Debate Over Bush-Era Tax Cuts

[Ipecac Drano]

I'm sorry, Fuzzy, but I'm having a difficult time believing what you had posted. It sounds too much like the Republican rhetoric I read on conservative blogs and hear on AM radio.

[protege]

Unfortunately, you're always going to have the "haves" and the "have nots." Simple fact of life. We're not all "created equal," no matter what the Democrats would have you believe. Sorry, but it's not up to the rich folks to take care of everyone. Why should those who have worked hard...be forced to bail out those who haven't? Why should they be held responsible for someone else's poor choices? People need to quit fucking whining and blaming someone else because they fucked up their lives.

Growing up, my family was poor. Dad was working multiple jobs, because my mother's income couldn't cover everything. Sure, there was always food on the table, and clothes on our backs, but there was very little cash to go around. Ever have a furnace blow up in the middle of winter? What about your car spitting out its transmission around 200,000 miles? My parents struggled with money most of my life. Even though my dad has a good teaching job now, they're still recovering from the mess they were in. While all that was going on, I don't *ever* remember my parents bitching and moaning about how it was the government's (or some rich person's) job to help them.


With that said, I don't consider myself well-off. Yes, I have a house, two cars, a computer, TV, and other things. But, all of that (including the sports car) was because I worked my ass off for it. Nobody helped me out. All of my bills are paid in full every month, and what little extra cash I have left...goes into the bank. I'm doing OK, in other words. I'm not Donald Trump, but I'm doing OK. I did things myself...and I'm having a hard time understanding why my taxes should increase...because someone else made a bad choice. Why should I be forced to help them? What makes them feel that they're entitled to the money or things that I've earned through *my* hard work?

People wonder why there's such an "entitlement" attitude on CS. This is *exactly* why.

[Fashion Lad!]

Unfortunately, you're always going to have the "haves" and the "have nots." Simple fact of life.

Of course we are going to "haves" and "have nots." You are correct, that's a simple fact of life. But does it seem right that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer?

Workers still earn less in wages, adjusting for inflation, than they did in the 1970s. The average CEO is making hundreds of times more than the average worker. Do they work hundreds of times harder than you? Doubtful. Companies can claim a tax exemption or deduction for salaries/wages paid. (Don't get me on the actual terminology, I am not an accountant.)

Yes, there was an increase in tax revenue from the Bush tax cuts; however, there was also an increase in spending. Our government never decreases spending on a serious level so we need to raise government income to a serious level.

People got what they wanted. They have social programs, government intervention and safety. Now we have to pay for it. Those who can pay, should pay.

[Rageaholic]

Of course we are going to "haves" and "have nots." You are correct, that's a simple fact of life. But does it seem right that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer?

Workers still earn less in wages, adjusting for inflation, than they did in the 1970s. The average CEO is making hundreds of times more than the average worker. Do they work hundreds of times harder than you? Doubtful. Companies can claim a tax exemption or deduction for salaries/wages paid. (Don't get me on the actual terminology, I am not an accountant.)

Yes, there was an increase in tax revenue from the Bush tax cuts; however, there was also an increase in spending. Our government never decreases spending on a serious level so we need to raise government income to a serious level.

People got what they wanted. They have social programs, government intervention and safety. Now we have to pay for it. Those who can pay, should pay.

Also, there is an assumption that the poor are just lazy bums who refuse to work. Some of them are (I've known a few), but I think many just get screwed. They lose their job, can't find other work, and then if they do, they make barely enough to support themselves. The workers get so little while those at the top get all the bonuses. Just read some of the stuff on CS.com about how the workers get screwed and you'll see what I mean.

If the government can afford to give the rich CEOs breaks, why can't they afford to give the average Joe a break? Who needs it more anyway? The system is broken and it's not the fault of the average Joe.

[Fashion Lad!]

Also, there is an assumption that the poor are just lazy bums who refuse to work. Some of them are (I've known a few), but I think many just get screwed. They lose their job, can't find other work, and then if they do, they make barely enough to support themselves. The workers get so little while those at the top get all the bonuses. Just read some of the stuff on CS.com about how the workers get screwed and you'll see what I mean.

If the government can afford to give the rich CEOs breaks, why can't they afford to give the average Joe a break? Who needs it more anyway? The system is broken and it's not the fault of the average Joe.

Oh, I definitely agree. What's funny is these CEOs get paid millions of dollars and they can run a company into the ground and walk out with millions in severance pay. But the cashier at Wal-Mart processes a return in a way that costs the store money loses their job and has to *fight* for unemployment.

Corporations are like children. They need to be taught where their boundaries lay and what the consequences are when they go beyond those boundaries. As a nation, we have absolutely failed to teach these corporations that lesson.

[Ipecac Drano]

Corporations are like children. They need to be taught where their boundaries lay and what the consequences are when they go beyond those boundaries. As a nation, we have absolutely failed to teach these corporations that lesson.

Sadly, the corporations do know the boundaries and take measures to sneak around them; not to mention having a few *cough* "lawmakers" in their pockets for safe measure.

And who better to elect those *cough* "lawmakers" than hateful people who are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face; voting against their own best interests (i.e. voting against tax cuts for themselves) so that poor people suffer (said "poor people" assumed to be racial minorities) and not seeing (or caring) that they are hurting themselves as well.

[smileyeagle1021]

Companies can claim a tax exemption or deduction for salaries/wages paid. (Don't get me on the actual terminology, I am not an accountant.)

That would be a deduction for AGI, and there may actually be a limit on it now. I know at one point in time Congress was considering limiting it to the first one million in pay per employee (so you can pay your CEO as much as you damned well please, but don't expect us to subsidize it anymore type thing).
Companies want to keep their deductions for AGI as high as possible (because arguably those help them the most with taxes, even more so that a dollar for dollar tax credit, because the for AGI deductions often time determine the amount of your deductions from AGI and your tax credits, with the lower your AGI the higher your credits).

[blas87]

I agree with protege.

I am by no means happy that hard-working middleclass Joe Blow can't catch a break to save his own life, but it's quite frankly bollocks to expect people who have more to give it all away and share the wealth.

[guywithashovel]

Unfortunately, you're always going to have the "haves" and the "have nots." Simple fact of life. We're not all "created equal," no matter what the Democrats would have you believe. Sorry, but it's not up to the rich folks to take care of everyone. Why should those who have worked hard...be forced to bail out those who haven't? Why should they be held responsible for someone else's poor choices? People need to quit fucking whining and blaming someone else because they fucked up their lives.

Actually, the bailouts passed under George W. Bush's watch, with many Republicans in Congress voting for them. Also, it was the rich CEOs getting bailed out, not the working class people.

Maybe that's what people are thinking of when they complain about "the rich getting all the breaks." In that case, a bunch of millionares screwed up and whined and complained that they had fucked up their lives, and the working class taxpayers were asked to come bail them out, not the other way around (as many on the right wing seem inclined to say it has been).

[Rapscallion]

Oh, I definitely agree. What's funny is these CEOs get paid millions of dollars and they can run a company into the ground and walk out with millions in severance pay. But the cashier at Wal-Mart processes a return in a way that costs the store money loses their job and has to *fight* for unemployment.

This is down to two things, from my understanding. Contractual obligations force them to pay out golden parachutes. This is because incoming executives demand certain assurances for certain potential activities.

The problem comes when these executives don't perform. The contracts rarely have penalty clauses.

That's where the second part comes in. Many of the executives are appointed by ... other executives. The UK has a bit of a nasty revolving door situation going on at times.

I'm not defending it. Quite frankly there are times where it's appalling. However, it's some background as I understand it.

Rapscallion

[Bronzebow]

Only for the short-term, unfortunately. We'll eventually be paying what we're not paying now, and it'll hit those with the least far harder than those with the most.

^-.-^

Actually, that would benefit us for the long term in terms of both the economic depression and economy. Letting these tax cuts expire would give us a short term gain in economy because of increased federal jobs (virtually all of the 'job growth' in recent time has been in the public sector, sadly), but that would harm us in the long term because of hampered entrepreneurship.

Now in terms of deficit, I still support that the solution should be a whole lot more about cutting spending than increasing revenue. If only that weren't political suicide...

[MaseMan]

What do you all think about the death tax? I am not ultra wealthy or anything like that, and I find the idea morally reprehensible. I've never seen a coherent argument made to justify why someone should have to give up to half of their estate when they die, when they've already paid income, property, and sales taxes their whole life.

[Bronzebow]

What do you all think about the death tax? I am not ultra wealthy or anything like that, and I find the idea morally reprehensible. I've never seen a coherent argument made to justify why someone should have to give up to half of their estate when they die, when they've already paid income, property, and sales taxes their whole life.

Morally reprehensible is about all I can say about it without going into mouth foaming. The closest argument you'll hear to a valid point is that children don't "deserve" the works of their parents. The IRS does, though.

Congress is a drunk preteen with a credit card. Shunned responsibility, barely two braincells to rub together, and a whole lot of EW mentality. At least Republicans are open about their authoritarian reprehensibility...you can respect them at least for that much.

[protege]

I've never seen a coherent argument made to justify why someone should have to give up to half of their estate when they die, when they've already paid income, property, and sales taxes their whole life.

Of course, wasn't the Messiah pushing this crap not long ago...as part of his "redistribution of wealth" ideal? IIRC, he was going on about 55% of it. Sorry, but fuck that shit. What gives them the right to seize over half of my parents' estate when they pass on? I mean, the things my parents have--the house, cars, furniture, etc. have already been taxed once. Why exactly, should that stuff get taxed *again?* Oh that's right...the IRS, Congress, etc. are a bunch of greedy assholes.

[FArchivist]

What do you all think about the death tax? I am not ultra wealthy or anything like that, and I find the idea morally reprehensible. I've never seen a coherent argument made to justify why someone should have to give up to half of their estate when they die, when they've already paid income, property, and sales taxes their whole life.

Well, first, the inheritance tax is not a tax on the dead, but a tax on the heirs of the estate. I quote:

"It is the heirs, not the decedents, who are taxed. They have done nothing to earn what they will receive, although I have no quarrel that they should benefit from their forebears' success. It is just a matter of degree. That is why small and moderate estates should be exempt and the tax on increasingly larger estates should be graduated."

As for the origins of the estate tax, which goes all the way back to 1764 in the Americas, here are further quotes from various:


"The origin of the estate tax -- also the reason for subsequent increases -- was not merely to produce revenue but to limit the concentration of wealth. Wealth equates to economic power and thence to political power, and that is inimical to a democracy of the people. This legislation was good public policy."

Of course, wasn't the Messiah pushing this crap not long ago...as part of his "redistribution of wealth" ideal? IIRC, he was going on about 55% of it. Sorry, but fuck that shit. What gives them the right to seize over half of my parents' estate when they pass on? I mean, the things my parents have--the house, cars, furniture, etc. have already been taxed once. Why exactly, should that stuff get taxed *again?* Oh that's right...the IRS, Congress, etc. are a bunch of greedy assholes.

Don't worry; you'll never have to worry about paying federal estate tax...unless your parents have over $7 million in assets. The only people in the USA who ever have to worry about estate tax are millionaires and billionaires - and for the most part they don't give a crap, because the highest taxable amount is 35%...and that's after you exclude the first $5 million (current tax rate/exclusion information is as of 2011).

Of course, then you have places like the UK, where they just take 95-98% of it, no exclusions, no credits, no nothing. It's why 40% of the millionaires of the world live here.