Obama rules out any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich

• BoatShoes

  IggyPride00;475709 wrote:I read Orzag's column yesterday, but I don't really see what it helps in reality. They either need to be made permanent, or let to expire now.
  
  We have heard for 2 years now that business isn't spending over "tax uncertainty." How are the next 2 years going to be any different than the last 2 when we will be right back in the same boat of "the rich" not spending because they are waiting to see how the Presidential election turns out to see if the tax cuts are extended again or not.
  
  What I am interested to see is if Dingey Harry pushes for a vote on extending all tax cuts for the bottom 98% before the election or not as a last ditch effort to change the mid term election narrative if (as expected) the Republicans filibuster it because the top 2% are not included in the extension.

  
  Yes...I agree with this point about tax uncertainty....But I do have mixed feelings because FDR rose taxes during his New Deal and Keynes disagreed with this move...I suppose since BHO is only raising them on the top 2% instead of on the whole country like FDR it won't have such a counterbalancing effect.
• IggyPride00

  

  "Let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else. We should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer," the president said. The administration "is ready this week to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less," he said.

  That was an excerpt from The Messiah's speech in Cleveland today.
  
  The battle lines are clearly being drawn right now as there is talk Obama is going to literally start asking daily why Republicans refuse to extend middle class tax cuts when he is ready to sign the bill right now.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama
• I Wear Pants

  So to those who want the tax cuts extended for everyone: Is extending them at least for everyone making <250,000 not better than for no one?
• BCBulldog

  

  I Wear Pants;476049 wrote:So to those who want the tax cuts extended for everyone: Is extending them at least for everyone making <250,000 not better than for no one?

  
  It depends. Are you trying to bribe voters or fix the economy?
• Paladin

  Its going to get humorous !
• BCBulldog

  

  BoatShoes;475936 wrote:See...no, no, no, no. This should have been done during good economic times....not now but we're stuck between a rock and a hard place because we've got 13 trillion in debt.

  
  Regardless of what should have been done, you don't spend your way out of a recession and certainly not a deficit. I'm not even touching what needs done to fix the debt.
• BoatShoes

  BCBulldog;476147 wrote:Regardless of what should have been done, you don't spend your way out of a recession and certainly not a deficit. I'm not even touching what needs done to fix the debt.

  
  Where did you get this information???? It surely isn't the prevailing economic view. Spending is exactly what ends a recession. Nowadays, conservatives believe that this spending should be done by private individuals and the way to get people spending money again to end the recession is to give these people tax cuts, (which will run a deficit).
• tk421

  

  I don't understand how giving a tax cut to the 2% of the population who pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country is a bad thing. I've never been one for this class warfare crap, I guess I'm not a normal 20 something in that regard.
• Footwedge

  Boatshoes. Why is it that the massive deficit spending.....record setting low interest rates....and record setting money printing....has not stimulated the economy? Instead of looking at the Krugman model, why not delve back to the real issue....global outsourcing?
  
  There is no long term economic panacea for America in deficit spending. None. All you are accomplishing is kicking the debt can down the road. Is that not generation theft? Is that not grand thieverey? Either the US figures out a way to bring back manufacturing, or the only end game is state bankruptcy.
• BoatShoes

  Footwedge;476296 wrote:Boatshoes. Why is it that the massive deficit spending.....record setting low interest rates....and record setting money printing....has not stimulated the economy? Instead of looking at the Krugman model, why not delve back to the real issue....global outsourcing?
  
  There is no long term economic panacea for America in deficit spending. None. All you are accomplishing is kicking the debt can down the road. Is that not generation theft? Is that not grand thieverey? Either the US figures out a way to bring back manufacturing, or the only end game is state bankruptcy.

  That's fine...I'm not arguing that Krugman's ideas would have worked....I'm merely saying that...if you're going to be a country that deficit spends; the time to do it according to the Keynesian prescription are times like now...not 2002-2007, etc; and that people saying "Barack the marxist has doubled deficits!! GAhhh!" really are mising the point because if deficit spending is ever justified it's justified at a time like this and we have saddled ourselves without options because we weren't responsible during the good times, Republicans and Democrats and everyone else.
  
