Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    5,237

    Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    These tax cuts have clearly led to our economy being in the tank, were wrong to begin with, and are wrong now. They only help the rich get richer.

    I posted about this last week...funny how Pelosi and dems are now referring to these as the "Obama tax cuts".

    Whatever they decide...I wish they'd do it yesterday. Letting tax cuts expire of any sorts would hurt the economy initially....but not more so than the inaction and uncertainty out there presently. Corporations are sitting still as they don't know what their obligations will be. Make a damn decision already and lets move on. I don't like raising taxes period..(especially in a recession)...but if it means we have to raise them (or let the cuts expire) for the top 3% only to find common ground and move on than do it. There will be a hit, but companies survived at that higher rate during the Clinton years. I think however politicians would rather not have a vote on this until after the elections so they can't have their votes used against them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    5,237

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    These tax cuts have clearly led to our economy being in the tank, were wrong to begin with, and are wrong now. They only help the rich get richer.

    I posted about this last week...funny how Pelosi and dems are now referring to these as the "Obama tax cuts".

    Whatever they decide...I wish they'd do it yesterday. Letting tax cuts expire of any sorts would hurt the economy initially....but not more so than the inaction and uncertainty out there presently. Corporations are sitting still as they don't know what their obligations will be. Make a damn decision already and lets move on. I don't like raising taxes period..(especially in a recession)...but if it means we have to raise them (or let the cuts expire) for the top 3% only to find common ground and move on than do it. There will be a hit, but companies survived at that higher rate during the Clinton years. I think however politicians would rather not have a vote on this until after the elections so they can't have their votes used against them.
    this I agree with, raising taxes should be the last answer for a government. Where can we cut un-needed expense should be the first question. I think as a nation we need to take a hard look at what our government funds and decide should the government e in that "business" or not. Personally I am for a smaller federal government in the sense that the Federal government should only do a few things,like for example provide for the national defense (against invasion militarily and via immigration), negotiate treaties and trade with foreign entities, I do not feel that it should dictate to states how to run their schools, or whether or not they will have a state funded health care system, I do not think the Federal government should even be able to force you to pay into social security or un-employment insurance, the tax payer should at least have a choice to opt out if they so desire.
    Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    7,394

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Quote Originally Posted by Wassit3 View Post
    I do not think the Federal government should even be able to force you to pay into social security or un-employment insurance, the tax payer should at least have a choice to opt out if they so desire.
    While ideally I would think that's fine (if you opt out, you are responsible for your own savings - perfect!), in practice the average person is not responsible, competent, or blessed with enough foresight to plan for lapses in employment. You'd have people growing old and unable to work with no savings, who would be a burden on relatives (if they were lucky enough), or government programs, or homeless or otherwise left helpless. You'd have other folks brash and sure of themselves, then they lose touch with the marketplace and get laid off, and are unable to even feed their kids.

    Aside from that, if everyone opted out, who would pay for the blind and disabled? A lot of these small-government rants tend to leave out logistical issues, or instead place them at the feet of the State, as if that's a huge change/improvement from the Federal.

    I don't necessarily love giving to social security (seeing as it will be at about 40% of its worth when I retire), but I can't see having folks opt out of it as an improvement to society.

    I'm not sure about the whole 'Obama Tax Cut' labelling, I've haven't seen that spin anywhere. It's the Bush tax cuts. There's a portion of it for the middle class that should definitely be kept. If it should expire for the wealthiest 3%, some say that's a tax hike and it's bad - others say it returns taxes to where they were just 3 years ago, and is not going to be an impediment to recovery. Either way - get what we can agree on out of the way, and fight about the upper class tax cuts seperately, as Dickay said.

    But they won't, they'll each use it as political leverage - the Repubs know an 'elitist' tax cut when so much of the country is in rough shape, so they don't want to seperate it. Instead they'll push the 'any tax increase is bad policy!' drum and want the whole thing extended, so dudes that own a bunch of s@it don't have to pay more taxes on their capital gains. Democrats (could, but probably won't have the nads) use the opportunity to create a middle-class-only continuation, that the repubs would block, making them look terrible before the election, when their base is already being split.

