Liberals giving up tax fight

BWG said:

The current temporary tax rates are set to expire 12-31-10, as designed by legislation.



To continue the current temporary tax rates new legislation has to be passed and signed. Current legislation will soon be history, gone , kaput, over and done.

New legislation, containing tax cuts and signed by President Barrack Obama, will then be law.









I smile every time the cons refer to the health care act as "Obamacare" and hope it sticks. Can you imagine 60 years from now and someone carrying a sign in a town hall meeting to keep the government out of my 'Obamacare'....LOL.

Click to expand...

you mean, extending current rates? That's not a tax cut. it would only be a tax cut if Obama let them expire FIRST. Which he is not doing. You and others here are just trying to justify Obama's major compromise to yourselves, when really, Obama had no choice if he wanted to survive. Conservatives get what they've always wanted, for once, and you're doing the only thing you can do, pretend that it was because the liberals were "nice".

BWG said:

The current temporary tax rates are set to expire 12-31-10, as designed by legislation.



To continue the current temporary tax rates new legislation has to be passed and signed. Current legislation will soon be history, gone , kaput, over and done.

New legislation, containing tax cuts and signed by President Barrack Obama, will then be law.









I smile every time the cons refer to the health care act as "Obamacare" and hope it sticks. Can you imagine 60 years from now and someone carrying a sign in a town hall meeting to keep the government out of my 'Obamacare'....LOL.

Click to expand...

That is correct, however, you liberals can not call what would effectively not be any sort of tax relief, a cut. It just simply is a lie. You either propose to keep the current tax rates from expiring, or you let them expire and hike the rates.

It is that simple.

j-mac

In the new legislation, the tax rate would be the same as the current temporary tax rate. Without new legislation, the rate would revert back to the last permanent rate, as prescribed by law, before the temporary rate was authorized. The new legislation would be a temporary tax cut from the last permanent tax rate.

So, the "Bush tax cuts" are going to last another couple of years, or until after the next election. What about the Obama tax cuts, you know, the $400 tax credit we all got as a part of the stimulus package, should we continue that one?

You do remember the Obama tax cut, don't you?

Dittohead not! said:

So, the "Bush tax cuts" are going to last another couple of years, or until after the next election. What about the Obama tax cuts, you know, the $400 tax credit we all got as a part of the stimulus package, should we continue that one?

You do remember the Obama tax cut, don't you?

Click to expand...

I remember them well, did you spend yours all in one place? Since you did, now what? With the Bush tax cuts you are still benefiting.

Total: $237 billion

• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

BWG said:

In the new legislation, the tax rate would be the same as the current temporary tax rate. Without new legislation, the rate would revert back to the last permanent rate, as prescribed by law, before the temporary rate was authorized. The new legislation would be a temporary tax cut from the last permanent tax rate.

Click to expand...

This demonstrates the type of language that is meant to distort, and divide America along class lines. It is true that the proposal from the President is an extension of rates put in place by the Bush administration to combat the last recession at the beginning of his term. However, All economists agree that allowing the current rates to expire and in effect cause a hike in current tax rates across the board would be severely damaging to the current economy. This would also ultimately result in any chance of Obama gaining a second term to be dashed in the wind, and most likely we would go further to the right in the utter failure of progressive mistakes.

Is that what you want for this country?


j-mac

j-mac said:

This demonstrates the type of language that is meant to distort, and divide America along class lines. It is true that the proposal from the President is an extension of rates put in place by the Bush administration to combat the last recession at the beginning of his term. However, All economists agree that allowing the current rates to expire and in effect cause a hike in current tax rates across the board would be severely damaging to the current economy. This would also ultimately result in any chance of Obama gaining a second term to be dashed in the wind, and most likely we would go further to the right in the utter failure of progressive mistakes.

Is that what you want for this country?


j-mac

Click to expand...

ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

News Headlines

The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

(snip)

Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html

http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

Boo Radley said:

ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

News Headlines

The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

(snip)

Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html

http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

Click to expand...

