• 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
Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Per The Omaba's FY2011 budget proposal:

Continue the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
—Most of the tax reductions enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire on
December 31, 2010. This includes reductions in marginal
tax rates, marriage penalty relief, expansions in
the child tax credit, increases in small business expensing,
preferential rates for capital gains and dividends,
and reduction and repeal of estate and gift taxes. The
Administration’s baseline projection of current policy
continues all of these expiring provisions (as amended by
subsequent legislation),5 except for repeal of estate and
generation-skipping transfer taxes. Estate and gift taxes
are assumed to be extended at parameters in effect for
calendar year 2009 (a top rate of 45 percent and an exemption
amount of $3.5 million).
Click to expand...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/receipts.pdf

Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?
Why or why not?
 
No, not with the budget deficit as high as it currently is.
 
They should be extended. Obama is a moron for not doing so... You shouldn't spend your way out of a recession. It's almost like this president wants to rape, then murder, then beat, and then desecrate the grave of prosperity.
 
I don't think the GWB tax cuts should be extended. However, I do think that Congress should pass a new tax cut law. Increase taxes on some of our wealthiest 1% and cut taxes on our middle class. That will help spur government revenue and our economy.
 
For the middle class, yes. For the upper class, no.
 
samsmart said:
I don't think the GWB tax cuts should be extended. However, I do think that Congress should pass a new tax cut law. Increase taxes on some of our wealthiest 1% and cut taxes on our middle class. That will help spur government revenue and our economy.
Click to expand...
Increase those taxes and you lose capital for investment and expansion of the private sector. Way to go, genius!
 
The upper class should still receive tax cuts. It's not fair to make them pay extra to off set damage done by an arrogant president who isn't fiscally responsible. The upper class are our investors and job creators, to stimulate employment there must be less taxes being taken from all classes of people. Obama needs to act like an adult and stop spending what we don't have. Tax cuts should be for everyone, we can't spend our way out of a recession.
 
digsbe said:
The upper class should still receive tax cuts. It's not fair to make them pay extra to off set damage done by an arrogant president who isn't fiscally responsible. The upper class are our investors and job creators, to stimulate employment there must be less taxes being taken from all classes of people. Obama needs to act like an adult and stop spending what we don't have. Tax cuts should be for everyone, we can't spend our way out of a recession.
Click to expand...

It just shows how little you know about the Bush tax cuts. They weren't for everybody...they overwhelmingly rewarded those making in excess of 200k a year.
Also...it is small businesses that are the economic backbone of this country that generally are investing in our economy. These are not the people making 200,000 a year.
 
megaprogman said:
For the middle class, yes. For the upper class, no.
Click to expand...
I'm curious.

What IS middle class.

I suppose it depends on your location, partially.

It seems likely that families making slightly < or exactly $250,000 per year would, in some areas, be middle class.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm OK with extending them for people making under $250K. I'm completely against extending them for wealthy people though. The government needs to balance its budget.
Click to expand...
Why should they be extended for those making under $250K?
 
disneydude said:
It just shows how little you know about the Bush tax cuts. They weren't for everybody...
Click to expand...
I got a tax cut. So did everyone I know. So did you. We all make under $250k.
Heck -- SOME people had their taxes cut to 0%
How can you be right?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
It just shows how little you know about the Bush tax cuts. They weren't for everybody...they overwhelmingly rewarded those making in excess of 200k a year.
Also...it is small businesses that are the economic backbone of this country that generally are investing in our economy. These are not the people making 200,000 a year.
Click to expand...

When did making over 200k a year become a crime?

I have no problem with people paying their fair share. Now since the top brackets pay the lions share to begin with, why should they not get the same across the board cuts?
 
I believe they should remain permanent. But then I also believe we should have a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage not to exceed 15%. The goventment should be forced to work within those limits and no more.
 
Baralis said:
I believe they should remain permanent. But then I also believe we should have a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage not to exceed 15%. The goventment should be forced to work within those limits and no more.
Click to expand...

In the long term, we really can't afford to make them permanent.

Regardless of your idea spending of the US government, that isn't going to come true, so they need this revenue. Anyway, even if there was large spending cuts, reducing the debt is helpful for a country, at least when the economy is going well.



anyway, I don't think that taxes should be increased during this economy, so I think its better to be safe then sorry. the tax cuts should be extended for everyone untill maybe 2011 at the earliest, but afterward, we need for tax revenue.

Cutting spending is another issue, and even if that should be pursued, tax revenues must be strong. Getting a modest budget surplus would be better then having a balanced budget if spending is the same in both cases.
 
Goobieman said:
How can you be right?
Click to expand...

I was about to call your signature fascist, but I won't. I will just infer that.


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.

Getting a "stronger humanity" compared with a weaker one only has value in how it helps people. We aren't trying to create a race of super productive citizens for the sake of doing that.

You can say that wealth distribution reduces the standard of living of people in the future, but thats really it.

but i regress
 
Last edited:
If someone has evidence that the Bush tax cuts decreased tax revenue, please show it to me.


megaprogman said:
For the middle class, yes. For the upper class, no.
Click to expand...

Kandahar said:
I'm OK with extending them for people making under $250K. I'm completely against extending them for wealthy people though. The government needs to balance its budget.
Click to expand...

Class warfare FTW
 
digsbe said:
They should be extended. Obama is a moron for not doing so... You shouldn't spend your way out of a recession. It's almost like this president wants to rape, then murder, then beat, and then desecrate the grave of prosperity.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to oppose a policy because you think there is a better way. It's another to act as though there's no logic in it even when there is.
 
I would agree to the extension if those Wallstreet scumbags had their bonuses taxed at a rate of 55%.
 
We're in a terrible economic time, in tremendous debt, and money has to come from somewhere. You cut as much as you can and you raise as much as you can. The only way government can pay its bills is through fees and taxes.

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.
 
Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Pass new, targeted tax cuts to spur the economic recovery.
 
disneydude said:
It just shows how little you know about the Bush tax cuts. They weren't for everybody...they overwhelmingly rewarded those making in excess of 200k a year.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were fair tax cuts.

No point in cutting the tax on someone who isn't paying tax, is there?
 
nerv14 said:
In the long term, we really can't afford to make them permanent.
Click to expand...

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.

nerv14 said:
Regardless of your idea spending of the US government, that isn't going to come true, so they need this revenue. Anyway, even if there was large spending cuts, reducing the debt is helpful for a country, at least when the economy is going well.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom