The Tax Cut Myth

[Truthmatters]

Long commutes.
Dirty Water.
Delayed flights.
Failing Dams.
With each passing day, aging and overburdened infrastructure threatens the economy and quality of life in every state, city and town in the nation.

Read about the infrastructure issues in your region and how you can help raise the grade on America's failing infrastructure.


The site has a MAP where you can look state by state to see whats not getting the nessesary funds.

 

[Care4all]

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election.

While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.
____________

This comes from the article.... the future of the tax cuts will be decided after the election.... so nothing is finalized now.

And the republicans have done the exact same thing, NOT extended the tax cuts in ALL of their proceeding budgets too...

So what's the big deal rsr?

Care

 

[Gunny]

I did get a tax cut

If you pay taxes - you got a tax cut

The lowest bracket went from 15% to 10%

The top bracket, I believes went down about 3% points

Guess what - Dems want it all back

They passed a $400 bilion tax increase - so if you paid taxes before - you will pay alot more if their increase becomes law

Explain to me EXACTLY how I am going to pay a lot more in taxes simply by letting the so-called tax cuts expire?

And I really don't see this as any sort of surprise. Democrats gain power = tax increases. If you didn't know it was coming sooner or later, you just weren't paying attention.

However, when you manage to get those fatass Republicans who spend like Democrats to adhere to some conservative ideology your argument might hold more water.

I don't recall once seeing Republican Congresspersons turning down a nice fat pay raise to go with all their other perks in protest of fiscal irresponsibility. Not to mention they're every bit as guilty as Democrats where pork-barrel spending is concerned.

And let's don't act like Republicans didn't have 6 years to make the tax cuts law.

 

[JeffWartman]

I love how when I point out that RSR has NO idea what the article is about, he's just posting random talking points, he completely ignores me.

 

[red states rule]

Explain to me EXACTLY how I am going to pay a lot more in taxes simply by letting the so-called tax cuts expire?

And I really don't see this as any sort of surprise. Democrats gain power = tax increases. If you didn't know it was coming sooner or later, you just weren't paying attention.

However, when you manage to get those fatass Republicans who spend like Democrats to adhere to some conservative ideology your argument might hold more water.

I don't recall once seeing Republican Congresspersons turning down a nice fat pay raise to go with all their other perks in protest of fiscal irresponsibility. Not to mention they're every bit as guilty as Democrats where pork-barrel spending is concerned.

And let's don't act like Republicans didn't have 6 years to make the tax cuts law.

You mean if the tax cuts expire you will NOT pay more in taxes?

I have said the spending needs to be reduced - yet Dems want to spend MORE then Republicans - so they need to increase taxes

 

[JeffWartman]

Keep ignoring me, RSR...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Long commutes.
Dirty Water.
Delayed flights.
Failing Dams.
With each passing day, aging and overburdened infrastructure threatens the economy and quality of life in every state, city and town in the nation.

Read about the infrastructure issues in your region and how you can help raise the grade on America's failing infrastructure.

Of course, that's because they're run by government. Auction them off, and eliminate legal barriers to competing companies.

 

[Truthmatters]

and then have foriegn entities owning our infrastucture and have us paying them profits forever..... Brillient!

 

[Gunny]

You mean if the tax cuts expire you will NOT pay more in taxes?

I have said the spending needs to be reduced - yet Dems want to spend MORE then Republicans - so they need to increase taxes

This doesn't answer my question. Indeed, whoever is now benefitting from "tax cuts" will pay the same in taxes they were paying prior to the tax cuts.

So "paying a LOT more in taxes" amounts to losing whatever benefit I have gained from these "tax cuts," no? It is not however, in actuality, a "tax increase."

And doesn't the President have to sign this bill in order for it to become law? What are the odds of THAT happening?

Can you support with facts the statement that Democrats want to spend more than the current crop of Republicans? I'm having a hard time distinguishing between one and other where spending is concerned.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I love how when I point out that RSR has NO idea what the article is about, he's just posting random talking points, he completely ignores me.

I love how when you decisively win a point against him in a thread and have him admit his statement was wrong, he continues to use the incorrect statement in other threads.

