Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't understand- How can tax cuts be "permanent"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:24 PM
Original message
I don't understand- How can tax cuts be "permanent"?
Even if they are enacted, can't they be repealed later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, they can...
but, it is harder to repeal them later than it would be to just let them expire. Expiration requires them to do nothing. To repeal the tax cuts means they have to go through the whole process of proposing a revision to the current tax law, debating it the various subcommittes and then voting on it in the House & Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Federal chapter 7 is permanent
We're free! Its over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gothmog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Current tax cuts expire at different times
The GOP used some accounting gimmicks to understate the costs of the current tax cuts including having these tax cuts automatically go away on certain dates. That is why the bushies want to make these tax cuts permanent. These tax cuts were passed based on projections that showed these tax cuts going away and thereby understated the costs of these tax cuts. Now that bush does not care about the budget and deficits, he is willing to make the tax cuts permanent by eliminating the phase out provisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's Because They Were Sold As "Only Temporary"
In your basic bait and switch, the GOP wants to make those "temporary" tax cuts "permanent."

It's all bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bush Fantasy Land
the same place where a rich connecticut frat boy can be a "Texas Rancher"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yes, but that would be a "tax increase"
In fact, even not making them permanent will be called a "tax increase" (possibly even "the biggest tax increase in history").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. In Bush land, there's no tomorrow.
(Yeah, "permanent" is rhetorical BS....)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Bush made his tax cuts temporary
with the idea that they wouldn't look like they cost so much and also he assumed at some point the congress would make them permanent or if not, it would be another chance to fight the "they want to raise your taxes," fight.

The estate tax is the silliest. The estate tax exemption had always kicked in at $ 600,000. In my opinion that was too low. I have already gotten bit by the estate tax and I'm not in the top 1 % of anything. So Bush gradually raises the estate tax excemption until the tax goes away entirely in 2010. Then it comes back at $ 1 million in 2011 and thereafter. Well that's just stupid. If that were to happen, we're going to have lots of old people killing themselves in December 2010 to save their estates hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So what's reasonable?

What about a compromise at about $ 5 million? I bet they could get a majority of both parties to go for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC