Bronco has won a can of worms

[laklak]

Schadenfreude is best tasted cold, with a nice chilled white. Won't affect me at the moment, my income is sheltered. Started that process in '07 when the GOP nominated McCain, the writing on the wall was pretty clear. I thank our Antipodean members (well, the Aussies anyway), y'all got some GREAT tax sheltered investment funds, denominated in Aussie dollars. I'll get hit on capital gains if and when I liquidate property, but a 5% hit won't kill me. Plus the property market losses have me way under showing any profit. I'm hoping the housing market will come back up, because I like to pay my fair share.

[Coito ergo sum]

Schadenfreude is best tasted cold, with a nice chilled white. Won't affect me at the moment, my income is sheltered. Started that process in '07 when the GOP nominated McCain, the writing on the wall was pretty clear. I thank our Antipodean members (well, the Aussies anyway), y'all got some GREAT tax sheltered investment funds, denominated in Aussie dollars. I'll get hit on capital gains if and when I liquidate property, but a 5% hit won't kill me. Plus the property market losses have me way under showing any profit. I'm hoping the housing market will come back up, because I like to pay my fair share.

I have no idea why anyone who opposed the Bush tax cuts in the first place would want anything other than to see them repealed in toto. We've been told for 6-8 years now that the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich." They "disproportionately favored the rich." Well, then obviously, repealing them would be a "tax hike for the rich" and "disproportionately disfavor the rich." Why wouldn't Democrats want that?

[Ian]

I don't know. I for one would like them completely repealed.

EDIT: Maybe the notion of "taxing the rich" subtlely attacks people's dreams. A lot of people would like to be rich one day.

Or maybe the Randian idea that the rich are our job creators and we must coddle them so they will create more jobs still lingers in peoples minds. As the tea party gets taken out to the wood shed and shot like Old Yeller, that philosophy might fade away though.

Anway, repealing them would not be a tax hike so much as returning the wealthy to the taxes they faced prior to the Bush years. Doesn't sound catastrophic to me.

[Tero]

The tax cuts will expire. The republicans will never approve a new tax bill the next four years.

Move along, nothing to see here, expired tax bill.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know. I for one would like them completely repealed.

so, you favor a tax hike on the "poorest among us?" (sic).

EDIT: Maybe the notion of "taxing the rich" subtlely attacks people's dreams. A lot of people would like to be rich one day.

Or maybe the Randian idea that the rich are our job creators and we must coddle them so they will create more jobs still lingers in peoples minds. As the tea party gets taken out to the wood shed and shot like Old Yeller, that philosophy might fade away though.

Anway, repealing them would not be a tax hike so much as returning the wealthy to the taxes they faced prior to the Bush years. Doesn't sound catastrophic to me.

I've never ready anything in Ayn Rand's writings suggesting that the rich need to be or ought to be coddled. Where did you get that?

Repealing the Bush tax cuts would return everyone, not just the wealthy, to the taxes they faced prior to the Bush years. Many people who are in the 0% bracket would get back into the 15% bracket.

[Ian]

I'd prefer any increases in taxes to go disproportionately towards the very wealthy, so simply repealing them rather than molding a new plan would be my 2nd choice rather than my first.

But since you mentioned it, I'm not in favor of a 0% tax bracket for anyone. Personally I think even the poorest should still fork over something, even if it's 1% or less, just so they have some skin in the game. It would be to their benefit if they had more incentive to take notice of and get involved in politics more than they do.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd prefer any increases in taxes to go disproportionately towards the very wealthy, so simply repealing them rather than molding a new plan would be my 2nd choice rather than my first.

But since you mentioned it, I'm not in favor of a 0% tax bracket for anyone. Personally I think even the poorest should still fork over something, even if it's 1% or less, just so they have some skin in the game. It would be to their benefit if they had more incentive to take notice of and get involved in politics more than they do.

Agreed on the skin in the game.

I think the tax rates are really rather irrelevant at this point, though. It is all political posturing on both sides of the aisle. The reality is that Romney's 14% effective tax rate is considerably higher than moderate and middle class income people pay, which is more like an effective tax rate of 4 or 5% or so. The wealthy do have effective tax rates, typically, far higher than the middle class and the poor.

And, if the goal is to increase taxes collected, then the way to do that is to increase the effective tax rate paid by taxpayers. If you increase the marginal rate, but the effective tax rate remains about the same, then it's irrelevant except for show.

[mistermack]

I'd prefer any increases in taxes to go disproportionately towards the very wealthy, so simply repealing them rather than molding a new plan would be my 2nd choice rather than my first.

But since you mentioned it, I'm not in favor of a 0% tax bracket for anyone. Personally I think even the poorest should still fork over something, even if it's 1% or less, just so they have some skin in the game. It would be to their benefit if they had more incentive to take notice of and get involved in politics more than they do.

In practice though, if you take some people right out of the tax bracket, you actually cut the deficit more, because it costs money to administer when they are paying something. It's not worth spending $500 to collect $200.

As far as the tax cuts go, that was a panic measure by Bush, a quick way of injecting money into the economy when it was in free fall. He would never have done it, if he hadn't fucked up so enormously.

But the dummies out there will be saying "Bush taxed us less". Yes he did, to stop the economy going right through the floor. But that tax cut is what you will be paying for, shortly.
In other words, Bush cut tax then, in the short term, knowing perfectly well that someone else would have to take it back later.