Tax cuts are a tricky problem for Republicans. As said earlier, the budget needs to be balanced for the tax cuts to do good rather than harm, and the only way to trim the budget enough is to significantly cut funding to the WOT. The American people are going to have to pick what they want more, the WOT or tax cuts.

 

[JeffWartman]

I love how when you decisively win a point against him in a thread and have him admit his statement was wrong, he continues to use the incorrect statement in other threads.

Tax cuts are a tricky problem for Republicans. As said earlier, the budget needs to be balanced for the tax cuts to do good rather than harm, and the only way to trim the budget enough is to significantly cut funding to the WOT. The American people are going to have to pick what they want more, the WOT or tax cuts.

It's so cute when RSR runs and hides from facts.

 

[red states rule]

This doesn't answer my question. Indeed, whoever is now benefitting from "tax cuts" will pay the same in taxes they were paying prior to the tax cuts.

So "paying a LOT more in taxes" amounts to losing whatever benefit I have gained from these "tax cuts," no? It is not however, in actuality, a "tax increase."

And doesn't the President have to sign this bill in order for it to become law? What are the odds of THAT happening?

Can you support with facts the statement that Democrats want to spend more than the current crop of Republicans? I'm having a hard time distinguishing between one and other where spending is concerned.

Anyone who is paying taxes are getting tax cuts

Pres Bush will veto the tax increase as he did the surrender bill

Here is a snip of waht Dems want to do

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070321-091127-9493r.htm
Without any way of paying for their spending increases, Democrats are left with their old standby: raising taxes — which is what the Democrats' budget proposal in fact does. By failing to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax relief, the Democrats' budget will result in a $900 billion tax increase over the next five years, the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Beginning in 2010, millions of American families would face punishing tax increases. Families with the lowest incomes would face the heaviest increases.
In addition to burdening families, the failure to extend the tax relief will also have a crippling effect on our economy. The tax relief we passed in 2003 helped move our economy out of recession and propelled us into more than three years of robust economic growth. Since August 2003, our economy has created more than 7.5 million new jobs, and unemployment has fallen. Our current unemployment rate of 4.5 percent is lower than the average of the past three decades. Meanwhile, the deficit has dropped from an estimated $500 billion three years ago to less than $240 billion this year, and it's on track to keep falling.
Democrats like to argue that cutting taxes has deprived the federal government of needed revenue; but, in fact, the deficit reduction of the past three years is largely a result of revenue increases produced by the tax relief. Cutting taxes spurs economic growth, and economic growth creates more revenue for the federal government. Failing to extend the tax relief we've passed will not only place an unacceptable burden on millions of American families, but would also jeopardize our economic growth and our goals of balancing the budget by 2012.
The Democrats' budget proposal also overlooks another threat to successfully balancing the budget: the growth of entitlement programs. If Congress does not take action to reduce the growth of these programs, in a few short years Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be facing bankruptcy as they expand to meet the needs of the aging Baby Boomer generation. Significant reform is necessary to ensure a long-term balancing of the budget and to preserve these programs for future generations. Despite this pressing need for reform, the Democrats' proposal passes the buck to future Congresses, leaving all three of these programs moving swiftly toward bankruptcy.

 

[red states rule]

I love how when you decisively win a point against him in a thread and have him admit his statement was wrong, he continues to use the incorrect statement in other threads.

Tax cuts are a tricky problem for Republicans. As said earlier, the budget needs to be balanced for the tax cuts to do good rather than harm, and the only way to trim the budget enough is to significantly cut funding to the WOT. The American people are going to have to pick what they want more, the WOT or tax cuts.

