Debate Over Bush-Era Tax Cuts

[guywithashovel]

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...litics&sid=101

The debate over whether or not to extend Bush's tax cuts has been going on for a while. According to this article that I saw in the paper this morning, it seems that some are expecting Congress to extend them before it commences and the new Congress gets to work. Obama himself as even faltered a little on what to do about these. It has been pointed out that letting them expire will reduce the deficit by 700 billion dollars over ten years. Of course, here is where the crowd that says tax cuts produce more revenue chime in.

Thoughts?

[Rageaholic]

Just let them expire. The tax cuts for the rich has been the biggest contributer to this economic crisis. It's funny, whenever we actually want to help every day people, the Repulicans bitch and moan, claiming that we can't afford it. Yes, but we can afford to give tax breaks to a small minority of billionaires.

Sorry for the rant, but this is something I feel strongly about.

[Andara Bledin]

They need to expire. They should never have been put into action in the first place.

By 2005 they were contributing over 45% to deficit spending as a percentage of the GDP, and that percentage can only go up until they are ended. If they had any positive effect, then the overall amount of deficit spending should have gone down, but it hasn't.

^-.-^

[joe hx]

I've heard arguments from both sides, but haven't actually looked at the facts myself. From what I understand, when the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect, tax revenue actually increased. The problem was that the Bush Admin spent more money than the increased tax revenue gave them.

Of course, no facts here, just hearsay. I might look them up later...

[MadMike]

It has been pointed out that letting them expire will reduce the deficit by 700 billion dollars over ten years.

That's assuming that the money will go towards paying down the defecit. More likely, our elected officials will find something else stupid to waste it on.

[Ipecac Drano]

That's assuming that the money will go towards paying down the defecit. More likely, our elected officials will find something else stupid to waste it on.

Like repairing the infrastructure, education, medical research and other stupid things like those.

[MadMike]

Like repairing the infrastructure, education, medical research and other stupid things like those.

More like pay raises for themselves, unnecessary wars with no end in sight, and 1984-style survellance programs that do nothing but strip people of their rights, to name a few. I'm sure someone else can think of some other examples.

I wouldn't be so opposed to higher taxes if (1) there is nothing nonessential that can be cut, and (2) the money is actually used for what they say it's going be used for. Like when former governor Tom Ridge (you may know him as the head of Homeland Insecurity) decided that the state gasoline tax, as well as the cost of vehicle registrations, needed to be raised to fix our roads. As many people know, we have some of the worst roads in the country.

Despite a lot of complaints, the increase was passed. This was in 1997, I believe. Fast-forward 13 years later, and our roads are just as bad as ever. But interestingly enough, a couple years after ramming the tax hike down the throat of PA's residents, the same governor, who somehow managed to get re-elected after his "fuck you" to the taxpayers, decided that we had enough money to piss away on stadiums for wealthy sports team owners.

Some of us who live in the land of bad roads, stadiums, and high taxes are still somewhat bitter over this.

[Ipecac Drano]

More like pay raises for themselves, unnecessary wars with no end in sight, and 1984-style survellance programs that do nothing but strip people of their rights, to name a few. I'm sure someone else can think of some other examples.

I'm sure someone else could, too.

I wouldn't be so opposed to higher taxes if (1) there is nothing nonessential that can be cut

Most "nonessential" things do not cost that much at all. They're miniscule.

and (2) the money is actually used for what they say it's going be used for.

When my taxes are taken out of my check, it doesn't say upfront what projects they are going to.

Like when former governor Tom Ridge (you may know him as the head of Homeland Insecurity) decided that the state gasoline tax, as well as the cost of vehicle registrations, needed to be raised to fix our roads. As many people know, we have some of the worst roads in the country.

The roads around here (Indiana) are great.

Despite a lot of complaints, the increase was passed. This was in 1997, I believe. Fast-forward 13 years later, and our roads are just as bad as ever. But interestingly enough, a couple years after ramming the tax hike down the throat of PA's residents, the same governor, who somehow managed to get re-elected after his "fuck you" to the taxpayers, decided that we had enough money to piss away on stadiums for wealthy sports team owners.

Not all politicians are like that.

