The Bush Tax cuts...

[z31maniac]

the top 1% of wage earners earn 21% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes
the top 5% of wage earners pay more than the bottom 95% combined

the wealthy pay enough, end of fucking argument

the financial mess facing this country is a result of the federal government never controlling spending

The top 10% pay 73% of income taxes and the bottom 45% don't pay any, with the bottom 40% making money on the income tax.

So while I agree with you, your numbers are a bit off.

[gwb72tii]

the top 1% of wage earners earn 21% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes
the top 5% of wage earners pay more than the bottom 95% combined

the wealthy pay enough, end of fucking argument

the financial mess facing this country is a result of the federal government never controlling spending

[wannaBMthree]

IMO, $88 Billion is beer money compared to the overall deficit, and with the way the Federal Reserve runs this country were never going to get rid of it.

[Ryan Stewart]

SOmething that I've heard argued by Republicans, that I honestly haven't researched and need to, is that many small business owners handle the taxes for their business on their personal tax returns. So raising taxes on families that make more than $250k ($200k individual) will end up taxing many small businesses.

The vast majority are S-corps. Meaning the corporation pays little to no income (exemptions for gains and such). All of the income tax liability is passed onto the shareholders, aka the owner.

[Dozyproductions]

Thanks for drawing that out in crayon for those that may not have understood. You're absolutely right, Bush made the cuts, 10 years ago, they're the current rate at the moment.

Don't you get they were supposed to be temporary? Do I have to go even simpler than crayon for you?

[sn8kbit]

Welcome to a couple of years ago. Bush made some tax cuts. What is being discussed is extending them.

Thanks for drawing that out in crayon for those that may not have understood. You're absolutely right, Bush made the cuts, 10 years ago, they're the current rate at the moment.

[sn8kbit]

No, I'm not. I never said one was the same as the other.

They both do add to the national debt however. And seeing as how these tax cuts were not paired with any spending cuts, it works out to have the same effect.

Whether you take $100 out of your savings account (spending) or take in $100 less on a paycheck (tax cut), you still have $100 less.

Not an accurate analogy. It's only an increase in debt (money owed) if you spent the 100 from savings and received 100 less in a check. Again, debt is money spent not in possession, money borrowed over a term to be paid back. Revenue only affects debt on how money in hand is spent prior to receiving that revenue.

Better ananlogy maybe (?):

You buy a 300k house, when you can only afford a 150k house, HOPING you get that pay raise next year. Just because you didn't get the raise, doesn't mean your debt increased by the difference your raise would have made. You simply still just don't have enough money to pay for what you couldn't afford in the first place. That's the boat this country is in right now.

[Dozyproductions]

A few issues I have, from a new guy:

A) This isn't a tax cut, it's maintaining the current rates. I'm still trying to wrap my head around just how this will add to the current deficit, considering it's currently unearned non-existing revenue. The thought of "Well, we would have 700 bil, now we won't, so it automatically increases our current debt." .

Welcome to a couple of years ago. Bush made some tax cuts. What is being discussed is extending them.

[CorvallisBMW]

OP, you're confused because you view a tax cut as a form of government spending.

The government takes a shitload of money to cover a lot of bullshit, inefficient, wasteful programs and such that are completely unnecessary. I prefer that they take less from taxpayers and eliminate these types of programs.

No, I'm not. I never said one was the same as the other.

They both do add to the national debt however. And seeing as how these tax cuts were not paired with any spending cuts, it works out to have the same effect.

Whether you take $100 out of your savings account (spending) or take in $100 less on a paycheck (tax cut), you still have $100 less.

[sn8kbit]

A few issues I have, from a new guy:

A) This isn't a tax cut, it's maintaining the current rates. I'm still trying to wrap my head around just how this will add to the current deficit, considering it's currently unearned non-existing revenue. The thought of "Well, we would have 700 bil, now we won't, so it automatically increases our current debt." Makes no sense to me unless, the backroom forced deals like Obamacare relied on the potential funds (albeit partially) to pay for these types of programs, and rolled it off until 2011. The only thing I can relate it to is losing a 4k a month contract a few years back. I didn't go into immediate 48k in debt for the next 12 months, I simply had to adjust my spending to adjust for the lower revenue. Then again, I didn't spend it before I had it either.

To be clear, there is no "fair tax" on any income earner. Call me a supporter of HR 25, called the "Fair Tax", I liken it more to "reasonable tax". Additionally, consider small business "investments" to include new employees and expansion. Yes, employees can be considered investment, attitude and work ethic can make impressions and increase business, allowing for more employees. This stimulates economy more than any collected tax revenue disbursed as unemployment insurance. That's one more "tax payer" now, instead of another "tax paid by you" handout. Sounds cold, sure, but the longer you sustain an individual, the less incentive to do for themselves. Welfare has always worked, right?

It's time we stop punishing success in this country, and rewarding apathy and laziness under the guise of "helping the helpless". I think you'll find this would also lessen some welfare programs and even lighten the illegal immigration problem also. Personal opinion, most of the "helpless" living on the government tit are only helpless because we allow it.

B) Unemployment extension as stated can be confusing. It's not extending those at the previously extended limit. Those on 99 weeks are through. What it does create is an extension for benefits to those who have not reached the 99 week limit.

I can only agree with Obama's statement about the deal with regards to time. Something needs to be done immediately. Neither group is happy about it, but it gives and additional 2 years of time to hash it out, get it right (or wrong, depending on your slant), all while relieving stress on all of us, temporary as it is.

Tax on income is control, plain and simple. Don't pay, go to jail. You'll never see an income tax go away (unfortunately) because then the government can't control any individual.

Pick it apart as you will, just my personal views on the matter, as I'm neither Republican or Democrat, but we have to quit spending first with money we don't/might have.

[LBJefferies]

But as far as tax cuts for the wealthy? It's widely known that investing by companies, banks, private individuals and all other sorts of entities is very limited right now. Everyone is just sitting on their money, kind of afraid to spend it and unsure of what to do. Giving a tax break to millionaires only means they will have more money to sit on, which doesn't do anyone any good.

Sorry but that's wrong. The only way to sit on money is to literally keep it in a shoe box under your bed. Even if lending is low, there is still some of it going on and if there is more money in the bank lending will increase. Millionaires are the best people to have money right now because they don't need to worry about saving money to feed their families and put their kids through college. They are more willing to invest and take risks because they essentially don't need the money.

Tax cuts of any kind and for anybody are a good thing.

[z31maniac]

But as far as tax cuts for the wealthy? It's widely known that investing by companies, banks, private individuals and all other sorts of entities is very limited right now. Everyone is just sitting on their money, kind of afraid to spend it and unsure of what to do.

And that has to do with many of the legislative desires of Congress. Cap-and-tax, healthcare, DREAM act (so stuff that has already or is trying to be passed) all of which will have a huge ecomonic impact on business. No one wants to move until they KNOW what these economic costs will be.

SOmething that I've heard argued by Republicans, that I honestly haven't researched and need to, is that many small business owners handle the taxes for their business on their personal tax returns. So raising taxes on families that make more than $250k ($200k individual) will end up taxing many small businesses.


ANother thing I would like to see, but I'm not even sure how you would go about it, is to see where the RICH families are located across the country. If you are an individual who lives in Tulsa and makes $200k+ a year, yes you live a pretty comfy lifestyle. If you make $200k and live in Manhattan, you have a small apt and ride the bus/subway to work.

Also I'd like to see what types of small business file on their personal returns and what kind of money we are talking about. Or what the limit is for being able to file on your personal returns vs having to file taxes for the business.

For instance, if you filed on your personal taxes with a business that grossed say $750k, that seems like a lot of money, until you realize the "business" had $675k in expenses/inventory/overhead, so in reality, the proprietor made less than $100k before they pay there self-employment tax, SS/Medicare taxes, etc.

In reality, both sides are pulling a few points and making it a black/white issue when there is obviously many more facets that affect the debate. Not that is any different than usual though.....

[NKRoberts]

OP, you're confused because you view a tax cut as a form of government spending.

The government takes a shitload of money to cover a lot of bullshit, inefficient, wasteful programs and such that are completely unnecessary. I prefer that they take less from taxpayers and eliminate these types of programs.

Yeah I agree with this!

[joshh]

I agree with you on the payroll tax. Everything I've heard and read from leading economists say that it would be the best way to put money back in to people's hands (and the economy) right now..

But as far as tax cuts for the wealthy? It's widely known that investing by companies, banks, private individuals and all other sorts of entities is very limited right now. Everyone is just sitting on their money, kind of afraid to spend it and unsure of what to do. Giving a tax break to millionaires only means they will have more money to sit on, which doesn't do anyone any good.

Give a tax break to someone who makes $50K a year and I guarantee they'll spend every penny of it. Give a tax break to someone making $5M a year and they'll probably just put it in the bank (which isn't lending...)

Same goes for the unemployment benefits. Every single dollar goes straight back in to the local economy. In fact if you read the CBO report, they estimate that for every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, $2 of economic payback is created.

Yes I fully realize that the middle class tax cuts cost more than those for millionaires. But that's because they cover 98% of the population, not just 2%. They may cost 4.5 times more, but they cover 50 times more people. Also, as pointed out by the CBO, they are far better at stimulating economic growth.

I have to point it out to you yet again but it's their money and if they want to save it that's entirely up to them. Just because someone who is rich saves their money as opposed to giving it out for redistribution saves it means they are evil as usual.

Then why don't we invest in unemployment? Because regardless of what the CBO says it's not a way to stimulate the economy when you have to borrow the same money you're trying to stimulate the economy with. It's part of the reason we're in this situation in the first place.

[shiftbmw]

OP, you're confused because you view a tax cut as a form of government spending.

The government takes a shitload of money to cover a lot of bullshit, inefficient, wasteful programs and such that are completely unnecessary. I prefer that they take less from taxpayers and eliminate these types of programs.