Let the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy Expire

George H.W. Bush did that costing him the election. Then Clinton got the credit for the budget surplus of the 90's

I really wish you right-wingers would get off this whole tax cuts being related to jobs creation thing, it's really silly.

Business owners don't make hiring and firing decisions based upon how much taxes they pay at any given time, unless they're foolish business owners. The tax would have to be outrageously high to be able to affect your budget enough to have to fire people, or not hire anyone even when business needs require it. Case in point, my own brother works for a small business, a bar and grill in a small town in Michigan. His employer cannot afford to pay healthcare for any of the employees, and only has a total of 11 people working there. He is a small business, in a small town, so he is mainly supported by the local regulars that frequent the place. As such his revenues are far less than a larger business like TGI Fridays, hence he doesn't have the budget to hire any more than the 11 people he has now, or pay decent healthcare insurance(Thank goodness for Obama and healthcare reform)

His taxes could get cut to 0 and if his business doesn't pick up to bring in more money for the owner, he will not need or be able to afford to hire new employees. It's real simple, the rich pay more taxes because they can afford to pay more taxes. They also don't get rich by magic, us middle class people that work for them are the ones making their money for them. We make their businesses what they are. It doesn't hurt for them to give back a little.

If a rich man buys a Mercedes Benz Maybach, and there is a luxury tax on the car, he can certainly afford to pay that tax. This is no different.

To hell with bush, and his tax cuts.

Really? Take a 5% increase for example that's $25,000 on business owner making $500k. That's a secretary's salary, or perhaps an assistant they keep around more out of conveinience than necessity. He's going to make his 500k/ yr if he damned well can because that what he's been accustomed to to pay for his Benz and his mortgage so he's going to have few options, cut back on the business overhead, or increase prices. All of those options affect you and I and it's absolutely naive to think they don't. Maybe not evey business fires someone or raises prices. There are almost 5 MILLION businesses with under 20 employees, if only 1% of those employees were laid off, that's 50,000 jobs.

Tired of making your boss rich? Quit. Or maybe thank him for hiring you.

Shucks, while you're at it just make the rate for everyone 100% so that all of our earnings go to the feds for more frivolous spending. All the comments in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire clearly demonstrate that the Democratic party is the tax and spend party and no one is safe while they are in power. Keep your hand on your wallet!

NJHome...

Clinton raised taxes even more than GHW Bush in his first term. The Surplus began after that.

Shucks, while you're at it just make the rate for everyone 100% so that all of our earnings go to the feds for more frivolous spending.

A Far-Right Extremist arguing on the most extreme as if it's a valid argument again... LOL.

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

Presto! The Largest middle class and most prospers Nation in the History of the world.

Then the conservatives turn the clock back and look what happens?

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents... There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency... [is] it best to put the pseudo-aristoi [of wealth and birth] into a separate chamber of legislation, where they may be hindered from doing mischief by their coordinate branches, and where, also, they may be a protection to wealth against the agrarian and plundering enterprises of the majority of the people? I think that to give them power in order to prevent them from doing mischief is arming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil. For if the coordinate branches can arrest their action, so may they that of the coordinates. Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively... Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of the legislation to protect themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

Right On! Reagan destroyed the economy with his tax cuts. He created the massive boom,bubble,bust cycle we are living with. Wealth stratification can't reach the levels we are currently at for a democracy to exist.

Do your research, Reagan's trickle down does not work and very much like Bush he cut taxes for the wealthiest, but worst they both spent like a drunken sailor and that's the huge deficit we see today.

"Rescind the Reagan tax cuts too. " Really ? Then we all sit around at home waiting for our monthly government check to arrive ?

We hire people based on having the work and that work makes more than it costs. Jobs created because extra money is laying around is absurd. That would be terribly inefficient and should not be part of any business plan.

As long as there is a level playing field taxation is job neutral. We innovate to be more efficient to make more money. Sometimes this eliminates positions, but for the right reasons. Taxation of personal income only affects our private lives.

This is the same argument the farmers makes when they say they need immigrint labor to pick crops instead of innovating and creating a machine to the work.

sorry mike- I am a small business and I have to have help to do what I do. I hire people to help me. If I have to pay higher taxes I will have to stop having the help I need to do my job-that is not private life, that is commerce. And eventually if the taxes are high enough and I can't support my family on what I earn, I will have to raise prices. Then inflation starts-and welcome to Carter time!!

I don't think people understand doctors and dentists make enough money to pay the people that work for them. Their income depends on the one that has to produce. The doctors and dentists are not machines or material. Their services bring in the money, but they have a lot of responsibility. My doctor is so wonderful, I just love him, but one day he mentioned that he was behind on his paper work..........yet he calls me with the results of my blood work or x-ray at the end of his long day. Whenever I am sick I can just show up and he will see me. He is like this all the time. He makes me feel special, that he cares and I trust him. For nine years he has always made time to see us. Just Wed. I walked in sick at 9:30, no appt. during my visit he showed me the computer screen that showed five appts. and 10 walk-ins and mentioned that he doesn't turn people away. That's special, but I know that the system will eventually start changing that, as he has to cave into more and more paperwork. He is a special person in my life.

THe small business tax laws are tied to the personal tax laws which is why small businesses get screwed... but rather than complain about the personal incometax rates, they need to complain about the small business tax system and get it changed so they have to pay the same as big businesses. Why does the gross revenue of a business count as personal income to the owner? He might see 1% of that after the bills are paid.

Charge 15% Small Business tax on profits, give deductions for employees that are hired that year, and let the personal income tax take care of the personal income of the owner so it does not impact the operations of his/her business.

The middle class won't lose their tax cuts -- they never had a tax cut to begin with. The Bush tax cuts only affected people with AGI of $165,000 or higher (when filing as a single taxpayer). I don't think that qualifies as 'middle class', at least not in my neighborhood.

