Poll on tax cuts: for everyone or for under $250k only

[DiamondDave]

But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.

Time to pay the piper, America.

Time to start getting rid of some useless and overpaid pipers.

I'm fine with that but it isn't enough ... and no, lowering or eliminating the income tax isn't part of a realistic solution.

It will take a combo of spending cuts and tax increases to reverse this trend.

Fine.. increase taxes... start taxing the 50% who pay no income taxes... and raise everyone to the same rate as the top bracket....

But funny thing is... you start doing that and I bet a lot of people will start calling for reduction in government, reduction in government spending, and lower taxes..... funny how that happens when you actually have an equal stake in the game

 

[Common Sense]

the options here should actually be different.

1) renew bush tax cuts for all at a cost of approx $3.7 trillion, and taxes are not affected ($3T for the middle class and $700 billion for the top 2%)

2) renew the bush tax cuts for the middle class at a cost of $3 trillion, and let them expire for the top 2$ (either saving $700 billion or spending only $3 trillion depending on the way you look at it)

2) let them expire and save $3.7 trillion, but taxes go up.

for all those fiscal hawks out there is saving $3.7 trillion worth an increase in taxes? or do we borrow another $3.7 T to pay for them?

also, people forget that with renewing the cuts only for the middle class, the wealthy still get the cut for the first $250,000 of their income.

Mobile.Politico.com: Tax cuts in black and white

 

[Dr.House]

But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.

Time to pay the piper, America.

How about we budget for a cheaper piper instead?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It was the biggest collapse since the 20's ... these things don't turn around very quickly.

The same failed policies in the 30s are being tried today.

Which ones.

Be specific.

The big one...Government trying spend it's way out of a recession.
Never worked. never will.
The tax and spenders complain about how lowering taxes takes money out of the economy. Straw man argument.
Higher taxes cause the economy to contract. Government overspending( running up huge deficits) creates consternation among investors and builders. Job creation has slowed to a crawl because of these insane deficits AND the impending increase in taxes on income and business.
I heard this guy on the radio today( caller) complaining about the alleged trillion dollars business is "sitting on" and whining about how companies are refusing to hire.
Nonsense.
First there is no magic pot of money just sitting around. Second, companies that need new people will hire if the government would just get off their backs. This new Obamacare and now that the deficit reduction committee is looking at ending the tax credit to business for providing health insurance might be going away, employees may be saddled with the undaunting task of buying coverage themselves. Companies will not add to their payrolls until these things are decided upon.
Small business, employers of 60% of the workforce, are holding off hiring because they may be slammed by the expiration of the Bush tax cut. In fact, many businesses may even contract to fall under the $250k threshold.
This is quite possibly THE MOST anti- business and anti job administration in US history.
The Trillion plus spent in "stimulus" has done NOTHING to increase employment.
The Obama admin has admitted there were/are no "shovel ready" projects.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The reason the Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to continue millionaires and billionaires is really quite simple, they get their 'base' the carrot & they can blame Obama for the growing deficit. It's a two-fold victory for the Republicans, and a defeat for the American people.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The cost of both were kept off the books, pedal that nonsense somewhere else.

Prove it. show some links. Failing that ,your post is bullshit.

Are you kidding me?

Supplemental emergency funding ring a bell to you?

Please.....It all comes from the same pot.
Get out here with crap.
This administration has run up over $3 trillion dollars in NEW deficits all by itself.
You side's "blame Bush" nonsense is over with. No more.
This is Obama's and the democrat's watch. You people put the current admin in office. Your side put the Senate and House in office.
Look in the mirror. Blame yourself.
I notice the fading Obama stickers on the bumpers of cars. Lots of SUV's I might add.
These middle class suburbanites who flipped the democrat switch in 2008 are the ones suffering the most. Their large homes and three car families all tied up in in overheated real estate values, thought they would see a change in their fortunes. HA!!!!
These people thought they were going to get something from government.
Nice. Greed. From someone else's pocket.
Now the party is over. Semi-wealthy suburban voters are suffering the consequences of their desire for instant gratification.
Now it's OUR fault. The people that work hard, limit credit card use, save and do not live beyond their means are being targeted to surrender theirs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If it's true that those who earn over $250,000 per year really create jobs, let those who do have a tax credit. To continue to offer those who earn millions each year will not result in more toasters or golf clubs or power tools being sold, and even if it did such products are being made in China because those who earn the big manufactoring bucks took a hike across the seas years ago.
Country First, just a slogan - Money and Power first, yep that's the Republican way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Which ones.

