Effect of allowing the Bush ERA tax cuts to expire.

• HitsRus

  

  By US congressional district, the cost of the expiration to an average family in the district.
  
  http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26581.html
  
  $1300-$1500 to the average Ohio family.
  Can any one say "I'll have a double dip recession please?"
  No wonder investors are a bit jittery. Hiring is flat and consumer spending (which drives about 70% of the economy) is about to take a hit.
• BGFalcons82

  

  There are many economists, Krugman for the best example, that have said the $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill was too small. Several have stated that it should have been $2,000,000,000,000 to have any effect. If the Democrats still control both houses on November 3, then look for the spending insanity to revert to these esteemed scholars for our "best" economic solution. Somebody will have to pay the piper and they are going to blame Bush for raising taxes. Count on it.
  
  Watch also for Obama's debt commission to report on December 1 on how much taxes need to be raised to try to keep up with their spending zealotry. You sure as hell can guarantee there will be no spending cut-backs.
  
  A famous radio personality opined about 18 months ago that it was the goal of this administration to bankrupt our country so that government could step in, take over, and regulate every facet of our economy, and thus our lives. I dismissed it as hogwash as the musings of a sore loser of the election. As time marches on and the vast spending array has been thrust upon us (Stimulus #2, ObamaKare, Cap and Tax, upcoming Stimulus #3, etc.), I'm beginning to agree with the radio guy. It's the only thing that explains the spending insanity we have embarked on, because it surely isn't working to expand our economy nor job creation.
• IggyPride00

  

  There is going to be a bill proposed by dingey Harry to extend the tax cuts to everyone but the top 2%.
  
  If it doesn't pass taxes go up on everyone starting Jan 1st as all of the tax cuts expire if nothing is done.
  
  It is a big game of chicken right now as Republicans are not going to support a bill that doesn't include the top 2%, but in going to bat for the top 2% it would possibly lead to the whole country getting a tax increase which is an even bigger disaster.
  
  I am very interested to see how this plays out.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ^^^
  
  VAT perhaps?
  
  This country is going broke, but the emperors are having their vacations in Spain and Martha's Vineyard this month.
• IggyPride00

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;444822 wrote:^^^
  
  VAT perhaps?
  
  This country is going broke, but the emperors are having their vacations in Spain and Martha's Vineyard this month.

  
  If taxes go up on the whole country because they can't get Republicans to agree to an increase on the top 2%, how would they ever get legislation for a VAT through?
  
  I do think the timing of the tax cut vote is being set up as a political trap though which Republicans are ultimately going to have no choice but to agree to. They have Democrats on the ropes and ready for huge losses, but telling the whole electorate they have to suffer with tax increases because you're mad about tax increases on the top 2% is the kind of game changer that is the only thing that could stem Democrat losses this November.
  
  Knowing the tax cuts expire without legislation is exactly why Dingey Harry has held off on having a vote to extend them thus far. By doing it later on it will turn into a campaign issue and put Republicans in a potentially miserable position, as well as allow for talk of class warfare where they can accuse Republicans of being in bed with the rich. In short it is a Democrat wet dream.
• majorspark

  

  IggyPride00;444812 wrote:There is going to be a bill proposed by dingey Harry to extend the tax cuts to everyone but the top 2%.
  
  If it doesn't pass taxes go up on everyone starting Jan 1st as all of the tax cuts expire if nothing is done.
  
  It is a big game of chicken right now as Republicans are not going to support a bill that doesn't include the top 2%, but in going to bat for the top 2% it would possibly lead to the whole country getting a tax increase which is an even bigger disaster.
  
  I am very interested to see how this plays out.

  The republicans would be virtually powerless to stop this if all the democrats stuck together. The only thing they can do is filibuster. There are several republican senators who would likely jump of that ship.
• believer

  

  The Dems certainly have the tax cut extension in play going into the November elections. I'm hoping and praying that the American people will see this tried and true class warfare tactic and put an end to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi shenanigans this November. If not you can be sure that a Dem "victory" this fall will certainly appear to the Unholy Trinity as a mandate for more of the insanity.
• gibby08

  

  Ohh no.....the top 2 percent may have to pay more because they make more(which they should have to anyway)
  
  The Republicans are in a lose-lose situation on this bill Reid is proposing. They they vote for it,the richey-riches of this country will be pissed. If they don't vote for it,the other 98% will be pissed off. Which one would you rather have mad at you. I'd go with 2% rather than 98%
• IggyPride00

  

  The republicans would be virtually powerless to stop this if all the democrats stuck together. The only thing they can do is filibuster. There are several republican senators who would likely jump of that ship.

  I think they want a filibuster. They would love to tell the country that Republicans loathe the common folk so much they are willing to raise taxes on everyone out of spite that it wouldn't apply to the top 2%.
  
  They are banking on the fact there will be a filibuster threat. Republicans will "offer" an opposing bill to extend them for everyone, and Democrats will oppose it on grounds it will cost too much and make the deficit even worse. Republicans will then say they can't support a bill that increases taxes on anyone, as the bill extending tax cuts for 98% of the population would (it would allow for the increases on the top 2% to happen).
  
  As I said, from there it becomes a game of chicken. There will be intense pressure on Republican Senators not to be the "one" that allows the tax increase to happen while at the same time allowing Democrats to champion themselves as saving tax cuts for the middle class.
  
  In a deep dark place somewhere that isn't talked about, I think politically there is a segment of the Republican party that would be OK with the tax cuts expiring across the board because it would make for a great campaign issue in 2012 as it could easily be "blamed" on Democrats since it happened on their watch (even though Republicans wrote the bill in 01 that called for tax increases at the start of the year).
• gibby08

  

  IggyPride00;444866 wrote:I think they want a filibuster. They would love to tell the country that Republicans loathe the common folk so much they are willing to raise taxes on everyone out of spite that it wouldn't apply to the top 2%.
  
  They are banking on the fact there will be a filibuster threat. Republicans will "offer" an opposing bill to extend them for everyone, and Democrats will oppose it on grounds it will cost too much and make the deficit even worse. Republicans will then say they can't support a bill that increases taxes on anyone, as the bill extending tax cuts for 98% of the population would (it would allow for the increases on the top 2% to happen).
  
  As I said, from there it becomes a game of chicken. There will be intense pressure on Republican Senators not to be the "one" that allows the tax increase to happen while at the same time allowing Democrats to champion themselves as saving tax cuts for the middle class.
  
  In a deep dark place somewhere that isn't talked about, I think politically there is a segment of the Republican party that would be OK with the tax cuts expiring across the board because it would make for a great campaign issue in 2012 as it could easily be "blamed" on Democrats since it happened on their watch (even though Republicans wrote the bill in 01 that called for tax increases at the start of the year).

  
  Great Post Iggy!!
  
  I think the Republicans are scared shitless right now about this issue.
  
  I believe that they believe that this could be the one issue that could screw up their huge potential for gains this November
• believer

  

  gibby08;444865 wrote:Ohh no.....the top 2 percent may have to pay more because they make more(which they should have to anyway

  I'm not defending the rich here but your point is dead fugging wrong. http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
  

  What income group pays the most federal income taxes today? The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

  From liberal CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/index.htm?section=money_pf_taxes&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_pf_taxes+%28Personal+Finance+-+Taxes%29
  

  Of course, the burden of funding the federal government isn't designed to be spread equally. The U.S. tax code is progressive, meaning that higher-income tax filers pay more in taxes than those lower down the income scale.
  But just how much more?
  The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.
  The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
  

  Seriously Gibby. Stop drinking the Kool Aid.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Does anyone know how much more revenue would be created by raising the top rate from its current 35% to the 2000 level of 39.5%?
  
  It will be interesting to see how the Congress deals with all of the other tax cuts that are set to expire as well. Namely, the marriage penalty, the Capital Gains Tax rate, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the most egregious tax of all time ever devised...the Death Tax.
• IggyPride00

  

  It will be interesting to see how the Congress deals with all of the other tax cuts that are set to expire as well. Namely, the marriage penalty, the Capital Gains Tax rate, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the most egregious tax of all time ever devised...the Death Tax.

