• 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 Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?


  • Total voters
    41
is that net or gross? You do realize most pizza shops fall in this category. /facepalm

Taxes are paid on net. If your pizza shop nets $250,000 per year, you have a nice pizza shop and paying taxes is your civic obligation just as with the executive making $250 in salary. Your $250 profit on your pizza job probably comes from a $1M revenue business (though never having owned a pizza shop, I can attest to their profitability, but 25% return on sales seems about right, if not a bit high)
 
and you were unable to comprehend what I said

I said a 3% increase in tax rates is about a 10% increase in taxes

The dem tax hikes will jump the top rate from 35% to almost 40% That means more than a ten percent increase in taxes. DIvidend income will be taxed at more than twice the current rate

If you dems are so enamored with people paying taxes why don't you demand that everyone pay a similar increase? Because dems really don't support tax hikes for revenue production-they support tax hikes on others to buy the votes of those not targeted for soaking

This is so not true and very misleading.

It is very, very unlikely that 3% increase in tax rates at the highest bracket to increase an individuals taxes by more than 3% except at very, very, very high levels of income (where most of the income is subject to the highest bracket). Even then, it would not be as high as a 10% increase in taxes.

People don't seem to really understand the graduated tax system. If you increased the highest tax rate by 5 percentage points from 35 to 40%, only that income ABOVE the income threshold would be subjected to the tax increase. The tax on the income below that threshold would be unchanged. Given that highest threshold for married couples is about $360,000 of TAXABLE income (which is about 20% less than real income, your results may vary), this affects very few people.

As a matter of example, consider in 2008 the 35% bracket for married couples kicked in at $357,000. To have $357,000 of taxable income, your real income would likely have been well north of $400,000 (as not all income is taxable due to deductions, exemptions and credits). But lets say you made $500,000 with a taxable income of $400,000. A married persons tax bill would have been $111,575. If you instead raised the upper threshold by 5 points to 40%, the taxes would instead have been $113,690, an increase of $2,115. This would be a 1.9% increase in your tax bill (on a 5 percentage point increase in the highest rate)....

The problem with discussions on taxes is that people don't really understand how they work. They are ugly in the details, but the actual results of taxes paid as a percentage of income are much, much lower than people realize. For example, note that at $500,000 of income your federal tax bill (though well inside the highest tax bracket) is $111,575 or 22% of income (not 30, 40 or 50%, which seems to be the understanding of many)
 
Last edited:
that is beyond silly.

I'm convinced you can understand this. Lets try another angle. How about if Obama decided to give a tax break to poor people. Say he said that they would get a refund for the estimated amount of sales taxes they spend in a year. They estimate that the average person making $20k/year or less spends $1,000 on sales taxes, so they cut a check for everybody making less than $20k for $1,000 each year. Would you consider that a handout?
 
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire on 31 December 2010....Should they be extended?
The Obama has decided that all of the usual liberal rhetoric about GWB's tax cuts beng just for the rich is just aother lie from the partisan bigots, and has decided to leave in place all of the tax cuts for those making less than 200/250k per year because they will provide relief to the middle and working class families that need it.
 
Last edited:
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire on 31 December 2010....Should they be extended?

Yes they should be extended, but a lot of spending should be cut.
 
Neither yes nor no.
These tax cuts for the wealthy should never have occurred;but, by now we should all know where the conservatives stand and who they represent. Nor do I think the Democrats represent the middle working class very well.
 
The Obama Administration is committed to letting these tax cuts expire:

“I want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts,” Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a May 2008 interview.

Obama also said, in a June 2007 Democratic debate at Washington, D.C.’s Howard University, that repealing the Bush tax cuts would help pay for universal health care and other social programs he envisioned.

“The Bush tax cuts -- people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives,” Obama said.

