Higher Federal Taxation under Obama...

[Dutchcedar]

When you're done with your ODS and oDS, let me know.

You really gotta get over your fabricated self, dude.

[BlackDragon24]

Are you talkin' about Boosh? You can quit the eggshell walk. If you're gonna blame him for sheet, just don't make it current, 'cause he ain't the boss no more. That's the idiocy. Not the man, but the deference to him for all present failures.

That's funny, because whenever I do mention his name I get hit with the Blame Boosh card, whether directly aimed my way or not. Especially when its relevant, like, he and his republican leadership passed tax cuts that put us into hock in the first place and set them to expire in 2010 so we wouldn't keep going into hock. Is that BDS or is that just stating the facts?

Now if you want to make a case that the democrats have enacted a whole bunch of deficit-spending legislation since they've been in office and that deficit spending may now prevent the passing of a budget that will extend the tax cuts? Then yeah you've at least got a legimate beef. I won't argue with you about other taxes that are gonna go up like the estate tax or the alternative minimum tax because I am either for them or don't know enough about them to even try to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

But to suggest, as you have, that this is all on Obama, especially after he has introduced a budget proposal 6 months ago that address these expiring tax cuts, is just silly. Perhaps your enthusiasm/anger should be directed at members of congress who need to put their heads together and give us a budget that prevents the cuts from expiring. You could start by asking your republican leaders to give us a budget proposal with actual numbers in it.

[Dutchcedar]

That's funny, because whenever I do mention his name I get hit with the Blame Boosh card, whether directly aimed my way or not. Especially when its relevant, like, he and his republican leadership passed tax cuts that put us into hock in the first place and set them to expire in 2010 so we wouldn't keep going into hock. Is that BDS or is that just stating the facts?

Its BDS. And it certainly not stating the facts. After the tax cuts were enacted, federal tax receipts went UP. Something like 40-some percent and $750 billion, if my memory serves well. So your claim that the tax cuts put us in hock is a crock. Collecting more money is not being put into hock, as you assert.

Tax cuts inspire business and generate tax flow. Tax hikes creates disincentives to business and reduce tax flows. You should know this very well after leaving California.

Now if you want to make a case that the democrats have enacted a whole bunch of deficit-spending legislation since they've been in office and that deficit spending may now prevent the passing of a budget that will extend the tax cuts? Then yeah you've at least got a legimate beef. I won't argue with you about other taxes that are gonna go up like the estate tax or the alternative minimum tax because I am either for them or don't know enough about them to even try to sound like I know what I'm talking about.

Again, the idea that raising tax rates will result in higher tax receipts is a crock. See JFK, Reagan and Bush. For the counter effect, see Carter.

But to suggest, as you have, that this is all on Obama, especially after he has introduced a budget proposal 6 months ago that address these expiring tax cuts, is just silly. Perhaps your enthusiasm/anger should be directed at members of congress who need to put their heads together and give us a budget that prevents the cuts from expiring. You could start by asking your republican leaders to give us a budget proposal with actual numbers in it.

He's the leader. OK, maybe not, but he's the guy in the big chair. He's not pushing his budget proposal and he's not pushing his congressional minions to make a budget.

The talk now is that they will try to keep these tax hikes quiet until after the mid-term elections. No need to wonder why.

[Dutchcedar]

A thought... mentioning Boosh may be different than blaming Boosh and might get a different reaction. Getting the Blame Boosh card might be the expected result when a liberal blames Boosh with fuzzy math and false history.

[BlackDragon24]

Really Dutch? I call your facts a crock. And I call your history revisionist at best. The tax cuts drove up the debt/deficit.....fact.

[Dutchcedar]

I Googled around to check my memory and its not far off:

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a "surprise windfall."

[quote]Later, the writer gets to a snag in your argument...

Worse still, Mr. Obama's $3.8 trillion budget for 2011 would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, imposing new prosperity-killing taxes on businesses, investors and individuals. The president would do better to follow his predecessor and embrace the winning strategy of supply-side tax cuts. He even might find that Americans would welcome this new story line. After all, liberal economic fairy tales are growing tiresome, even for Massachusians.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...deral-revenue/

[Dutchcedar]

Really Dutch? I call your facts a crock. And I call your history revisionist at best. The tax cuts drove up the debt/deficit.....fact.

Spending drove up the deficit. The tax receipts went up.

[BlackDragon24]

Fair enough Dutch, I'll concede that the tax cuts led to in an increase in tax receipts. What I won't concede is the last point where it says that Obama's budget will allow them to expire, as I think I've cited plenty of sources that debunk that myth....the only people "getting the shaft" will be the highest earners.