Be specific.

Failed Keynesian government spending.

Permanent high unemployment in the 30s.

Permanent high unemployment today.

I said be specific.

That is specific enough.
Look, you just go out and earn for yourself. Stop looking to government to solve your problems.
Stay out of our bank accounts. We owe you nothing.
Look genius , at the end of the day, there isn't enough wealth to satisfy your side's insatiable desire to grab the wealth of others to satisfy your needs.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Helloooooooooooooo!

How about make the tax cuts PERMANENT.

Why is the choices only to extend them for two years?

That's not a choice at all.

That's the compromise the Obama admin is trying.

 

[Common Sense]

Helloooooooooooooo!

How about make the tax cuts PERMANENT.

Why is the choices only to extend them for two years?

That's not a choice at all.

That's the compromise the Obama admin is trying.

to make them permanent, they needed 60 senate votes which they didnt have. so they passed them under reconciliation rules. The Tax Foundation - Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring?.
this allowed them to pass with a simple majority vote of 51, which they did have. this was very controversial. they basically did an end around to get the bill passed instead of following the current guidelines.


from the article:
"In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. The budget was in surplus at the time, but it was still controversial. In any case, President Clinton vetoed the bill. A year later the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which President Clinton also vetoed."

so republicans wanted to pass tax cuts that would increase the deficits under reconciliation rules. Clinton in turn vetoed the bill. but once Bush came into power, the Repubs again pushed the tax cuts back across his desk and it was signed into law, but would only allow them to stand for 10 years. this also in turn raised the deficit again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We never paid for either war of this decade, nor are we paying for Medicare part D, the prescription drug bill, so,

question is to all of you who want no tax increases of any kind, no expiration of tax cuts,

how do YOU pay for just those 3, past, present, and future?

 

[thereisnospoon]

You wanted a list. There it is.

Make up your mind.

Deny that this regime picks winners and losers in business or rationalize their picks.

Your point amounts to a bunch of nothing. There are winners and losers in every decision the gov't makes. If they denied the bailout for the auto companies they would still be "picking" a winner or loser. If they put a public option in HRC then the health care industry would have been made a loser. If they didn't make policies focusing on clean energy then clean energy would have been losers and carbon based winners.

GM, Chrysler( no longer and American company) and to a lesser extent, Ford, were bailed out for ONE reason, to pay back the unions for their undying support of Obama's election.
"Too big to fail" was bad policy. GM and Ford were not going to just disappear into the night.
Besides, other auto manufacturers whether they be a restructured domestic or foreign would have filled the void left behind.
Same goes for the Banks and other financials that were bailed out. The companies that were failing, should have been permitted to fail. Again, restructured banks and financials would have been created or other, less burdened companies would have taken their place.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We are no longer hemoraging hundreds of thousands of jobs a month and GDP is growing.

All recessions end.

What's taking this one so long?

We're not in recession. We're in a period of slow growth.

Then what are people whining about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Failed Keynesian government spending.

Permanent high unemployment in the 30s.

Permanent high unemployment today.

I said be specific.

That is specific enough.
Look, you just go out and earn for yourself. Stop looking to government to solve your problems.
Stay out of our bank accounts. We owe you nothing.
Look genius , at the end of the day, there isn't enough wealth to satisfy your side's insatiable desire to grab the wealth of others to satisfy your needs.

You owe nothing? We have 12 trillion of national debt, or whatever the number is.

Who owes THAT?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I object to this $250K benchmark.

Our tax structures need to recognize that somebody making $250K ought NOT to be taxed at the same rate as people making $250 million.

If we actually continued the rate of taxations progressively, we'd have rates of taxation that were marginally higher for those making more than $250 K.

And if we did that the rate for $250 slaries would be MUCH MUCH lower than it currently is.

And this would accomplish what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All recessions end.

What's taking this one so long?

We're not in recession. We're in a period of slow growth.

Then what are people whining about?