If allowed to expire, this will effect even people who pay no taxes at all -- refundable tax credits will be lowered. Here's one example:

The 2001 tax cuts increased the amount of the Child Tax Credit that is refundable – money which can be earned even if no income tax is owed – to $1,000. Unless Congress extends the tax cuts, low-income families will only be able to get a maximum of $500 per child.

At least President Obama is staying true to form...
 
In this entire thread there's been nothing that details out how it will affect people . . . so, pray tell, how will it affect us?

I'm not making the accusation that it's going to affect us.

I was pointing out that often times people who are OPPOSED to tax hikes are called "Greedy" for wanting to keep their money rather than having it go to the government.

You provided the perfect example of why there's hypocrisy on the other side when they're continually throwing out the "greedy" term against anyone that is against tax hikes, because many on their own side have a view that could also be greedy. IE, "its not going to affect MY taxes so why should I care that they're goin to raise others".
 
Letting these tax breaks expire effects every single one of us - because it confiscates money from a free economy and puts in the hands of bureaucrats who use the extra money to buy votes. It infuriates me that someone would say, in effect, "It doesn't effect me; so I don't care." On 2 fronts -- one, because it WILL effect you. And, two, because it reminds me of this:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; THEN THEY CAME for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

An old saw, but true.
 
Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare. They should be repealed. We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk. It is getting harder and harder for working families to buy a home. Two income households are now a requirement, not a luxury (so much for that pro-family GOP talking point).
 
Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare.
The Obama has decided that all of the usual liberal rhetoric about GWB's tax cuts beng just for the rich is just aother lie from the partisan bigots, and has decided to leave in place all of the tax cuts for those making less than 200/250k per year because they will provide relief to the middle and working class families that need it.

We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk
The upper class has grown and the lower class has remained stagnant.
How is that bad?
 
I'm offended by those who keep throwing out this same BS! You lump those who disagree with your rational for fairness and equality (in this case on taxes) and think we're unpatriotic or that we hate capticalism and the free market system. We'll we don't!

I believe in capticalism. I believe that every man, woman and child has every right to go out into this world and if he works hard enough or gets lucky and either earns his keep or falls into a cash cow he or she deserves to reap the benefits of his wealth and prosperity. What I DON'T agree with is imposing taxes on those who can't afford them and giving large tax breaks to those who really don't need them.

The Conservative rational on tax cuts has always been that they create jobs. We'll, where they hell are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts? And if they are suppose to work so well to stimulate the economy, why did this country fall into a Recession? And if fiscal conservatism is such a big concern for the Right, why didn't they uphold their side in being responsible stewarts of the People's money and ensure that both wars (War in Iraq and in Afghanstan) were paid for?

SEVEN YEARS of tax cuts to those making +$300K/annually and what does this nation have to show for it?

Answer = A National/Global Recession

Now, I could understand if these tax cuts were for major corporations, but they aren't. They're for wealthy individuals. So, unless these people are puring their money back into their businesses instead of paying for their multi-million dollar homes, expensive cars or private jets, I fail to see how giving weathy individuals a tax break when such hasn't done a thing to spur the economy! The logic being used just doesn't appear to be very sound to me, and the evidence is all around us.

Businesses have closed.
People remain unemployed.
States are broke!
U.S. companies are still looking for ways to ship their business overseas taking much needed jobs with them.

Until you can show me that the Bush tax cuts will begin to work and VERY SOON, I see no reason to continue them.

1) WTF are you to say what someone else needs

2) If one person works hard and owns two homes or two cars and others are without cars or homeless do you say that the latter should be given one of the homes because the first guy doesn't NEED two homes

3) WTF Is Capiticalism?

4) can you prove the tax cuts caused the recession? No you cannot-tax revenues INCREASED

5) why should I get to keep less of the next dollar I make compared to you? I already pay far far more in taxes than I use
 
Let's not get twisted off into irrelevance. I do agree that $1M is not uber wealthy. In fact, it isn't all that much money. That said, the estate tax kicks in at $2M so the $1M is irrelevant. ...and that said, the issue is about the elimination of the estate tax most benefits the UBER wealthy. That statement is true. 85% of the wealth in this country is held by 20% of the people (and 35% by 1% of the people). Elimination of the estate tax most benefits the 1% of the population. This should not be a discussion about where the estate tax kicks in ($1M or $10M) but rather the value of an estate tax. The government should be after mega-estates, not families that have managed their financial affairs well.

IMHO, the absence of the estate tax grossly benefits a very small number of people, continues to bifurcate our society along economic lines (which will not have good long-term ramifications for its stability) and concentrates capital in the hands of those that did not earn it (non-productive members of our society... daddy funded welfare). The notion of that capital should be earned and not given (clearing the chips and returning people to go with $200) has some value to our society. Adjusting the minimum estate value subject to the tax is easy... raising the minimum from $2 to $5 or $10 million is not the same as eliminating estate tax.

This was a bad move by the Bush Administration (number 45 of the top 100 Bush blunders), at least for America. I am sure I got a few dinners paid for by some of his Texas oil buddies, especially those that died in 2010, but this did nothing for our economy except cut off tax revenues. Fortunately this bad idea terminates on its own.

estate taxes were a scheme for social engineering based on the absence of a progressive income tax of any consequence. If you lose 50% of what you earn to taxes WTF should you lose another 50% upon death. Heirs to a fortune certainly did more to earn it than greedy politicians who use the estate tax to gain votes from the spiteful and the envious
 
This is so not true and very misleading.

It is very, very unlikely that 3% increase in tax rates at the highest bracket to increase an individuals taxes by more than 3% except at very, very, very high levels of income (where most of the income is subject to the highest bracket). Even then, it would not be as high as a 10% increase in taxes.

People don't seem to really understand the graduated tax system. If you increased the highest tax rate by 5 percentage points from 35 to 40%, only that income ABOVE the income threshold would be subjected to the tax increase. The tax on the income below that threshold would be unchanged. Given that highest threshold for married couples is about $360,000 of TAXABLE income (which is about 20% less than real income, your results may vary), this affects very few people.

As a matter of example, consider in 2008 the 35% bracket for married couples kicked in at $357,000. To have $357,000 of taxable income, your real income would likely have been well north of $400,000 (as not all income is taxable due to deductions, exemptions and credits). But lets say you made $500,000 with a taxable income of $400,000. A married persons tax bill would have been $111,575. If you instead raised the upper threshold by 5 points to 40%, the taxes would instead have been $113,690, an increase of $2,115. This would be a 1.9% increase in your tax bill (on a 5 percentage point increase in the highest rate)....

The problem with discussions on taxes is that people don't really understand how they work. They are ugly in the details, but the actual results of taxes paid as a percentage of income are much, much lower than people realize. For example, note that at $500,000 of income your federal tax bill (though well inside the highest tax bracket) is $111,575 or 22% of income (not 30, 40 or 50%, which seems to be the understanding of many)

this is beyond stupid.

an increase of the tax rate from 35% to 39.5% means those of use in the top bracket are sure going to pay alot more than 4.5% more taxes. ANyone who has dividend income is going to being paying almost 40% on that rather than 15%

If you are in the top bracket and you have 100K in dividend income in addition to the salary that puts you in the top bracket you only get to keep 60K or so rather than 85K

that's a huge tax hike

If people are so hell bent on making the rich pay more and more, what sort of additional objective benefits are you all willing to give the rich in return. The lame and lie filled claim that the rich get more benefits from government is nonsense. The poor use far more government resources.
 
Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare. They should be repealed. We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk. It is getting harder and harder for working families to buy a home. Two income households are now a requirement, not a luxury (so much for that pro-family GOP talking point).

complete BS. the tax cuts went to people who paid taxes.

we need a flat tax or a sales tax such dems cannot pander to people who think like you and hate that others make more than you do
 
Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare. They should be repealed. We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk. It is getting harder and harder for working families to buy a home. Two income households are now a requirement, not a luxury (so much for that pro-family GOP talking point).

