Is it time to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

[Xenophon]

And maybe the Reagan tax cuts too?

bonuses-put-goldman-in-public-relations-bind: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Only an idiot or an imbecile wants to see taxes go up in a massive recession.

Ergo the OP.

Which is why they haven't raised taxes.

But raising taxes on the rich to the level they were at when Reagan was in office should to the trick.

Not with Barry wanting to spend a trillion in cap & trade and 2 trilion on barrycare while already being a trillion and a half in hole.

Instead what you get is called great depression triggered by the hyperinfaltion this brings.


This government has zero intention of cutting spending, it wants more revenue for more social projects, and the money isn't there and won't be through taxes.

 

[Intense]

It is long past time to repeal greed, well can't really do that, so yes, make them pay for the society that provides them the opportunity to be American Saddams.

"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."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

The rich get rich because of their merit.


What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer

".... The rich must — or so some of us with less money like to assume — suffer sleepless nights because of their ruthlessness in squeezing out competitors, firing workers, shutting down plants or whatever else they have to do to acquire their wealth. When wealthy people give away money, we can always say that they are doing it to ease their consciences or generate favorable publicity. It has been suggested — by, for example, David Kirkpatrick, a senior editor at Fortune magazine — that Bill Gates’s turn to philanthropy was linked to the antitrust problems Microsoft had in the U.S. and the European Union. Was Gates, consciously or subconsciously, trying to improve his own image and that of his company?"

What controls Government Greed?

What is the control on Jealousy, or envy?

What is your definition of private property?

What is your position on the Declaration of Independence?

What is your Position on Natural Rights?

What is Your Position on The Constitution?

What is your position on One World Government? The World Court?

What is your position on Slavery?

 

[Chris]

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich created a huge increase in the National Debt. Reagan's budget director David Stockman let the cat out of the bag....

Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

The fiscal misunderstandings had ramifications. With the national debt benchmarking at $1.0 trillion in October 1981, not counting trillions in accumulating net interest carrying costs, the national debt was put on a political trajectory via the legacy of the Reagan Revolution budgets, towards the $9.1 trillion it reached by the end of 2007. The legacy of sizable budget deficits added up in the national debt and interest costs alone on the debt clicked in at $1.17 billion per day for fiscal year ending 2007; $430 billion for the year.

After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GHook93]

And maybe the Reagan tax cuts too?

bonuses-put-goldman-in-public-relations-bind: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

What did the BUSH tax cuts do for business? NOT MUCH! What it did was do alot for RICH PEOPLE! Why didn't Bush do something about the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world. Ireland and UAE have shown that when you lower the corporate tax to low levels corporations will come! Did he lower the small business killing payroll tax? NOPE! Here are 2 areas that he should have addressed but didn't!

What needs to be addressed is what the states are doing! States are crippling their residents with some of the highest in the world property taxes. In IL (Cook County) at least we are getting killed with a 10-12% sales tax!

In regards to the income tax, I am completely for the progressive tax (as long as its reasonable ON ALL LEVELS!); however, I personally perfer the FAIR TAX to the corporate, payroll, separate sales and income tax!

 

[Intense]

What are you about 15 years old?

What are you being such a moron with the taking and spending of other peoples money without their consent. You need to be addressed as a 15 year old, because that is where your morals find compatibility.

Now I know you are 15.

That would put you at the the terrible two's. Go change your diaper. It's pretty rank.

 

[Intense]

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich created a huge increase in the National Debt. Reagan's budget director David Stockman let the cat out of the bag....

Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

The fiscal misunderstandings had ramifications. With the national debt benchmarking at $1.0 trillion in October 1981, not counting trillions in accumulating net interest carrying costs, the national debt was put on a political trajectory via the legacy of the Reagan Revolution budgets, towards the $9.1 trillion it reached by the end of 2007. The legacy of sizable budget deficits added up in the national debt and interest costs alone on the debt clicked in at $1.17 billion per day for fiscal year ending 2007; $430 billion for the year.

After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress controlled the Spending, not Reagan.

 

[Chris]

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich created a huge increase in the National Debt. Reagan's budget director David Stockman let the cat out of the bag....

Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

The fiscal misunderstandings had ramifications. With the national debt benchmarking at $1.0 trillion in October 1981, not counting trillions in accumulating net interest carrying costs, the national debt was put on a political trajectory via the legacy of the Reagan Revolution budgets, towards the $9.1 trillion it reached by the end of 2007. The legacy of sizable budget deficits added up in the national debt and interest costs alone on the debt clicked in at $1.17 billion per day for fiscal year ending 2007; $430 billion for the year.

After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress controlled the Spending, not Reagan.

More horseshit...

Congressional Republicans along with a few Dixiecrats passed Reagan's budget.

Nice try though.

 

[Meister]

I haven't read every post, but has some one commented on how many billions that have been spent on pork from our govertnment? Maybe we could start there and work backwards to the individual taxes.

No one disputes that there is pork, but taxes have to go up, and no one has the balls to say so.

Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.

Chris do you dare to comment on common sense, or would you rather avoid it?

 

[Chris]

In reality Reagan, Bush, and Phil Gramm are responsible for the economic collapse.

Now we have to pick up the pieces.

 

[Chris]

No one disputes that there is pork, but taxes have to go up, and no one has the balls to say so.

Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.

Chris do you dare to comment on common sense, or would you rather avoid it?

As I said, Clinton and Gingrich raised taxes, lowered spending, and balanced the budget.

Would rather avoid paying attention to what I said?

 

[Meister]

In reality Reagan, Bush, and Phil Gramm are responsible for the economic collapse.

Now we have to pick up the pieces.

Take off the shades and at least admit that the democrats were involved also, if you want to be taken serious.....seriously

 

[Meister]

Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.

Chris do you dare to comment on common sense, or would you rather avoid it?

As I said, Clinton and Gingrich raised taxes, lowered spending, and balanced the budget.

Would rather avoid paying attention to what I said?

Will you admit that there was some fuzzy math going to attain that?
Now, what about the here, and now on dealing with the problem...common sense, or would rather avoid it? yes, no?

 

[rightwinger]

I would agree to repeal the cuts if it includes corresponding cuts in spending and deficit reductions

 

[Meister]

I haven't read every post, but has some one commented on how many billions that have been spent on pork from our govertnment? Maybe we could start there and work backwards to the individual taxes.

No one disputes that there is pork, but taxes have to go up, and no one has the balls to say so.

Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.

Eh, Chris this IS WHAT we were talking about.

 

[Meister]

I'll take that as a, you want to avoid it. It's OK, I expected that out of ya.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Spoken like a true congressman.
What state do you represent?

Be realistic. Do you think you're going to get a majority in Congress to cut Social Security benefits or decrease defense spending?

social security? never. defense spending? I think Clinton cut defense spending, but raised it again toward the end of his presidency. The defense industry is supplied by all 50 states, which means when defense gets cut, jobs get cut. Doesn't sound too politically feasible.

Of course it's not feasable if we continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. Fifty states may benefit from jobs supplied by defense contractors, but is the production and selling of weapons good for our nation or the world?
I voted for Obama because I want change, and I'd like to believe our future lies in new technologies that benefit mankind, not destroy it.

 

[DiamondDave]

I will support repealing the tax cuts when we finally have an equal % flat tax on every dollar earned by every US citizen

 

[Wry Catcher]

A flat tax? Meaning a person who earns $1,000,000 pays 10% ($100,000); and another who earns $50,000 pays 10% ($5,000)?
What do you see as the long term consequences of such a tax policy?

 

[Political Junky]

Reagan's tax cuts for the rich created a huge increase in the National Debt. Reagan's budget director David Stockman let the cat out of the bag....

Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

The fiscal misunderstandings had ramifications. With the national debt benchmarking at $1.0 trillion in October 1981, not counting trillions in accumulating net interest carrying costs, the national debt was put on a political trajectory via the legacy of the Reagan Revolution budgets, towards the $9.1 trillion it reached by the end of 2007. The legacy of sizable budget deficits added up in the national debt and interest costs alone on the debt clicked in at $1.17 billion per day for fiscal year ending 2007; $430 billion for the year.

After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's what Bush Sr. labelled Voo Doo Economics when he ran against Reagan ... he was right. Of course he embraced it once in the White House to please the wingnuts.

 

[edthecynic]

A flat tax? Meaning a person who earns $1,000,000 pays 10% ($100,000); and another who earns $50,000 pays 10% ($5,000)?
What do you see as the long term consequences of such a tax policy?

As long as there are no exceptions or deductions, especially for "charity," a very fair tax system.