General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire?
The tax cuts automatically expire at the end of this year.
| 35 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Let expire for all incomes | |
18 (51%) |
|
| Let expire for incomes above $250K | |
16 (46%) |
|
| Extend for all incomes | |
1 (3%) |
|
| Not sure | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Pass | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)And double capital gains.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)(Even if the government used the revue gained to perfection it would still be a net negative since the government can borrow a lot more freely and a fairer rates than people making $50K)
There could be an upside so compelling that it would be worth it despite those downsides, but it isn't obvious to me.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)Raising taxes in a recession worked for Clinton.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)The latest recession is over now. You were saying raising taxes across the board now would bring us back into recession. It didn t during clinton's time.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)Recession is characterized by negative economic growth(GDP) Our economy is experiencing GDP growth and hasn't been negative for some time.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I suspect that many here use a different definition - like how long they've been on unemployment
woolldog
(8,791 posts)the nation is in recession by your logic. That's absurd.
We're not in recession now. Period. End of discussion.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)to our current era marked by deleveraging, debt deflation and contraction.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)which enabled Clinton to raise taxes without doing too much damage. We did end up in a recession when the internet bubble burst, though, because Clinton had gone too far in pushing the public sector into surplus.
The private sector is currently net saving, not spending. Raising taxes across the board would throw us into recession.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I was thinking I want it to completely expire.
They should have let it expire on 2010, so that the debate would not be on raising taxes on the 1%, rather, how we can cut taxes for the middle class.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Long term capital gains, assets held one year or more should be left at 15%. All other capital gains should be raised to 35%.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Should they expire on income above $250K?
If the revenue gained is used for productive government spending then yes.
If the revenue gained was applied to reducing the deficit, no. That would be an ill-timed economic negative.
So the question cannot be answered in the abstract.
As for maintaining the Bush tax cuts on lower income levels, yes. That is economically mandatory.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If the revenue gained was applied to reducing the deficit, no. That would be an ill-timed economic negative."
...So you're for increasing the deficit by continuing tax cuts for the rich?
What have been the economic positive of those cuts over the last 12 years?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Despite your attempt to turn this into a simplistic loaded negative sound-byte, with "...So you're for increasing the deficit by continuing tax cuts for the rich?" the answer remains yes, if the choices are as I described them.
If I were in Congress and had before me a tax surcharge on the rich to be applied to the deficit, as opposed to new spending, I would vote against it out of necessity.
And so would anyone else who understands the first freaking thing about economics.
If I were a congressman, however, and there was a tax surcharge on the rich on the table I would fight very hard to have that surcharge devoted to some productive purpose. Infrastructure spending would be appropriate, for instance.
Reducing the deficit is not, in 2012, a productive purpose.
What benefit do you think there is in reducing the deficit in today's reality? You seem to assume a benefit. What is it?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)If I were in Congress and had before me a tax surcharge on the rich to be applied to the deficit, as opposed to new spending, I would vote against it out of necessity.
And so would anyone else who understands the first freaking thing about economics.
<...>
You seem to believe Congress is a static body. If the tax cuts end, regardless of the justification, that will not preclude additional spending. If they're extended, they will increase the deficit and produce no economic benefit at the higher incomes. There is also no guarantee that spending cuts wouldn't be introduced beyond that.
That's just common damn sense, no economics degree or understanding required.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I am sorry you do not understand it, but it's not real challenging as written so I won't go through the exercise of rephrasing it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I am sorry you do not understand it, but it's not real challenging as written so I won't go through the exercise of rephrasing it.
...I understood exactly what you said. It's the same nonsensical arguments used to rationalize doing stupid things like expanding the tax cuts for the rich.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)"nonsensical arguments used to rationalize doing stupid things like expanding the tax cuts for the rich" then that's just what it is, I guess.
Free country. You are free to deny all the basic precepts of macroeconomics that were the basis of FDR's economic policies, JFK's economic policies, Clinton's, Obama's... the basis of everything any sane person has done with the US economy for about a century.