No, its' becoming to damn easy for people to buy homes which is a huge part of our economy's septic problem.
 
this is beyond stupid.

an increase of the tax rate from 35% to 39.5% means those of use in the top bracket are sure going to pay alot more than 4.5% more taxes. ANyone who has dividend income is going to being paying almost 40% on that rather than 15%

If you are in the top bracket and you have 100K in dividend income in addition to the salary that puts you in the top bracket you only get to keep 60K or so rather than 85K

that's a huge tax hike

If people are so hell bent on making the rich pay more and more, what sort of additional objective benefits are you all willing to give the rich in return. The lame and lie filled claim that the rich get more benefits from government is nonsense. The poor use far more government resources.

It's a pity that you lack sufficient understanding of the income tax system to even understand my point much less refute it. It's a further pity that you lack the wit to gracefully handle the situation and resort to your classless schoolyard insults (beyond stupid...come on, deal with reality...you are out of your league on this issue) and then obfuscate issue by introducing new element to the argument (new taxes on dividends).

I took you to task ONLY with the statement that a 3% rate increase on the highest bracket was the equivalent of an 10% increase in taxes. I delivered a prima facie case using a real example that your statement simply was not true. My example set a scenario for a person solidly in the upper tax bracket.... his taxes increased 1.9% with a 5% (not 3%) increase in the upper rate (numbers run through a real tax calculator). I also said in extreme examples you would be correct, that a 3% increase in the upper rate could deliver a 10% increase in the tax bill, but most of the person's income would have to be in the upper bracket. I ran some more numbers. I appears once the married person was over $10M in TAXABLE income (an income that would likely be higher than $10M, and much much higher than $10M if cap gains were involved) only then did the 3% rate change equate to a 10% increase in the tax bill... but that is an extreme example.

I never took you to task on the issue of changing taxes on cap gains and dividends, that is a different issue. Yes, if you raise the cap gain from 15% to 38%, then you are more than doubling the tax on those gains. I understand that at the expiration of the Bush tax cuts these rates are affected as well, but I was not arguing the overall picture nor specific merits of letting the taxes return to the previous level. That is not the issue I was addressing... another discussion can be had on the merits or lack of merit of this.

I was only taking you to task on this simple statement:

"....I said a 3% increase in tax rates is about a 10% increase in taxes..."

...and it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Why am I not surprised that the communist element at DP is all for DEMOCRATS having more money to spend?
 
1) WTF are you to say what someone else needs

2) If one person works hard and owns two homes or two cars and others are without cars or homeless do you say that the latter should be given one of the homes because the first guy doesn't NEED two homes

3) WTF Is Capiticalism?

4) can you prove the tax cuts caused the recession? No you cannot-tax revenues INCREASED

5) why should I get to keep less of the next dollar I make compared to you? I already pay far far more in taxes than I use

A captialist shill like you is causing millions of innocent American children to die each year because you want to keep your own money. Where is your sense of fairness to the proletariat?
 
estate taxes were a scheme for social engineering based on the absence of a progressive income tax of any consequence. If you lose 50% of what you earn to taxes WTF should you lose another 50% upon death. Heirs to a fortune certainly did more to earn it than greedy politicians who use the estate tax to gain votes from the spiteful and the envious

You seem to subscribe to this notion that people pay 50% of their income in taxes. Its hard to blame you for that as it is a common understanding, but I assure you its a myth.

People that come to this conclusion want to add all of the highest rates of all the taxes on pays together in one lump sum and say "see, its 50%".... hence a myth is born. Unfortunately far too many people believe this myth.

This math suffers from many flaws in logic. The fact is that taxes kick in and kick out in ways that some just affect lower portions of your income and give way as higher income tax rates kick in on higher portions of your income, so they are never taxing the same dollar at the same time.