It may not be middle class but it will affect all small business. More unemployment.

It may not be middle class but it will affect all small business.

Any real proof?

It may not be middle class but it will affect all small business. More unemployment.

Take a look at the seed and the comments of the majority. These are pure communists we are talking here. I am trying to post some links (see #1.7 above) and some reasoning to counter this but don't see much hope to convince people who see tax as a re-distributive tool, not as our Founding Fathers quaintly put it - "to pay for the legitimate expenses of government".

Yeah, I am a small business and if I lose my tax cuts I will be forced to lay off or fire the last 2 employees I have. There is your proof.

You are correct Concerned. Tax us into looking like Somalia.....

prove it....fire them now. what you think you may have to do is not proof.

Yeah, I am a small business and if I lose my tax cuts I will be forced to lay off or fire the last 2 employees I have. There is your proof.

Then you need a good accountant.

"Then you need a good accountant."

But can he afford one with the rise in his taxes?

At least the tax lawyers won't be hurt.

Good accountants cost a ton.

I'll take the tax cut anyday. That way, I don't shell out more money, to keep a few employee's. My company already let go employee's.

Nothing, this year, has helped small business, and don't bring up the Health Care debacle. If this goes through, I'll be paying more for what I pay for for myself (Tax on Cadillac Plans) and we will be shelling out money for at least 3 years, before anybody gets anything.

I have a very good accountant and with the lack of work and the tax bracket I am in, Without the cuts I have no choice but to add people to the unemployment lines. Once the liberal healthcare is passed I may as well shut down business completely.

Tax Lawyers are WAY more expensive than a decent Accountant.

I will be forced to lay off or fire the last 2 employees I have.

Make sure you slate two that are wearing the "the rich suck" t-shirts...maybe then they'll understand the importance of having an ethical business owner get a tax cut, providing them the ability to...hire someone, expand business, etc.

btco, what small business do you own?

Yeah, I am a small business and if I lose my tax cuts I will be forced to lay off or fire the last 2 employees I have. There is your proof.

Mike you are the same guy who blamed Obama for the housing crash which took place before he ever took office.
Sorry but its hard to believe you are able to run a business with that type of faulty logic.

I owned a specialty automotive repair and customization shop, which I sold in 2008 partly becuase the government was making it nearly impossibly to turn a profit. As a small business owner I paid, payroll tax, workers comp, income tax, property tax, business license, hazardous materials storage permit, hazardopus materials transport permit, resale license, commercial alarm permit, air compressor permit, welding materials permit... that is all I can remember off the top of my head, but there were more. And many of the permits came with massive amounts of paperwork to fill out.

Seriously, a permit just to run an air compressor. The point is, if you are trying to make aliving on your own, the government will do everything in it's power to take the most they can from what you make. I had enough, so I got out... just in time I might add. Health insurance tax and higher capital gains would have put me out of business for good.

Naftel,

blame the government for your failing at business. It is amaising that 80% of the jobs in this country are related to small business, yet people like you claim it is impossible to make a profit.

blame the government for your failing at business. It is amaising that 80% of the jobs in this country are related to small business, yet people like you claim it is impossible to make a profit.

Totally screwed up isn't it? Some places go under and it's the fault of those darn taxes. Yet others pay the same or more in taxes and thrive.

What's amazing is that 40% living off of the sweat of the middle class, cause the really rich aren't hurting, they are partying with Obama.

" The Bush tax cuts only affected people with AGI of $165,000 or higher (when filing as a single taxpayer). I don't think that qualifies as 'middle class', at least not in my neighborhood. " Upper middle-class, perhaps.... I consider an income in the mid-six figures to be middle-class... defining upper-class as those who don't depend on earned income to maintain their life style... and working class as those earning under $ 100K / yr....

George, not to argue the point, but who do you think should really crunch the numbers? Your accountant or the govt??????

NAFTEL: My local pharmacy went out of business Dec 16, despite being a busy, thriving enterprise with a very loyal customer base... As soon as Obama was elected, talking about screwing those making over $ 250K / yr, I told the owner " He is talking about you ".. The owner was caught between rising taxes, and declining reimbursement rates from insurance companies...

My baby girl works for a vet. nine dollars an hour no benefits.She is going to PA school in the spring. The vet. is in the red and is going to let people go too.

blame the government for your failing at business.

I never said my business failed. What I said is that I SOLD the business... it did not go under. And it was generating more revenue when I sold in than when I bought it and, therefore, I sold it for more than I paid for it. And the business is still operating today. You are missing the point, because you have obviously never owned or run your own business. If you had, then you would know that there are myriad government entities that have their hand out at every turn and those entities make it much more difficult to grow a businees and, with the possible exception of the SBA, there is not one single government entity that makes it easier to grow your business.

Naftel,

Then taxes had nothing to do with your Business sale and the sale price did.

As to your claim that your local pharmacy went under because of taxes, I call BS. Again... there are millions of small businesses that are doing perfectly fine. Taxes are not the reasons that they go under.

Then taxes had nothing to do with your Business sale and the sale price did.

I agree. But the part you are missing is that the hassles of excessive regulation were making it exceedingly difficult to extract maximum value out of the business. If you read my original statement again, I said I sold the business "partly because" of the government taxes and regulations. Admittedly, the looming recession was the major factor. However, that doesn't negate the fact that the government makes you jump through many hoops and write many checks just to stay in business. If that wasn't the case, I might have tried to ride out the recession.

And to your claim that your local pharmacy went under because of taxes, I call BS.

That claim was made by someone else.

But the part you are missing is that the hassles of excessive regulation were making it exceedingly difficult to extract maximum value out of the business.

Good points Naftel, I have been reading your past few posts.