Poor Mister Keynes is in heaven bawling his eyes out.
It is sad that your reactive enmity to me as a poster drives you to such extremes as making the economic equivalent of the statement: "The Earth is flat."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If you view vanilla Keynesian economics as..Free country. You are free to deny all the basic precepts of macroeconomics that were the basis of FDR's economic policies, JFK's economic policies, Clinton's, Obama's... the basis of everything any sane person has done with the US economy for about a century."
...what the hell are you talking about? Maybe you should read some of the responses to your comments. Clinton raised taxes in a recession.
President Obama argued for ending the tax cuts for the rich. You're using people who have maintained the opposite position to justify the nonsense you're arguing.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and increases Americans buying power. Oil prices are set in American dollars so a stronger dollar means lower oil prices which helps the economy.
There is also a huge political benefit. The real problem with the debt is the misconception that somehow Democrats are responsible for it. I think that if Pres. Obama can do something similar to what Pres. Clinton did concerning the debt we may be able to finally drive home the fact that the debt is a Republican creation for which they have no solution.
Increasing investment in our own country is also a good thing and I agree with your points on that subject but lowering the deficit is also a good thing in and of itself.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)How would that be done?
I think I understand how the revenue could be used for productive government investment, say in infrastructure and services. And I understand why that would be a good use for the increased revenue.
But how would revenue be applied to reducing the deficit? Would the revenue simply be taken out of the economy? Would we buy back US bonds? What does that really mean?
Would using the increased revenue to pay down the debt somehow simply downsize the money in circulation and downsize our economy even more than it has been downsized.
Would the effect be inflationary or deflationary or not at all related to inflation and deflation.
I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but you seem to have clear ideas about this, so I would like to know how you would explain this.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The deficit is how much we have to borrow in a given year to cover our spending.
The debt is the total amount of money owed from all past borrowing.
So the two are not interchangeable, but they often getting conflated in conversation.
Say we had instituted a tax that increased government revenue by $500 billion in 2014, and we changed nothing else. The deficit in 2014 would be $500 billion less.
That's all I meant.
That wouldn't address any existing debt, but it would reduce how much we will borrow in 2014.
If I was sloppy and said debt instead of deficit I apologize.
In a theoretical world where we had no deficit and a budget surplus we could pay down outstanding debt, but it would make little sense to do so. Our bonds are not like paying the minimum on a credit card where it will never be paid off. They are paid back in such a way that they are discharged entirely in ten years or thirty years -- whatever the term of the bond is.
If we did, for some unwise reason, decide to pay outstanding debt ahead of schedule we would just buy bonds on the open market and then we would be paying off the bonds to ourselves. (Tearing up the bond would have the same effect... since we are paying off the bond to ourselves the net transaction equals zero.)
If we did that (we never will, but if) it would not reduce the amount of dollars, just redirect where they were going. It would be deflationary, but not for money-supply reasons.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Lots of people buy US Savings Bonds because they want to place their money somewhere secure.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)What's left of it, anyway.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Ending it below $100k will hammer the middle class"
...to see you supporting tax cuts.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)While the wealthiest pay 1/3 the rate they did back then.
Wouldn't you agree that America worked pretty well back then for the 99%? I'd like to see those rates restored.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)expanding the middle-class tax cuts in 2010?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Have I ever said otherwise?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Have I ever said otherwise?
...have you?
In 2010, did you agree with the President when he said ending the tax cuts for the middle class would have devastating effects?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Of course it would.
The tougher question is whether ending *all* cuts is better than ending none of them. I go back and forth on that one. Both alternatives are pretty bad.
upi402
(16,854 posts)we don't need to be stuck on stupid
dkf
(37,305 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But far from optimal.
"So you disagree with Clinton tax rates?"
...Obama's policies would result in a little lower taxes at lower incomes and a little higher on top incomes.
Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.
Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obama’s proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html
dkf
(37,305 posts)The economy chugged along just fine. I prefer the tried and true.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)and spending will not work when our private sector is eschewing debt and saving.
This is why we need people who understand economics to design good economic policy.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Fashioning policy to try to drive them away from cash won't work.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)It's not really that interesting.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I was far better off than under lower tax rates, given the cost of other things and the investments in education and infrastructure that enabled me to have little debt after graduation.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Last edited Thu May 24, 2012, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)
Middle class people really need the break and my taxes will go up but at this point I say fine.
I'm tired of Republican hostage taking. If all the cuts expire I'll have to pony up a few thousand dollars next year but I'm willing to take that hit if it means we finally call their bluff. If Republicans insist on a middle class tax increase to protect low tax rates on millionaires let's finally call them on their bullshit.
The best way to deal with a blackmailer is just to tell the truth and expose the other side. We don't have to be afraid.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,367 posts)I think letting them all expire is actually possible. Expiring only for "over 250k" will never fly in the Republican-controlled house and senate.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And that creates no jobs.
Let the taxes go back up on the top 2% only.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)People making over $250K, and certainly people making over $1 million, don't need them at all, but increasing taxes for the middle class in the middle of a fragile recovery from the worst recession in 70 years makes about as much sense as cutting programs designed to help people get through times like these.
We can have a discussion about letting them expire for everyone once the economy recovers, but not right now. Increased middle class taxes would launch us back into recession.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Any and all steps toward a more progressive tax system would be a good thing and this would be a step in the right direction.
Once this is done and the benefits are established it would then be easier to create new brackets for higher incomes.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)by not asking all of America to sacrifice and letting all the Bush taxcuts expire. The government cannot operate as it should operate on taxing incomes just above $250K per year. It is more difficult to ask people to sacrifice at this time. Without taxes, we are all free-market Republicans.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)
sad sally
(2,627 posts)the President would have looked if he'd made the grand gesture to unwind what the Bush/Cheney cabal did to Americans and their sense of real patriotism. On day one as President, if he'd said, "ALL people of America, the tax cuts for everybody must end immediately. We have two wars and a growing epidemic of military spending that must be paid for. Everybody, and I mean everybody must pay their fare share to keep this country intact."
In the history of the world, sans B/C, who would have imagined leaders that would take their country to two planned wars and not ask for sacrifice - nope, just told people to shop, live large and let the all volunteer army carry the load. Why, we'll even keep the costs of two wars off the books, so there won't be any pain - and, tax cuts? Hell, yes. And the new guy, except for finally adding the war costs to the books, doesn't ask for any sacrifices - except from dead and wounded soldiers and their families.
makes me a really sad sally...
kentuck
(111,110 posts)this will have on the future of the Democratic Party. I guess we could call ourselves "small government" Democrats? Cut every program....except defense, of course.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)than $250k, but if that cannot get through Congress, just let them expire for everyone. It will push us into a short recession, but it would also slash the deficit.
And then we can work on the individual brackets (aim towards taxing higher earners more). But, most of all, I want to see all capital gains taxes that were cut in the past 30 years re-instated. That is how the top of the 1% is really making money hand over fist.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and there are numerous exemptions.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Do away with the lower capital gains rate and exemptions immediately. If more revenues are needed after that, go back to the Clinton tax rates. If still more revenues are needed, raise taxes on the very wealthy. A simple 3-step plan.
TBF
(32,098 posts)30 years ago, pre-Reagan, capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income. Slowly over the past 30 years that rate has been cut in half (by all the presidents if I'm not mistaken - not just repugs). They do it to reward saving, but what it really does is allow investors to clean house. People at the very highest range of the income scale make tons of money off this.
I would put capital gains back to the same rate as income, and then repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250K to start (if that doesn't fly repeal all the cuts and then work individually on the brackets). Then we might have a shot at collecting some revenue and paying off some of the debt from the Bush years.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)..and the Democrats should have the balls to propose it.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)The Bush tax cuts affected all incomes. Have we ever singled out one income bracket for taxes to be raised? It doesn't seem fair.
