselves and be left in no doubt as to the truth of the assertion and its full context.
Here ya go, Psyche. I didn't initially provide the link because I assumed I was the only one here who didn't know about the advice from Obama's economic council. Apparently, I was wrong.
It's at 01:28. David Gregory states it, and Kerry doesn't refute that the advisors said it. Of course, he disagrees with it, however:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … beral.html
You'll find more details here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/0 … -tax-cuts/
And Merry Christmas to you!
Good GOD! Your a freakin SAINT!LMAO You just put a bib on her and spoon fed her and didn't even say "Well, Bless your Heart"!!
Your setting be bar high Habee. Merry Christmas!
'Tis the season, CJ!
And I still don't have a firm stand on extending the tax cuts. But if Obama's "experts" think all of them should be extended...doesn't the prez surround himself with the best in the nation? On the other hand, I don't know if we can afford these cuts. Of course, Washington doesn't give a rat's whisker what I think, anyway! lol
It's hard to be nice when confronted with pure, unrestrained ignorance.
You, however, have managed to stay kind.
For this I congratulate you.
I don't see anything really revolutionary about this.
Obama has advisors. He has picked some advisors who present a different point of view (both of these advisors are Republicans). He is not obligated to set policy based on what any particular advisor has to say, especially if he doesn't find their arguments particularly convincing. I don't find their arguments convincing either.
Thanks, though, for sharing the links.
They benefitted the wealthy over all else...OBVIOUSLY. Do you SEE the way things ARE in this country, or don't you?
And Obama's advisors tell him a lot of things....the Dems in Congress--most of them, do not subscribe to his advisors' theory. Nor do I, but that doesn't matter. I voted for Obama, MY voice does not count for anything.
Only voices that ever matter are the Right wing. Even when we finally get a chance after 8 years....it all has to be your agenda.
ALL right-wing agenda? The Dems have passed things. Remember health care? I'm not saying I don't think it should have been passed - I really like parts of it, but you can't honestly say it's been all the right's agenda. If more didn't get passed when the Dems had the Congress and a filibuster-proof Senate, you can blame the Democrats because they couldn't agree among themselves.
Yeah--the Blue-Dogs, who are more Repub than Dem, I do blame them.
But I blame the Repubs who have obstructed everything--even cabinet appointments.
Filibuster/Obstruct/No No No.
And now McConnell says Obama has to come around to their way of thinking, and they can work together.......
So, in other words, Do what we want, or you don't do anything.
"We'll do things that I and my members are comfortable with."--Mitch McConnell
Gee thanks....the things you are comfortable with is what WE voted out!!!!
Corporate power is back with a vengeance...cause you asked for it.
Lol habee, some people are so far out of touch with reality that it is hardly worth casting a line to reel them back in.
"They benefitted the wealthy over all else...OBVIOUSLY."
Your continuing attempt to incite class warfare is not working.
Incite class warfare?
Where have you been? It IS class warfare!
And poor and middle class LOST.
Hey--can anyone tell me how this recession is hitting the top 2%? Can you?
Corporate America just reported its biggest profit-making quarter EVER.
How is it that they are in a recession, and should be spared tax increases? They are flourishing.
They keep saying no one should have their taxes raised....well, people up to $250,000 won't.
You mean to tell me that the biggest profit quarter EVER, AND they get to keep the tax bonus Bush gave them too?
So, when we borrow money from China to do that....who will pay for it? Take a wild geuss.
Aren't you a fervent supporter of government intervention in the market place? I thought so.
Yet you continually cite the fact that corporate America turns profits despite a recession, which is a very real side-effect of big business in bed with big government -- a RESULT of GOVERNMENT intervention/distortion/manipulation/etc.
How you overlook this contradiction and still expect to be taken seriously is beyond me. You continually incriminate yourself with this farce in order to defend an end to Bush's tax cuts.
Speaking of which...
Your superficial evaluation of the very real crisis facing America's middle and lower class is absurd -- and downright insulting. You don't even make mention of runaway inflation, fiat money, an economy based on debt, unlimited credit, or anything of the sort. Instead you blame it on...tax cuts?!