I myself have never owned a business but have worked for a small business before. Looking at it from the owner's point of view it is amazing the regulations and hurdles that they have to go through. I saw a talk on Youtube the other day whereby a speaker made a point that even to cut hair, we need a permit ?! People laughed but on second thoughts it wasn't so funny. You wonder, a license to ... to cut hair ?! Are you f-ing kidding me ?!

My theory is that the entrepreneurial spirit will slowly be extinguished because incentives will be limited in the future. The US has already lost the manufacturing sector because of wage and price controls , with the healthcare mandates it will lose the entrepreneurial spirit too.

I'm sorry but Warren Buffet's view notwithstanding, whenever I think of the US in the next 50 years, the word "Requiem" comes to mind.

Naftel,

I am all for simplifying the small business tax system. I think the way the government has it set up is ridiculous. Lowering taxes does not solve the hassle. I also think they need to align small business taxes with corporate taxes and don't count a small business's taxes as personal income for the proprietor. The only tax that the proprietor should be paying on the personal income tax rates is the amount he pays himself.

Your problems with the tax system should be focused on the favoritism that big business has garnered from the government, not the amount of personal income tax.

Think about this.... if a small business had to pay 15% for profits made that quarter, then how much the top tax rates are would not matter to the operations of the business. It would only affect your personal income from that business.

Behind.........you have an interesting take on it. Let me see if like Minnie's Flower Shop got the same govt breaks as say Haliburton or Boeing? Only Minnie, doesn't have money for a lobbyist.................

Viva,

With due respect, comparing Halliburton and Boeing to .... a flower shop. Don't you think that's a stretch ?

I don't know the particulars of the specific companies, but the reasons for tax breaks are varied.

Your problems with the tax system should be focused on the favoritism that big business has garnered from the government, not the amount of personal income tax.

I think the key word here is "garnered". If any business (big or small) can garner something from government (and you can call me a purist in this regards), that is corruption. Sure, there are other aspects to this. Tax breaks can be given locally to bring an industry to a particular area for getting employment and state taxes (there is a multiplier effect). But as for treating companies as "special", a tax break is BS. As the phrase goes, apart from a handful of companies, "nobody is indispensable".

yeah, my bad how dare I compare the two........one is working hard to keep their little business going and the other is getting govt kickbacks why going out to lunch with their lobbyists and voting in their favor..........and sticking Minnie with the tab.

I think the way the government has it set up is ridiculous. Lowering taxes does not solve the hassle.

Yes... I agree. I am including the fees associated with regulation as a form of taxation. But it is the regulation that creates the hassle, not the taxation, which is simply passed on to the consumer. My personal taxation wasn't an issue. In fact, as the sole owner of an "S" corporation it gave me some tax advantages. Nonetheless, the regulatory hurdles are significant for almost any small business owner. In my situation, the amount I could charge was becoming limited by factors beyond my control (mostly less consumer capital as home equity dried up and people lost their jobs), but the hurdles were just as high even as my ability to charge necessary prices was eroding.

Paddy is it also corruption to garner votes by bribery??

Garner and bribery is in the eye of the beholder...........or in the pocket.

Greg that would be too much to ask. We will be a depression for the next 3 years so hold on tight.

I can't wait. <sarcasm>

I ran out of rope, lashing myself to the post I've been hanging onto now.

Somebody will bring me some food and drink every once in awhile, Won't they?

Somebody will bring me some food and drink every once in awhile, Won't they?

Greg - It's Christmas Eve. Don't be a scrooge !!! It sucks because real estate sucks. That was not Obama's fault.

And Merry Christmas to you !!!! I wish you nothing but the best !!!

Merry, Merry, Merry, Merry Christmas btco!

I'm never a scrooge, just a realist. Rea estate AND CONSTRUCTION, sucks!!! But, I keep getting small jobs to pay the bills, so I'm thankfull for that. Apparently I'm being looked after. Thank God!

Greg - It's Christmas Eve. Don't be a scrooge !!! It sucks because real estate sucks. That was not Obama's fault.

It is when Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, and Greg-709692 say it is.

It is when Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, and Greg-709692 say it is.

LAMO! That was good. I wish I made the income they did!

I'm still trying to find where I said it was Obama, specifically.

I seem to find Government as a whole the problem, see post #4.

I blame Obama for putting forth the tax and spend ideas, plus the lies about how good his ideas will be. I blame the congress for implementing them thinking they have a mandate because of the vote. HA!

Wait until they see what their false mandate thinking does for them in 2010 and 2012.

Is this the kind of Change you were looking for when you voted for Obama, Chucky? Were you actually looking for a total restructuring of our system, at the gain of government?

It sucks because real estate sucks. That was not Obama's fault.

Real Estate doesn't suck... our expectations of unlimited increase in real estate prices for ever and ever, without correction, was unrealistic. Even after the correction, my house is still worth about 40% more than I paid for it in 2003 and houses are selling quickly in my area. Construction sucks right now, and I am sorry if you are effected by that, but we are correcting to what realistic levels of construction should be and that was inevitable.

our expectations of unlimited increase in real estate prices for ever and ever, without correction, was unrealistic.

shhhh...don't mention such things, as that requires personal accountability and responsibility, something that people that bought million dollar homes with 30,000 salaries figure don't apply to them (because of the evil lenders)...but we won't go there.

After all, it's "holiday-eve".

(sorry, slightly caustic this afternoon)

SSSHH!

Don't tell anybody those bogus loans were because of no regulation and the Clinton years of gung ho for the poor, either.

Ask Barney!

Hyper-inflation is what will be very concerning soon, maybe? Let's hope NOT!

You may be right. Inflation is a genuine concern with such a large trade deficit combined with the federal deficit. It's something that all of us need to be talking about - both left and right. In my opinion, we need to raise taxes on those who can afford it, track where the fed sent all of that TARP money and get it back, cut spending in areas that will not affect our people & economy such as military spending and corporate welfare, and come up with an industrial policy that brings the jobs (and hence dollars and demand) back to the USA.

