let all of the tax cuts excpire

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

just heard Gibbs on the news state that Obama was "opposed to the government borrowing 700 billion" to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper wage earners....

It's about $700 billion over 10 years. That's for the top 2 percent; of earners I believe...(what's wrong with the percent sign?). Obama can spend that in one trip overseas...

but what about the other 98 percent ?

the total cost of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is how much the government will have to "borrow"...according to Obama's logic, if we renew all of the Bush tax rates....so we can either pay it now or pay it later(or our children) with interest....

I think the 98 percent are greedy...they can live without a muffler...PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE

don't renew the Bush tax rates...I don't want Obama borrowing any more money!!!!

sorry Jimmy

You (and Obama) are assuming that as tax rates change, nothing else changes.

Hogwash. The fact is, when Bush cut tax rates for everyone, tax revenues (meaning tax dollars collected) went up. Why? Because if done smartly, tax cuts can be stimulative.

If increasing tax rates always meant more tax revenue collected, why are all the European nations on the brink of bankruptcy? Whay are states like CT and Mass (with high tax rates) so broke? Because higher tax rates can cause the economy to retract.

I believe in paying my fair share.

You (incorrcetly in my opinion) think the solution to our problem is to raise taxes. In my opinion, we need to cut spending. As the brilliant Gov Christie from New Jersey says "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem".

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why? Because if done smartly, tax cuts can be stimulative.

Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.

I look at it as more of an issue with the spending we've had over the last 6 years.

If you cut out the fat you need less tax revenue. I don’t think anyone can argue (Dem, Ind, Rep) that there is too much money wasted in Government. More tax revenue adds fuel to that fire. It doesn’t make people look at the real problems and doesn’t make them look at areas where there is too much waste. It enables status quo and usually more spending.

A very small example: The town I live in had a question a few years ago on a School budget issue and the School committee said “If we do not get more revenue from the town, teachers will lose jobs. “ Citizens said no new taxes and basically told the school committee to figure it out. Miraculously, the school system was able to figure it out. They decided to stagger the start times of schools so that not all schools opened and closed at the same time everyday. This meant a reduction in 2/3 the amount of school buses need. (one bus could handle 3 routes vs 1 route b/c kids didn’t need to all be picked up and dropped off at school at the same time). Anyway, this savings (near $1 million) was able to cover the shortfall and no teachers were laid off. If taxes were increased, this solution would not have happened and taxes would have been raised.

Raising taxes is the lazy and easy way out in my opinion, we need to look at all the waste and make everything lean again. When that happens, we will not need as much tax revenue.

I’m not an account or economist, I’m a sales guy so what do I know anyway.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.

I'm no economics expert, either...

"we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper... "

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed. It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected. The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed. It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected. The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

I'm not too sure on the exact numbers, but I wonder if fighting two wars had anything to do with it. As the principle driving force to go to war, those costs are on him.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm not too sure on the exact numbers, but I wonder if fighting two wars had anything to do with it. As the principle driving force to go to war, those costs are on him.

Are you saying that if we had not spent the money on the wars, the banking meltdown would not have been a spending problem? I suppose, then, you could say that if it had not been for the TARP the wars would not have been a spending problem. The wars did come first, and the economy was booming while the war expenditures were in place. Wars happen and they have to be payed for. Argument on whether the wars are "legitimate" is another matter, and one that you won't find agreement on. Now, under this new administration, we not only have the two wars, we have massive stimulus much greater than the TARP (which is supposedly being paid back and not as expensive as initially).

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper... "

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed.

I'm not sure I see the connection...

It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected.

Hmmm, see attached chart.

The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

Wow, you were a hair away from blaming George Bush until you snapped back to your senses. I'd bring up that whole notion of the "ownership society" but I promised myself I wouldn't go there.

-spence

[Fly Rod]

I thought that part of the American Revolution was fought over taxation, amongest other things. Once the Bush taxes go away we will be taxed and taxed again. Both the state and feds want to increase the tax on gasoline, capital gaines will almost double. Starting in 2011 if you sell your home you will pay 3.8 per cent of the sale price to the feds.

Interesting to note that your president wants to curtail wage increases to federal employees for two years. I agree.

Your president wants to exclude military personal. I agree. Married military are on welfare and food stamps now.

Your president also is excluding congressmen. I do not agree they are part of the federal government. They are eating caviar

Those who are on social have been cut off from a 5.8 percent cost of living increase for two years because of your president. The average social check is eleven hundred and some change closer to 1200 so we will round it to 1200. That is 1200 x 12 months = 14,400 x 5.8 = 835.20 of which the average social retiree is out per year.

And your president feels that congress should be able to get a pay raise. There is something wrong with this.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You (and Obama) are assuming that as tax rates change, nothing else changes.

Hogwash. The fact is, when Bush cut tax rates for everyone, tax revenues (meaning tax dollars collected) went up. Why? Because if done smartly, tax cuts can be stimulative.

If increasing tax rates always meant more tax revenue collected, why are all the European nations on the brink of bankruptcy? Whay are states like CT and Mass (with high tax rates) so broke? Because higher tax rates can cause the economy to retract.

I believe in paying my fair share.

You (incorrcetly in my opinion) think the solution to our problem is to raise taxes. In my opinion, we need to cut spending. As the brilliant Gov Christie from New Jersey says "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem".

I get it Jim, just playing with the current Obama logic a bit ...if we can't afford the money that would be collected from the top 2 percent and will have to borrow to replace it.... then we certainly can't afford and will have to borrow what we won't be collecting from the 98 percent if we extend their tax rates.....maybe "it's the spending stupid"......

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You (incorrcetly in my opinion) think the solution to our problem is to raise taxes. In my opinion, we need to cut spending. As the brilliant Gov Christie from New Jersey says "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem".

Bingo! In NJ Christie IS cutting Spending Across The Board and no one is exempt.

Every NJ resident has to tighten their belt no matter who they are and he won't take no for an answer.

It would take a President of his charcter to straighten out our economy, imho.

But that would mean sacrafice by ALL Americans to give up their Nanny Addiction
and unfortunately I don't see that many that would be willing to do so.