HUH?!?!?! People keeping their money divides classes?!
What brand of paint are you huffing?
How the f*** are you going to wail and cry about the deterioration of the middle class without even mentioning the Federal Reserve?!?!
Your "solutions" to the financially strained middle and lower classes are shallow at best. And believe me, I'm giving you way more credit than you even deserve with that statement (you're welcome).
I have heard arguments opposing mine relating to tax cuts and the economy; and while I may still disagree with them, I have respected the level of rationale and logic that is utilized -- at least to some extent -- in order to back up certain claims. But YOU -- all you do is spew nonsense "REPUBS! BUSH! LIMBAUGH! WEALTHY! FOX! CORPORATIONS! CLASS!"
I am being earnest and sincere when I say this: please, spare us your BS and gtfo.
I can tell you honey, I know many of them and my husband and I fall into that well over $250k a year bracket as well. It is called, and I am sorry to say this, "disposable income". Basically it means I and women like me, can continue to buy whatever we want and not give a damn. It has not touched me, this recession, or many people I know. It's like it is separate from us. Now in the 80's recession, I was on the opposite end of all this and I can tell you, not one penny "trickled down" to me and mine. So, having been on both sides I can honestly say, American uninformed idiots who ran out to vote for the Republicans this past election nearly got trampled on by the Republicans running to insure that their wealthy friends continued to get their tax breaks and if they had to compromise and give something to those pesky annoying middle class, well then so be it. It is worth it to keep the rich richer. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of .... ignorance.
Thank you for being honest. Many other financially successful people will say the same (like Warren Buffett). There are other fabulously rich people who will fight tooth and nail for tax cuts for themselves and their friends, because they don't ever remember a reality when they were poor or middle-class, and frankly, don't know anyone else who is, either.
This graph, to me, is fairly illustrative of the different approaches to Keynesian (stimulus) tax cuts taken by the Dems & Republicans. Fortunately for the GOP, there are millions of poor and middle-class people who are absolutely, absolutely certain they will join the ranks of the ultra-wealthy very soon, so they don't want to see their future income taxed at a higher rate.
Note that the Republican approach will create a far, far bigger hole in the deficit than the Democratic one. Keep in mind they pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility, too.
Your graph shows what we already knew: the tax cuts let more people keep more of THEIR money.
Sorry, but you don't run trillion dollar deficits by letting people keep what they earn, nor does it cost anybody anything! It's like me saying you're costing me too much money because you don't let me steal anything from your wallet.
You also don't make or break an economy by issuing tax cuts. The whole debate is ridiculous, as if this is the be-all, end-all to our financial problems. It's a step in the right direction as far as economic principles are concerned, but there are much bigger factors at play hurting us, such as the devaluation of the dollar and endless wars.
Tell me: why do people piss and moan about the diminishing middle class when talking about tax cuts, but never once do they mention the Federal Reserve?
Such a shallow scratch at the tip of an enormous iceberg.
I wish truth could be bottled up so I could crack some people over the head with it.
Yes, they both do that. The GOP plan just costs much, much more and grants most of the tax cuts to the already-wealthy.
Sorry, no. You and everyone else benefits from tax revenue. You and I may not agree on what it's spent on, whether it's wars, roads, education, or unemployment benefits, but it's for public benefit.
You do incur very, very large deficits by sharply reducing the source of government revenue without a concomitant reduction in spending (much less increasing spending).
You're playing with semantics again here. The Bush tax cuts will cost $5 trillion over the next 10 years alone. While I appreciate the sentiments about endless wars--something your fellow conservatives do not agree with you on--they are only part of the equation. If you are living in the real world and are serious about paring down the deficit and debt, then there has to be both a reduction in spending and rise in revenue. A reduction in spending alone won't do it. It just won't. Sorry.
When we no longer have a deficit and are running consistent surpluses, then people grounded in reality will entertain libertarian pleas for lower taxes. In the meantime, we will understand them as more fiscally irresponsible delusions.
