How would you vote?

[Wiseacre]

Suppose there was a bill before Congress that extended the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone except those with incomes over a million dollars, which would go up to 39.6% as I understand it. Suppose there was also some tax code reform that reduces or eliminates some tax loopholes, deductions, and breaks for the wealthy. Then suppose they agree to freeze spending at current levels, for 2 years. Would you support that?

As I see it, the repubs get the dems off their back on this tax the rich issue. The dems get their sacred obligation to raise taxes on the rich, and both sides can claim they kept spending from going up.

Win/Win?

 

[syrenn]

I would support it yes. 250k was far to low to call "wealthy" as far as i am concerned.

i think the rejection of this compromise was flat out dumb.

 

[OKTexas]

Short answer, nope, wouldn't vote for it. Why is it no one is talking about the other taxes the higher income folks are facing in 2014 when Moabamacare fully kicks in. There are investment taxes, surcharges on high end insurance policies and more. When is enough, enough. Also spending needs to be returned to 2009 budget levels plus inflation, we are spending 400 billion per year just servicing our debt and at the current rate it will be 1 trillion per year by 2020, we can't handle current spending levels it will eventually kill the economy.

 

[Mr. H.]

When you sunset, you let the sun set. Deal with it.

 

[Big Black Dog]

No. I wouldn't. This is my opinion. There needs to be "honest" cuts in the money the US is spending and not just cuts for things that cook the books. We need to cut the spending on every program in the US by at least 10% across the board - everything. There are also almost half of the population that pays no federal income tax at all. That needs to change. Everybody needs some skin in the game. Federal taxes need to be something like 10% on all income for EVERYBODY. We need to eliminate all deductions and do away with all loopholes. We don't need to raise taxes on the rich. We need to stop the unchecked spending the government is doing. I'd vote for something like that.

 

[Mr. H.]

"Sunset Clause" does not mean Santa Claus.

 

[Glensather]

Hiking taxes on the rich means nothing when they don't pay taxes to begin with.

 

[Chris]

Hiking taxes on the rich means nothing when they don't pay taxes to begin with.

Good point.

Tax capital gains as income for people making over 100K a year.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Frankly, the OP's proposal is too simplistic for me to give a definitive answer. Our tax structure has become such a complex monstrosity that aside from strong reform there's really not going to be a workable solution.

 

[Rozman]

Suppose there was a bill before Congress that extended the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone except those with incomes over a million dollars, which would go up to 39.6% as I understand it. Suppose there was also some tax code reform that reduces or eliminates some tax loopholes, deductions, and breaks for the wealthy. Then suppose they agree to freeze spending at current levels, for 2 years. Would you support that?

As I see it, the repubs get the dems off their back on this tax the rich issue. The dems get their sacred obligation to raise taxes on the rich, and both sides can claim they kept spending from going up.

Win/Win?

Then suppose they agree to freeze spending at current levels, for 2 years.

I would go a bit further...Instead of a freeze I would want cuts in spending....
Everything the government spends money on takes a hit.