    Quote Originally Posted by gleklufdshlaw View Post
    Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    7,394

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Some alternate opinions:

    Allen Greenspan

    Kentucky state journal

    good excerpt:

    5. A Big Lie About Small Business

    An illustration of the power of the right's noise machine was on display on Fox News last week when Chris Wallace, considered the network's most "serious" reporter, confronted Austen Goolsbee, a member of President Obama's economic team, with the claim that allowing the cuts on high earners to expire as scheduled would raise taxes on "half of small business" income. It's a claim that's repeated by conservatives every single day and it is as inherently dishonest as it is technically accurate.

    The claim comes from an intentional misreading of a Joint Committee on Taxation report which found that the 750,000 tax payers in the top two brackets earn half of the trillion dollars in business income that will be reported on individual returns to the IRS. But that figure includes many, many businesses nobody would consider "small" -- in 2005, it included 12,862 S-corporations and 6,658 partnerships that had receipts of more than $50 million per year, according to an analysis of the Joint Committee report by FactCheck.org. In other words, very, very rich people will have to pay a bit more in taxes if the cuts for very, very rich people are allowed to expire, but we already knew that.

    According to the Joint Committee's report, only 3 percent of small business owners actually fall into the top tax brackets, so only 3 percent of small business owners -- those who earn the most -- would be affected if the cuts for the top 2 percent were to expire on schedule.

    Quote Originally Posted by gleklufdshlaw View Post
    Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Quote Originally Posted by Alloutwar View Post
    Some alternate opinions:

    Allen Greenspan

    Kentucky state journal

    good excerpt:
    what I find interesting however is that those opinions appear to be in the minority amongst the experts. I thought the majority would be for letting them expire, or at least for the upper 3%. It appears that the majority thinks they all should be continued.

    the majority has been wrong before however.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    5,237

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Quote Originally Posted by Alloutwar View Post
    While ideally I would think that's fine (if you opt out, you are responsible for your own savings - perfect!), in practice the average person is not responsible, competent, or blessed with enough foresight to plan for lapses in employment. You'd have people growing old and unable to work with no savings, who would be a burden on relatives (if they were lucky enough), or government programs, or homeless or otherwise left helpless. You'd have other folks brash and sure of themselves, then they lose touch with the marketplace and get laid off, and are unable to even feed their kids.

    Aside from that, if everyone opted out, who would pay for the blind and disabled? A lot of these small-government rants tend to leave out logistical issues, or instead place them at the feet of the State, as if that's a huge change/improvement from the Federal.

    I don't necessarily love giving to social security (seeing as it will be at about 40% of its worth when I retire), but I can't see having folks opt out of it as an improvement to society.
    That's quite an elistest point of view you have there, maybe people don't save now because they do not have too? As I recall Americans got along fine without the government "forcing" them to save for over 150 years. If you do not have the common sense to save for retirement or lapses in employment that's your business, not mine and vice versa. When did we become a society of entitlement seeking, too proud to ask for assistance so it should be automatically given to us, lazy to think about or provide for our own future idiots?? I'm sorry but if you do not plan for the time when you might become unemployed or put away savings for the future then you simply are immature. Do things happen beyond our control that even the best planners couldn't foresee? yes. That's what local community based programs are for, if a community decides they want to have them. Until we move away from the elitist idea that people aren't "smart" enough or capable of providing for themselves we can never really have freedom in this country. How can you be free if you have no choices?
    Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    7,394

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    That is interesting (or disturbing). But some issues: 1) is, the survey was broken down by economists that gave their own ideas, and others that wanted to spur small business lending - so the numbers aren't all just Yea or Nay, they're diluted. 2) There was no choice for the Greenspan alternative, of letting them ALL expire. There has to be SOME economist on board that train. And a 3)rd one is - the fine prnit says "of those surveyed who identify choice as a top priority". So is it filtering out those that don't think this tax hike/cut is a top priority? Hmm.

    My economist side says this isn't a top priority. A few percent will make more psychological (and political) impact than actual, measurable economic impact. In which case, I would look at other items as a higher priority.