Don't worry about the little bit extra I will pay. I'll make it back and a lot more with a better economy.

That's the one thing that has always amazed me about this debate -- that there are wealthy people in our society who are actually saying that they aren't being taxed enough and aren't paying their fair share. If that is not a strong enough signal to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, I don't know what would be.

that there are wealthy people in our society who are actually saying that they aren't being taxed enough and aren't paying their fair share.

Then tell them to cut a bigger check to the government.

Everytime their taxes go up, the products we buy go up! Why should I have to pay because "They feel bad" about not paying enough.

Love the hypocricy on that one. "I Feel Bad", but, and there's that "But" word, "I won't give it willingly".

Hvy is the quintessential liberal: Clinton's taxes were "just right".....

That's the one thing that has always amazed me about this debate -- that there are wealthy people in our society who are actually saying that they aren't being taxed enough and aren't paying their fair share. If that is not a strong enough signal to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, I don't know what would be.

It's a curious mix of masochism, stupidity and a large dose of what Ayn Rand called the "The sanction of the victim".

They all propose taxing people Like Billionaire Jon M. Huntsman, who has given millions to help open up the new Cancer Center. The place is gorgeous.

http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html

I watched this guy speak and it was impressive.

Brent,

Dispute the fact that the Clinton tax rates were optimal as evidenced by the fact that both the economy was booming and we had a budget surplus. I made more money under Clintion than any Repub president. Clinton may have been a jerk and a cad, but I became quite wealthy under his policies. And, that's the diff between the successful and the rest: we don't give a crap about philosophy, we only care what works.

You are very right, I also made piles under Clinton, But I made more under Bush. Now the way Obama is going anyone in business is @#%*&d.

Paddy, every one of the Bush/Cheney tax cuts were financed with dificit spending (they weren't paid for). It cracks me up to hear all these deficit hawk Republicans saying that we should not burden further generations with debt because we want to reform health care. But they were perfectly willing to let their grandchildren pay for tax cuts. By the way, when consevative hero Cheney was confronted with the fact that the tax cuts were increasing the deficit his reply went something like this "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Yes, Bush's policies were idiotic. Does that excuse idiotic policies from the current administration too?

hvy, you didn't make money during Bush's first 7 years? Bush brought the Dow over 14000. The recession was, arguably, the result of bank loans to people who could not afford them, not Bush policies. My family grew financially during Reagan's last 5 years, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush, jr., truth be told

Have a Merry Christmas.

Brent,

I didn't say that. Please read the parts in black and only the parts in black. I typically say exactly what I mean. So, to repeat: "I made more money under Clinton than any Repub president."

Mike,

I'm making a sh*tpile under Obama. The SP has gone from 675 to 1100. What's not to like about that. Not sure I can credit Obama with that since Bush policies largely caused the crash. Conversely, under Shrub the SP only went from 1150 to 1500 and then promptly fell off a cliff. And although I dodged most of the decline by bailing out when Lehman went under, I was not a happy camper. I really did not appreciate the extra effort I had to expend to avoid the crash and then to get back into profit.

hvy- the Clinton economy was primarily the result of the dot com bubble- there was irrational investment- and some made out well, but many more lost their shirts. The boom/bust began- those people invested in real estate- and pretty soon regular folk were borrowing money to flip houses. I do not know where the grown ups were- they were not here.

Ray,

Why should I? If the middle and lower classes are not only willing to pay my freight but actually argue in favor of it, then why should I let them? I didn't become wealthy by being stupid. I am more than willing to bleed them to death while I live very comfortably. My class is very consistent in it's behavior - we'll tell the other classes they are being stupid, we'll warn other classes against being stupid, but we certainly will not prevent the other classes from being stupid nor will we join them. And while others of my class may feel some guilt, I do not. They got what they asked for.

Power,

That was a point I made several times on the Vine in support of both the public health plan and removing the tax cuts. I'm more than willing to give them a break, figuring I'll more than make it up in increased economic activity. However, they seem solidly against both of these moves and keep screaming their reps out of it. Or at least they allowed a vocal and stupid minority to set the agenda for them. Either way, they are responsible for the position they are in. If they are bled too much, we'll just give them a bit of a transfusion to revive them and then start the bleeding again. That is what has happened in the past and I expect the future to be no different. At least until they wake up, which seems unlikely give their past poor attentiveness.

I am in favor of this as well as cuts in spending to bring some fiscal sanity to this administration

But spending out the wazoo was just fine in the last administration?

"But spending out the wazoo was just fine in the last administration?

So, in your opinion then, idiotic behavior out of the last administration excuses idiotic behavior from the current one?

My opinion is, if this administration is doing nothing more or less the last one did...why target THIS ADMINISTRATION

Because they are now in charge, with a super-majority in the Congress.

then I say again

But spending out the wazoo was just fine in the last administration?

You're missing the point, chucky. No. It wasn't, nor will you find me anywhere defending the spending policies under Mr. Bush (search all my comments in the Vine if you like).

That said, again, how does the prior administration's mismanagement excuse the same or worse for the current one? They are now in charge - with a supermajority - not Mr. Bush.

I never said YOU were DEFENDING his spending...but can you show me any post in any forum at any time YOU were COMPLAINING about them. all I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy shown by those on the far right who are complaining about spending NOW that a democrat is in office. let go a bit further...where are you defending this administration against other right wingers when they bash it for doing the same? I promise you I see the hypocrisy that some from the far left have when they feel that it's good when a democrat does some thing but bad for our country when a Republican does it. the problem with a lot of people on the vine or any other political is they have blinders to their party, we are human beings before we are Americans and we are Americans before we are democrats or republicans.

