Bush tax cuts expire for Americans making more than $250,000

[Jagger]

CNN's John King allowed Sen. Mitch McConnell to revive the debunked claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for Americans making more than $250,000 would affect a large percentage of small businesses. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center, 481,000 small businesses -- about 2 percent -- fall in the top two income tax brackets that would be affected by those increases.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902230003?f=h_top

[Kathianne]

CNN's John King allowed Sen. Mitch McConnell to revive the debunked claim that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for Americans making more than $250,000 would affect a large percentage of small businesses. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center, 481,000 small businesses -- about 2 percent -- fall in the top two income tax brackets that would be affected by those increases.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902230003?f=h_top

Mediamatters? :laugh2:

[DannyR]

How about commenting on the content, rather than the source? After all, if we all automatically debunked any source that was biased, we'd have to all ignore each other. :laugh2:

I've got no problem cutting the Bush tax cuts. I've not seen any significant economic gain from them, and the increase in national debt that they caused will be a drain on our economy for decades to come.

For those who want to cut taxes, fine. But cut spending to match.

[Kathianne]

How about commenting on the content, rather than the source? After all, if we all automatically debunked any source that was biased, we'd have to all ignore each other. :laugh2:

I've got no problem cutting the Bush tax cuts. I've not seen any significant economic gain from them, and the increase in national debt that they caused will be a drain on our economy for decades to come.

For those who want to cut taxes, fine. But cut spending to match.
How about you?

[DannyR]

How about me what? I'm not mocking his source.

And the topic relates to Bush tax cuts, and my opinion on that is clear - they should be eliminated because they were put into place without corresponding pending cuts. I don't care if they impact every business or just one. Its borrowed money paying for them, ergo they must go.

[PostmodernProphet]

question.....I don't recall, when they talk about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, any language distinguishing the provisions that benefited those over $250k from those under.....aren't the provisions that benefited those of us under $250k also expiring?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I've got no problem cutting the Bush tax cuts. I've not seen any significant economic gain from them

I'll be honest, I'm surprised that is possible......if you have kids you have been getting the $1000 per child tax credit.....if you are married you've been getting reduced tax rate that eliminated the marriage penalty.......about the only people who did not see a reduction in taxes would be single, no children folks who were paying minimal income taxes prior to the changes.....

[DannyR]

I'll be honest, I'm surprised that is possible......if you have kids you have been getting the $1000 per child tax credit.....if you are married you've been getting reduced tax rate that eliminated the marriage penalty.......about the only people who did not see a reduction in taxes would be single, no children folks who were paying minimal income taxes prior to the changes.....Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said economic gain, not personal gain. I meant the national economy as a whole. I'm very appreciative of paying less taxes, but don't particularly want to do so at the expense of later generations. Our ballooning deficit has hurt the dollar and weakened the nation and the economy as a whole hasn't done much since they were put into place.

[PostmodernProphet]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said economic gain, not personal gain. I meant the national economy as a whole.

I guess that's where we differ.....when I envision a hundred million people getting personal gain, I look at it as economic gain for the entire country......

[DannyR]

I guess that's where we differ.....when I envision a hundred million people getting personal gain, I look at it as economic gain for the entire country......Perhaps so. Perhaps the stimulus of the tax breaks just held back the dam and kept it from breaking sooner. But in general the economy as a whole has been pretty flat throughout Bush's term, taking the dive at the end. And the cost will have to be repaid plus interest down the road. It was a bad deal in my opinion.

If borrowing for the Obama stimulus is bad, then why don't you take the position that Bush doing pretty much the same to fund his own tax cuts is likewise bad?

[PostmodernProphet]

If borrowing for the Obama stimulus is bad, then why don't you take the position that Bush doing pretty much the same to fund his own tax cuts is likewise bad?


???....obviously you are new here....I have been complaining about Bush and the Republican Congress spending like a bunch of drunken Democrats pretty much since 2002......and it wasn't his tax cuts that were the problem, it was his spending.....

[DannyR]

and it wasn't his tax cuts that were the problem, it was his spending.....

Tax cuts are a form of spending if you don't have excess income to correspond to them. Subtract from one side of the equation, you gotta add to the other. Basic arithmetic.

[PostmodernProphet]

Tax cuts are a form of spending if you don't have excess income to correspond to them. Subtract from one side of the equation, you gotta add to the other. Basic arithmetic.

it isn't arithmetic, it's economics.....subtract from the supply of cash in the economy (through taxation), damage the economy.....even Obama has acknowledged that increased taxes damage the economy.....the difference is, he's willing to do that if he thinks the economy is strong enough to survive it.....a rational person would realize damaging the economy is NOT a good thing to do, ever......

[PostmodernProphet]

Granted, taxes hurt the economy. I'll not argue that.

But living on borrowed money harms it more in the long term.

I've never seen any couple who lived beyond beyond their means come to a good end. Our nation is facing a payback in the future, and I fear it will make today's recession seem like good times.

so then we agree....we need to cut spending, cut taxes and live within our means......

[DannyR]

it isn't arithmetic, it's economics.....subtract from the supply of cash in the economy (through taxation), damage the economy.....Granted, taxes hurt the economy. I'll not argue that.

But living on borrowed money harms it more in the long term.

I've never seen any couple who lived beyond beyond their means come to a good end. Our nation is facing a payback in the future, and I fear it will make today's recession seem like good times.

[PostmodernProphet]

interesting....it appears my reply to your post now preceeds it......

[Jagger]

On average, in years when the president is a Democrat, the economy grows faster; inflation is lower; fewer people can't find a job; the federal government spends a smaller share of GDP, whether or not you include defense spending; and the deficit is lower (or—sweet Clinton-years memory—the surplus is higher). The one category that Republicans win is, unsurprisingly, federal taxes as a share of GDP. But it is no trick to lower taxes if you don't lower spending.

[PostmodernProphet]

On average, in years when the president is a Democrat, the economy grows faster; inflation is lower; fewer people can't find a job; the federal government spends a smaller share of GDP, whether or not you include defense spending; and the deficit is lower (or—sweet Clinton-years memory—the surplus is higher). The one category that Republicans win is, unsurprisingly, federal taxes as a share of GDP. But it is no trick to lower taxes if you don't lower spending.

using what, a twelve year average?........

[Jagger]

using what, a twelve year average?........

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Obama/Other/Poll-ABC-4.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Obama/Other/Poll-ABC-4.jpg

oh look.....it's evidence that "On average, in years when the president is a Democrat, the economy grows faster; inflation is lower; fewer people can't find a job; the federal government spends a smaller share of GDP, whether or not you include defense spending; and the deficit is lower (or—sweet Clinton-years memory—the surplus is higher)."........not......

what was it the ABC poll folks thought Obama was trying to compromise?.....his integrity?.......

[DannyR]

using what, a twelve year average?........

The past 60 years.

Why the economy fares much better under Democrats (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html)

I think the chart is very informative:
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/WindowsLiveWriter/clip_image002%5B21%5D.gif

As you can see, Democrats tend to focus on increasing the wealth of the lower half of the population, while Republicans try increasing the wealth of the upper half.

Republican theory since Reagan is based on trickle down politics... you make the rich richer, and they provide jobs for the rest, etc. In general this isn't a bad theory. But as the chart above shows, its obviously not the BEST theory.

But it seems the opposite approach is the better policy. By making the poorer half richer, they enhance the economy as a whole, which increased the wealth of everyone... and does so much better than just republican politics aimed at the wealthy.