• 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!

Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?

  • Total voters
    55
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, hell, in the long run, we're all going to die. May as well party, right?

Especially if you can steal the money from someone else to pay for it.



Wrong.

Reducing the debt to zero is ESSENTIAL for the long term health of the nation.

That means we have to cut taxes to spur growth (we're on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve), and we have to cut spending.
Click to expand...
I can agree that we need to cut spending, but if you want to eliminate debt it is insane to say that cutting taxes is the way to do that.

It is not true in any way that cutting taxes while it is around the 40% level would decrease the debt to GDP ratio.

If that was true, then we would just cut taxes and increase spending with the added tax revenue.

If you can find any economist today that agrees that cutting taxes to get defecits will get rid of our debt, then I would like to see that.
 
nerv14 said:
I can agree that we need to cut spending, but if you want to eliminate debt it is insane to say that cutting taxes is the way to do that.
Click to expand...

Of course.

I mean, history merely shows that when Kennedy AND Reagan AND Bush cut taxes, the federal revenues went up.

Gee, when we're trying to cut the gap between what's coming and what's going out, we clearly don't want MORE of what's coming in, right?

That's what you're saying, isn't it?

nerv14 said:
It is not true in any way that cutting taxes while it is around the 40% level would decrease the debt to GDP ratio.
Click to expand...

Except in the way that historically it's true.

But outside of that, it's clearly not true.

nerv14 said:
If that was true, then we would just cut taxes and increase spending with the added tax revenue.
Click to expand...

You should try to divorce yourself from conjoining siblings that are five years apart in age, really, it's not a good idea.

Historically, under Reagan and Bush, and all the other Congresses since LBJ, that spending has gone up.

That's a fact that's totally independent of federal receipts.

So what we need is to tar and feather Congressmen or otherwise discourage them from running for office again, usually no re-electing them is the best way, to keep them from spending our money.

But that's still indpendent of federal receipts.

nerv14 said:
If you can find any economist today that agrees that cutting taxes to get defecits will get rid of our debt, then I would like to see that.
Click to expand...

To get defecits to what?

Cutting taxes increases revenue. Lots of economists, and they're members of the Cult of Being Correct, not only know this, but say it.

Since deficits are a spending issue, and only a spending issue, pretending the spending problem will be solved by raising taxes is just ignorant.
 
Goobieman said:
Why should they be extended for those making under $250K?
Click to expand...

From the government's perspective, there's just not much revenue to be raised from those people anyway. And from the taxpayer's perspective, that may be money that they genuinely need. It seems like extending those tax cuts would provide a lot of benefit for relatively little cost.
 
Kandahar said:
From the government's perspective, there's just not much revenue to be raised from those people anyway. And from the taxpayer's perspective, that may be money that they genuinely need. It seems like extending those tax cuts would provide a lot of benefit for relatively little cost.
Click to expand...

And some if not all that money will come back by the way excise taxes, sales taxes, and various other fees.
 
Kandahar said:
:roll:
Argument fail. Normally you're smarter than this.
Click to expand...

At least you said it was for the deficit, which megaprogman and now Vader did not. Still, the mentality that it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich, and never OK to raise taxes for the poor, is part of the reason why now 40% of people who file tax returns don't actually pay any taxes.
 
Dav said:
At least you said it was for the deficit, which megaprogman and now Vader did not. Still, the mentality that it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich, and never OK to raise taxes for the poor, is part of the reason why now 40% of people who file tax returns don't actually pay any taxes.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich and never OK to raise taxes for the poor. I would say that given the current tax rates, the size of the deficit, and assuming the economy recovers...it will be OK to raise taxes on the rich a couple percentage points.

I'm more inclined to agree that one shouldn't raise taxes on the poor except under RARE circumstances. Frankly I'm surprised so many conservatives disagree. If less government is always more efficient, then wouldn't low/no taxes for the poor be the best anti-poverty program of all?
 
Dav said:
At least you said it was for the deficit, which megaprogman and now Vader did not. Still, the mentality that it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich, and never OK to raise taxes for the poor, is part of the reason why now 40% of people who file tax returns don't actually pay any taxes.
Click to expand...