  I mean, being a liberal I might have been okay with the feds keeping a low debt or even a surplus and when things went sour...temporarily getting into the financing business and investing in businesses that wanted to open manufacturing plants and hire manufacturers to stimulate employment and then sell off the shares to the public eventually...those kinds of ideas are ok to me, the liberal.
• I Wear Pants

  BCBulldog;476142 wrote:It depends. Are you trying to bribe voters or fix the economy?

  So a tax cut is only good if it includes the top 2% then?
  
  What I'm getting at is compromise means giving a little to the other side. Rs would like all the tax cuts, Dems would like less of them. Seems that at least having some of them is the middle ground. And yeah, I know that the middle ground is what makes people angry in politics since everyone knows theirs is the correct position.
  
  This whole situation is dumb. I'm beyond confused about who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming elections.
• tk421

  

  I Wear Pants;476453 wrote:So a tax cut is only good if it includes the top 2% then?
  
  What I'm getting at is compromise means giving a little to the other side. Rs would like all the tax cuts, Dems would like less of them. Seems that at least having some of them is the middle ground. And yeah, I know that the middle ground is what makes people angry in politics since everyone knows theirs is the correct position.
  
  This whole situation is dumb. I'm beyond confused about who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming elections.

  I would think a tax cut would benefit the people actually paying taxes, wouldn't you? Maybe I'm expecting too much common sense, but if the top 1-2% of this country pay the taxes and you want to give a tax cut to someone, why would you give it to those who aren't paying anything?
• I Wear Pants

  I get that. It's just that I simply don't believe that a tax cut right now will "trickle down" from the wealthy. And you're right about some of the less well off not paying taxes there are a hell of a lot of people who do pay at least some taxes that could benefit from a tax cut. Maybe they'd just be a little more sure that they can make rent or maybe they'll spend it on a Netflix account or something. Who knows. I just don't think that this idea that it's all or nothing on this thing is particularly wise.
• tk421

  

  Yeah, I don't know. It just doesn't seem very smart to raise the taxes on the people who everyone wants to hire workers. What do I know though.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;476453 wrote:This whole situation is dumb. I'm beyond confused about who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming elections.

  I'll try to help you then.....
  
  If you like most everything your congressperson is doing, if you think that person's voting means we're on the right track, if you agree with your congressperson's voting record and want more of it, then by all means, re-elect that person. The vote on November 2 is a reflection of your belief that your candidate is doing all of the right things you believe will take to bring America back from the brink of economic chaos. If you like what you have and want more of it, then re-elect your candidate.
  
  If you answer, "no" to these questions, then elect the other candidate. Or you can write in your candidate's name. Or stay home. Or blame Bush some more and feel all warm and comforted inside. The choices are up to you.
  
  On a side note, based on the latest polling from Gallup to Rasmussen to Zogby, most Americans are answering, "no", and will kick the bums out.
• I Wear Pants

  I understand how voting works. It's just that I am impressed by none of the candidates. At all.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;476478 wrote:I would think a tax cut would benefit the people actually paying taxes, wouldn't you? Maybe I'm expecting too much common sense, but if the top 1-2% of this country pay the taxes and you want to give a tax cut to someone, why would you give it to those who aren't paying anything?

  
  These folks are unlikely to spend their money on consumption as they already have enough to spend on consumption and because most of our company is driven by consumption its thought that their tax cut wouldn't help stimulate as much. They also pay more taxes but they are low in contrast to the amount of wealth and assets they have in comparison to the rest of Americans. For instance, the top 2% of Americans have 50% of the financial wealth but they have a lower tax burden than the next 18% because most of their income comes from capital gains taxed at 15%....the bottom 80% has 7% of the financial wealth in America.
  
  In fact, letting the top 2% tax cut expire won't harm their tax burden all that much because most of their income comes in the form of capital gains.
• HitsRus

  

  ^ ^^^I disagree with the assertion that "most of their income" comes from capital gains. That may be true of the true upper class...those that are super rich, old money, CEO's with ton's of stock....but the line is 250K. Those are small business owners, professionals...and those people are working for their money...not trading stocks for their living.
  I Think you are spot on with the assertion that we need to revise tax policies that drive jobs overseas....e.g lowering corporate taxes and keeping capital gains higher in relation. But leave personal taxes where they are at....for everybody. It's the people who are making 100-500 K that are spending...tax them so that their money dries up and the economy will go down faster than the Titanic. That will truly 'trickle down' to the middle class.
  
