Bush tax cuts

[jreeves]

Can anyone tell me how much eliminating the Bush tax cuts will save the federal government?

 

[Oddball]

Can anyone tell us how rising taxes on the "rich" pays them?

 

[jreeves]

Can anyone tell us how rising taxes on the "rich" pays them?

No seriously how much will it save the government if the cuts are undone?

 

[Revere]

You mean, if they are allowed to expire?

 

[jreeves]

Can anyone tell us how rising taxes on the "rich" pays them?

No seriously how much will it save the government if the cuts are undone?

Ok so it was a trick question....
answer- it will save the federal government $0

 

[Faccops]

Some people say, but I'm not sure, that will save $0 because it'll cause a chain reaction that reduces taxable income of a lot of people. It sounds plausible to me that this would happen.

 

[jreeves]

Some people say, but I'm not sure, that will save $0 because it'll cause a chain reaction that reduces taxable income of a lot of people. It sounds plausible to me that this would happen.

How do you save money that isn't in your possession?

 

[Sallow]

Oh great..Anarchy!

Mad Max Society!

 

[Oddball]

Oh great..Anarchy!

Mad Max Society!

Oh great, strawman!

 

[Two Thumbs]

No government can save money. It's not thiers to begin with.

They can either try to get in more by raising taxes, which has been proven not to work.

They can cut spending. Which works, depending on what you cut. The left always cries that they will have to make cuts to schools, to get thier people back in line to be against cuts, or talk about fucking the military again to get thier people to cheer.

And you can lower taxes to increase revenue, which works ever single last time it's been done.

 

[Sallow]

Oh great..Anarchy!

Mad Max Society!

Oh great, strawman!

Well..

Not really.

No revenue..no government.

There are governments that have no tax..like Communist ones.

Or some Monarchies..like Saudi Arabia.

And of course..Somalia.

Don't like taxes..those are three good places to go.

 

[jreeves]

Oh great..Anarchy!

Mad Max Society!

Oh great, strawman!

Well..

Not really.

No revenue..no government.

There are governments that have no tax..like Communist ones.

Or some Monarchies..like Saudi Arabia.

And of course..Somalia.

Don't like taxes..those are three good places to go.

Nice strawman, who said no renenue? People just don't want to bleed at both ends when paying their fair share to finance a 3.55 trillion dollar beast.

 

[Gadawg73]

Which is better for the economy?:
1.Send more $ from producers to the looters in Washington to redistribute to the moochers.
2. Let the producers keep their $ that they earned and spend it in the economy in their neighborhoods.

 

[jingjing2116]

I like this article; I hope you can continue to the fund! This article feel good, there are deep moral, mood is not bad, you have such thoughts, I am very impressed. You are great!Although I am just passing through, but I think I will be your feelings these words long. Thank you, so that I can share with you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Weeeeeel they might not save the Feds any money but the Bush Tax cut did add as much as 1.7 trillion dollars to our collective debt so far. If they are all extended the cost to our nations debt will be close to 5 trillion dollars.

How many jobs were created because these tax cuts (I mean here in the United States, not China or India)?

 

[Gadawg73]

Can anyone tell us how rising taxes on the "rich" pays them?

No seriously how much will it save the government if the cuts are undone?

Who cares?
It will leave LESS $ in the hands of those that earned it in the free market economy.
Government has too much $$ now. Send them more and they spend more.
SPENDING is the problem.

 

[editec]

Can anyone tell me how much eliminating the Bush tax cuts will save the federal government?

I doubt anybody can convince you that the repeal of those tax cuts will convince you of anything.'

But ponder the significance of the fact that Alan Greenspan, himself a worshipper of Ayn Rand and a hard core Libertarian thinks the following:

Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, who considers himself a lifelong Republican libertarian, wants all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 repealed, reports The New York Times. His position is contrary to the Republican stance in the discussion on this issue, currently among the most heated in Washington, and goes even further than that of the White House, which calls for keeping tax rates steady for all but the wealthiest Americans.

​

The tax cuts were adopted under President George W. Bush, with Greenspan's implicit support then influential in swaying lawmakers.​

"I'm in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money," Greenspan told the Times on Friday in a telephone interview. "Our choices right now are not between good and better; they're between bad and worse. The problem we now face is the most extraordinary financial crisis that I have ever seen or read about."​

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/bwwIhm
​

​

That's just one man's opinion, of course.

The alternate theory (oddly enough, including many Keynesian economists) is that raising taxes on ANYBODY right now is a mistake.

Everybody CLAIMS they know what will happen when some economic policy is decided, and they might even know that the immediate effects will be.

But the bottom line is that our economy is a highly complex system where CHAOS THEORY eliminates the possibility that we can predict LONG TERM outcomes of this tax repeal (or not) and of every other policy decision we make.

Economic is NOT a hard science, folks.

I know amny of you are convinced that it is, but you and the economists who like to pretend it is are simply totally and completely wrong.



​

​

 

[Bern80]

Can anyone tell me how much eliminating the Bush tax cuts will save the federal government?

I doubt anybody can convince you that the repeal of those tax cuts will convince you of anything.'

But ponder the significance of the fact that Alan Greenspan, himself a worshipper of Ayn Rand and a hard core Libertarian thinks the following:

Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, who considers himself a lifelong Republican libertarian, wants all the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 repealed, reports The New York Times. His position is contrary to the Republican stance in the discussion on this issue, currently among the most heated in Washington, and goes even further than that of the White House, which calls for keeping tax rates steady for all but the wealthiest Americans.

​

The tax cuts were adopted under President George W. Bush, with Greenspan's implicit support then influential in swaying lawmakers.​

"I'm in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money," Greenspan told the Times on Friday in a telephone interview. "Our choices right now are not between good and better; they're between bad and worse. The problem we now face is the most extraordinary financial crisis that I have ever seen or read about."​

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/bwwIhm
​

​

That's just one man's opinion, of course.

The alternate theory (oddly enough, including many Keynesian economists) is that raising taxes on ANYBODY right now is a mistake.

Everybody CLAIMS they know what will happen when some economic policy is decided, and they might even know that the immediate effects will be.

But the bottom line is that our economy is a highly complex system where CHAOS THEORY eliminates the possibility that we can predict LONG TERM outcomes of this tax repeal (or not) and of every other policy decision we make.

Economic is NOT a hard science, folks.

I know amny of you are convinced that it is, but you and the economists who like to pretend it is are simply totally and completely wrong.



​

​

I think there is one very important thing to look at there though. I don't personally come away, from reading what Greenspan said, that he is for more taxes. He is for tax cuts, just not having to barrow money to pay for them. And whether money is barrowed to pay for them or not is really up to congress and what they choose to spend money on. I don't know if that 1.7 trillion number added to the debt because of the cuts is accurate, but congress could have decided, okay, that's 1.7 trillion we don't have to spend. They didn't. That is the hard part about tax cuts and spending. Think about it. If we demanded that tax cuts always be tied to spending there would never ever be a tax cut, taxes would only ever go up. For a while anyway congress needs to get the message that its goal is not to figure out which earmarks go where. There goal needs to be a hard look at the budget and makeing real cuts. No sacred cows. Yes I'm talking to you dept. of defense and dept. of education.

 

[saveliberty]

The Bush tax cuts won't "save" the government a penny.

Unless your twisted mind thinks the government deserves all the money and we just get what's leftover, it isn't the government's money to begin with. The government will be adjusting their expenditures in the coming days. THAT will save money.

 

[DiamondDave]

Weeeeeel they might not save the Feds any money but the Bush Tax cut did add as much as 1.7 trillion dollars to our collective debt so far. If they are all extended the cost to our nations debt will be close to 5 trillion dollars.

How many jobs were created because these tax cuts (I mean here in the United States, not China or India)?

No.. the tax 'cuts' did not add debt... the increased SPENDING added debt

And BTW.. not the govt's job to make jobs... but to ensure the freedoms needed to let business try and prosper, and individuals try and prosper, so that their efforts and enterprises can freely make jobs as needed to meet demand