Search my posts chucky, and you'll find that I've condemned both major political parties. As for my own political stance, I'm one of those centrists that both sides like to bash en route to our nation's demise. Both major political parties are too steeped in corruption at this point and cannot be salvaged. Both parties are owned and operated by special interests.

So, it appears that you are still prepared to defend one of the two major political parties over the other, though the economic handling by both is atrocious. Is that correct?

So, it appears that you are still prepared to defend one party over another

I promise you I see the hypocrisy that some from the far left have when they feel that it's good when a democrat does some thing but bad for our country when a Republican does it.

I know you saw that

You detect hypocrisy by those who ascribe to a particular political party over another. Check.

So, the question remains: Does the mismanagement of the last administration excuse the same or worse from the current administration?

Yes, or no?

So, the question remains: Does the mismanagement of the last administration excuse the same or worse from the current administration?

not clear just yet...because the verdict is not in yet....we cant say it's mismanagement just yet until it shows to be. just because you don't like the man or his policies doesn't make it bad. so I'll wait to see.....but if you cant wait for the answer then yes IF it turns out to be a disaster.

Fair enough.

" Letting them expire is the right thing to do. Obviously, they didn't work for the economy or our nation's fiscal position. " The spending under GWB - Medicare 'D', and Iraq / Afghanistan made me uneasy, versus the outright panic I feel over the current situation... the tax cuts for Bush43, intended as a temporary stimulus, worked just fine... positive GDP growth all 8 years, even 2001. The current GDP of + 2.8%, virtually all due to increased gov't spending, does little to reassure...

I gotta research how the GDP components - CIG - break down, for the two administrations... anyone read any good articles in WSJ, or the biz mags ?

Hi George. While I suspect that the tax cuts had a shallowing and shortening impact on the recession, I'm not at all convinced that economic recovery would not have occurred anyway as part of the general economic cycle. You also should not ignore the work of the Federal Reserve in keeping money supply very loose during that same period, resulting in significant rises in asset values, compelling all participants in the economy to lever up at greater and greater levels. In your research of the GDP components, I hope that you consider how much consumption was driven by easy credit and asset leverage.

To be sure, tax cuts during the Kennedy Administration greatly boosted the economy. But that was when the marginal tax rate was significantly higher than it is today. I'm confident that reasonable economic observers would concur that at some point there is a diminishing marginal utility to tax cuts, particularly when there is budgetary pressure from fighting two wars and American demographics. Black Monday 1987 and recession followed the Reagan tax cuts. The Black Friday 2008 crash and recession has followed the Bush tax cuts.

Finally, government dominance of GDP growth should not be unexpected given the depth and breadth of the current recession.

Well lets see, I'll show America...I'll move to another country and pay taxes there.

and move where? Canada? Europe? wait... they pay higher taxes. Oops.

Freedom

Some of these wealthy people are U.S. citizens and have chosen to hide their taxable income in Offshore Tax Havens. Our Treasury Department is currently investigating these accounts trying to recoup that money. The Bush Tax Break for the Wealthy was sold to stimulate the economy by reinvestment of those lost tax revenues and to help offset costs of employee benefit programs. Neither of which produced the desired outcome. The latest estimates of lost tax revenue due to this one tax break is estimated at 2 trillion dollars. That would have fully funded health care for 15 years.

Even the wealthy should not be above the law. Over 15,000 of these account holders have come forward to take advantage of the governments amnesty program, which is another break for the wealthy.

Don't worry about that. The expatriate act of the US tax code requires them to pay taxes to the USA for the 10 years after they leave the country.

" Even the wealthy should not be above the law. " Of course not... and neither should high gov't officials... however, both certainly seem to be the case...even the phrase " Nobody is above the law " has gone out of fashion, which should tell you something... gone the way of the concept of personal responsibility....

"Passing this Health Care Bill is a step in the right direction " It is if you are in favor of increased public sector employment and unionization, which this is really about, imo... Obama took good care of the UAW, trial lawyers, and is now poised to shower goodies on SEIU. " Deficit Neutral " my butt !!

Very well stated!

Here is a link of the top 100 businesses and their associated offshore tax haven accounts.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09157.pdf

Handyman:

good find . I'm bookmarking this one!!

" Did anyone get the real message of the movie "Wall Street" ' Yes, I did, as did Oliver Stone.... the message is: continue to make anti-American movies, and your career will continue to soar.... depart from this formula, as Stone did with 'Alexander', which I loved, and he was treated as an apostate for his efforts...

Agree that the last administration was for the most part crap. That does not excuse more of the same from the current one.

What exactly are you calling crap from this administration? At least there is someone who is fighting for the average american, not just rich oil buddies. I'm amazed by how some people expect overnight results from the current administration, when it is doing its best to dismantle/repair 8 years worth of bad decisions. Mopping up the mess, making the tough choices is what its going to take to turn this snowball headed for hell around.

What exactly are you calling crap from this administration?

Almost everything it does, almost everything it stands for, and of course its very existence and those who support it.

So are you implying the last administration handled domestic and foreign affairs better than the current one?

Josh McConnell --- You know I am going to have to go with yes on that one. Everyone Bush Hatred is blinding them to what is a systematic dismantling of the very foundation of your country.

13/4 No, I imply nothing. I am stating outright as fact that Bush is preferrable to Obama in both domenstic and foreign policy. Not that Bush was perfect or anything, just much less harmful to America than the current regime.

Most amazing. Simply put.

Then you really must be pissed that your money is already taxed 3 times

Once when you earn it

Once when you spend it

And once more when you report it to the IRS.

I don't understand the third statement - when I report it to the IRS, I'm reporting what I was already taxed on throughout the year (and I generally get a refund). I don't have as much of a problem with sales tax, even though you're correct that I'm being taxed again. If my state didn't charge sales tax, they'd just increase the property or state income tax rates so they can afford to provide the services I need. And I can pay less sales tax by buying less stuff.

I think it's highly unethical, although my estate isn't going to be anywhere close to getting hit by the death tax. Why would you support taxing the same money twice? Don't you think it's enough that you pay income taxes on your money when you earn it, and capital gains on your investments when you (or your heirs) sell them? Why should we tax that money when it's passed down to someone's heirs, if they have already paid the taxes when they earned it?

Businesses only indirectly pay the tax they collect from you, the consumer

They end up being the arm of the IRS and folks just can't seem to figure that out!

Love the "Yea, Lets hit the evil corporations" mantra. Then they wonder why product prices keep going up, making them hate corporations even more. They haven't figured out, their hate and penality rants, have helped cause the problem we are in now!

Keith,

That is only partly true. Companies still have to compete with each other and imported goods that may at be taxed at a rate low enuf to offset shipping and logistics costs. Thus a company that tries to pass along its tax burden really cannot. The only viable option is to become efficient enuf that the tax burden does not significantly matter.

Keith, your argument might have the slightest chance of holding water if you can show where the converse occurred. Did any business drop the prices of its goods and services as a result of the Bush or any other tax cuts? Got any proof?

greg-709692

What about the toxic waste sites that business have created and now the tax payer is held mostly responsible for cleanup? The latest estimate by the EPA is $250 billion in tax payer dollars - yet every year they show a profit and continue to add to those offshore tax havens. How do you factor that into your equation?

Oh Handyman, The EPA has taken care of that. CO2, that we breath out, will get taxed, after their little power play. You'd be suprised the fines levied on companies on those sites.

We permit STP etc... The permit fee's alone for those kind of companies you talk about are tremendous.

The companies are going over seas for one reason. Regulation and taxing is cheaper. It still cost's us more, because of the taxes we touted nedding, still cost's the companies a fortune, and we pay for it again.

You'll get it one day. Penalize the companies we purchase from, our purchase price goes up. Seen any advantage in this process of Tax, Tax, Tax, for us, yet ?

greg

The EPA has not taken care of this. Currently there are 350,000 sites listed as needing cleanup. Not to mention the increasing degradation of our water supply - which we all depend on. Do you really think we can continue to allow this to happen indefinitely and expect the tax payers to just shut up and pay the bill. I think most people would rather them be required to mitigate the problem immediately and pass the cost on in the price of their product. The ones that can prevent this from happening will be the successful company in the end and will benefit all of us. Those with poor environmental practices will suffer the fate of their own making and if they have to locate oversees to continue their poor practices, so be it.

Another problem with your analysis is that tax revenue (like now) is not always available to assist in this effort so the list just continues to grow. Industry knows this very well or all the problems would already be taken care of.

Handyman:

A simple response to your comments is:

The superfund program for EPA was already funded along time ago.

Superfund is the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),a United States federal law designed to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites^[1] Superfund created the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and it provides broad federal authority to clean up releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. The law authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the parties to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties cannot be found, the Agency is authorized to clean up sites itself, using a special trust fund.

Cap and Trade, if you are for this, will help this situation How, when all you have to do is buy credits?

Thought I'd throw that in there!

It's not all tax payor money for the cleanups:

Approximately 70 percent of Superfund cleanup activities historically have been paid for by parties responsible (PRPs) for the cleanup of contamination. The only time cleanup costs are not borne by the responsible party is when that party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup. For those sites, the Superfund law originally paid for toxic waste cleanups through a tax on petroleum and chemical industries. The chemical and petroleum fees were intended to provide incentives to use less toxic substances. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected, and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The last full fiscal year in which the Department of the Treasury collected the tax was FY1995. At the end of FY1996, the invested trust fund balance was $6.0 billion. This fund was exhausted by the end of FY2003; since that time funding for these orphan shares has been appropriated by Congress out of general revenues.

Sounds like there has been a failure, again, by government, to follow the laws on their books, wouldn't you say.

greg

Absolutely a failure and we are not only paying for it in tax revenue, we are paying for it in our health and future generations health. As I think we talked about in another post in the past, a lot of the increase in sites are due to Bush transferring EPA oversight to state and local governments which do not always perform their oversight with the same due diligence as a federal non-biased oversight mechanism would. They are more likely to be influenced by local economic concerns rather than environmental concerns.

The Superfund Cleanup Sites are just the worst of the worst sites and are constantly being revised. I think this year they plan on roughly 1600 sites, but the list is almost endless. The EPA recently published a summary of the sites and the projected 30 year cleanup plan and costs, $250 Billion, that amount does not take into account sites yet discovered or additional sites coming to light in that 30 year period. We have to get a handle on this situation and soon.

Here is a link to the most current summary report.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/news/30years.htm

Now you have to give some leeway on the underground storage tank problem.

A lot of those are mom and pop companies, who purchased business's that already had the underground tanks. The cost to cleanup and replace are way more than they can afford, so, all pollution can't be blamed on the business. Those regulations that hit them, came in last year, as a requirement to replace existing systems. A bunch of those small companies are going to go out of business because of that regulation. That regulation just says you will upgrade, even if there is no pollution contaminates found.

Its a $250,000.00 process for the mom and pops.

Those mom and pop cleanups are also included in that total cost's. Some will be able to afford it, most won't.

Not very selective is it?

greg

I don't think the $250,000 is necessarily correct in all cases. Our local coop just had to replace their underground tanks with non corrosive tanks and total cost was under 100k. When it starts getting expensive is when it's found there has been leakage and all the contaminated soils need to be traced out, excavated, and removed to an accepted dumping site for processing. That does get spendy in a hurry.

I still think this would be a good project for our country to undertake at this time. We could offer industry tax incentives that would offset their total expenses, it would create jobs, start tax revenue flowing again, and take care of a good percentage of our environmental problems. We could then focus on helping those without leakage to get up to current regulation standards by using some of the stimulus funds. Sounds like a win for everyone since the projects are located throughout our country so the stimulus money spent could not be veiwed as pork projects.