  BHO would have more credibility (somewhat of an oxymoron) if he would quit proposing new programs, rather than raise taxes. It strikes me as completely disingenuous, and is nothing more than 'Tax and Spend' in disguise. We have huge deficits....but we are going tor raise taxes on some people just to create a new, huge entitlement program? We can't adequately fund Social Security, but we are going to raise taxes to pay for his healthcare program? Just quit making new programs before you excercise your taxing authority. Is that too much to ask of our government?
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;476594 wrote:^ ^^^I disagree with the assertion that "most of their income" comes from capital gains. That may be true of the true upper class...those that are super rich, old money, CEO's with ton's of stock....but the line is 250K. Those are small business owners, professionals...and those people are working for their money...not trading stocks for their living.

  
  I agree...there is a staggering difference between the first 1% and the next 2% even....with that 2% being successful professionals and business owners....the HENRY's, high earners but not rich yet....I should have made that clarification and not been so broad in my statement. For instance...if you're say a successful accountant in New York City and you make $250,000...the extra 4.6% BHO wants you to pay is going to be significant when your effective tax burden is close to 50% and you live in a City that has a high cost of living....I agree, that the tax increase on the top 2% will not be without harm.......
• jmog

  BoatShoes;476615 wrote:I agree...there is a staggering difference between the first 1% and the next 2% even....with that 2% being successful professionals and business owners....the HENRY's, high earners but not rich yet....I should have made that clarification and not been so broad in my statement. For instance...if you're say a successful accountant in New York City and you make $250,000...the extra 4.6% BHO wants you to pay is going to be significant when your effective tax burden is close to 50% and you live in a City that has a high cost of living....I agree, that the tax increase on the top 2% will not be without harm.......

  
  Will not be without harm? It will hurt the guy(s) you mention but REALLY hurt the small business owners. If you are a small business owner who has worked your tail off to get to making $250k profit. That nearly $12,000 in extra taxes is going to come out of somewhere, either higher prices for your product or less hours for your employees. Either one puts a strain on the economy.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;476712 wrote:Will not be without harm? It will hurt the guy(s) you mention but REALLY hurt the small business owners. If you are a small business owner who has worked your tail off to get to making $250k profit. That nearly $12,000 in extra taxes is going to come out of somewhere, either higher prices for your product or less hours for your employees. Either one puts a strain on the economy.

  
  Ok, let's stop this nonsense. Here are the facts. Allowing the cuts for the top 2% to expire will not affect the majority of small business owners. Of the tax returns that claim small business income, less than 2% of those are filed by people in the top two income brackets....that is, most small business owners earn less than $170,000 a year of taxable income. Nonetheless, that 2% of small businesses who will be affected by the expiring of the cuts report 40% of the total small business income nationwide....2% of small businesses earn 40% of the small business income nationwide. The average income reported on 1040's is $40,000.
  
  The people that will be affected are going to be Lawyer's who own small firms, successful doctors, perhaps real estate investors....mostly self-employed "small businesses"....not the small businesses Jmog and HitsRus are alluding too.
  
  What I stated earlier is mostly correct....
  
  All of this information is available at the Tax Policy Center.
• BoatShoes

  In fact...here's a good summary of many of the points that the Washington Post put together from the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts.
  
  "5 Myths about the Bush Tax Cuts"
  
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001423
  
  (Ha just realized that it's probably because it was written by a guy from the TPC. Durp, Shoes).
• Writerbuckeye

  

  tk421;476213 wrote:I don't understand how giving a tax cut to the 2% of the population who pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country is a bad thing. I've never been one for this class warfare crap, I guess I'm not a normal 20 something in that regard.

  
  Congrats on having a brain.
  
  That puts you ahead of 99 percent of Democrats.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Writerbuckeye;477176 wrote:Congrats on having a brain.
  
  That puts you ahead of 99 percent of Democrats.

  
  Make that 98%!
• QuakerOats

  Lower taxes are the ticket to economic growth; and it is only economic growth and reductions in government that can save the ship. The endless bantering over how much to soak the supposed 'rich' and all the class warfare thrown up by the left is meaningless. We either cut taxes to spur growth and systematically reduce the size of government, or we are finished as a great nation.