Bush tax cuts

[Gadawg73]

I own land which is next to impossible to sell these days but I am in for the long run as most of it I have bought the last 2 years at very good prices.
Now let me appeal to the reason and common sense of you folks:
1. The capital gains tax is now at 15% and with the economy very bad how would a rise in the capital gains tax to past rates of 30% help the economy? If the tax rate goes up then the PROFITS go down for investors that risk their capital. They will NOT invest it because the RISK goes up with the higher tax rates. Same with all investments.
2. If we raise the tax rates what wil government do with the $? Pay down the debt with that $. LOL, HAHAHA, sure right! They will continue to FUND the programs they have now INTSTEAD OF CUTTING THOSE PROGRAMS.

Taxes are not the problem. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM and lack of investment in the economy is the problem. The more you tax investors with capital the less those investors put at risk their capital.
And it is investment capital that fuels the economy and creates jobs.

 

[theHawk]

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

First of all tax cuts are usually made to save the people their own money, not the federal government.

I still don't understand why we call them the "Bush tax cuts". Its the current tax rate, who cares what President made it happen. The question is should we raise the current tax rate, let it stay the same, or lower it. Libs of course want the tax rate raised. They seem to be under the impression that higher tax rates is going to help get rid of the national debt/federal deficit. The problem with this assumption is that the government keeps spending more than it takes in, so raising taxes doesn't fix the root cause of the problem. Cutting spending does.

Quite frankly I think its stupid to have a "debate" of whether a 35% or 39% tax rate is the best way to ultimately reduce the national debt, when the government has proven it only knows how to spend more than it brings in. It has to learn to "live within its means" to bring the deficit down, regardless of the tax rate.

However taxes do effect how much money remains in the private sector and thus effects the economy too. The more the gov taxes the harder it will be for the economy to expand. The less you tax the more cash on hand business especially will have to expand, and private individuals will have more cash on hand to spend to boost the economy. So if you're looking to reduce the federal deficit and national debt, as well as boost the economy, you've got to cut taxes and cut spending.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't think that anybody here is really serious about the deficit. As far as redistribution of wealth is concerned, we have just seen the greatest redistribution of wealth in our nation's history. From the middle and working class poor, to the very wealthy.

Fearing a soaring deficit, many analysts favor letting Bush tax cuts expire

Today, the economy is sluggish and the national debt is soaring to worrisome levels. As lawmakers bicker over whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, not just for the middle class but also for the wealthy, many economists and budget analysts say there's a simple way to curb borrowing: Let the tax cuts expire for everyone.

Official and independent budget estimates show that letting tax rates spring back to pre-Bush levels for all taxpayers would bring the country within striking distance of meeting President Obama's goal of balancing the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015.
"If we actually ended the Bush-era tax cuts, that would pretty much do it," Obama's recently departed budget director, Peter Orszag, said in an interview last week with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. "If you do a bit on the spending side and then end the tax cuts, you pretty much get there."

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't think that anybody here is really serious about the deficit. As far as redistribution of wealth is concerned, we have just seen the greatest redistribution of wealth in our nation's history. From the middle and working class poor, to the very wealthy.

Fearing a soaring deficit, many analysts favor letting Bush tax cuts expire

Today, the economy is sluggish and the national debt is soaring to worrisome levels. As lawmakers bicker over whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, not just for the middle class but also for the wealthy, many economists and budget analysts say there's a simple way to curb borrowing: Let the tax cuts expire for everyone.

Official and independent budget estimates show that letting tax rates spring back to pre-Bush levels for all taxpayers would bring the country within striking distance of meeting President Obama's goal of balancing the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015.
"If we actually ended the Bush-era tax cuts, that would pretty much do it," Obama's recently departed budget director, Peter Orszag, said in an interview last week with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. "If you do a bit on the spending side and then end the tax cuts, you pretty much get there."

Wealth is earned, not distributed.

 

[edthecynic]

I own land which is next to impossible to sell these days but I am in for the long run as most of it I have bought the last 2 years at very good prices.
Now let me appeal to the reason and common sense of you folks:
1. The capital gains tax is now at 15% and with the economy very bad how would a rise in the capital gains tax to past rates of 30% help the economy? If the tax rate goes up then the PROFITS go down for investors that risk their capital. They will NOT invest it because the RISK goes up with the higher tax rates. Same with all investments.
2. If we raise the tax rates what wil government do with the $? Pay down the debt with that $. LOL, HAHAHA, sure right! They will continue to FUND the programs they have now INTSTEAD OF CUTTING THOSE PROGRAMS.

