Bush Tax Cuts here to stay

• derek bomar

  

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html
  
  and the deficit continues to grow...
• Mr. 300

  

  And the taxpayers continue to keep their hard earned money.
• jmog

  Please cry me a river, the deficits don't have to continue to grow if we cut some fat from basically every department.
• queencitybuckeye

  derek bomar;553523 wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html
  
  and the deficit continues to grow...

  
  Not repealing an existing tax cut doesn't affect the deficit by a dime.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jmog;553543 wrote:Please cry me a river, the deficits don't have to continue to grow if we cut some fat from basically every department.

  
  And let some of the tax cuts expire.
  I don't buy the argument you can only do one or the other. Doing both can radically reduce the debt and balance the budget.
  
  Broader point: Americans will have to sacrifice in the next decade or so to pay off the huge mistakes of the last 15 years. It is the reality we face.
• KnightRyder

  

  you mean the same tax cuts that didnt create a single job?
• fan_from_texas

  ptown_trojans_1;553615 wrote:And let some of the tax cuts expire.
  I don't buy the argument you can only do one or the other. Doing both can radically reduce the debt and balance the budget.
  
  Broader point: Americans will have to sacrifice in the next decade or so to pay off the huge mistakes of the last 15 years. It is the reality we face.

  
  Yes. Though I'd say we'll pay off the mistakes of more than the last 15 years--things like social security are going to be the real killers, and we can go back a little further for that one. The reality is that we're going to have to see higher taxes and lower spending across the board. The entitlement cuts will hurt the poor the most, while the higher taxes are going to hit the working class (who currently don't pay much), middle class, and rich pretty hard. It's a reality that we're going to have to make hard choices, much like Europe is already doing.
• queencitybuckeye

  KnightRyder;553632 wrote:you mean the same tax cuts that didnt create a single job?

  
  You mean the same number of jobs as created by the "stimulus package"?
• jmog

  ptown_trojans_1;553615 wrote:And let some of the tax cuts expire.
  I don't buy the argument you can only do one or the other. Doing both can radically reduce the debt and balance the budget.
  
  Broader point: Americans will have to sacrifice in the next decade or so to pay off the huge mistakes of the last 15 years. It is the reality we face.

  
  Oh, I'd be ok with tax increases if two things happen.
  
  1. We reduce spending first down to a balanced budget and THEN increase taxes to pay on our debt (only to pay on our debt).
  2. We are out of the recession before the tax increases happen.
• jmog

  KnightRyder;553632 wrote:you mean the same tax cuts that didnt create a single job?

  2003 unemployment rate-6%
  Bush tax cuts went into full effect in 2003
  2007 unemployment rate-4.6%
  
  yeah, the tax cuts did nothing...
• Writerbuckeye

  

  queencitybuckeye;553556 wrote:Not repealing an existing tax cut doesn't affect the deficit by a dime.

  
  This is true. To think otherwise ASSUMES IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. It's not.
• Con_Alma

  jmog;553664 wrote:...
  
  1. We reduce spending first down to a balanced budget and THEN increase taxes to pay on our debt (only to pay on our debt).
  ...

  This is a fantastic idea and when we speak of compromise it is exactly the starting point I would begin from.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;553673 wrote:2003 unemployment rate-6%
  Bush tax cuts went into full effect in 2003
  2007 unemployment rate-4.6%
  
  yeah, the tax cuts did nothing...

  You think that was because of the Tax Cuts? I notice you didn't put the 2008 numbers, why is that? Oh right, it doesn't jive with your argument that the Bush tax cuts somehow created jobs.
• derek bomar

  

  jmog;553673 wrote:2003 unemployment rate-6%
  Bush tax cuts went into full effect in 2003
  2007 unemployment rate-4.6%
  
  yeah, the tax cuts did nothing...

  umm...
  
  unemployment rate in 92 - 7.5%
  in 93 - 6.9%
  
  Top Tax Rate
  92: 31%
  93: 39.6%
  
  Umm...?
• I Wear Pants

  1953, 2.93% unemployment rate average.
  
  Top Tax Rate: 92%
  
  Lets go back to that!!!
  
  Statistics are a hell of a thing aren't they? Easy to bend to your argument. The unemployment in 1953 being low with a high tax rate shouldn't suggest that that tax rate is what we should be at. But that's the way many people think.
• jmog

  I was merely showing a possible metric that showed the tax cuts did SOMETHING. It was someone else that said "the tax cuts created NO jobs".
  
  Said person, the one making the statement, should be the one to prove their point, I was just giving some evidence to the contrary.
  
  Also, all of the other tax rates you guys listed say nothing about what happened from 2003-2007.
• I Wear Pants

  The tech sector was recovering from the dot com bust and was actually growing pretty well and we were obviously creating the crash that was to happen in 2008. If we're looking for a period of healthy growth to try to go back to 2003-2007 is not it.
• HitsRus

  

  And let some of the tax cuts expire

  Let's call it for what it is....TAX INCREASE
  

  To think otherwise ASSUMES IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. It's not.

  BINGO!
  The government does not have to justify letting the people keep more of their money. It does however, have to justify how it is taking and spending the people's money.
  

