Tax Cuts

KDH12

So I don't get it

And this has nothing to do with Obama becuase we would be facing the same debate regardless of who was president

But why do people want to extend the Tax Cuts for those who make over 250K a year... less then 3% of the population

We talk about a deficit and cutting spending at the same time want to keep tax cuts we can not afford.

Today I heard an interview with a House Rep who stated that the only way to stimulate (get back on track) the economy was to continue to the tax cuts for everyone including the rich, but they failed to acknowledge that we have been living with the cuts for what 3-4 years now..... they have not done much to stimulate shit to this point.

Besides people wanting to keep their money and not give it to the government what is the logic (keep in mind that 97% of us make less than 250K)

OutOfBreath

Well, it IS a less controversial and grand-standing-reps-friendly move to just extend tax cuts already in place than it is to strike them, and instead do a stimulus package of sorts with the money. Retraction of the tax cuts will definitely be an "anti-stimulus" no matter how you look at it.

Now, those tax cuts I find stupid to begin with, but right now it seemed the least fuss-generating way to keep a stimulus going. Ideally in my mind, they would be retracted and at least re-tailored before put in effect again, or use the extra cash for stimulus packages or downpayment on public debt.

A stimulus package is always a blend of a tax cut in some way and direct public spending in some way. So this was probably the easiest way to get the tax-break part going.

Peace
Dan

Jason P

My thoughts on the "it's only 3% of the population" argument is that 3% is still a ton of people and there are lots of small mom and pop businesses that cross that combined threshold of $250K. The current US population is 307,006,550, so the expiring tax cuts will affect 9,210,197 Americans. The attitude taken that this only will effect people floating around in yachts is not a good representation of this demographic.

Maybe the best solution moving forward is for the Democrats and Republican to reach a compromise . . . perhaps raise the threshold to $500K as this would harshen the blow to small business owners. Or perhaps they could find ways to slash the budget so we don't need to put the burden on the citizens of the U.S. to fix their mishaps . . .

inmytree

From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...

Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...

Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.

ugh...the dept. of ed thing again...fine get rid of it...how much with that save...?

inmytree

this is pretty interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

From here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03148.html


For a typical single filer with adjusted gross income of around $40,000 it might be about $400 a year.

For someone on $80,000, about $1,600.

How about married couples filing jointly? They'd get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500.


I say let them expire...you know, since the debt is such a big issue...

Yep, because obviously when things get tight everyone can always just ask for more money instead of stop spending so damn much.

I say slash spending, cut the Department of education, look real closely at military spending and adjust the way we think about it as a nation. Plenty to cut there I'm sure.

ugh...the dept. of ed thing again...fine get rid of it...how much with that save...?

It one small example of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy that exists.

You're right...why bother...just raise taxes to pay for everything.

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

It one small example of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy that exists.

You're right...why bother...just raise taxes to pay for everything.

how much would be saved...? I'm just asking...

unsung

ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

this is pretty interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:

Very cool..thanks.

I did it!!!! 63% from spending cuts ; 37% from tax (consumption tax and mIlionaires tax mostly)

inmytree

unsung wrote:

ED currently administers a budget of $63.7 billion in FY 2010 discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and $96.8 billion in discretionary funding provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

thanks...


I guess out of 6.4 trillion cutting the dept. of ed would save us...

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

this is pretty interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:

Very cool..thanks.

I did it!!!! 63% from spending cuts ; 37% from tax (consumption tax and mIlionaires tax mostly)

what did you cut...? and who'd you tax...? I hope is wasn't those super rich folks that create jobs...

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

this is pretty interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... aphic.html


try it out and see how you can save the US from the pits of hell.... :ugeek:

Very cool..thanks.

I did it!!!! 63% from spending cuts ; 37% from tax (consumption tax and mIlionaires tax mostly)

what did you cut...? and who'd you tax...? I hope is wasn't those super rich folks that create jobs...

Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!

you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you...

edit: here's what I would do...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!

you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you...

edit: here's what I would do...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp

You love your taxes huh?

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Some super rich got an extra tax...other than that I added the national sales tax. I'm much more in favor of paying tax on the goods and services I buy then just for making money. So in the end, I screwed everyone!!!!!

you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you...

edit: here's what I would do...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp

You love your taxes huh?

I guess, Mr. I Support a Nat'l Sales Tax ...I see it as price of being a citizen...

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

you damn fascist, marxist, socialist, you...

edit: here's what I would do...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... s=4m2069qp

You love your taxes huh?

I guess, Mr. I Support a Nat'l Sales Tax ...I see it as price of being a citizen...

See, that's why I'd support a national sales tax...it gets citizens and illegal immigrants alike when they shop!!!!!!

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

See, that's why I'd support a national sales tax...it gets citizens and illegal immigrants alike when they shop!!!!!!

that is assuming everyone has money TO shop with....

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

See, that's why I'd support a national sales tax...it gets citizens and illegal immigrants alike when they shop!!!!!!

that is assuming everyone has money TO shop with....

Pretty sure everybody buys something...I'd tax food stamp purchases too!

Doesn't it make more sense to tax people on what they buy they to tax them on making money? This way you still get a disproportionate amount of money from the wealthy because they certainly buy a lot of stuff.

inlet13

Not one to argue politics, but I'll throw in my two cents here...

The top 1% of income makers pay 38.2% of all income taxes paid. These individuals make $380K and up.

The top 5% of income makers pay 58.72% of all income taxes paid. These individuals make $159K and up.

I don't know where those making $250K fall in line exactly. But, it's clearly inbetween. If I did the math I'd bet it's a bit upwards of the 50% mark, so maybe 51% (not sure)? If that's true, then the those making 250K and up pay over 50% of all taxes.

Therefore, if you raise taxes on those folks, and you are cutting taxes on the rest an equal amount , you are raising "overall" taxes. Because if those who make under 250K pay 49% of taxes and those who make over 250K pay 51%, then taxes overall will increase. Obviously, the caveat would be if the rate of cuts in those making less than 250K is MORE then the rate of increases in those over $250K.

My point in mentioning this is not to point out that they are raising taxes, that's obvious. It's to point out the political deception going on here. Saying you are "cutting taxes on the middle class", when you are keeping them steady is not cutting taxes. I do understand that the Bush Tax Cuts were set to faze out. But, if they fazed out with nothing else, there would be a across the board "tax increase". The semantics here are the only thing that bothers me personally. The Democrats should just be honest with their rhetoric. They want to raise taxes on those making $250K and keep taxes on those under that threshold the same. There's nothing wrong with that stance. But, the whole class warfare push is (in my opinion) getting old. Either raise taxes or don't. If you are raising taxes on one set. Say you are raising taxes.