Taxes are not the problem. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM and lack of investment in the economy is the problem. The more you tax investors with capital the less those investors put at risk their capital.
And it is investment capital that fuels the economy and creates jobs.

Your question is easily answered, setting cap gains taxes high and keeping them there benefits the economy by discouraging SPECULATION. You are a land speculator, so of course you will put your own interests above this great country's. The Bush Depression started in Dec 2007 and for the 3 years since we have been at the lower Bush cap gains tax rates and we have been losing jobs. So much for the crap that lower cap gains taxes creates jobs!

CON$ are always wrong even when they are right! If cutting taxes is good for the economy, then you can be sure the CON$ will want to cut the WRONG taxes, like cap gains. If yor really want to create jobs with a tax cut, the best tax to cut is the payroll taxes!!!! Studies have shown cutting payroll taxes gives you the most bang for your tax cutting dollar.

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts. The last group you want to benefit from tax cuts are the speculators who drive up the cost of everything without creating a single job.

 

[Rozman]

I don't really care how many jobs were created...The point is it's not your money,it's not my money,It's not Obama's money.This was not the governments money that they want back.It's the money that these people earned.It's their money.Why can't one person in government look at spending first whenever they run short of money? The first thing they look for is to get more of our money....and when they grt more money they look to spend it just as soon as they get their hands on it.

 

[RagingCalm]

Politifact just did an article that touches on letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire. I can't post the URL since I'm under 15 posts but if you go to the PolitiFact main page and click on the recent False ruling for Bobby Scott, you'll find it there. Sorry, I'd post a direct link if I could.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How's not sending it NOW working out?

Are you aware that Bush explicitly gave as a reason for his tax cuts -

to eliminate the surplus?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Tax cuts mean less revenue. Less revenue adds to the deficit, which adds to the debt, which adds to the interest on the debt.

 

[Woyzeck]

Toss the silly cuts, already.

 

[Gadawg73]

I own land which is next to impossible to sell these days but I am in for the long run as most of it I have bought the last 2 years at very good prices.
Now let me appeal to the reason and common sense of you folks:
1. The capital gains tax is now at 15% and with the economy very bad how would a rise in the capital gains tax to past rates of 30% help the economy? If the tax rate goes up then the PROFITS go down for investors that risk their capital. They will NOT invest it because the RISK goes up with the higher tax rates. Same with all investments.
2. If we raise the tax rates what wil government do with the $? Pay down the debt with that $. LOL, HAHAHA, sure right! They will continue to FUND the programs they have now INTSTEAD OF CUTTING THOSE PROGRAMS.

Taxes are not the problem. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM and lack of investment in the economy is the problem. The more you tax investors with capital the less those investors put at risk their capital.
And it is investment capital that fuels the economy and creates jobs.

Your question is easily answered, setting cap gains taxes high and keeping them there benefits the economy by discouraging SPECULATION. You are a land speculator, so of course you will put your own interests above this great country's. The Bush Depression started in Dec 2007 and for the 3 years since we have been at the lower Bush cap gains tax rates and we have been losing jobs. So much for the crap that lower cap gains taxes creates jobs!

CON$ are always wrong even when they are right! If cutting taxes is good for the economy, then you can be sure the CON$ will want to cut the WRONG taxes, like cap gains. If yor really want to create jobs with a tax cut, the best tax to cut is the payroll taxes!!!! Studies have shown cutting payroll taxes gives you the most bang for your tax cutting dollar.

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts. The last group you want to benefit from tax cuts are the speculators who drive up the cost of everything without creating a single job.

ALL investment is speculation dumbass. Without it there would be NO investment and NO jobs. When you invest $$$ in employees that is SPECULATION. Damn, obvipus you do not have your $$ at risk.
My investment speculation IS A BUSINESS. When the land sells people build on it creating many jobs. Tax it at a high rate there is LESS $$ as a profit and LESS investment.
Less investment means LESS jobs. $$$ creates jobs. Businesses borrow $$$ and investment capital, SPECULATION, funds the entire economy.
Capital is what pays for jobs. Always.

 

[mdn2000]

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

How much will it save the federal government by taking more of my money?

The answer is ZERO.

 

[mdn2000]

I don't think that anybody here is really serious about the deficit. As far as redistribution of wealth is concerned, we have just seen the greatest redistribution of wealth in our nation's history. From the middle and working class poor, to the very wealthy.