Development would be much better off if done privately.
But that argument aside, only a small portion of taxes are used to fund legitimate government institutions. There's plenty of income to fix the road down the block, or build a park around the corner. Again -- you don't run trillion dollar deficits from this. Much of our spending is on wasteful programs, or endeavors that the government has absolutely no business pursuing (at least by Constitutional Standards).
Not to mention, the tax system is used as a means of redistributing wealth, and riddled with corrupt provisions and preferences.
It IS a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The government gets (and wastes) plenty of our money. Their encroachment and overreach is a testament to this fact. If little Billy spends well beyond his means on things he doesn't need, should his mommy raise his allowance to maintain these unnecessary expenditures?
Listen closely, junior. This one's on me:
Decreasing spending is the ONLY solution because too much of it is the sole cause of the problem! It's like you spend yourself into oblivion on things you don't need, and then you say "Okay, I'm deep in debt. If I want to balance my budget I should only buy 9 pairs of shoes instead of 10 AND ask Jim if I can borrow some money."
No. We need to completely reassess what the role of government ought to be. If you want to sustain a welfare that is trillions of dollars deep in obligations, manage an overseas empire that is equally costly, manipulate the economy through central planning with billion dollar bailouts, and continue to fund all these things with a fiat currency printed by the Federal Reserve, then taxes -- up or down -- will not make a difference.
Hey, champ, did you ever think that it was fiscal irresponsibility that leads the government to plead for an urgent increase in taxes in the first place?
But big-government ideologues such as yourself back Washington's expenditures with full faith. Surely their spending is for the greater good and needs to be sustained through tax-payer money, right?
Oh, but don't worry, only those uber-rich punks will be paying!
You started off so civil. What happened?
I agree with you on some points.
- Long-term, spending has to be managed down. That primarily means fewer/no wars and fewer giveaways to various lobbying groups. With the current political climate, frankly encouraged with the sort of tone you used in your message, this is near impossible and going to be more difficult. Big-government ideologues exist on the right, too, and they are, in fact, the bigger problem.
In the shorter term, since no one wants to give up their major spending programs (especially the Right), then revenue will have to go up, primarily from the group that got the biggest cuts and saw their net worth increase the most over the last decade.
- Some development works better privately. But, others work much worse privately. There will probably always be a role for government in certain activities, like healthcare, education, and emergency services, where private companies have shown to be more expensive and worse than government.
I would add that I'm not any sort of an ideologue. I prefer being grounded in the real world. As much as I'd love to agree with the ideology that private industry always has a better, cheaper solution than big, bad government, there are plenty of examples where that has not been the case. I find empirical proof far more compelling than ideology.
Feel free to reply, but try to keep your tone at an adult level.
My tone has no bearing on the substance of my message simply because the truth is the truth and I speak it.
I agree with you: ideologues come from all sides of the political spectrum. I'm not going to say it's persistent more in the right than the left, or vice versa, because this is yet another superficial critique of very real problems that exist in government as a whole. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin when it boils down to the real issues affecting our economy, and satisfaction with one party's policies over the other can only be the result of a shallow examination of our financial ruin.
The integration of government and education has been disastrous. The Department of Education has caused a bureaucratic induced deterioration of schooling at a rate never before seen. Taxpayer-funded, one-curriculum-fits-all schooling doesn't work. The Dept of Ed pumps more money in with no results to show for it! SAT scores, literacy -- down, down down! The more schools fail, the more money government pumps in -- and it has to, because educational malpractice is damn expensive!
Problems in health care can be traced back to government intervention. Why are out-of-pocket costs so high that I must make a co-payment when I get a bump on the head? Why are market prices for health services so distorted (hint: GOVERNMENT)? Wouldn't it make sense for these minor treatments to be low enough for me to afford without third party interference? Shouldn't insurance only cover that which I cannot afford, protecting me from the financial constraints of more serious, unforeseen occurrences?
Health care is a service, not a right! You are paying to be put in the hands of a trained professional -- someone who dedicated and sacrificed years to the study of medicine. The free-market is more than capable of delivering these services to society effectively. When doctors compete for your dollar, costs are lower. People pay out of pocket for routine visits, while insurance is held only to measure risk and provide coverage in the case of unforeseen, catastrophic circumstances. Treatment is negotiated between the doctors and the patients -- NOT insurance companies -- and is delivered more effectively.
And by the way... empiricism?! The evidence of government failure is ALL AROUND US! There is a degree of deterioration in just about everything the government gets their hands on. We are faced with realities of these truths every day! Derf derf...
You do realize this is finals week, right? And instead of writing a 15 page research paper, I am sucked into these never-ending political debates! Do me a favor (if you have any compassion), please wait until next week to respond, because you KNOW I will be checking for your response, and should I see it I will no doubt be distracted from my schoolwork!
Look, thanks for being honest -- it IS appreciated. Most people with money won't be willing to admit to such affluence or excess.
But honestly, tax breaks aren't some corrupt, evil ploy. In a free society, keeping what you earn --whether it's the bare minimum or an excess -- is not a scheme! It is the right of the individual earning that money!
There is NO negative economic consequence to letting people keeping what they earn!
That being said, I cannot stress enough how this issue is being blown out of proportion; another surface topic that divides the right from the left without really getting at the nitty gritty of our problems.
I can guarantee that continuing to tax the rich will not get us out of our financial mess. But I can also guarantee that tax cuts alone will not save us, either. There are much bigger, more serious issues going on here (sound money, overseas empire, etc).
I cannot argue that point. I think perhaps we all get caught up in these little "distractions" so we don't dig deeper and find out what the real deals are. I think if we did dig deeper and did bring out the true corruption and scheming going on in D.C. we would be picked off one by one until we all learned to keep our mouths shut. I say that only half jokingly...c'mon like it hasn't happened before....
"Extending the tax cuts for all Americans with taxable income over $250,000 for joint filers ($200,000 for single filers) would cost the country about $40 billion next year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, and it would cost $700 billion over the next decade."--NY Times
How's that cutty-debty-thing goin' fer ya?
I think tax cuts and rates are like sweeping dirt all around the room, not knowing what to do with it and then finally sweeping it under the rug until it must be dealt with.
Increasing tax rates in a down economy only reduces the income of the tax payer, and thus reduces the tax intake of the government. Lose/lose. Ending tax advantages, regardless of what they are, will ultimately hurt most people. The rich employ people, whether personally or through business. However, it's the middle to lower incomes who feel the pinch much more because there was so little discretionary income to begin with. And when business and wealthy cut back, these are the people who are most penalized. They are the first to be laid off in most cases.
I believe that we would be much better served as a country with some type of flat tax. 20% of nothing is still nothing. 20% of millions of dollars is still a lot of money. In the end, I feel that this is a much fairer way to help regain some financial stability.
Hi, Daniel. I like the idea of a flat tax, or even better, a national sales tax. That's the only way we'll get any revenue from illegal income.
"Increasing tax rates in a down economy only reduces the income of the tax payer, and thus reduces the tax intake of the government."
You want to explain the logic behind that statement? As written, it looks like there's some kind of miracle happening between step one and step two...
Federal Income Tax does not occur in a vaccuum. If you increase Federal Taxes, you have effectively reduced the persons disposible income. Keep in mind that there are State and local taxes. Specifically sales taxes. There are also Federal Taxes on phone service, ammunition, gun sales, etc. These are all descretionary spending items. If the person has less disposable income, they spend less on these and other items/services. Therefore the "government" (NOT JUST FEDERAL) looses money. While a business would simply shrink it's overhead to meet income, the government does not and in some cases can not by law.
I don't think it is so much the Bush tax cuts that got us in the hole as much as a war we never should have been in like Iraq. And a war we obviously will not acheive victory in Afghanistan. The military cost BIG TIME money. And now how long before the N. Korea and Iran problem becomes front and center?
I think financing these wars has done more to break us the the Bush tax cuts ever could.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? When did the "American Dream" to... in short, get rich, lol... become "evil"?