    It's like those polls that come out that are always so right-leaning, and I wonder how they got the numbers. Usually they make calls to home phone lines (which like only people 35+ still have) during the day (when only retired/out of touch folks are home). Polls can be scary, and the way this one is architected makes it look like a pantload to me. But again, I only got to Econ 305. Jeffy earned a whole degree I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by gleklufdshlaw View Post
    Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    7,394

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Quote Originally Posted by Wassit3 View Post
    That's quite an elistest point of view you have there, maybe people don't save now because they do not have too? As I recall Americans got along fine without the government "forcing" them to save for over 150 years. If you do not have the common sense to save for retirement or lapses in employment that's your business, not mine and vice versa. When did we become a society of entitlement seeking, too proud to ask for assistance so it should be automatically given to us, lazy to think about or provide for our own future idiots?? I'm sorry but if you do not plan for the time when you might become unemployed or put away savings for the future then you simply are immature. Do things happen beyond our control that even the best planners couldn't foresee? yes. That's what local community based programs are for, if a community decides they want to have them. Until we move away from the elitist idea that people aren't "smart" enough or capable of providing for themselves we can never really have freedom in this country. How can you be free if you have no choices?
    Well, I certainly am an elitist, I'll give you that.

    You know who I think of, when I post stuff like this? My relatives. I have a bunch of right-wing, self-assured relatives, that think democrats are the devil, Massachusetts is hell, and that we shouldn't have to pay anything like Social security - heck, even most taxes.

    These same friggin jackasses then get laid off from their construction jobs and go 6 months on unemployment. They have a daughter that has 3 kids and survives on welfare. An uncle in the family was a type 1 diabetic who went blind and lived on assistance programs (and social security) from 31 to 45, when he died.

    I guess what bothers me is that sort of limited mindset where people shout for choice and freedom and less taxes, yadda yadda - but ignore their own use, reliance, and even abuse of the system. My relatives are idiots. Without unemployment or welfare they would be starving or dead. They don't plan for bad times - they buy electronic toys and gold-plate their faucets like @ssholes trying to flaunt their wealth (when it exists).

    I know I have savings, back up plans, and all kinds of security for job loss and retirement. But I also know I compost, recycle, drive a hybrid, avoid having unplanned offspring, drive safely, and a billion other things the average jerk in this country doesn't. The fact is, a person, isolated, is smart - but the masses, together are infinitely selfish and stupid. I would love to be able to trust them all to save, plan, teach their children well, care for their children well, and not have 12+ kids. But I know too many assinine, ignorant people that can't do any of those things. If that makes me elitist, well, I'm sorry my family exposed me to so many a-holes? I guess?

    The end result is - people will not plan, save, budget, etc. As an advanced society, we are not going to let those people starve/freeze and die. So...a collective bucket like social security makes sense, like an insurance policy of sorts that we all pay into. Otherwise, who takes care of the jackasses like my relatives that piss through their money and then come with their hands out in the downtimes? 'Voluntary community programs'?

    We're talking pennies out of my paycheck (and that's a big paycheck). Not any amount I could complain about.

    Quote Originally Posted by gleklufdshlaw View Post
    Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,928

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    You know who I think of, when I post stuff like this? My relatives. I have a bunch of right-wing, self-assured relatives, that think democrats are the devil, Massachusetts is hell, and that we shouldn't have to pay anything like Social security - heck, even most taxes.

    These same friggin jackasses then get laid off from their construction jobs and go 6 months on unemployment. They have a daughter that has 3 kids and survives on welfare. An uncle in the family was a type 1 diabetic who went blind and lived on assistance programs (and social security) from 31 to 45, when he died.

    I guess what bothers me is that sort of limited mindset where people shout for choice and freedom and less taxes, yadda yadda - but ignore their own use, reliance, and even abuse of the system. My relatives are idiots. Without unemployment or welfare they would be starving or dead. They don't plan for bad times - they buy electronic toys and gold-plate their faucets like @ssholes trying to flaunt their wealth (when it exists).
    Actions should have consequences. When they do then the action is considered more carefully. The very system you propose to continue is the one that takes away most of those consequences making it so that rash decisions aren't punished. It is this very mindset that helps to perpetuate that which you seem to despise. You know what the definition of "insanity" is? It is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    7,394

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    I would agree, in principle. Results like losing your house, having to sell or auction belongings/cars, etc - those might help. Like prison could help reform someone.

    I am content with some repercussions, but I would draw the line at starvation, loss of a roof over one's head, or death. I would be in favor of something that catches those who fall, making them subsist on a much smaller version of what they were making, so that they can recollect and learn from the experience. Oh, and something that takes care of the indigent/disabled at the same time.