So it's George Bush who will really be putting your tax up, but Obama will get the blame.

[Ian]

As far as the tax cuts go, that was a panic measure by Bush, a quick way of injecting money into the economy when it was in free fall. He would never have done it, if he hadn't fucked up so enormously.

But the dummies out there will be saying "Bush taxed us less". Yes he did, to stop the economy going right through the floor. But that tax cut is what you will be paying for, shortly.
In other words, Bush cut tax then, in the short term, knowing perfectly well that someone else would have to take it back later.

So it's George Bush who will really be putting your tax up, but Obama will get the blame.

I think he knew full well that the tax cuts he implemented were unsustainable in the long-term. Nobody but the most blinded ideologue could see what they did to the deficit without admitting that. But I disagree that they were necessary due to the economy being in "free fall". The epic 2001-2 tech-sector re-adjustment? That was Recession Lite.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd prefer any increases in taxes to go disproportionately towards the very wealthy, so simply repealing them rather than molding a new plan would be my 2nd choice rather than my first.

But since you mentioned it, I'm not in favor of a 0% tax bracket for anyone. Personally I think even the poorest should still fork over something, even if it's 1% or less, just so they have some skin in the game. It would be to their benefit if they had more incentive to take notice of and get involved in politics more than they do.

In practice though, if you take some people right out of the tax bracket, you actually cut the deficit more, because it costs money to administer when they are paying something. It's not worth spending $500 to collect $200.

Not really. at the low tax bracket, it's all computerized, so there isn't much administration.

As far as the tax cuts go, that was a panic measure by Bush, a quick way of injecting money into the economy when it was in free fall. He would never have done it, if he hadn't fucked up so enormously.

The tax cuts were 2001 and 2002. This had nothing to do with the free fall in 2008. There was a recession in 2000-2001 and the tax cuts helped get us out of it.

But the dummies out there will be saying "Bush taxed us less". Yes he did, to stop the economy going right through the floor. But that tax cut is what you will be paying for, shortly.

That just isn't true. The tax cuts were nothing to do with the economy going cablooey in 2008.

In other words, Bush cut tax then, in the short term, knowing perfectly well that someone else would have to take it back later.

So it's George Bush who will really be putting your tax up, but Obama will get the blame.

Nonsense. The current tax rates have been in effect for 10 years.

[mistermack]

I think he knew full well that the tax cuts he implemented were unsustainable in the long-term. Nobody but the most blinded ideologue could see what they did to the deficit without admitting that. But I disagree that they were necessary due to the economy being in "free fall". The epic 2001-2 tech-sector re-adjustment? That was Recession Lite.

In that case, it makes him even dumber. I was giving him credit for acting under duress. But if he did it in 2003, that was three years before the property bubble burst. So he cut taxes, and borrowed from China to cover it, just to keep the bubble bubbling.

What a fuckin moron

[Coito ergo sum]

In that case, it makes him even dumber. I was giving him credit for acting under duress. But if he did it in 2003, that was three years before the property bubble burst. So he cut taxes, and borrowed from China to cover it, just to keep the bubble bubbling.

What a fuckin moron.

There was a recession in 2000-2001. The tax cuts were a remedy to that. They worked. And, they helped increase revenue.

The Wall Street Journal found that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

A Washington Post article discussed data that showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

We have a SPENDING problem.

[Gerald McGrew]

I have no idea why anyone who opposed the Bush tax cuts in the first place would want anything other than to see them repealed in toto.

Eventually, yes.

We've been told for 6-8 years now that the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich." They "disproportionately favored the rich."

You've been told that because it's a fact.

Well, then obviously, repealing them would be a "tax hike for the rich" and "disproportionately disfavor the rich." Why wouldn't Democrats want that?

Oh dear FSM....such simplistic, black/white thinking. A common trait among conservatives.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have no idea why anyone who opposed the Bush tax cuts in the first place would want anything other than to see them repealed in toto.

Eventually, yes.

Then you'll get what you wish for with the fiscal cliff.

We've been told for 6-8 years now that the Bush tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich." They "disproportionately favored the rich."

You've been told that because it's a fact.

I posted, above, the reductions in tax rates which applied across the board to all taxpayers from top to bottom. The greater percentage reductions in tax rates went to lower income tax brackets. And, the ultimate result was that the share of the total tax burden paid by "the rich" went way up, and the total number of dollars paid by the upper tax bracket went up.

Well, then obviously, repealing them would be a "tax hike for the rich" and "disproportionately disfavor the rich." Why wouldn't Democrats want that?

Oh dear FSM....such simplistic, black/white thinking. A common trait among conservatives.

It's logic, something you're not familiar with, apparently.

[Ian]

We have a SPENDING problem.

Believe it or not, I also think the problem is more on the spending side than the revenue side (though we also do have a revenue problem).

However, as much as entitlement spending bloats the budget, it wasn't anybody in government who invented the notion of perpetually aging demographics thanks to medical science. And it certainly wasn't liberals who championed the idea of reducing the federal government to its smallest size (relative to GDP) since the 1920s. But that's the direction we've put Uncle Sam on over the last few decades. For all the talk of Big Government, it used to be a helluva lot bigger.