It seems given the current US economy - tax cuts are working

 

[Care4all]

Anyone who is paying taxes are getting tax cuts

Pres Bush will veto the tax increase as he did the surrender bill

Here is a snip of waht Dems want to do

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070321-091127-9493r.htm
Without any way of paying for their spending increases, Democrats are left with their old standby: raising taxes — which is what the Democrats' budget proposal in fact does. By failing to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax relief, the Democrats' budget will result in a $900 billion tax increase over the next five years, the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Beginning in 2010, millions of American families would face punishing tax increases. Families with the lowest incomes would face the heaviest increases.
In addition to burdening families, the failure to extend the tax relief will also have a crippling effect on our economy. The tax relief we passed in 2003 helped move our economy out of recession and propelled us into more than three years of robust economic growth. Since August 2003, our economy has created more than 7.5 million new jobs, and unemployment has fallen. Our current unemployment rate of 4.5 percent is lower than the average of the past three decades. Meanwhile, the deficit has dropped from an estimated $500 billion three years ago to less than $240 billion this year, and it's on track to keep falling.
Democrats like to argue that cutting taxes has deprived the federal government of needed revenue; but, in fact, the deficit reduction of the past three years is largely a result of revenue increases produced by the tax relief. Cutting taxes spurs economic growth, and economic growth creates more revenue for the federal government. Failing to extend the tax relief we've passed will not only place an unacceptable burden on millions of American families, but would also jeopardize our economic growth and our goals of balancing the budget by 2012.
The Democrats' budget proposal also overlooks another threat to successfully balancing the budget: the growth of entitlement programs. If Congress does not take action to reduce the growth of these programs, in a few short years Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be facing bankruptcy as they expand to meet the needs of the aging Baby Boomer generation. Significant reform is necessary to ensure a long-term balancing of the budget and to preserve these programs for future generations. Despite this pressing need for reform, the Democrats' proposal passes the buck to future Congresses, leaving all three of these programs moving swiftly toward bankruptcy.

Not for one single Nano-second do I believe the Democrats will raise taxes on the poor or the middle class, nor people with children or married couples.....

And it would be political suicide if they were to not extend the tax cuts for those in dire need of one..... the poor and middle to upper middle....

What you fail to say or the washington times fails to express is that the republicans ALSO DID NOT EXTEND THE TAX CUTS....Did you or the Washington times accuse the republicans of the biggest tax increase in our history when they did not extend them in their budget?

NO, you DID NOT, nor did the "lovely" Washington times Mooney newspaper...?

Good morning btw

Care

 

[red states rule]

Not for one single Nano-second do I believe the Democrats will raise taxes on the poor or the middle class, nor people with children or married couples.....

And it would be political suicide if they were to not extend the tax cuts for those in dire need of one..... the poor and middle to upper middle....

What you fail to say or the washington times fails to express is that the republicans ALSO DID NOT EXTEND THE TAX CUTS....Did you or the Washington times accuse the republicans of the biggest tax increase in our history when they did not extend them in their budget?

NO, you DID NOT, nor did the "lovely" Washington times Mooney newspaper...?

Good morning btw

Care

They want to do just that

The lowest tax bracket will go from 10% to 15%

Even retired couples will see their taxes go up

Care - to Dems all money is governments money. The ONLY way to get the tax cuts past the Dems was to put the sunset clause in the bill

The tax cuts have increased revenue and and caused economic growth

 

[red states rule]

Not for one single Nano-second do I believe the Democrats will raise taxes on the poor or the middle class, nor people with children or married couples.....

And it would be political suicide if they were to not extend the tax cuts for those in dire need of one..... the poor and middle to upper middle....

What you fail to say or the washington times fails to express is that the republicans ALSO DID NOT EXTEND THE TAX CUTS....Did you or the Washington times accuse the republicans of the biggest tax increase in our history when they did not extend them in their budget?

NO, you DID NOT, nor did the "lovely" Washington times Mooney newspaper...?

Good morning btw

Care

Lying About Taxes
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In routine party-line votes last week, both houses of Congress completed action on a Democratic-crafted budget containing the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. That this was overlooked attests to the legerdemain of Sen. Kent Conrad of Bismarck, N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Conrad, a 59-year-old third-termer, is a monotone orator whose use of statistical charts betrays his dozen years as a North Dakota state tax collector. He seems so straight an arrow that it is hard to accuse him of the big lie. But that is precisely what he has done.

Conrad has repeatedly insisted his budget contains no higher taxes. But how, then, can it increase discretionary spending $200 billion over five years, while promising immense budget surpluses in the future? By raising taxes not only on upper-bracket income earners but also on dividends and capital gains, affecting many more Americans.