Used to be a saying, "You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it." People make bad decisions, end up living in "poverty" (which in America generally means only having ONE HD flat screen TV), and somehow that's the fault of the "evil rich people"?
Has anyone even bothered to mention that those "evil" rich people are already paying the vast majority of the tax debt as it is? What's the generally excepted "rule of thumb", the top 2% of earners pay 98% of the nations tax debt?
Meanwhile the "poor" people are whining because they "only" get 99 months umemployment and have to "scrape by" on $600 a month in food stamps? Many of which admit they've turned down perfectly good jobs because it's easier to just live off that "Obama stash" money.
But no, ya'll are right, we shouldn't even consider cutting spending (entitlements)... we should just take even more then the 50% we're already jacking from those evil rich people so they can in turn cut even more jobs or ship more jobs overseas to more business friendly places like China and India, in turn bumping the domestic unemployment rate up even higher, leaving more people living on welfare, so we'll take even more from the rich, etc., etc.
I agree with you completely.
There will always be scapegoats in every struggling economy. Rich people are one of them. It's fueled by resentment, not fact or logic.
There shouldn't be any penalties for earning your way to the top, nor should there be any rewards for being poor.
End the welfare state, get government out of the economy, and let people reap what they sow.
What about those who are truly helpless - like the old, the handicapped, and children?
Old people are not "helpless" in the sense that they are born disadvantaged. They have their lives to save and plan for retirement. Most people do this "saving" through Social Security.
Retirees rely on Social Security for their expenses when they get older. They pay into a system their whole lives, and receive government checks when they get older as a form of "pay back". This system would be okay if 1) It was voluntary and 2) The government kept the social security taxes deducted from your paycheck in a "lock box", paying you back from the funds you paid in.
Instead the government takes your money, spends it, and when it's time to pay you back, they do so on a borrowed, devalued dollar. It is truly unconstitutional to force people to devote a portion of their paychecks to SS, especially when the system is broke and engulfed in government-issued IOUs.
I believe in my own capabilities to save my own money towards retirement, and this would be entirely possible if my income was not burdened by taxes that are supposedly for the "better good" or "general welfare". I should have the choice to opt out.
And as far as those who are born truly disadvantaged -- handicapped, disabled, etc. -- it would be much better for these people to rely on family, friends, churches, and neighbors to take care of them rather than the government. There will always be instances of no-win situations, but there would be far less in a society not burdened by government intervention and central economic planning.
If we had a truly free-market untethered by the constraints of Keynesian economics, prosperity on the individual level would allow people the capability to voluntarily care for loved ones who are unable to care for themselves.
For anyone who thinks this sounds utopian or unrealistic, let me say that quality living standards provided and afforded through government and central economic planning is far more quixotic than anything I have proposed.
Would love to add to that, but... lol, I can't. Very well said, sir. Especially in regards to social security, I've been saying that for years. I would even be willing to forfiet what I've already paid in if it means I don't have to pay any MORE in.
The sad truth is, even if the "liberals" got their way and we were reduced to a one size fits all socialistic la-la land, the "truly needy" wouldn't be any better off then they are now, the only differance would be a complete and utter inability for ANY one to be successful.
You see, if more people would truly educate themselves and understand that the Republicans are scamming them to get them to their side, by trying to get them to believe they actually care about 1) the country 2) Morality and 3) the economy, the latter being only as it effects THEM. What they care about is obvious. One merely stop listening to the BS they spew and watch what they actually DO.
"I wish truth could be bottled up so I could crack some people over the head with it."
That was funny. I liked that. But it would be better if we could somehow get them to drink it. It's funny how you speak about the Federal Reserve, my son mentioned the same thing.
Lol...thanks, EP. I never get too upset over forum posts. What's the use?
by Stump Parrish2 years ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they...
by Holle Abee7 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...
by Josak4 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
by Alex Frias6 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
McCain released two years of tax returns. Reagan released one. Romney has released two. It wasn't a big deal with McCain and Reagan. Why is it now?http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romney-and … precedent/
by Nickny798 years ago
HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.