Fearing a soaring deficit, many analysts favor letting Bush tax cuts expire

Today, the economy is sluggish and the national debt is soaring to worrisome levels. As lawmakers bicker over whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, not just for the middle class but also for the wealthy, many economists and budget analysts say there's a simple way to curb borrowing: Let the tax cuts expire for everyone.

Official and independent budget estimates show that letting tax rates spring back to pre-Bush levels for all taxpayers would bring the country within striking distance of meeting President Obama's goal of balancing the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015.
"If we actually ended the Bush-era tax cuts, that would pretty much do it," Obama's recently departed budget director, Peter Orszag, said in an interview last week with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. "If you do a bit on the spending side and then end the tax cuts, you pretty much get there."

Actually the transfer of wealth is to Oregon, grants and subsidies to Wind farms and Solar projects.

Maybe Old Crock can tell us how the rich take money from the working poor people who do not have money or do not pay taxes.

 

[Stephanie]

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)?

wtf? I can't believe there are people out there who BELIEVE this shit.

 

[mdn2000]

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)?

I use my Bush tax cuts to buy food and pay for my truck, last year I used my tax return to catch up on my bills, I was late paying my bills.

So why do you think your entitled to my money, what gives you the right to take my money.

This year my tax return, at least one thousand dollars I will pay to the immigration department so my wife can come to the usa from brazil. This is the second time I will pay immigrations because the government sucks, they fucked up the paper work so I can pay a lawyer and the government or just take a chance and pay the government.

Take away the Bush tax cuts means I will not get my tax return and my wife will not be able to come home.

You should go out and make your own money instead of stealing mine.

 

[editec]

All we have to do is cut $1.7 TRILLION from the annual budget and we can easily afford to allow the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires program to continue.

What FEDERAL government spending shall we eliminate?

here's a visual aid to help us see how the money is allocated

source​

 

[midcan5]

Federal taxes have been reduced under Kennedy, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Jr, but you would think it was only the republicans who lowered taxes. State taxes are another issue and often dependent on property value and class. Class gets little press in America and anyone who mentions class is marginalized, after all this is the land of the free and you picked your class. Didn't you.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."(1)

If the above statement is true then why are taxes always mentioned as the panacea for economic woes. The reason is quite simple, on occasion reduced taxes have stimulated jobs or so it seems, but more important is the propaganda that ties taxes to waste and corruption. It isn't really the taxes, it is the other part of the equation: government waste. Add to that normal human greed, 'it's mine,' and you have the greatest con ever imagined and still perpetrated every election cycle as if voters were born again literally yesterday.

Consider that our best years for all America were the times when taxes were highest. Consider too that the consequences of tax reduction starting with Carter, Reagan, and Bush Jr has not done any appreciable good for the nation. Reagan/Bush had a major collapse of real estate and Savings and Loan requiring bailouts, and George W. Bush almost helped bring about the Great Depression II with massive tax cuts and low interest rates. Again bailouts were required. Ask yourself why are taxes still the number one political beating stick? No need you should know by now, it's all they have, and as the Bible clearly states, you already know the root of all evil. By the way the 'root' ain't helping your nation prosper, it's helping yourself - well maybe it is.

But don't believe me lots of information below for those born awhile ago.


"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!"The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


"Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness." The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American


Tax Facts: "Surprisingly, many huge American companies pay no taxes to the U.S. government. In 2008, General Electric (NYSE: GE) owed no U.S. taxes, despite ringing up $10.3 billion in pre-tax income. (The complicated explanation involves the huge losses its GE Capital division posted in the U.S., which offset the gobs of money the company made elsewhere.)" 5 Surprising Tax Facts


"In 'America: Who Really Pays The Taxes?', two investigative reporters with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Donald Barlett and James Steele, traced the path by which tax rates for the very rich got lower and lower. It was not the Republicans but the Democrats-the Kennedy-Johnson administrations-who, under the guise of "tax reform," first lowered the World War II-era rate of 91 percent on incomes over $400,000 a year to 70 percent. During the Carter Administration (though over his objections) Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined to give even more tax breaks to the rich.