The fact of the matter is, the highest of amount of income that is likely to be taxed annually in almost all circumstances is about 35-37%.... The reason the idea of adding one tax on top of another does not work is that taxes kick and fall off at different levels. For example, those at the highest tax bracket are not taxed on FICA and the same time they are taxed at the highest bracket as FICA disappears at 110,000 of income and the highest brackets kick in at 357,000 so you would never add FICA and the highest bracket together. Due to deductions, exemptions and credits, 20% of your income just is not taxed. The early dollars of your income are taxed a 15%, then 28%, then 33%.. State income taxes exist, but they are deductible for federal purposes, so a 10% state income tax in the 33% bracket is really a 7% income tax. Then there are sales taxes, but here only the lowest incomes have significant percentage of their income go out in sales taxes. The highest incomes do not spend as high a percentage of their monies on consumables and thus sales taxes are an annoyance, at best. An 8% sales tax is not 8% on your tax bill. Property taxes are a function of your house. Although the wealthy have more expensive homes and higher property taxes, these tend to be a much lower percent of a wealthy persons income than a middle class person. I have run these numbers for multiple income scenarios on a spreadsheet to prove this point have a heated cocktail hour discussion....

So, stand down on this notion that you pay 50% of your income in taxes: not true.

As to the 2nd part of the notion that an estate would pay 50% tax at its creation then 50% at probate... again a misleading oversimplification. First off, if the estate were created with earned income (very, very unlikely) it was not taxed at 50% per reasons stated above. I really doubt too many people build an estate out of earned income (ballplayers and entertainers, maybe). More likely, the estate was created via capital gain (someone build a business and sold it), so most of the estate was likely taxed at 15-25%.

The issue of disposition of estate: It is not a 50% across the board tax. It has allowances, deductions, credits and exemptions. Most noteworthy, the first $1 million is not taxed. Granted, estate taxes are steep.

Given that we have to raise revenues and we have to tax, it seems that taxing estates (an event that moves assets from the creator to a member of the lucky womb society) seems one of the most equitable places to tax. It really makes little sense to concentrate capital in the hands of those who had part in its creation and likely have no clue how to use the assets productively. I would much rather tax estates than income or consumption... but that is me.
 
You seem to subscribe to this notion that people pay 50% of their income in taxes. Its hard to blame you for that as it is a common understanding, but I assure you its a myth.

People that come to this conclusion want to add all of the highest rates of all the taxes on pays together in one lump sum and say "see, its 50%".... hence a myth is born. Unfortunately far too many people believe this myth.

This math suffers from many flaws in logic. The fact is that taxes kick in and kick out in ways that some just affect lower portions of your income and give way as higher income tax rates kick in on higher portions of your income, so they are never taxing the same dollar at the same time.

The fact of the matter is, the highest of amount of income that is likely to be taxed annually in almost all circumstances is about 35-37%.... The reason the idea of adding one tax on top of another does not work is that taxes kick and fall off at different levels. For example, those at the highest tax bracket are not taxed on FICA and the same time they are taxed at the highest bracket as FICA disappears at 110,000 of income and the highest brackets kick in at 357,000 so you would never add FICA and the highest bracket together. Due to deductions, exemptions and credits, 20% of your income just is not taxed. The early dollars of your income are taxed a 15%, then 28%, then 33%.. State income taxes exist, but they are deductible for federal purposes, so a 10% state income tax in the 33% bracket is really a 7% income tax. Then there are sales taxes, but here only the lowest incomes have significant percentage of their income go out in sales taxes. The highest incomes do not spend as high a percentage of their monies on consumables and thus sales taxes are an annoyance, at best. An 8% sales tax is not 8% on your tax bill. Property taxes are a function of your house. Although the wealthy have more expensive homes and higher property taxes, these tend to be a much lower percent of a wealthy persons income than a middle class person. I have run these numbers for multiple income scenarios on a spreadsheet to prove this point have a heated cocktail hour discussion....

So, stand down on this notion that you pay 50% of your income in taxes: not true.

As to the 2nd part of the notion that an estate would pay 50% tax at its creation then 50% at probate... again a misleading oversimplification. First off, if the estate were created with earned income (very, very unlikely) it was not taxed at 50% per reasons stated above. I really doubt too many people build an estate out of earned income (ballplayers and entertainers, maybe). More likely, the estate was created via capital gain (someone build a business and sold it), so most of the estate was likely taxed at 15-25%.

The issue of disposition of estate: It is not a 50% across the board tax. It has allowances, deductions, credits and exemptions. Most noteworthy, the first $1 million is not taxed. Granted, estate taxes are steep.

Given that we have to raise revenues and we have to tax, it seems that taxing estates (an event that moves assets from the creator to a member of the lucky womb society) seems one of the most equitable places to tax. It really makes little sense to concentrate capital in the hands of those who had part in its creation and likely have no clue how to use the assets productively. I would much rather tax estates than income or consumption... but that is me.

You seem to forget the many taxes that folks pay, including taxes on taxed income. It may not amount to as much as 50%, but what percentage is too much. Well, in my opinion, when the government is spending money on things it shouldn't, things that are clearly unconstitutional....then the percentage is too high. No politician(s) yet has done what really needs to be done, and that is delete programs and government departments in their entirety, and truly reduce the size and scope of the federal government. And ultimately the size of the budget need.
 
Last edited:
The Obama has decided that all of the usual liberal rhetoric about GWB's tax cuts beng just for the rich is just aother lie from the partisan bigots, and has decided to leave in place all of the tax cuts for those making less than 200/250k per year because they will provide relief to the middle and working class families that need it.


The upper class has grown and the lower class has remained stagnant.
How is that bad?

The upper class hasn't grown. In the decades following Reagan, the top 1% control more of the wealth in this country. That is exactly why the Reagan era saw the destruction of single income homes. It is now a reality that both parents have to work which is why the whole "family values" BS is such a joke. the GOP, Reagan in particular have done more to destroy the family unit than so called "liberals" ever will.
 
You seem to forget the many taxes that folks pay, including taxes on taxed income. It may not amount to as much as 50%, but what percentage is too much. Well, in my opinion, when the government is spending money on things it shouldn't, things that are clearly unconstitutional....then the percentage is too high. No politician(s) yet has done what really needs to be done, and that is delete programs and government departments in their entirety, and truly reduce the size and scope of the federal government. And ultimately the size of the budget need.

Trying to control spending by adjusting taxation is insane. All that does is increase our debt. That notion is what got us into this mess. It's the reason Republicans run so much higher deficits on average. If you want to cut spending, cut spending, don't cut taxes and just hope it will all work itself out somehow.

The average federal tax burden is just 17%. The average overall tax burden between state, local, and federal is 26%.
 
This is a common statement by Republicans, but in fact, there are quite a few fiscally conservatives in congress..

I fixed your quote for you.

There are plenty of Republicans who say they are fiscal conservatives, such as both House and Senate minority leaders. Except when we look at their stances during the all Republican spending years, they didn't have a problem blowing the bank. Not to mention systematically kicking out all of the actual fiscally conservative republicans left.

Republicans pretend they hold different beliefs from Democrats.
 
Trying to control spending by adjusting taxation is insane. All that does is increase our debt. That notion is what got us into this mess. It's the reason Republicans run so much higher deficits on average. If you want to cut spending, cut spending, don't cut taxes and just hope it will all work itself out somehow.

The average federal tax burden is just 17%. The average overall tax burden between state, local, and federal is 26%.

what is insane is a system where most of those who want more public spending don't have to pay any more taxes when spending is increased.

the average tax burden of federal income taxes for almost half the voters is ZERO

my tax burden with state (8% in Ohio-wonder why Lebron James moved to florida and its ZERO income tax) and federal income tax will be almost 50% when the dem tax hikes hit next year. throw in property tax, sales tax and its over 50%
 
Back
Top Bottom