Some of us who live in the land of bad roads, stadiums, and high taxes are still somewhat bitter over this.

Fair enough, but not all politicians need the broad brushstrokes.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Not all politicians are like that.

But unfortunately the 1% that aren't have little actual power.

[MadMike]

Most "nonessential" things do not cost that much at all. They're miniscule.

Would you be OK with me helping myself to a "miniscule" amount of money from your wallet -- say $1? How about $2? $5? $20? At what point does it stop being "not much at all?"

How about I help myself anytime I get careless with my money, or simply want more money? These little things do add up, after all.

When my taxes are taken out of my check, it doesn't say upfront what projects they are going to.

I believe I addressed that point already, in my example where they were pushing a tax increase, despite public opposition, claiming that it would be used for something to benefit the public, and then they end up blowing it on themselves.

Fair enough, but not all politicians need the broad brushstrokes.

Maybe not, but I've seen enough politicians (far more than the 1% you estimate) lying, cheating, and stealing from the people they supposedly work for, that I don't trust any of them any farther than I can throw them.

Politicians are one group that I can't help but be prejudiced against, and I'll admit that with no shame whatsoever.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Maybe not, but I've seen enough politicians (far more than the 1% you estimate) lying, cheating, and stealing from the people they supposedly work for, that I don't trust any of them any farther than I can throw them.

Just to clarify Mike, I'm the one who mentioned 1% and that was in reference to the amount of politicians I feel are NOT corrupt.

[Ipecac Drano]

Would you be OK with me helping myself to a "miniscule" amount of money from your wallet -- say $1? How about $2? $5? $20? At what point does it stop being "not much at all?"

How about I help myself anytime I get careless with my money, or simply want more money? These little things do add up, after all.

Well, I guess. If you oversimplify things like that, it does put a whole new spin on them. Thank Bog, that was an oversimplification.

I believe I addressed that point already, in my example where they were pushing a tax increase, despite public opposition, claiming that it would be used for something to benefit the public, and then they end up blowing it on themselves.

They tend to do sneaky things like make public notice beforehand of giving themselves raises.

Maybe not, but I've seen enough politicians (far more than the 1% you estimate) lying, cheating, and stealing from the people they supposedly work for, that I don't trust any of them any farther than I can throw them.

Politicians are one group that I can't help but be prejudiced against, and I'll admit that with no shame whatsoever.

As long as you also admit that prejudice is a bad thing.

[MadMike]

They tend to do sneaky things like make public notice beforehand of giving themselves raises.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

As long as you also admit that prejudice is a bad thing.

I think in the case of politicians, it's justified. And I suppose it's not so much politicians that I have a problem with, it's people in general. Most people are dishonest and selfish, and will stab you in the back as soon as look at you. I don't trust people in general, and I don't think most people can be trusted with that sort of power. I'm sure some of these corrupt politicians started out with good intentions, but the money and power proved to be too tempting. And I can't say for sure that the same thing wouldn't happen to me if I was so tempted.

[Ipecac Drano]

Well, Mike, all I can tell you is to try to research the candidates as best you can and vote for the lesser of the two (or more) evils.

Also, keep in mind that corporations actually pay the vast bulk of taxes, more so than the average Joe. Plus, you might want to read this interview about the common (mis)perception of "waste, fraud and abuse". I think (and hope) that you will find it interesting.

[smileyeagle1021]

The one thing that terrifies me with this debate is that people really have no fracking clue what they are talking about. I hear nothing but the incremental tax rate being talked about, which while yes is a big portion of the Bush tax cuts, is not even close to being all. Also is the Child Tax Credit (which would be reduced by half), additional first year depreciation of capital assets for businesses (which, btw, if we want to talk about economic improvements, encouraging businesses to buy new capital assets will do a hell of a lot more in the long run than a lot of the projects I've heard proposed... like fiber optic internet upgrades in Provo which already has a very high quality broadband system), and many other deductions and credits. My attitude, raise the incremental rate but keep the deductions and credits. The vast majority of deductions and credits are on things that, while those who aren't educated, will yell and scream is tax loopholes, really do help the economy by encouraging investments in capital improvements, education, healthcare, and a host of other beneficial activities.