"The Reagan administration, with the help of Democrats in Congress, lowered the tax rate on the very rich to 50 percent and in 1986 a coalition of Republicans and Democrats sponsored another "tax reform" bill that lowered the top rate to 28 percent. Barlett and Steele noted that a schoolteacher, a factory worker, and a billionaire could all pay 28 percent. The idea of a "progressive" income in which the rich paid at higher rates than everyone else was now almost dead." Howard Zinn 'A People's History of the United States"


"The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families. In any case, in terms of how counter-productive they are, there is no automatic preference for spending reductions rather than tax increases." Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


"How large are these externalities, which must be regarded as owned jointly by members of the whole society? When we compare the poorest with the richest nations, it is hard to conclude that social capital can produce less than about 90 percent of income in wealthy societies like those of the United States or Northwestern Europe. On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned." UBI and the Flat Tax

(1) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

[I may post this later separately.]

 

[mdn2000]

Federal taxes have been reduced under Kennedy, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Jr, but you would think it was only the republicans who lowered taxes. State taxes are another issue and often dependent on property value and class. Class gets little press in America and anyone who mentions class is marginalized, after all this is the land of the free and you picked your class. Didn't you.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."(1)

If the above statement is true then why are taxes always mentioned as the panacea for economic woes. The reason is quite simple, on occasion reduced taxes have stimulated jobs or so it seems, but more important is the propaganda that ties taxes to waste and corruption. It isn't really the taxes, it is the other part of the equation: government waste. Add to that normal human greed, 'it's mine,' and you have the greatest con ever imagined and still perpetrated every election cycle as if voters were born again literally yesterday.

Consider that our best years for all America were the times when taxes were highest. Consider too that the consequences of tax reduction starting with Carter, Reagan, and Bush Jr has not done any appreciable good for the nation. Reagan/Bush had a major collapse of real estate and Savings and Loan requiring bailouts, and George W. Bush almost helped bring about the Great Depression II with massive tax cuts and low interest rates. Again bailouts were required. Ask yourself why are taxes still the number one political beating stick? No need you should know by now, it's all they have, and as the Bible clearly states, you already know the root of all evil. By the way the 'root' ain't helping your nation prosper, it's helping yourself.

But don't believe me lots of information below for those born awhile ago.


"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!"The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton


"Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness." The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American


Tax Facts: "Surprisingly, many huge American companies pay no taxes to the U.S. government. In 2008, General Electric (NYSE: GE) owed no U.S. taxes, despite ringing up $10.3 billion in pre-tax income. (The complicated explanation involves the huge losses its GE Capital division posted in the U.S., which offset the gobs of money the company made elsewhere.)" 5 Surprising Tax Facts


"In 'America: Who Really Pays The Taxes?', two investigative reporters with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Donald Barlett and James Steele, traced the path by which tax rates for the very rich got lower and lower. It was not the Republicans but the Democrats-the Kennedy-Johnson administrations-who, under the guise of "tax reform," first lowered the World War II-era rate of 91 percent on incomes over $400,000 a year to 70 percent. During the Carter Administration (though over his objections) Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined to give even more tax breaks to the rich.

The Reagan administration, with the help of Democrats in Congress, lowered the tax rate on the very rich to 50 percent and in 1986 a coalition of Republicans and Democrats sponsored another "tax reform" bill that lowered the top rate to 28 percent. Barlett and Steele noted that a schoolteacher, a factory worker, and a billionaire could all pay 28 percent. The idea of a "progressive" income in which the rich paid at higher rates than everyone else was now almost dead." Howard Zinn 'A People's History of the United States"


"The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families. In any case, in terms of how counter-productive they are, there is no automatic preference for spending reductions rather than tax increases." Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01


UBI and the Flat Tax

(1)<a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm">Read article here.</a>

[I may post this later separately.]

If tax cuts hurt the economy then the economy can go to hell, its my money, not yours, who the **** are you to take my money.

Give all your money away, that is if you got a job.

I work hard for what I got and the government takes more, and more, and more. That is you demand the government take more, that is you taking my money.

Notice to make a point you encompass how many decades.

Go make you own money.

 

[Gadawg73]

All we have to do is cut $1.7 TRILLION from the annual budget and we can easily afford to allow the Bush II tax cuts for billionaires program to continue.

What FEDERAL government spending shall we eliminate?

here's a visual aid to help us see how the money is allocated

source​

Medicare for those with incomes over 65K a year, a large % of the elderly population.
Raise the age to draw social security for those under 50 to age 70, 50- 55 to age 67, 55-60to age 65.
End the war on drugs and release all non violent drug ofenders imediately.
Your chart does no show the Earned Income Credit, eliminate it.
Your chart does not show automatic 5% increases in most programs-freeze that for 10 years except the military if needed.
Cut every government entity 10% now
On and on and on and on and on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Don't you mean to ask how much will it cost the taxpayers?