Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although Wall Street’s excesses were the proximate cause of the Great Recession, its fundamental cause lay in the nation’s widening inequality.... Extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans would widen that gap further....
George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut was a huge windfall for the wealthy...
...it makes sense to preserve the Bush tax cuts at least through 2011 for the middle class.... but the same logic doesn’t apply to people at the top, earning over $250K, who represent roughly 2 percent of tax filers. Restoring their marginal tax rates to what they were during the Clinton administration (36 and 39 percent) won’t inhibit their spending.... But restoring those top marginal tax rates will help bring down the long-term debt...
For many years, most of the gains of economic growth in America have been going to the top – leaving the nation’s vast middle class with a shrinking portion of total income.... the only way most Americans could continue to buy most of what they produced was by borrowing. But now that the debt bubble has burst – as it inevitably would – the underlying problem has reemerged.
Robert Reich
Robert is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.
(attribution included so you can attack the messenger not the message)
My question is how can people think that giving money through tax breaks (especially those aimed at the top earners) is going to reduce the deficit.
Here's a link from the tax foundation that provided some good information and the differences between the Bush tax breaks, Bush tax breaks repealed and the Obama's Budget. I'm close to 6 figures and I do best under Obama. My Tax Burden
To me it's not about rich and poor. It's about giving more money to a monster (the federal govmt) that has proven over and over and over again it doesn't know how to handle money.
And when was the last time a middle class person created a job for anyone? I know I'm not going to start my own enterprise for middle class wages. The economy is already in the dumper. Tell me why it makes sense to raise taxes on the job providers (most of whom are "rich") and will take the brunt of the tax increases.
To me it's not about rich and poor. It's about giving more money to a monster (the federal govmt) that has proven over and over and over again it doesn't know how to handle money.
And when was the last time a middle class person created a job for anyone? I know I'm not going to start my own enterprise for middle class wages. The economy is already in the dumper. Tell me why it makes sense to raise taxes on the job providers (most of whom are "rich") and will take the brunt of the tax increases.
The Middle Class person spending money for goods and services, pretty much creates all jobs. Beyond that, they have very little impact on jobs.
Demand is infinite. Production is finite. This is what the demand-side Keynesian retards cannot compute and part of the reason why they're so terrible at predicting recessions and depressions. Demand-side economics sure does make the middle class feel they're important though.
Why should we let the Bush tax cuts expire? I dunno, maybe Obama has a fetish for watching poor people suffer with an increase in their nominal tax rate also?
Although Wall Street’s excesses were the proximate cause of the Great Recession, its fundamental cause lay in the nation’s widening inequality.... Extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans would widen that gap further....
George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut was a huge windfall for the wealthy...
...it makes sense to preserve the Bush tax cuts at least through 2011 for the middle class.... but the same logic doesn’t apply to people at the top, earning over $250K, who represent roughly 2 percent of tax filers. Restoring their marginal tax rates to what they were during the Clinton administration (36 and 39 percent) won’t inhibit their spending.... But restoring those top marginal tax rates will help bring down the long-term debt...
For many years, most of the gains of economic growth in America have been going to the top – leaving the nation’s vast middle class with a shrinking portion of total income.... the only way most Americans could continue to buy most of what they produced was by borrowing. But now that the debt bubble has burst – as it inevitably would – the underlying problem has reemerged.
Robert Reich
Robert is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.
(attribution included so you can attack the messenger not the message)
The "evil" of the Bush tax cuts is that they applied to all tax payers without discrimination. That is a cardinal sin in the liberal/progressive economic lexicon. Liberals want to be able to pick winners and losers. It's all about control. So they demonize the evil rich to justify the discrimination they practice through "progressive" taxation. And they lie. From the moment Bush proposed cutting taxes across the board the liberals (like Reich) began intoning the mantra "tax cuts for the rich" when they knew that the cuts benefitted everyone who pays taxes.
Demand is infinite. Production is finite. This is what the demand-side Keynesian retards cannot compute and part of the reason why they're so terrible at predicting recessions and depressions. Demand-side economics sure does make the middle class feel they're important though.
Why should we let the Bush tax cuts expire? I dunno, maybe Obama has a fetish for watching poor people suffer with an increase in their nominal tax rate also?
His objective has always been to make the tax cuts permanent to the 95% of Americans that need it and will help create jobs. So that those that do not have a job, may be able to find one. And those that do have a job, will be better able to cope the pressures of living.
My question is how can people think that giving money through tax breaks (especially those aimed at the top earners) is going to reduce the deficit.
Here's a link from the tax foundation that provided some good information and the differences between the Bush tax breaks, Bush tax breaks repealed and the Obama's Budget. I'm close to 6 figures and I do best under Obama. My Tax Burden
Thanks - that's a cool tool. With no earned income, I'm exactly the same under Bush and Obama. Expiration would cost me $3800. So I say extend 'em!
His objective has always been to make the tax cuts permanent to the 95% of Americans that need it and will help create jobs. So that those that do not have a job, may be able to find one. And those that do have a job, will be better able to cope the pressures of living.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will necessarily increase tax rates for the poor and lower middle class.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will necessarily increase tax rates for the poor and lower middle class.
I suspect there will be legislation put forward to make the cuts permanent for the lower income levels, before the Nov elections. Passing that legislation may or may not be accomplished by then, but either way, it will become part of the election choice, that the American people will have to make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