    Sounds like...what we have.

    Quote Originally Posted by gleklufdshlaw View Post
    Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    Quote Originally Posted by Alloutwar View Post
    I would agree, in principle. Results like losing your house, having to sell or auction belongings/cars, etc - those might help. Like prison could help reform someone.

    I am content with some repercussions, but I would draw the line at starvation, loss of a roof over one's head, or death. I would be in favor of something that catches those who fall, making them subsist on a much smaller version of what they were making, so that they can recollect and learn from the experience. Oh, and something that takes care of the indigent/disabled at the same time.

    Sounds like...what we have.
    it also creates a culture of entitlement and corruption. I've got a family member with young twins and a deadbeat dad who pretty much lives off of govt. assistance. She does the best she can to provide, but with two children by herself just out of high school....it's very hard. She's very responsible with the little funds she has. Anyway, she was just authorized for section 8 housing. I didn't know much about it, and as I learn...what a farce. I mean, the program is great in theory but leads to endless corruption and entitlements. She claims she will not use it as a crutch, and has actually used it to go back to school so she's making the right step. But very easy I can see how people fall into dependency. It covers most of if not all of your rent for life! As long as they keep their income below a certain level (and surely none of them couple it with under the table income like drug sale or anything), the govt. pays for their housing (this on top of free medical benefits and food stamps and energy assistance, and you name it). It also can be passed down to children. Nobody ever has to work!

    sorry for the rant.....i didn't know the extent of this program and of late have learned of some who have been on it forever now. its maddening in a way.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    7,394

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    It does, yes. As I explained I have a cousin that's been married upteen times, with 4 or 5 kids now (she's like 26/27). Daughter of an arch-conservative father, now living on welfare and all that.

    I have an idiot acquantaince (from NC, now moved to PA) who got pregnant while unmarried, and was attempting to convince me that it's okay to have this kid, or even another one, because PA Access covers everything for pregnancy and childbirth. "What an awesome program," she told me. She didn't believe it was Medicaid when I told her (she had always leaned right). People see the benefits, and then immediately take them and assume they are there forever. It is very entitlement-based, and man, I wouldn't want to work in the customer service center for a Medicaid plan.

    I'll admit that it gets under my skin to see things abused, see people settle for being unemployed or worthless to society because they get a check and are taken care of. I wouldn't be against changes, like diminishing returns where unemployment compensation slowly lessened so that people were pushed into re-entering the workforce as benefits dried up slowly (instead of just stopping entirely). I think people should be responsible for their actions, as much as can be, without harming their well-being in the most basic of ways (shelter/food). Believe me, as someone making lots of money and working 12 hours a day or so, I hate the thought of people like my old HomeOwner's Assoc co-chair, that would sit at home because she got pregnant 26 years ago, raised 3 kids, and now had no desire to work at 43. It's not fair, and it's not right.

    Oddly enough, most of the people I've encountered in my life that rely on the system are socially conservative, usually pretty far that way too. Not sure why. The stereotype of the minority taking advantage of the system and pushing for more Dems to get more benefits...I haven't seen that.

    Quote Originally Posted by gleklufdshlaw View Post
    Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    The stereotype of the minority taking advantage of the system and pushing for more Dems to get more benefits...I haven't seen that.
    Go to New Orleans, or Wash DC, or Baltimore, Detroit, or dozens of other urban and poor areas across the country. Its a fact that the vast majority of people in these areas vote democrat because they believe that the democratic party is most likely to provide the govt. assistance they feel they need. And many of them do need it, I agree...however many of them also feel its an entitlement they could and should be able to use forever.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,676

    Re: Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for all

    The uber rich and mega corp need incentives to stop being so un-american. I think we should give massive tax breaks if they stop shipping jobs overseas. And if you continue to produce everything without using American workers you get a tax bat upside the head and even face deportation as an anti american. In order for this to happen we would have to give up the empire, yada yada. If you want to use the cheapest labor at all costs, than go live with them..

    I want the US to keep its standard of living while the rest of the world rises up to us, not the other way around.
    If you find yourself agreeing with Glenn Beck, odds are pretty good you're wrong.
    Alloutwar

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •