Let em expire!

[Beavah]

Yah, so today's news has the Republicans threatening to block all lame duck legislation unless the Dems go along with an extension of the Bush era tax cuts. Now, some of the lame duck legislation should probably be blocked anyways, eh?

 

I confess, though, I don't get the Republican obsession with tax cuts. Taxes weren't all that high under Clinton. They were lower than they were for most of Reagan's tenure. Most importantly, we had a balanced budget back then.

 

If we want to get control of the deficit, we have to address both the income and expense side. We cut taxes going into two wars, fer cryin' out loud. We have to pay for 'em sometime.

 

Why not start by just lettin' the darn things expire? The economy is startin' to rebound, so it can take the hit, and I think Americans are willin' to sacrifice a bit for the cause.

 

So I think the Dems should call the bluff. Send Congress home. Heck, they only create problems when they're in Washington tryin' to rush things through, especially as lame ducks when they're looking for "consulting" jobs with industry after they get out.

 

Let the lame duck legislation and the tax cuts expire.

 

Beavah

 

[83Eagle]

So are you saying that putting a massive tax increase in place effective 1/1 will be good for the economy then?

 

What about unemployment benefits...should they be left to expire as well? Or are they the "job creator" that Nancy Pelosi says?

[GernBlansten]

Gosh Beav, Brent's right. You are turning into a liberal.

Welcome aboard!

[moxieman]

I *HATE* politics. With that said, I say call their bluff and let the cuts expire. With what I make, I'll pay roughly $50 to $60 more a year in taxes. Well worth it if it means the rich are also forced to pay their share.

 

I didn't see one job created locally through the "trickle-down" claim that would happen through this temporary tax cut.

 

And that's what it was suppose to be. Temporary.

[GernBlansten]

We've had those cuts for 10 years. The jobs aren't here. Must not be related. Let them all expire. It's best not to respond to these terrorist style tactics.

[packsaddle]

Are you folks blind? Trickle down DID work and it worked well. It created millions of jobs....in China, India, other overseas places where those dollars were invested. For this reason alone, if nothing else, I agree with Beavah. Let them expire.

[Beavah]

Nah, Gern, I don't reckon I'll ever be one of those L-fellows.

 

I just figure sending everyone home now has very little downside. We avoid a whole bunch of silly liberal lame-duck nonsense and we get to reverse the GWB impression of LBJ trying to fight a war without paying for it.

 

Unemployment benefits have already been extended several times, eh? I think it's time to start drawin' that down. Maybe a short extension to the better weather months at most. But I sure don't feel much guilt about upping the tax rate on the idiot bankers with multi-million dollar bonuses to pay for that extension.

 

Only "massive" increase is da estate tax, 83Eagle. All the rest are just an incremental bump. And I'm not really convinced that if a fellow does a good job as a businessman that all of his descendants shouldn't have to work a day in their lives. Just doesn't seem like it builds the right character we need in da country. What's needed is just bumping the low threshold for estate tax up a fair ways so that owners of farms and small businesses can keep 'em in the family. Beyond that, if yeh get to live off daddy's Trust Fund for life, I reckon yeh should pay some added tax for the privilege.

 

B

 

[shortridge]

How many people really get hammered hard by the estate tax, anyway? Most of the people I know aren't inheriting huge amounts from their parents and grandparents. Maybe a house, a few acres of what's left of the family farm after being sold off in slivers over the years, perhaps a small storefront business that the youngsters don't have any interest in anyway. But not tons and tons of money.

[83Eagle]

It's really not that complicated. If you want less of something, tax it more. If you want more of something, tax it less. Works every time.

 

So the administration decides to increase taxes on "the rich" by letting tax increases take place on 1/1. So what are "the rich" going to do? Buy fewer flat screen TVs? (Which are made...where???) Hold off on that second yacht? Heh...

 

Look, folks, lower taxes are about investment in business, and hiring people. It's about faith. It's not about punishment. That's something the tax and spend crowd never really do understand.

 

But I could argue that point all day, and it wouldn't make any difference to those who've already made up their minds despite evidence to the contrary. After all, doesn't it just FEEL good and FEEL right to "tax the rich!" They got it coming!!!! Dang staight! Let them rascals pay!!!! Who cares that they're the only ones who create jobs?!

 

So never mind! I have a pack meeting to plan!!!

[evmori]

Yeah trickle down worked! We are still paying for that fiasco!

[packsaddle]

In my approach to life, I've always thought that if I wanted more of something, I needed to work hard and EARN more of it. Regarding taxes, I wish that I could earn a lot more in order to get into those higher tax brackets. That would be just great as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: As long as this is about taxes (not really a hijack, I hope), I'd support the Fair Tax. Abolish most of the IRS...simplify or eliminate time-wasting paperwork...keep everything we 'make'...clean up the environment...save the world...it all sounds good to me. OK, maybe those last two things are a bit of a stretch...

H'mmm...just where ARE flat screen displays made? Aren't they made in Peoria and Indianapolis? Am I wrong?

Oops, sorry....that's where millions could be employed making the yachts. Those flat panels are made...where again?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[scoutingagain]

The Bush tax cuts were generally described as a bad idea at the time by many main stream economists. John McCain described them as irresponsible. They were a bad idea then and are a bad idea now.

 

I agree let them expire. Time to begin paying off the debt. True fiscal conservatives would understand what financial responsiblity is and that's paying the debt that we have allowed our leaders to create for us.

 

SA

[BrentAllen]

Liberals crack me up. The rich should pay their share? Really? As if they aren't already?

 

No, the ones who should pay "their share" are those from the middle down, who don't pay ANY federal taxes. Aren't they getting the same protection from the military, using the same highways? Yet, they don't pay ANYTHING for those federal services. In fact, we end up PAYING many of them through the earned income tax credit.

 

Sorry, but no freedom-loving American could ever be in favor of the estate tax. The wealth that families earn has already been taxed several times. Now, upon death, the government wants to come take part of what you have earned? That is almost as un-American as the New London, Conn. acquisition-for-economic development fiasco. Why are liberals so determined to punish success?

 

So, Beavah, instead of allowing a parent to pass on his wealth to his heirs (do with it what he pleases, since he earned it), you think the government should step in and regulate? I fail to see how this is any business of the federal or state government.

 

" Beyond that, if yeh get to live off daddy's Trust Fund for life, I reckon yeh should pay some added tax for the privilege." Sorry, Beavah, only a real bleeding-heart liberal could make that statement. The government is most likely going to be paid, through sales, income and capital gains taxes, while that person lives of daddy's Trust Fund. You think they should also get gigged just because daddy died and passed to his kids what was his? This is just more punishment of success, and transfer of wealth from the successful to the failers.

 

I say lower the brackets and expand the pool - let ALL Americans pay "their share."

[perdidochas]

If the tax cuts expire, a family of 4 making $60k a year (two salaries of $30k a year) which, IMHO, is hardly rich, will have their income taxes almost doubled from about $2190 a year to $4333 a year. I don't know many families who won't feel $2k a year out of their pockets.

 

A family of 4, with each parent making the median salary in the U.S (two salaries of $23k a year) will have their income taxes also go up by about $2k from $90 a year with tax cuts to $2233 a year without them. Again, a major difference.

 

Calculations by http://www.mytaxburden.org/

 

I just remember for myself that when the Bush tax cuts came about, my family of 4 was making about $25k a year. It definitely helped us out.

 

Also, the Bush tax cuts did get us out of the End of Clinton/Start of Bush recession.

 

In terms of Clinton, the only reason that the economy was so successful under him was the same combination that we are about to be in. Republican control of Congress and Democrat control of the White House. I'm hopeful that the threat of gridlock will get the government to do the people's business instead of the Republican party's business or the Democratic party's business.

 

Shortridge,

 

The estate tax is only a small part of the Bush Tax cuts. The ones in question are the income tax cuts.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Brent, the Fair Tax accomplishes just what you describe. Why are people so opposed to it?

 

Perdido, It's not the same situation as Clinton because Clinton DIDN'T have the Bush tax cuts.

But it sounds like you disagree with Brent. If the cuts expire, as you describe it more of the tax burden WILL fall on those with middle incomes on down. So maybe Brent should support letting them expire?

 

With the Fair Tax, none of this is an issue anymore. That's why it's called the 'Fair' Tax.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)