Ok, so what? Keynesian's don't believe that....What do you want me to say other than just look at how our country is responding to Keynesian economics today.... Stagnant would be kind.


j-mac

Boo Radley said:

ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

News Headlines

The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

(snip)

Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html

http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

Click to expand...

please show me how Clinton, by taking money from people, which is what taxes is, ushered in economic growth? Please tell me how it couldn't have POSSIBLY have been external causes like the growth of the internet, or internal such as the decrease in government spending, or other such major economic/monetary policies?

Boo Radley said:

ALL would not be accurate. Some reading:

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was chairman of George Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers wrote in his blog: “I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.”

News Headlines

The tax changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 by President George W. Bush and a Republican-led Congress were loaded with gimmicks, the benefits were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, and they added trillions of dollars to the national debt.

(snip)

Increasing the take-home pay of low- and moderate-income families will lead to more spending and a boost in demand for goods and services and, thus, more jobs. By contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are more likely to be saved, providing a relatively ineffective response.

Let the tax cuts for the rich expire

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html

http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. George W. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return.

Fareed Zakaria - To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

Click to expand...

Interesting, yet not one of those links posted actual revenue results from the U.S. Treasury, wonder why? I have given you the links in the past which of course you ignored. Try again. Please explain to us all how personal income tax revenue grew AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts per the following link, Go to Revenue and expenses and put in whatever dates you want


BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

then you go back to the Clinton years and ignore what happened in 1994, not surprising. If you think that the govt. has a revenue problem what are you doing personally to solve it? Ever thought of having a bake sale?

j-mac said:

Ok, so what? Keynesian's don't believe that....What do you want me to say other than just look at how our country is responding to Keynesian economics today.... Stagnant would be kind.


j-mac

Click to expand...

Actually, we've been under the tax cuts. Keep that in mind, this is under your prefered economics.

DarkWizard12 said:

please show me how Clinton, by taking money from people, which is what taxes is, ushered in economic growth? Please tell me how it couldn't have POSSIBLY have been external causes like the growth of the internet, or internal such as the decrease in government spending, or other such major economic/monetary policies?

Click to expand...

I have repeatedly said government doesn't control the economy, but it does show that we can very well have growth with taxes going up and not being cut. My point to j was that his use of the word ALL was inaccurate.

Boo Radley said:

Actually, we've been under the tax cuts. Keep that in mind, this is under your prefered economics.

Click to expand...

How long have you gone without a raise? Those tax cuts went into effect between 2001-2003, it is 2010 now and the recession started in December 2007. If you are working you are still benefiting from those tax cuts, are you not?

Boo Radley said:

I have repeatedly said government doesn't control the economy, but it does show that we can very well have growth with taxes going up and not being cut. My point to j was that his use of the word ALL was inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that people keeping more of what they earn need more or less of that so called govt. help? Since the govt. doesn't control the economy in your world then you wouldn't have any problem with severe cuts in that 3.6 trillion dollar budget?

Boo Radley said:

Actually, we've been under the tax cuts. Keep that in mind, this is under your prefered economics.

Click to expand...

the damage being done is not the rates, it is the spending under an Keynesian economic plan. It is utter foolishness.


j-mac

Deuce said:

Yet the healthcare reform bill is called "Obamacare." How convenient for you.

Click to expand...

OK, let me rephrase: he didn't do anything that was actually good for the country.

Better?

Hatuey said:

Every single major news organization says one thing. apdst says another. Proving once more he doesn't really understand what he is reading.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're saying that this is a tax cut. But it's not, is it?

apdst said:

Yeah, they're saying that this is a tax cut. But it's not, is it?

Click to expand...

Liberals and other proponents of bigger govt. don't like being challenged. Facts never matter to them thus they ignore links to those facts but instead buy the opinions of others who obviously have an agenda. Ask yourself why this Administration is so adamant against people keeping more of what they earn regardless of the income level? No one has yet explained nor can they why personal income tax revenue to the govt. went UP AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts. that is quite telling as they simply ignore it.

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Conservative said:

Liberals and other proponents of bigger govt. don't like being challenged. Facts never matter to them thus they ignore links to those facts but instead buy the opinions of others who obviously have an agenda. Ask yourself why this Administration is so adamant against people keeping more of what they earn regardless of the income level? No one has yet explained nor can they why personal income tax revenue to the govt. went UP AFTER the Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts. that is quite telling as they simply ignore it.

BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Click to expand...

It's because this has absolutely nothing to do with raising tax revenue. It's all about wealth redistribution.

apdst said:

It's because this has absolutely nothing to do with raising tax revenue. It's all about wealth redistribution.

Click to expand...

Which of course means the fundamental transformation of this country into a "European Liberal Utopia" which of course doesn't exist. This is contrary to the foundation upon which this country was built.

Conservative said:

Which of course means the fundamental transformation of this country into a "European Liberal Utopia" which of course doesn't exist. This is contrary to the foundation upon which this country was built.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking alotta Obamabots don't want to admit what he really meant when he promised to, "fundamentally change", the United States.

I'll give Credit where Credit's deserved. Speaking about Politicians, I'll give 70% to the Republicans, 25% to Obama, and 5% to the few Democrats going along with this. Speaking in General, I'd give the majority of the credit to the voters, a large chunk of that being the Tea Party, who made this the only politically viable option for Obama.

The only Credit Obama really gets is realizing that putting his foot in the ground going into the new year was going to hurt him politically and the country financially, that there was no way he was going to be able to raise the "rich's" taxes come January, and thus that this was the only viable option for him politically.

As someone else said, I'm only going to give him so much credit when it's obvious that if the election results hadn't turned out how they had he'd have not even considered this. He's compromising because he HAS to, not because he necessarily wants to, which isn't exactly as noble of a notion.

As for whether or not this is a tax cut or a tax extension, its a matter of semantics. People arguing whose right is a bit ridiculous because its based solely off of your own personal view.

My thought? I'd laugh if anyone tried to tell me with certainty that its a "tax cut" and that I am being hypocritical for not giving him huge credit for "cutting tax's". The tax's would need to be gone, NOW for this to be a cut in my eyes. Otherwise, its simply an extension.

For example...

Say you've been making $1000 a week for the past few years, but next month you're set to have your salary decreased to $800 a week. If I go ahead and say "Scratch that, you're going to keep making $1000 until [x] date" that's not a raise, that's an extension of what's current. If however I waited until next month, when your salary decreased, and then after that point came to you and said "Do you know what, we're going to make your sallery $1000 until [x] date" then that'd be a raise to me because you're ACTUALLY raising something.

For this to be a "tax cut" we'd have to suggest that somehow the "new" tax rates were 100% guaranteed. But they weren't, for this very reason...because an extension, or even further cuts, could happen. Its historically ignorant to assume that taxes are going to be a certain way "X" years out by default when historically tax's are routinely changed or attempted to be changed.

The only thing one can deal with is the reality of today, and the reality of today is the same now as will be the reality of tomorrow...that, to me, is an extension.

To others, for whatever reason, they think that counting money you NEVER were guaranteed and NEVER actually had is somehow reasonable, responsable, and legitimate. To them, this seems like a Tax Cut. And that makes sense, based on their view of reality....I just think their view of reality is extremely warped, based singularly off their desire and absolute need to paint this as some kind of victory for Obama.

Conservative said:

How long have you gone without a raise? Those tax cuts went into effect between 2001-2003, it is 2010 now and the recession started in December 2007. If you are working you are still benefiting from those tax cuts, are you not?

Click to expand...

A raise? Please make some sense. :coffeepap

j-mac said:

the damage being done is not the rates, it is the spending under an Keynesian economic plan. It is utter foolishness.


j-mac

Click to expand...

The damage was done before the spending. The spending is a response to the damage, which occured under the Bush tax cuts (see you've pick up on the republican spin word :lol. :coffeepap

Boo Radley said:

A raise? Please make some sense. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

Unfortunately making sense doesn't matter to you, tax cuts mean more spendable income and thus a raise in your take home pay. You continue to get that raise in take home pay today and have gotten it over the past 7 years. That take home pay signifies a raise and that take home pay due to taxes hasn't gone up in 7 years but my bet is your expenses have.