  Oh, I'd be ok with tax increases if two things happen.
  
  1. We reduce spending first down to a balanced budget and THEN increase taxes to pay on our debt (only to pay on our debt).
  2. We are out of the recession before the tax increases happen

  words of wisdom. Why is THIS not self evident to all?
  
  Tax increases during a recession= BAD IDEA.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;553664 wrote:Oh, I'd be ok with tax increases if two things happen.
  
  1. We reduce spending first down to a balanced budget and THEN increase taxes to pay on our debt (only to pay on our debt).
  2. We are out of the recession before the tax increases happen.

  
  As I've said before I believed in keeping the tax rates low while the economy is still slumping. But I do want to question one of your points here.
  
  Some in this thread are against the idea that "tax cuts cost money" because the government should match spending to justifiable tax rates.....and most on the right already think tax rates are unjustifiably high. But let's have a thought experiment.
  
  Suppose you're a man who gets bored with women easily. Every 4 to 8 years you find yourself wanting a new wife and you get divorces. But, these wives of yours have used your credit card like crazy. Your current wife, you've only had for two years and you're really sick of her already. You tell her, "I already have a huge debt racked up by my previous wives so you can't rack up anymore!" Besides, you already work 2 jobs and you think you should only have to work 1 job so that way you can have more freedom. You'd like your family budget to match income that comes from one job.
  
  One day your wife goes out and buys a ferrari on your credit card....an absolutely egregious purchase that you do not want! When she gets home you scream in her face and tell her that you're going to sell that car and replace it. But, in your own head, you know it's going to be tough to get rid of that car.
  
  Even though you want to only have to work one job....because you already have all of this debt....and now you're going to have to make payments on this ferrari you didn't want...(and you certainly wouldn't want to put these payments on your credit card), don't you think the conservative thing to do would be to suck it up and sacrifice more of your freedom and work 2 or 3 jobs...bringing in more income....until you can knock some of this debt off your balance sheet and can sell off these bad purchases you've made?
  
  In essence, what I'm saying is...why not increase taxes to make the budget balanced to match current expenditures....especially considering everybody has claimed that they will cut spending but his has never, ever happened....and then, from that balanced budget....reduce....down the expenditures and tax rate concurrently.
  
  Sure, even if we accept that much of federal government outlaways are wasteful....and we'd definitely like to keep more of our money.....I don't see how it helps to continue adding on more debt while we wait for these programs that we don't like to disappear.
  
  If Obamacare is going to cost trillions of dollars....it seems to me we ought to be preparing to pay for it; even if we don't want to; rather than putting all our cards into repealing it and letting more debt pile up...
  
  The same goes for anti-tax, anti-war libertarians....they may hate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....but it seems like, if we're going to have those "awful expenditures" that they don't want, they ought to let their tax rates go up to pay for the bad expenditures....rather than rack up debt while they lobby to end the wars...
  
  low tax rates don't "cost money"....but the things we're deficit spending on do....and it just pushes the pain of tax raises down the road farther and makes it much greater. Seems to me we ought to start trying to pay for our irresponsible purchases while we try to get them off the books.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;553979 wrote:...
  
  In essence, what I'm saying is...why not increase taxes to make the budget balanced to match current expenditures....especially considering everybody has claimed that they will cut spending but his has never, ever happened....and then, from that balanced budget....reduce....down the expenditures and tax rate concurrently.
  
  ...

  The answer is because there is zero confidence by the American people, including me, that the "reduce...down the expenditures" part of your question would actually occur.
  
  Show the people you as legislators have the will and follow through to actually see through a balanced budget for a reasonable period of time. Earn my trust back...then we'll talk.
• believer

  

  When the Feds get serious about cutting waste and over-spending I'll be willing to seriously listen to the need for the expiration of tax cuts and/or tax increases. Until then...
• tk421

  

  Con_Alma;554016 wrote:The answer is because there is zero confidence by the American people, including me, that the "reduce...down the expenditures" part of your question would actually occur.
  
  Show the people you as legislators have the will and follow through to actually see through a balanced budget for a reasonable period of time. Earn my trust back...then we'll talk.

  +1 Billion. If we increase taxes without having Congress balance the budget, they will spend the extra revenue and some guaranteed. I have no faith in our government to balance a budget.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;553979 wrote:In essence, what I'm saying is...why not increase taxes to make the budget balanced to match current expenditures....especially considering everybody has claimed that they will cut spending but his has never, ever happened....and then, from that balanced budget....reduce....down the expenditures and tax rate concurrently.

  
  Over my dead body.
• fan_from_texas

  tk421;554027 wrote:+1 Billion. If we increase taxes without having Congress balance the budget, they will spend the extra revenue and some guaranteed. I have no faith in our government to balance a budget.

  
  Agreed.
• BoatShoes

  Multiple folks have suggested a lack of faith in the gubment to balance a budget. If that is true...what makes you think they will balance it if we hold on to lower tax rates and just borrow our way into oblivion waiting for this epiphany of fiscal soundness to happen? Maybe it's time to expatriate and move to the Bahamas...I don't think digging in our heels will result in anyone, republicans or democrats getting a clue...