The only problem is persuading industry to participate, hopefully the tax incentive would be enough without large amounts of government funding.

Now your talking Coops. They have a bit more leverage than the typical private mom and pop single owner.

Min. tank replacement, here in Florida is $ 175,000 for tanks, with no pollution spillage cleanup.

Min. $ 250,000 with soil mitigation. They have to pay for the soil burning on top of the hauling to the insinurator plus the labor, equipment rentals, equipment time, tank costs, back fill etc... Including the re-paving, striping etc... and Labor again, on top of permit fee's, engineering cost's etc....

A Bunch goes into mitigation here.

" The companies are going over seas for one reason. Regulation and taxing is cheaper " Can you say " California " ? Can you say " Merchant Marine " ? Anybody been on a cruise ship lately ? American flagged ?

The successful left on their own (to Singapore), India et al. Health insurance vanished in the move. You dream they would play fair if only allowed, but they have, in full stride, forgotten you.

That is reich-wing propaganda. Have you ever heard of Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway? People are much more equal there and no one is poor. Everyone has healthcare, minumum 4 weeks vacation, shorter workweed, guaranteed retirement, etc. All because they don't allow the rich to get a free ride.

marcist:

If it's so great there, why aren't people flocking to live there?

I also understand, it's terrible to try to become a citizen in those countries. It's a population cost control thing. They don't have the Illegal Immigration problem we have. We cover all, they don't.

Marcist, meanining M--x-st?

This idea that taxing wealthy people is "punishing" them is a sad and tired argument. Those who can afford it ought to pay more. I myself, who used to be middle class until supply side economics moved me to lower middle class, have no problem with the taxes I pay. I have a job and can afford to live without government assistance, but I have empathy for those who do not. I believe that if you are able to work and willing, but through circumstances not of your doing, then we should pay and assist until they can do for themselves.

Paying taxes that you can afford is doing the right thing for the country that has allowed you to become wealthy. It is not all take take take.

marcist,

As I mentioned before when someone brought up Denmark as the "ideal solution"...

If we're going to run with the Denmark model, lets look at some of the other highlights (as we can't "cherry pick"):

Denmark's immigration

New provisions stipulated that Danish citizens could not bring a foreign spouse into the countryunless both partners were aged 24 or over, passed a solvency test showing the Dane had not claimed social security for 12 months and had to lodge a bond of 53,000 kroner ($9,300).

Most importantly for Danish citizens who are themselves immigrants or second-generation immigrants, the Danish citizen has to be judged to have stronger links with Denmark than any other country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4276963.stm

EU citizens are allowed to live, work and study in Denmark with a visa or work permit. However, you must apply for a residence permit with the state county within three months of entry, and provide proof of employment or income.

General conditions for granting a visa

You must have the necessary funds to pay for your stay and return trip. What will be considered as necessary funds will be determined by the Danish diplomatic mission and depends on the length of your stay, and whether you will stay at a hotel or with friends or family.

Normally, you must hold a travel insurance policy to cover possible expenses in connection with a return for health reasons, indispensable medical treatment or acute hospitalisation during your stay. The insurance policy must cover all Schengen countries, and the minimum policy coverage is €30,000. The insurance policy must be valid for the same period as the visa. The validity of the visa may be shortened if the insurance policy does not cover the entire period.

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/visa/when_is_visa_granted/

In Denmark, nationals under the age of 24, will be banned from marrying a non-EU citizen.

And that's part of a new deterrent strategy to crack down on what the Danes' view as parasites, in effect, illiterate, foreign speaking peoples attracted by Europe's highest minimum wage and benefits.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/21/i_ins.01.html

So if we were to get rid of all poor illegals and people that married them, as the Dane's are apparently doing (since you're advocating their economic policy as king), coupled with not letting anyone in the country that couldn't pay their way AND get rid of all "parasites, in effect, illiterate, foreign speaking peoples"...

See...America is the nation that will allow the masses to come unto her, to bastardize and destroy a long lived culture into a thousand mini-cultures (the veritable "melting pot"), that will not require that ANYONE speak the same language, and that will all but allow you to walk in penniless and take from the system from day one.

I love this nation for all that it offers, but for all that it provides, as more and more leech from it, the nation will crumble under it's own weight and under it's own lack of unification. You can only take from the well for so long before the well eventually runs dry.

putman - I agree with you. Taxes are a necessary part of living in a country with many, many advantages. I believe we get a heck-of-a lot for the taxes we pay. And in fact, tax burdens for the wealthy now are lower than they used to be...here is a good article that talks about it...

the top marginal tax rate is now higher than it was under Reagan, but lower than it was under Clinton, and much lower than it's been at various other points in history.

The Missing $1,000,000 Tax Bracket

What did Churchill say " Socialism provides an equal level of misery ".... unless you are part of the political elite, of course...

corporatism provides the same.

right now we are in a fight between socialism and corporatism... not free market capitalism.

George - Go to Europe. Look around, talk to people. You'll find that socialism can equal freedom, security, free thinking, peace of mind, etc. Don't believe the propaganda from the wealthy elites.

shawn, I have no problems with Denmark's policies on immigration. We need to cut our immigration massively if we are going to ever cut our pollution and carbon output. We have done a lot to cut our birthrate but all of that progress was lost by having an out-of-control immigration policy. A county is like a cell, it needs a membrane to survive and we need to be in some control of what and who comes in and out of the country. Anything else would be unrealistic.

People who can afford the "extras" (rich) will be paying the taxes. People who cannot afford the extras will be paying no taxes.

The very rich invest mostly in tax-free US tresuries. Where do you think we got the extra $12 trillion we owe interest on.

Naftel,

Teasuries are only exempt from state and local taxes. They are not exempt from federal tax. Some wealthy do invest mostly in Treasuries, but typically only when rates are high - ie, not now. Most invest in real estate or stocks. I prefer oil, gold, copper and ag stocks along with some consumer staples. All of these pay very nice dividends which are currently taxed at a very low rate.

The progressive tax system that we used from the 1930's through the 1980's worked just fine. We had many years of prosperity until Reagan blew it up.

Jimmy Carter?

I would like to see a government which does not piss away an incredible amount of our tax dollars...

vote for a proper 3rd party then. Republicans and Democrats aren't going to make it happen.

Will the tax cuts expire on Soros too?

He is going to make millions on bama's promise to send Billions to Brazil for oil exploration.

That's how Obama made up for the expiration for Soros.

Of course. Soros is one of the few rich people who like Gates and Buffet understand that the rich are conducting class warfare against the middle class. Not all rich people are sociopaths, but by far the majority are.

marcist,

Please don't speak for my class. Most of us are not sociopaths. The trust-fund babies, yeah. But most of us like Gates, Soros, Buffet got where we are by working for it. Very few of my friends are conducting a class war. Mostly we shake our heads in disbelief at how the majority - the middle and lower classes - vote and then rail at their reps to pass legislation counter to their own interests. We're not in the majority and while we do use our money to lobby and ensure we're not raped, the middle and lower classes are largely doing this to themselves.

Oh I see, only the rich left is truly GOOD..........Rich Repubs. bad. Double standard, double talk.................double lying.

No you don't see, the blinders are huge or you are myopic.

An hereditary aristocracy... will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world. To know the mass of evil which flows from this fatal source, a person must be in France; [note the date is before the French Revolution of 1791] he must see the finest soil, the finest climate, the most compact State, the most benevolent character of people, and every earthly advantage combined, insufficient to prevent this scourge from rendering existence a curse to twenty-four out of twenty-five parts of the inhabitants of this country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786

Hereditary bodies... always on the watch for their own aggrandizement, profit of every opportunity of advancing the privileges of their order, and encroaching on the rights of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823.

"Wealth, title, office, are no recommendations to my friendship. On the contrary, great good qualities are requisite to make amends for their having wealth, title, and office." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786.

"Instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger than benefit to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society and scattered with equal hand through all its conditions, was deemed essential to a well-ordered republic." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

Viva, more lies from you kkkons. At least the liberal rich have a conscience. They don't always look out for themselves. The repug rich support policies that further empower and enrich themselves. They are the me class.

The liberal rich dust their crumbs from the table and eager mouths worship them for it..........that's why California has it so good right? They have a conscience until their private jet whisks them out of your sight. The Republican rich, get over party lines. If you think any of them are going to go without for the poor, then you deserve to be a Dem. FYI they all party at the same places and drink from the same trough.

Just at least own what you got..........Obama. Play ball with the stick you got now.

We have the stick, the people are the sovereigns of this nation, and we elected Obama to represent us. Our side has the ball now, get over it and stop whining.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.

When the hell, is the general welfare going to include the 40% that set there and brag about having the ball in their court. Speaking for myself (in the 60% that pays into the coffers for the general welfare of the union) I'm fed up with all this bull#$%^&.

You know the BS I'm sick of? And I'm sure the majority of thinking people in this country are as well.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. 

Thomas Paine 

You live in this country and benefit from it's existence.. what makes you exempt from having any responsibility for it..

Do think that you can Live in a Society, where your neighbors are dying in wars right now to protect your freedom, or have fought in wars in the past, or their ancestors have fought and died in wars that made this country free, and just sit back onj your fat cat ass and reap the rewards without any obligation, except by a whim of choice if you feel like it or not and give to some charity for the tax break!

Freedom without obligation is anarchy. Freedom with obligation is democracy.~ Earl Riney

It is amazing to me that those who benefit the most from the freedoms this country provides them are the ones that bitch and cry the most about paying their taxes.

We don't make laws to force those to pay their fair share, we make laws to compel the greedy bastards who want to get out of paying theirs..

"The compulsions of the law seem to have been provided for those only who require compulsions." --Thomas Jefferson to Albemarle County Commissioners, 1780.

What a perfect world it would be if we didn't have to make these laws, but sadly we do..

so what is the opposite of a greedy bastard????????

Everything does not break down into simplistic dichotomies like black and white.

like rich and poor, dumb and smart, honest or dishonest, like corruption and honorable............I guess the govt is in the gray area, expensive isn't it?

"Wealth, title, office, are no recommendations to my friendship. On the contrary, great good qualities are requisite to make amends for their having wealth, title, and office." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786.

Damn, lots of people that expect amends, if only I wasn't left poor afterwards.

Think of yourself very much?

"Egoism, in a broader sense, has been... presented as the source of moral action. It has been said that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bind up the wounds of the man beaten by thieves, pour oil and wine into them, set him on our own beast and bring him to the inn, because we receive ourselves pleasure from these acts... These good acts give us pleasure, but how happens it that they give us pleasure? Because nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses... The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule... That a man owes no duty to which he is not urged by some impulsive feeling... is correct, if referred to the standard of general feeling in the given case, and not to the feeling of a single individual... Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

Soros, Gates and Buffet oh my, let them pay for the neighbors..........

A straight question deserves a straight answer....................

Ultima - How have you become so twisted that you turn on the poor and identify with the rich? What have you really earned? Where any one of us is in life has to do with a billion factors from geographic place of birth, race, economic class, health, distribution of intelligence sectors of the brain, etc. You are where you are for factors that are not all of your own making and so are poor people. You have been duped, brainwashed by the corporate capitalist propaganda machine. The machine is an illusion. Wake up. Read. Study history. Study the relationship between wealth and power. Study the great religions. You'll find very little to support the selfish worship of wealth and you'll find that the rich and powerful have always twisted public opinion in their favor.