Conrad has been in denial. After I described his budget as an old-fashioned Democratic tax-and-spend formula on March 28, Conrad wrote a letter to newspapers accusing me of "blind ideology and meaningless partisan rhetoric." His budget, he said, "neither assumes nor requires a tax increase." That is exactly what he has been saying for months on the Senate floor.

A typical exchange occurred May 9, when Republican Sen. John Thune displayed spend-and-tax charts. "Not true," responded Conrad. "There is no tax increase in the proposal before us." In the final debate last Thursday, Conrad again contradicted the assertions of higher taxes by his Republican counterpart on the Budget Committee, Sen. Judd Gregg.

Different in kind from normal congressional debate, this is based not on the merits of higher taxes but disagreement on the existence of any increase. The mystery is easily solved. Under the Democratic budget, the Bush administration's tax cuts are permitted to expire at the end of 2010. That means higher taxes if Congress does nothing.

Conrad has defended his no-tax-increase claim on grounds that the Democratic budget's five-year revenues total $14.827 trillion, compared with a "virtually identical" $14.826 trillion in President Bush's budget. But he is comparing apples and oranges -- calculations by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget using varying techniques and economic assumptions. That they are so close to each other was an accident.

After months of Conrad's assurances that his budget contained no tax increases, the Senate adopted, 97 to one, an amendment by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus that decreased estimated revenues by $195 billion. It would save the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, estate tax decreases and other expiring tax proposals. If the budget "does not raise taxes," asked Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, on May 10, "why has there been a discussion about whether or not to adopt the Baucus amendment?" It survived in the final version of the resolution.

Conrad's insistence has affected the way the budget resolution has been reported. The Associated Press account never mentions tax increases. The Wall Street Journal's headline cautiously refers to a "partial lapse of tax cuts."

Conrad's fellow Democrats in the Senate buy into his euphemisms. Not a single Democratic senator voted against the tax-increasing budget -- not even Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who often departs from the party line and who supported the Bush tax cuts.

But the budget resolution's tax increases sounded a warning signal for the House, which passed it by only 214 to 209. Until now, the new Democratic majority in the House has been solid amid substantial Republican defections. But no Republican member voted for the budget, while 13 Democrats opposed it. Of the defectors, left-wing Rep. Dennis Kucinich voted no because he said the budget would fund President Bush's Iraqi war effort throughout his term.

The other 12 were moderates, including six freshmen who defeated Republicans last year. One freshman was Rep. Harry E. Mitchell of Arizona, who upset Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the heavily Republican Tempe district. "I simply cannot support a budget that allows key tax cuts to expire," said Mitchell, calling for extended capital gains and estate tax cuts. Kent Conrad didn't fool Harry Mitchell.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/post_36.html

 

[loosecannon]

It seems given the current US economy - tax cuts are working

The US economy has been flat for 6 years. Or haven't you noticed?

Take the much ballywhooed Dow Jones. Up 2200 points since 2000.

That is only a 2.9%/anum increase, or equal to inflation, or dead flat. No real growth at all in 6 years.

 

[red states rule]

The US economy has been flat for 6 years. Or haven't you noticed?

Take the much ballywhooed Dow Jones. Up 2200 points since 2000.

That is only a 2.9%/anum increase, or equal to inflation, or dead flat. No real growth at all in 6 years.

The US economy is flat? Hardly

The Dow is up nearly 5000 points since the weeks after 9-11

 

[loosecannon]

Lying About Taxes
By Robert Novak

Yes Novak IS lying about taxes. What your posted article says is that the dem plan can increase spending and balance the budget for EXACTLY the same reason that the Bush budget proposals can make the same claim: they both assume that revenues will continue to increase without a tax increase.

Same rate, more taxable income, more revenues, both budgets.

Can you follow that RSR?

 

[red states rule]

Yes Novak IS lying about taxes. What your posted article says is that the dem plan can increase spending and balance the budget for EXACTLY the same reason that the Bush budget proposals can make the same claim: they both assume that revenues will continue to increase without a tax increase.

Same rate, more taxable income, more revenues, both budgets.

Can you follow that RSR?

Are you saying Dems are not wanting to raise taxes?