The whining is from the GOP saying we can't let ANY of the tax cuts expire in a recession.

Which is total disingenuousness, because the GOP wouldn't support letting any of these tax cuts expire no matter what condition the economy was in.

 

[Synthaholic]

But if the choice is all or none then eliminate all the cuts.

Time to pay the piper, America.

Since when? Obama went on a two year spending binge second to none and did not raise income taxes.

Two wars without a tax increase. Blame Obama? LEARN RECENT HISTORY!!!!

He's not a serious person. Ignore him.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The reason the Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to continue millionaires and billionaires is really quite simple, they get their 'base' the carrot & they can blame Obama for the growing deficit. It's a two-fold victory for the Republicans, and a defeat for the American people.

Bull cookies
Your side equates wealthy with GOP. Not so.
Look at voting patterns. Where are the democrat voters? They are in the areas of the country where there are the highest concentrations of wealth. NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA. IL and urban centers of Dallas and Houston.
So don't go thinking you can pull the wool over the eyes of Americans by playing the "rich republican" card. it won't wash.
Are there wealthy GOP voters? Sure.
Let's look at wealthy people.
The Heinz family...Big liberals. The Kennedys. Bill Gates. George Soros. We all know where their loyalties lie.

 

[Common Sense]

You wanted a list. There it is.

Make up your mind.

Deny that this regime picks winners and losers in business or rationalize their picks.

Your point amounts to a bunch of nothing. There are winners and losers in every decision the gov't makes. If they denied the bailout for the auto companies they would still be "picking" a winner or loser. If they put a public option in HRC then the health care industry would have been made a loser. If they didn't make policies focusing on clean energy then clean energy would have been losers and carbon based winners.

GM, Chrysler( no longer and American company) and to a lesser extent, Ford, were bailed out for ONE reason, to pay back the unions for their undying support of Obama's election.
"Too big to fail" was bad policy. GM and Ford were not going to just disappear into the night.
Besides, other auto manufacturers whether they be a restructured domestic or foreign would have filled the void left behind.
Same goes for the Banks and other financials that were bailed out. The companies that were failing, should have been permitted to fail. Again, restructured banks and financials would have been created or other, less burdened companies would have taken their place.

it wasnt necessarily that they would fold over night, it had to do with the industry and the amount of jobs they supported. all of the manufacturers and supplies who sold parts and services to GM and Chrysler were going to be hit extremely hard as well, but because of the loan that was made to GM it has been estimated that over 1 millions jobs outside of GM have been saved. Thats is because GM continued to operate. thats what they were looking at. Sure GM might have been bought, or just been dismantled through bankruptcy, but what about all of those jobs that would have been lost by supporting businesses? would you then go back and blame Obama for all those job loses as well?

for the banks, simply letting banks fail is not good policy. is restricts the flow of capital in the way of loans and credit to both businesses and individuals. but what is the issue here? all of the major banks have paid back the TARP $: JPMorgan and 9 Other Banks Repay TARP Money - NYTimes.com. the only banks that havent paid back their loans are smaller community banks. since these loans were paid back with interest, and we actually made $ on them :Report Shows TARP Profits Top Treasury Bond Returns. so im unclear of the argument here that simply letting companies that have a large stake in the overall health of our economy fail.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The reason the Republicans want the Bush tax cuts to continue millionaires and billionaires is really quite simple, they get their 'base' the carrot & they can blame Obama for the growing deficit. It's a two-fold victory for the Republicans, and a defeat for the American people.

Bull cookies
Your side equates wealthy with GOP. Not so.
Look at voting patterns. Where are the democrat voters? They are in the areas of the country where there are the highest concentrations of wealth. NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA. IL and urban centers of Dallas and Houston.
So don't go thinking you can pull the wool over the eyes of Americans by playing the "rich republican" card. it won't wash.
Are there wealthy GOP voters? Sure.
Let's look at wealthy people.
The Heinz family...Big liberals. The Kennedys. Bill Gates. George Soros. We all know where their loyalties lie.

Those you named support Democratic principles and by their words and deeds understand the principle of Noblesse oblige, unlike the Kock Brothers and the 'Money Changers' of Wall Street who feel no obligation to anyone or anything but profit.