"Bush tax cuts" - why do people care?

know1

I can't understand why people have so much contempt and emotion over a tax cut for someone else.

Who cares if some group of people are paying lower taxes or not? Why does it bother people so much? The rich are still paying more than their fair share, but that's not my point.

Personally, I don't care who gets a tax cut as long as people are getting them.

I think it's pretty petty to wish higher taxes on some group that you're not in, but even worse it's pretty bad to get so mad that they might be paying less than they used to.

If it's not you who is paying more, why should you even care?

Anon

know1 wrote:

If it's not you who is paying more, why should you even care?

For an attempt to answer that question, please visit

www.someofuslookatthebiggerpictureandit ... boutme.com

digster

For several reasons...

1) Lower-income and middle-income voters were not properly represented in this tax cut. It benefits a miniscule portion of the population while leaving others out in the cold. If you were making 50,000 a year, you saw you're income tax percentage decrease 2%, if you were making 500,000 dollars, you saw it decrease nearly 4%.
2) Many of us believe in a 'progressive' income tax.
3) The tax cuts, followed by Bush fighting two wars and never cutting spending is leading our country further into debt.

I could go on, but those are three right there.

Brain of J.Lo

Pj_Gurl wrote:

For an attempt to answer that question, please visit

www.someofuslookatthebiggerpictureandit ... boutme.com

lmao!

amen!

Mrs.Vedder78

digster wrote:

For several reasons...

1) Lower-income and middle-income voters were not properly represented in this tax cut. It benefits a miniscule portion of the population while leaving others out in the cold. If you were making 50,000 a year, you saw you're income tax percentage decrease 2%, if you were making 500,000 dollars, you saw it decrease nearly 4%.
2) Many of us believe in a 'progressive' income tax.
3) The tax cuts, followed by Bush fighting two wars and never cutting spending is leading our country further into debt.

I could go on, but those are three right there.

I like the way you think!

Pj_Gurl wrote:

For an attempt to answer that question, please visit

www.someofuslookatthebiggerpictureandit ... boutme.com

LOL!

prytoj

know1 wrote:

I can't understand why people have so much contempt and emotion over a tax cut for someone else.

Who cares if some group of people are paying lower taxes or not? Why does it bother people so much? The rich are still paying more than their fair share, but that's not my point.

Personally, I don't care who gets a tax cut as long as people are getting them.

I think it's pretty petty to wish higher taxes on some group that you're not in, but even worse it's pretty bad to get so mad that they might be paying less than they used to.

If it's not you who is paying more, why should you even care?

I was watching fox news last night (yeah i know) and one of the democrat talking heads discussing this issue hit it right on the head.

paraphrasing: frankly, there are a lot more votes in the lower income levels.

heapin' helping of pandering, anyone?

know1

Pj_Gurl wrote:

For an attempt to answer that question, please visit

www.someofuslookatthebiggerpictureandit ... boutme.com

But isn't it exactly all about you if you're worried about someone else getting a tax cut?

know1

digster wrote:

For several reasons...

1) Lower-income and middle-income voters were not properly represented in this tax cut. It benefits a miniscule portion of the population while leaving others out in the cold. If you were making 50,000 a year, you saw you're income tax percentage decrease 2%, if you were making 500,000 dollars, you saw it decrease nearly 4%.
2) Many of us believe in a 'progressive' income tax.
3) The tax cuts, followed by Bush fighting two wars and never cutting spending is leading our country further into debt.

I could go on, but those are three right there.

1. So why don't we just make the tax cuts properly representative across the board rather than worry about increasing taxes for some other group?

2. Even with those cuts, our tax is still progressive.

3. Let's require the government to only spend what it takes in rather than call for higher taxes on some other group of people to fund something we all oppose.

know1

prytoj wrote:

I was watching fox news last night (yeah i know) and one of the democrat talking heads discussing this issue hit it right on the head.

paraphrasing: frankly, there are a lot more votes in the lower income levels.

heapin' helping of pandering, anyone?

But still - I don't understand why anyone would call for higher taxes on a different group of people. Is it just for spite? Unless you have a specific allotment for those exact increased dollars, then is there any other reason for it?

brandon10

Corporations

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

well, theoretically, those who benefit most from a given system, should be most responsible for keeping said system functioning.

prytoj

know1 wrote:

But still - I don't understand why anyone would call for higher taxes on a different group of people. Is it just for spite? Unless you have a specific allotment for those exact increased dollars, then is there any other reason for it?

I believe it's less spite than an oppourtunity to put a little coin in one's pocket. From a realist point of view, I'm gonna do what I gotta do. I think people are also fed up with the corporate cheaters.

That is in my view short-sighted, as your post "Taxes on Corporations and Business Owners (the rich)" appropiately argues. But it's awefully hard to make that case to an economically uneducated puclic, one which accurately sees the concetration of wealth today. In my view.

I, frankly, can just imagine thousands of well paid accountants vigorously pusruing the loophole to the Obama plan as we speak. over-active imagination.

I heard a great quote from a radio caller: "the only way to create MASSIVE amounts of wealth, and sustain it, is capitalism."

Wobbie

know1 wrote:

The rich are still paying more than their fair share

They are?? :eek:

I'm not even sure what your "fair share" would be if you made $100 million as a hedge fund manager. True, I couldn't manage a hedge fund but it can't be bust ass work.

prytoj

MrSmith wrote:

well, theoretically, those who benefit most from a given system, should be most responsible for keeping said system functioning.

well put
If your talking in terms appropriate regulation and enforcement, rather than taxes, I agree.

and to turn it around, welfare recipients....

SundaySilence

know1 wrote:

I can't understand why people have so much contempt and emotion over a tax cut for someone else.

Who cares if some group of people are paying lower taxes or not? Why does it bother people so much? The rich are still paying more than their fair share, but that's not my point.

Personally, I don't care who gets a tax cut as long as people are getting them.

I think it's pretty petty to wish higher taxes on some group that you're not in, but even worse it's pretty bad to get so mad that they might be paying less than they used to.

If it's not you who is paying more, why should you even care?

Because the burden of taxation is then on the middle class when we pay back our debt.

know1

SundaySilence wrote:

Because the burden of taxation is then on the middle class when we pay back our debt.

No it's not. The rich are still paying higher taxes.

Point is - you don't really hear any reasons - just the masses chanting "repeal the Bush tax cuts".

PJ_Saluki

prytoj wrote:

well put
If your talking in terms appropriate regulation and enforcement, rather than taxes, I agree.

and to turn it around, welfare recipients....

Which institutions need regulation? Banks and finance companies. How will the government pay for increased regulation and enforcement? Taxes.

Welfare: According to this site welfare cost $354.3 billion in 2006 while this year's rescue plan topped $700 billion.

Apparently corporate welfare is a better use of money.

know1

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Which institutions need regulation? Banks and finance companies. How will the government pay for increased regulation and enforcement? Taxes.

Welfare: According to this site welfare cost $354.3 billion in 2006 while this year's rescue plan topped $700 billion.

Apparently corporate welfare is a better use of money.

That bailout was the ultimate example of the politicians in Washington thumbing their noses at America.

SundaySilence

know1 wrote:

No it's not. The rich are still paying higher taxes.

Point is - you don't really hear any reasons - just the masses chanting "repeal the Bush tax cuts".

As well they should, they are benefitting more. In addition it makes for a sounder economy.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

a better America, for a few more weeks anyway.

until spending is put under control it doesnt matter anyway.

_Crazy_Mary_

prytoj wrote:

I was watching fox news last night (yeah i know) and one of the democrat talking heads discussing this issue hit it right on the head.

paraphrasing: frankly, there are a lot more votes in the lower income levels.

heapin' helping of pandering, anyone?

And the problem with the ending of the tax cuts is that it affects everyone. Low-income taxpayers will lose the 10% tax brackett & will have to start paying at the 15% tax rate.