Bush tax cuts extended for wealthy?

[country]

Several democrats are having second thoughts about the Bush tax cuts. K Conrad of N Dakota, B Nelson of Nebraska, and E Bayh of Indiana to name a few are reconsidering extending the Bush tax cuts for a year or maybe two.
Naturally Pelosi and obama are going to fight to let the cuts expire for the wealthy. This could get interesting. Wonder how much money will exchange hands to get the senators to change their minds. We all know how sen Nelson operates.

[KarlMarx]

If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other leading Democrats are worried about tax cuts for the wealthy, I have a suggestion....

1. leave the Bush tax cuts alone

2. the Democrats who object to keeping the tax cuts for Middle Class Americans can empty out their savings, checking accounts, max out their credit cards, cash in their IRAs, 401(k)s, mutual funds, etc. Renounce their cushy Congressional pensions and help pay down the deficit out of their own damn pockets.

I'll supply a shopping cart and cardboard box for each of them to sleep in

Nancy Pelosi and the rest could just throw themselves into the ocean for all I care... If any one of them suffered a fatal accident, I'd mark it on my calendar as a good day for America

[Little-Acorn]

Several democrats are having second thoughts about the Bush tax cuts.
When Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s, why weren't they known forever after as the "Clinton tax increases"?

Within a year, the terminology was dropped. Clinton's higher tax rates were simply known as "the tax code". This is what the tax rates are, period, end of story.

But now, eight years after Bush cut tax rates in the 2000s, they are still referred to as the "Bush tax cuts". They weren't even known as "rolling back the Clinton tax increases", though that's an equally accurate description.

Why are Bush's (lower) tax rates being treated as an aberration, something unusual and out of place, while Clinton's (higher) tax rates were immediately being treated as something normal and natural, not even worth mentioning?


Naturally Pelosi and obama are going to fight to let the cuts expire for the wealthy.

I got a tax cut from Bush's new rates, and I'm certainly not wealthy. Most of my friends did too. And if/when they expire, I'm going to take it in the shorts... even more now, since my income is higher now than it was eight years ago. Same deal for my still-not-wealthy friends. Why are these called "only tax cuts for the wealthy"?

Isn't anybody interested in telling the truth any more?

[darin]

IF tax rates took cost of living by locality they'd be a lot better.

For instance - some poor people get moist/hard anytime a Politican panders to the ignorance of some poor with statements like "The RICH - those who make more than $100,000 a year - SHOULD PAY MORE!!"

$100,000 a year in San Diego is probably lower-middle class...or less.

Thus, using the localities set by OPM, say, we should get our tax rates adjusted.

[Sweetchuck]

I'm all for taxing the wealthy, but it's all mental masturbation.

BO, GW, nobody ain't gonna do it.

[darin]

The wealth are already taxed. (shrug). It's the POOR who don't pay taxes.

[Sweetchuck]

The wealth are already taxed. (shrug). It's the POOR who don't pay taxes.

Proportionately, the wealthy aren't close to being as taxed as the middle class.

As for the poor, I have no problem with the truly poor paying zero tax. I do have a problem with deadbeats sucking off the government teet.

The middle class has always and will always carry more than their fair share of the tax burden.

[Missileman]

Proportionately, the wealthy aren't close to being as taxed as the middle class.

As for the poor, I have no problem with the truly poor paying zero tax. I do have a problem with deadbeats sucking off the government teet.

The middle class has always and will always carry more than their fair share of the tax burden.

There's nothing proportional or fair about the top 5% paying over 50% of income tax.

[KarlMarx]

The function of taxation is to fund the government, period. It was not intended to be a means to redistribute wealth or "stick it to the man".

When a politician uses the term "fair share of taxes" what does he mean? Answer, anything he wants it to! The "fair share of taxes" for each person is taking up a larger and larger percentage of each person's income, wealthy, poor, and Middle Class.

It's as if politicians are asking each of us to give them one of our credit cards and, once they max it out, they ask us for a second one, and third, ad infinitum.

[Little-Acorn]

Proportionately, the wealthy aren't close to being as taxed as the middle class.


This is always one of the more hilarious statements we get from government-uber-alles leftists.

Govt is taking from the middle class everything it possibly can, there just isn't any more they can squeeze out of them.

And govt is taking far more than that from "the wealthy".... but there still remains a little more they haven't squeezed out of that group.

But is this take-everything-you-can situation cited as a reason to relax the tax burden a little?

Nope, these people are actually using that very scenario, as a justification to INCREASE taxes!!!

You can't make this stuff up, folks......!! :eek: :eek:

[red states rule]

Proportionately, the wealthy aren't close to being as taxed as the middle class.

As for the poor, I have no problem with the truly poor paying zero tax. I do have a problem with deadbeats sucking off the government teet.

The middle class has always and will always carry more than their fair share of the tax burden.

The top 1% earn about 20% of the income yet pay 40% of all Federal income taxes. When you add in state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, excise taxes, and medicare taxes they easily hand over close to 60% of the income to the government

The top 50% pay 97% of all Federal income taxes

The bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%

Dems now have a tax code where a tiny minority are paying a huge majority of the taxes - and they want more

The so called rich are NOT a renewable money source as the liberals in MD, CA, and NY have found out. The producers are fleeing and those states now get ZERO dollars in taxes from them

[darin]

I find it reprehensible when folks who PAY $0 in federal taxes get a TAX REFUND. Happens millions of times every year.

There's one other tax that comes back - the death tax. Anyone care to justify the gov't STEALING 50% of every estate valued at more than...what was it, $1M? That, my friends, is unethical. It's immoral. It's a crime.

[red states rule]

Here is the bottom line of the coming tax increases if Dems have their way. Once and for all, the Bush tax cuts were not for the "rich"

They for anyone who earns a paycheck




In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

http://atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0umpNGN9l




and these tax increases do NOT include the tax increases in Obamacare - so Jan 1, 2011 brings ANOTHER SET of tax increases on nearly everyone

[red states rule]

I'm all for taxing the wealthy, but it's all mental masturbation.

BO, GW, nobody ain't gonna do it.

The Dems PR staff (the liberal media) do not get it either. CUT SPENDING and you will lower the deficits. It is amazing what Dems are doing with the money they are already taking from us - and they expect us to pay MORE

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZuytytZu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZuytytZu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[red states rule]

I find it reprehensible when folks who PAY $0 in federal taxes get a TAX REFUND. Happens millions of times every year.

There's one other tax that comes back - the death tax. Anyone care to justify the gov't STEALING 50% of every estate valued at more than...what was it, $1M? That, my friends, is unethical. It's immoral. It's a crime.

It is called the "Earned Income Tax Credit" There is nothing "earned" about it and it another classic example of redistribution of wealth

[revelarts]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WVQei_b5sFw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WVQei_b5sFw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Mr. P]

Shocked that CNN would broadcast that. I guess they're all seeing the truth now.

[red states rule]

One of the best articles I have read in awhile




snip

When President Kennedy cut the highest income tax rate to 70% from 91%, revenues also rose. Income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.9% of GDP in 1968 from 1.3% in 1960. Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.

Or perhaps you'd like to see how the rich paid less in taxes under the bipartisan tax rate increases of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter? Between 1968 and 1981 the top 1% of income earners reduced their total income tax payments to 1.5% of GDP from 1.9% of GDP.

And then there's the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity. Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.

President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well. The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.

Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html?m od=djemEditorialPage_h