Disregard the justifications for the Bush tax cuts and look at what effect they actually have. It's clear cut. They put a trillion plus dollars in the hands of people worth more than $10 million already and they increased our national debt by the same amount. What that amounts to is nothing short of a redistribution of wealth from the rest of us to the uberwealthy. Everybody in the US carries an equal share of that debt, but the benefits of the tax cuts only significantly effected an incredibly tiny number of people. What Bush did is force you to take out a loan for around $30,000 and he gave it to the uberwealthy in the form of tax cuts. He could have accomplished the exact same thing by just cutting them checks for millions or billions of dollars. It would have been exactly the same thing, but then even the folks on the right would have realized that they were being had... So he called it a tax cut instead... It's the most absurd blindspot ever on the right... If you want to give somebody $1 million and you call it a handout, they don't like that, but if you call it a tax cut, they love it...
Last edited by teamosil; 07-08-10 at 08:55 PM.
more spite and envy
if you pay 30% in taxes and your rate is increased to 33% that is a TEN PERCENT INCREASE IN THE TAXES YOU PAY
if you have dividend income you will see your taxes DOUBLED -at LEAST on that
I love those who don't pay enough taxes (to cover what they use) continually support more taxes on others with the lame routine that they can afford it
If some guy is single and you have a hot wife why don't you share her because after all, you get plenty and he's celibate?
and its NOT GIVING ANYONE ANYTHING
where do the statist socialists come up with that crap. a tax cut is not a handout. a handout is taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who did nothing so as to buy their votes
And this from the website, TheBuzz.com:The [Tax Relief Reconciliation] act was controversial because of the tax brackets it created. Those who made under $27,000 filing single, or $46,000 filing jointly would see no change in their brackets. Those making more than that would see a tax decrease of around 2%. Those who made over $300,000 yearly saw the largest break with a decrease of 3.6%. As an example, a family who brings in $80,000 a year would see a decrease of $1600 a year in their taxes. A family who made $300,000 would have seen a break of almost $11,000. The advantage for this was that almost everyone would see a tax break. The disadvantage was that the more money you made the more of a tax break you received. Many people also feel in to the category of no change. The people who seemingly needed the break the most wouldn’t be given any relief.
Tax changes will always benefit one group of people over another. In this case there was a lot of talk over whether or not the new act would actually spur growth in the economy. Those opposed to the taxes argued that giving wealthy individuals tax breaks would do nothing to help the economy, and that the people who needed the help the most were left out of the act all together. Those who supported it argued that allowing tax cuts to the wealthy would help to send more money in to the economy and those who were earning little paid very little in taxes anyhow.
Depending on your situation this act may or may not have affected you. For the most part, most people have benefited from this act. Whether or not it actually helped with growth in our economy remains to be seen.
So, unless someone can show concrete evidence that the Bush tax cuts actually helped this nation's economy (which obviously they will not otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now), I see no reason to extend them. MOreover, these tax cuts weren't given to large corporations as the talking heads would have us believe. They were given to individuals. So, I wonder if the CEO of AIG, for example, has used his multi-million dollar bonus to help stimulate the economy or if he put his hard earned cash in his pocket?...President Bush has stuck to his insistence on successive, sweeping tax cuts, despite the uncomfortable fact that the premise on which they were first proposed - a large government surplus - has evaporated.
Individually these policies involve bold risks. Together they represent a recklessness that could inflict lasting damage on the US economy.
Wrangling continues over the size of the tax cut. Bush wanted to axe $726bn (£444bn) over 10 years, but said he would accept $550bn (£336bn). The Senate has voted for $350bn (£214bn). Either way it would be one of the largest cuts in US fiscal history, all the more remarkable for having been passed at a time of war - not just one war, but several at the same time - and sharply rising government deficits.
The cuts defy conventional economics, which predict that a steep rise in government borrowing will push up interest rates and depress private investment, squeezing the economy dry.
Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm....?"
Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-08-10 at 09:17 PM.