Until we reduce income stratification to what it was in the 50s and 60s, those is the only appropriate taxation method, at least until there is no federal deficit. Seriously, once you have enough to live on, the rest isn't really that important.
 
disneydude said:
It just shows how little you know about the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Apparently including Obama, sinceh e continues to make such a big deal about wanting to extend them for people making under 250k and using that as evidence of how he wants to help out the middle class with taxes.

:roll:

So, is Obama an idiot that doesn't know anything about the Bush Tax Cuts or are you just over exaggerating your statement to make your hyper partisan talking point work?
 
Groucho said:
It makes sense to me to take it from people who will not be hurt in a serious way. An extra 5% from someone making $250,000 may mean that they can't buy that extra boat they wanted. An extra 5% from the average family means they might not be able to pay their mortgage.
Click to expand...

This is a bit ridiculous. 5% more taken away from someone making $250,000 a year probably means they're not buying some kind of luxury item that is not essential, correct (By the way, who do you think are the early adopters to tehnology and other high dollar items that eventually come down in price?). He likely has to sacrifice that luxury item unless he's bought a lot more than he can afford, even on the $250k salary.

At the same time, 5% month for the average family ALSO likely means they're passing on a luxury item that is not necessary and would be fine, unless they have bought a lot of stuff that is more expensive then they rightly can afford on their salary.

That family has to eat in at dinner instead of go out a bit more oftne, or rent a movie instead of going to the theater, or not do happy hour every friday, or maybe give up that DVR or HD service for just standard cable.

Because the "rich" person's luxury is bigger and more extravagent we love to demonize them for it, but yet act like those making less don't have any luxury purchases of their own.

Cable is not essential.
Multiple cell phones are not essential, hell one isn't even technically.
Your Xbox and buying games isn't essential.
Eating out isn't essential.
Alcohol or cig's are not essential.

Generally, everyones got SOME amount of luxury expenses they could cut back on if needed, and just becuase someones luxury expenses is bigger than someone elses doesn't relative to their earnings doesn't make one worse than the other. The only people who that would equate to not being able to pay their house payment would be those who stupidly bought into more house than they could afford and their mistake should not be subsidized by those making more money.
 
Yes, and they need to be made permanent. The government needs to cut its spending if there's a deficit. Taking money away from citizens does nothing to help grow the economy.
 
Zyphlin said:
This is a bit ridiculous. 5% more taken away from someone making $250,000 a year probably means they're not buying some kind of luxury item that is not essential, correct (By the way, who do you think are the early adopters to tehnology and other high dollar items that eventually come down in price?). He likely has to sacrifice that luxury item unless he's bought a lot more than he can afford, even on the $250k salary.

At the same time, 5% month for the average family ALSO likely means they're passing on a luxury item that is not necessary and would be fine, unless they have bought a lot of stuff that is more expensive then they rightly can afford on their salary.

That family has to eat in at dinner instead of go out a bit more oftne, or rent a movie instead of going to the theater, or not do happy hour every friday, or maybe give up that DVR or HD service for just standard cable.

Because the "rich" person's luxury is bigger and more extravagent we love to demonize them for it, but yet act like those making less don't have any luxury purchases of their own.

Cable is not essential.
Multiple cell phones are not essential, hell one isn't even technically.
Your Xbox and buying games isn't essential.
Eating out isn't essential.
Alcohol or cig's are not essential.

Generally, everyones got SOME amount of luxury expenses they could cut back on if needed, and just becuase someones luxury expenses is bigger than someone elses doesn't relative to their earnings doesn't make one worse than the other. The only people who that would equate to not being able to pay their house payment would be those who stupidly bought into more house than they could afford and their mistake should not be subsidized by those making more money.
Click to expand...
taxes-tax-rates_11-580.jpg


Luxury items create a lot of jobs. Think of boats, large houses, luxury cars, more than one house, and travel. Investment in company stocks, which provides capital to companies to expand and create more jobs.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Seriously, once you have enough to live on, the rest isn't really that important.
Click to expand...

"Pursuit of happiness" is part of the US Constitution.

And how much is "enough to live on?" Enough to live on means different things to different people. :roll:
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
I was about to call your signature fascist, but I won't. I will just infer that.
Click to expand...
Just looking at Darwinism thru utilitarian eyes.

You make it seem like that if someone doesn't work then they have no value. They are human, I don't understand the whole "weakening humanity" in that context.
Click to expand...
Simple -- resources that could be better used are used instead on supporting those that only weaken the gene pool. In the state of nature, those predisposed to sickness, slowness, stupidity and weakness would be weeded out over time, and the species would be stronger for it.

Getting a "stronger humanity" compared with a weaker one only has value in how it helps people.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- it has its greatest value in the survival of the species.

You can say that wealth distribution reduces the standard of living of people in the future, but thats really it.
Click to expand...
No... by allowing those predisposed to sickness, slowness, stupidity and weakness to continue to contribute to the gene pool, the species as a whole is weaker, and therefore less likely to survive.
 
Kandahar said:
From the government's perspective, there's just not much revenue to be raised from those people anyway. And from the taxpayer's perspective, that may be money that they genuinely need. It seems like extending those tax cuts would provide a lot of benefit for relatively little cost.
Click to expand...

Wht then do you suppose these tax cuts were characterized as doing nothing for the middle class?
 
Goobieman said:
Wht then do you suppose these tax cuts were characterized as doing nothing for the middle class?
Click to expand...

Probably because the lion's share of them were geared toward the wealthy. That doesn't mean other people didn't get more money back though.

But regardless, I'm not interested in how they were characterized. That's just a thinly veiled attempt to get me to play your partisan blame game. I'm more interested in policy than petty partisanship.
 
Kandahar said:
Probably because the lion's share of them were geared toward the wealthy. That doesn't mean other people didn't get more money back though.
Click to expand...
The specific criticism was that the tax cuts were for the rich, and the middle class got nothing. Thus -must- have been a lie.
 
Kandahar said:
I don't think it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich and never OK to raise taxes for the poor. I would say that given the current tax rates, the size of the deficit, and assuming the economy recovers...it will be OK to raise taxes on the rich a couple percentage points.

I'm more inclined to agree that one shouldn't raise taxes on the poor except under RARE circumstances. Frankly I'm surprised so many conservatives disagree. If less government is always more efficient, then wouldn't low/no taxes for the poor be the best anti-poverty program of all?
Click to expand...

There's a couple of things though:

1. Many of the people in the top income bracket aren't actually rich, and many people who don't pay taxes aren't actually poor. 40% of Americans are not poor, and a married couple making $400K annually isn't necessarily upper class. Incidentally, it's kinda odd that people making $400K and people making $10 million are taxed at the same rate.

2. Don't you think it's dangerous to government fiscal responsibility when 47% of tax returns don't involve any actual taxes being payed? When such a large portion of the population has no stake in the money which their government spends, there's a lot less incentive to spend less, and a lot more to spend more.
 
Goobieman said:
The specific criticism was that the tax cuts were for the rich, and the middle class got nothing. Thus -must- have been a lie.
Click to expand...

As I said, I really don't care whether you think some random criticism from some random person you dislike was a lie. I'm not interested in your infantile partisanship. :2wave:
 
Kandahar said:
As I said, I really don't care whether you think some random criticism from some random person you dislike was a lie. I'm not interested in your infantile partisanship.
Click to expand...
That's rather ironic, given your adherence to yours.
:doh

And to paint the 'does nothing for the nmiddle class' criticism of GWB's 2001/2003 tax cuts as 'random', both in nature and in source, is to illustrate a remarkable degree of willful ignorance.
 
Dav said:
There's a couple of things though:

1. Many of the people in the top income bracket aren't actually rich, and many people who don't pay taxes aren't actually poor. 40% of Americans are not poor, and a married couple making $400K annually isn't necessarily upper class. Incidentally, it's kinda odd that people making $400K and people making $10 million are taxed at the same rate.

2. Don't you think it's dangerous to government fiscal responsibility when 47% of tax returns don't involve any actual taxes being payed? When such a large portion of the population has no stake in the money which their government spends, there's a lot less incentive to spend less, and a lot more to spend more.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this? Are you saying 47% of the people who submitted returns paid no taxes all year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom