• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

I was addressing the thread topic, care to address that? Income tax dollars come from personal income earned by individuals and companies. Think that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top income earners will generate 36 billion in revenue to the govt?

70 pages and nearly 700 post later and you're still asking this same question which was answered in the first few paragraphes of the article from the OP...

New data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation show that households earning more than $1 million a year would reap nearly $31 billion in tax breaks under the GOP plan in 2011, for an average tax cut per household of about $100,000.

The analysis, requested by Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, comes as debate heats up over tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion in 2011, according to the taxation committee. President Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000 -- 98 percent of American taxpayers -- in a plan that would add about $202 billion to next year's deficit.

Simple math...

238 - 202 = 36

That's where your $36 million comes from. Now, whether the fed uses that money to pay down the deficit or applies it to other programs is up to them (unless, of course, the people voice their opinions on the matter). But that's where the figure comes from - a difference between extending the Bush tax cuts for all or elimitating them for some and allowing them to remain in affect for others.
 
Last edited:
Apparently any post that refutes your claims is a personal attack.
i somehow doubt that if you were simply refuting his claims, he would have a problem with that.
 
i somehow doubt that if you were simply refuting his claims, he would have a problem with that.

There you go again knowing what everyone else thinks. Why don't you prove me wrong and prove that the GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficits?
 
There you go again knowing what everyone else thinks. Why don't you prove me wrong and prove that the GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficits?

I just did that for him...

I was addressing the thread topic, care to address that? Income tax dollars come from personal income earned by individuals and companies. Think that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top income earners will generate 36 billion in revenue to the govt?

70 pages and nearly 700 post later and you're still asking this same question which was answered in the first few paragraphes of the article from the OP...

New data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation show that households earning more than $1 million a year would reap nearly $31 billion in tax breaks under the GOP plan in 2011, for an average tax cut per household of about $100,000.

The analysis, requested by Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, comes as debate heats up over tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion in 2011, according to the taxation committee. President Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000 -- 98 percent of American taxpayers -- in a plan that would add about $202 billion to next year's deficit.

Simple math...

238 - 202 = 36

That's where your $36 million comes from. Now, whether the fed uses that money to pay down the deficit or applies it to other programs is up to them (unless, of course, the people voice their opinions on the matter). But that's where the figure comes from - a difference between extending the Bush tax cuts for all or elimitating them for some and allowing them to remain in affect for others.
 
There you go again knowing what everyone else thinks. Why don't you prove me wrong and prove that the GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficits?
see post 698....don't need to be a mind reader to believe that he wouldnt have any issues with you if all your posts did were refute his claims...common sense man, common sense.
 
There you go again knowing what everyone else thinks. Why don't you prove me wrong and prove that the GOP plan to extend tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficits?

I think it time for you to prove the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation wrong.
 
I just did that for him...

The problem is simple math doesn't take into account human behavior thus there is no such proof. It is a prediction and projection which from this Administration and Congress hasn't been very accurate, has it? You really think that letting those tax cuts expire is going to generate more tax revenue which then will reduce the deficits? LOL, prove that the govt. has ever reduced the deficit by getting more personal income tax revenue?
 
I think it time for you to prove the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation wrong.

The CBO is non partisan and wrong all the time. This Administration has been wrong all the time. This Congress has been wrong all the time so why wouldn't the non partisan Joint Committee be wrong as well?
 
The CBO is non partisan and wrong all the time. This Administration has been wrong all the time. This Congress has been wrong all the time so why wouldn't the non partisan Joint Committee be wrong as well?

But he wasn't asking you to refute what was stated in the CBO's report. He asked you to refute the figures from the Joint Committee on Taxation which is what the $36M figure is based on. Besides, you're willing to put your faith in other government reporting agencies. Why not in the JCT? What makes their estimates any less credible than any of the other agencies you place your trust in?
 
Last edited:
But he wasn't asking you to refute what was stated in the CBO's report. He asked you to refute the figures from the Joint Committee on Taxation which is what the $36M figure is based on. Besides, you're willing to put your faith in other government reporting agencies. Why not in the JCT? What makes their estimates any less credible than any of the other agencies you place your trust in?

Because the other reporting agencies I cite aren't making predictions, they report actual results. Results trump rhetoric and predictions. There is a prediction that the tax expiration will generate those results yet previous predictions have been wrong so why is this one more accurate?

BEA.gov, BLS. gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept show actual results.
 
I think it time for you to prove the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation wrong.

Here is the problem with your claim, from teh JCT website

The starting point for a revenue estimate prepared by the Joint Committee staff is the Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") 10-year projection of Federal receipts, referred to as the "revenue baseline." The revenue baseline serves as the benchmark for measuring the effects of proposed tax law changes.
The baseline assumes that present law remains unchanged during the 10-year budget period. Thus, the revenue baseline is an estimate of the Federal revenues that will be collected over the next 10 years in the absence of statutory changes.

10 yr. projections of the CBO have never been accurate and as stated there is no way to accurate predict Federal Receipts due to the changing economy and affects of that economy on personal income.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

That's a rather piss-poor attitude to have. Under the Social Security Act, the widow's former husband's Social Security benefits are passed on to his surviving spouse upon his death. I'll assume the widow's deceased spouse worked until retirement. As such, those benefits are hers now, and if I understand the system correctly, SS benefits are indexed to inflation. So, it's not her fault that age has caught up with her and the cost of living which includes her medical expenses even w/Medicare have gone through the roof. We're talking about a generation of people who did exactly as their parents before them and their government told them to do - work hard, save, live honorable and in your golden years you'll be okay because your nest-egg - Social Security benefits and Medicare - would take care of them. Should they suffer because the government has mismanaged their funds all these years?

The piss poor attitude comes from those who think that the "rich" (whomever they may be) have an unlimited duty to pay for all the mistakes of government and to fund all of the goodies the masses vote for.

Fault has nothing to do with it and its not my fault someone is poor nor do I have a duty to pay for her misfortune and until people like her understand that others do not have a duty to fund her existence she will continue to vote for tax and spend welfare socialists
 
Still waiting for you or anyone else to prove that the GOP plan to extend the tax cuts for the rich will add 36 billion to the deficit? You continue to believe what the Democrats tell you yet for some reason ignore the fact that all their economic predictions have been wrong.

Tax ratio x taxable income = tax revenue (although there is a ratio equivalent described in a previous post). The larger the ratio (tax rate from say 32% raised to 36%), the greater the effective revenue.
 
there in lies the problems with liberals, the power to lay and collect taxes is what makes it the Government's money but that isn't where it comes from. Why is it that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes and how is increasing the taxes on the top 2% going to generate 36 billion dollars to the Treasury?

it won't but by jacking up taxes on the wealthy the dems will generate lots of votes from the envious and the spiteful
 
so you support taking from those who have the least to give, so those that have the most can keep it .......

from each according to their ability?

why should the government take anymore from anyone? those at the bottom already get far more than they pay. Indeed, they pay almost nothing-if anything at all-in income taxes. SO lets just give them LESS rather than constantly take from those who already pay too much

your mentality contemplates no limits on how much the top ought to be taxed and your desire is that those who already pay too little will have no incentive to stop voting up taxes on others
 
Tax ratio x taxable income = tax revenue (although there is a ratio equivalent described in a previous post). The larger the ratio (tax rate from say 32% raised to 36%), the greater the effective revenue.

Unless people change their spending habits which always happens when taxes increase causing a reduction in take home pay. That is what liberals always ignore, human behavior. You actually believe that the rich won't change their spending habits with an increase in their taxes or won't work to shelter more of their income or in the case of businesses in that rich category will continue to make as much money?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

The piss poor attitude comes from those who think that the "rich" (whomever they may be) have an unlimited duty to pay for all the mistakes of government and to fund all of the goodies the masses vote for.

Fault has nothing to do with it and its not my fault someone is poor nor do I have a duty to pay for her misfortune and until people like her understand that others do not have a duty to fund her existence she will continue to vote for tax and spend welfare socialists

I always found class envy to be a
piss poor attitude
thus counter productive.
 
from each according to their ability?

why should the government take anymore from anyone? those at the bottom already get far more than they pay. Indeed, they pay almost nothing-if anything at all-in income taxes. SO lets just give them LESS rather than constantly take from those who already pay too much

your mentality contemplates no limits on how much the top ought to be taxed and your desire is that those who already pay too little will have no incentive to stop voting up taxes on others
the error in your statement is that 'all' of those whom you say 'pay to little' will always vote to tax others....
 
Unless people change their spending habits which always happens when taxes increase causing a reduction in take home pay. That is what liberals always ignore, human behavior. You actually believe that the rich won't change their spending habits with an increase in their taxes or won't work to shelter more of their income or in the case of businesses in that rich category will continue to make as much money?

as someone whose social circles mainly involve those targeted for the Clinton/Pelosi/Obama tax hikes, I know people are changing their habits. Shifting away from dividend generating income to capital gains. Some moving assets off shore, cutting back on the spending that the economy needs to expand. Remember when the Dumbocrats passed a "luxury tax" on Yachts etc? who got hurt? Not rich people buying Yachts but the blue collar people who build them
 
the error in your statement is that 'all' of those whom you say 'pay to little' will always vote to tax others....

How will an increase in taxes on those "rich" business owners affect employment and prices they charge the public? then how will that increase in prices affect sales and thus tax revenue?
 
the error in your statement is that 'all' of those whom you say 'pay to little' will always vote to tax others....

The people who tend to be the most reliable dem votes are.

who do you think the Obamunists were appealing to when they said they would only raise taxes on those making 200K or more?
 
as someone whose social circles mainly involve those targeted for the Clinton/Pelosi/Obama tax hikes, I know people are changing their habits. Shifting away from dividend generating income to capital gains. Some moving assets off shore, cutting back on the spending that the economy needs to expand. Remember when the Dumbocrats passed a "luxury tax" on Yachts etc? who got hurt? Not rich people buying Yachts but the blue collar people who build them

Amazing, isn't it, how liberals actually hurt the people they claim they want to help. The total ignorance on understanding human behavior is quite staggering.
 
it won't but by jacking up taxes on the wealthy the dems will generate lots of votes from the envious and the spiteful

It was the Republicans who put the expiration date on the bill, not the Democrats.
 
It was the Republicans who put the expiration date on the bill, not the Democrats.

Now there you go again, failure to recognize why an expiration date was put on the bill. Why do you ignore history?
 
Back
Top Bottom