  All would be continued at their current level under the bill the dingey one is looking to pass, and the death tax would be restored to whatever level it was last year.
  
  Basically the only people who will be effected are those who are paying 35% now and would move to 39.6%.
• HitsRus

  

  That's all great if you don't believe that spending by the upper 2% means a great deal to the economy.
  
  http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/99740069.html
  
  Tax and spend. The American people have rejected it over and over, yet the left continues to devise new ways of disguising it. The plain and simple answer is to cut back on government programs and entitlements.
• IggyPride00

  

  Does anyone know how much more revenue would be created by raising the top rate from its current 35% to the 2000 level of 39.5%?

  Roughly $800 billion, or close to the tab for Obamacare, whichever you prefer.
  
  It would cost over $3 trillion I think I saw to extend the cuts for everyone over the next decade.
• Paladin

  Those numbers are correct Iggy. Its a perfect play for the Ds because it sets up an argument of tax cuts vs. the deficit. The $800 billion isn't chump change. Most have mistakenly written off the Ds in a typical mid-tern election and with the foaming at the mouth Tea Party folks , it looks like a bad election for Ds. Not going to happen as the Ds will retain both Houses and there will be some Rs squirming on the tax question as it will play a prominent role district by district. Watch two Rs from Maine who owe nothing to the wealthy and have a state with a middle class who will benefit. So will several other R Senators. We'll be spending the next 10 years trying to raise revenue in many ways to reduce the deficit, including cuts to programs. But I must admit I love to hear the screams of the wealthy. They "gamed" the classwarfare and won. Its payback time.
• HitsRus

  

  We've discussed on another thread how the middle class always takes the brunt of a tax increase, no matter who or how it is levied.
  
  http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/6550-failing-to-renew-tax-cuts-will-hurt-middle-class.
  
  from the article:

  That’s bad news for the so-called rich, but what about the rest of us? This is why the analysis about direct and indirect costs is so important. The folks at the White House presumably hope that we’ll be happy to have dodged a tax bullet because only upper-income taxpayers will face higher direct costs.
  
  But it’s the rest of us who are most likely to suffer indirect costs when higher tax rates on work, saving, investment and entrepreneurship slow economic growth. When the economy slows, that’s bad news for the middle class — and it can create genuine hardship for the working class and poor. Indeed, punitive taxation of the “rich” is one reason why middle-class people in high-tax European welfare states have lost ground in recent decades compared to Americans.

  But still the left and the Dems persist with their deceit.

  But I must admit I love to hear the screams of the wealthy. They "gamed" the classwarfare and won. Its payback time

  Yes, yes...those evil rich people...sounds so
  good doesn't it? they "gamed" it he said (sarcasm alert).
  
  from the article:

  But for those who care about prosperity more than politics, what really matters is that the economy is soon going to be hit with higher tax rates on productive behavior.

  It's quite obvious who wants to "game" class warfare. It doesn't matter to them if it is disingenuous...It buys votes.....
• believer

  

  HitsRus;445189 wrote:It's quite obvious who wants to "game" class warfare. It doesn't matter to them if it is disingenuous...It buys votes.....

  Yes it does. Elite liberal Dems (who are ironically wealthy by the way) have used class warfare, the race card, and dozens of other bogus political tactics to leverage votes from the unionists, blacks, Latinos, and the "Government owes me a living" crowd for a long, long time.
  
  But when the Dems tax the rich to redistribute the booty to their constituents what do you think the rich do to compensate? That's right. They hire fewer people, hand out fewer wage hikes, build fewer businesses, ship their business overseas, and invest their wealth in places the Feds cannot touch.
  
  Like it or not the eeeeevil rich control jobs growth (or lack thereof). I will never understand the mindset that thinks biting the hands that feed us will guarantee prosperity for all.
• BGFalcons82

  

  IggyPride00;444986 wrote:Roughly $800 billion, or close to the tab for Obamacare, whichever you prefer.
  
  It would cost over $3 trillion I think I saw to extend the cuts for everyone over the next decade.

  
  So....is it $800,000,000,000 over 10 years? BTW...when did all this "10 year" cost data become so relevant? They can't estimate the price of gasoline in a week, so what makes them an expert on trillions of dollars worth of GDP/budgets/etc.? I know I know I know...it's CBO scoring. What a joke that is as they only score what they are given. Like, when Obama submitted concocted costs of health care reform by ignoring the "doc fix" and the statement they'll reduce Medicare by $500,000,000,000. But I digress.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  It makes so much sense to penalize the folks who are most likely to invest and create jobs -- especially at a time when unemployment is as high as it is.
  
  The blatant stupidity of Democrats where economics are concerned never ceases to amaze me.
  
  Look what happened in New York (or New Jersey) when they put in the so-called millionaire's tax. Those folks MOVED so they didn't have to pay. It's no different at the federal level. Go ahead and put in the tax, and watch these same folks put their wealth overseas or in tax shelters here that can't be touched.
  
  In the meantime, money that would most likely be used for the purpose of investment (which creates jobs) is lost.
  
  But hey...we stuck it to those evil rich folks, didn't we!
• Mr. 300

  

  Anyway you slice it, and it's a tax increase. The repubs need to hammer this home. A tax increase on ANYONE in this market will hurt deeper, and push us down the hill again. Those "rich" aren't experiencing the bounce they once had with the downturn of their business ventures. You take more money out of their pockets, and guess what?? No new jobs. Add in the tax that must be now reported in the new Obamacare program, as well as other small business taxes, an it will cut off any recovery for the future.
  
  Why can't those that have made it actually keep it?? Why can't those that don't have it yet make the changes needed to make it??
• IggyPride00

  

  Bill Kristol said today on Fox News Sunday this morning that a tax increase on the top 2% will be absolutely unacceptable to the Republican Party. He basically said that the Republican position is if the top 2% can't keep their tax cuts, no one can. At worst then it gives Republicans a campaign message for 2012 in which they can promise to cut everyone's taxes again.
  
  That all sounds great in theory, but I just can't imagine politically how that is going to work when they filibuster a bill to let 98% of the country keep their tax cut because it doesn't include the top 2%. No political party is going to put themselves in a position to let the other party (in this case Democrats) be able to say to a soon to be angry Middle Class that their taxes are higher solely because of their loyalty to the eeeevil rich. That would be a political disaster, and kill off every bit of ground the tea party has helped gain this year.
• believer

  

  Mr. 300;445637 wrote:Why can't those that have made it actually keep it?? Why can't those that don't have it yet make the changes needed to make it??

  Because it needs to be redistributed to the non-producers in the name of balancing the playing field...and Democratic votes.
• BGFalcons82

  

  IggyPride00;445652 wrote:Bill Kristol said today on Fox News Sunday this morning that a tax increase on the top 2% will be absolutely unacceptable to the Republican Party. He basically said that the Republican position is if the top 2% can't keep their tax cuts, no one can. At worst then it gives Republicans a campaign message for 2012 in which they can promise to cut everyone's taxes again.
  
  That all sounds great in theory, but I just can't imagine politically how that is going to work when they filibuster a bill to let 98% of the country keep their tax cut because it doesn't include the top 2%. No political party is going to put themselves in a position to let the other party (in this case Democrats) be able to say to a soon to be angry Middle Class that their taxes are higher solely because of their loyalty to the eeeevil rich. That would be a political disaster, and kill off every bit of ground the tea party has helped gain this year.

  You are correct in that it would be political disaster. What the R's need to do is keep hammering away on spending cuts, reducing budgets, focusing on Paul Ryan's ideas, and demonstrate how the 1 party rule over the past 2 years must stop or Obama's car that was in the ditch will be over the cliff and in ruins.
• Paladin

  Political disaster ?
  
  Of course it is, just in front of the election. But the choice is typical R. Sacrifice everyone for the 2%. And they wonder why they look to be the minority party for a long time to come.