Here's the big question, the elephant in the room so to speak before the elections. Will republicans allow the deficit to expand up to $1 trillion dollars to vote for tax cuts that they originally implemented 9 years ago? Because of they stay on the course they are on right now, I don't see it happening.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...eficit-resolve

Extension of Bush tax cuts could test Republicans' deficit reduction resolve
By Jay Heflin - 06/27/10 03:15 PM ET

After Senate Republicans used the increasing deficit as an excuse to shoot down Democratic attempts to extend unemployment benefits, Democrats are questioning if that commitment to fiscal discipline will continue when it comes time to extend the Bush tax cuts.

“I will be curious to see if their new found fiscal religion that everything must be paid for is something they stick to as long as debt and deficits are a problem,” a leadership aide told The Hill. “Or is [it] just an election-eve conversion and will be dropped as soon as convenient.”

Congress passed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 when Republicans controlled both chambers -- much to the chagrin of many Democrats. Those tax breaks, which benefit a large swath of the economy, are slated to expire in January.

Democrats want to extend the cuts that benefit the middle-class, as well as protect them from the alternative minimum tax.

The estate tax is also an issue. The estate tax lapsed on Jan. 1 after the Senate failed to extend it last year. If lawmakers do nothing, the tax will resume in 2011 with a 55 percent rate on estates above about $1.2 million, which is much higher than rate paid under the Bush tax cuts. Democrats want an estate tax but not as high as the 55 percent level.

Following through on this goal will be expensive. A permanent extension of these tax breaks would easily surpass the $1 trillion mark over a 10-year period.

“There’s a very real possibility now that they’ll only extend [them] temporarily in order to buy some time to figure out how to reform the overall budget,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

But even a temporary extension of these tax breaks is fiscally daunting. Sources estimate that a two-year extension of the tax cuts Democrats deem a priority would cost more than $250 billion.

Budget writers have protected these measures from pay-as-you-go rules, which means their cost will not be offset by tax increases or spending cuts and will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.

Republicans on Thursday refused to support an extender bill that added a mere $33 billion to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the deficit will hit $1.5 trillion this year.

Some Republicans contend there is a distinction between opposing legislation that extends spending measures, like the extender bill, and voting against tax increases that would negatively affect working families, even if both proposals add to the red ink in Washington.

“Allowing Americans to keep more of their money through tax rate reductions is an entirely separate issue,” said Ryan Patmintra, a spokesman for Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.). “If our hope is to get Americans back to work, wouldn’t it make sense to leave capital with the small businesses and taxpayers who actually create jobs?”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who joined the Republicans in opposing two of the three extenders packages that were presented before the Senate, sees things differently. He suggests that before moving forward on the tax cuts Democratic leaders take a hard look at how their extension will affect the deficit if they are not paid for.

“Senator Lieberman has made it very clear that the national debt is unsustainable and it must be reduced both by curbing spending and considering additional revenues, which would include re-examining the tax cuts that were implemented several years ago,” said Marshall Wittman, Lieberman’s communication director.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined Republicans in opposing all three of the extenders bills. His spokesperson told The Hill that his boss would comment on the Bush tax cuts after he sees how Democrats intend to extend them.

There’s no formal time frame for voting on the extension but Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who runs the House Democrats' campaign arm and serves as an assistant to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told The Hill earlier this year he expects the vote to come before the November election.

Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist with the Concord Coalition, believes Republicans will look hypocritical supporting the Bush tax cuts, but the strong political will to extend them will overpower any pushback for making a paradoxical vote.

“Just because we’re seeing a lot of difficulty in passing the extenders bill because of sensible concern for the deficit doesn’t mean that we’re going to see the same kind of script play out for the Bush tax cuts,” she told The Hill.

“I think an extension of the tax cuts have been given a free pass already because President Obama has said we don’t have to pay for their extension,” she said, adding, “It’s sort of like everybody in charge has said it’s okay to not pay for [them].”

So here's the big question for ya.....who are you going to blame if the republicans don't stand with the democrats to extend the tax cuts?

And again, good luck to your countrymen today in the WC....Me thinks they might take the whole thing

[BlackDragon24]

More on how the tax cut expiration is probably a good thing:

Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ If I'm reading that chart correctly, it shows a loss of revenue from the tax cuts. Again, I don't see how an increase in revenue creates a deficit. I do understand that increasing spending does. I think that chart is misrepresenting reality and confusing taxation with spending as is so often the case when pushing the tax and spend agenda. I'm not an advocate of increasing government spending from either side of the aisle (and think my posts over the years support that, regardless of party).

We can't tax and spend to success as a country any more than individuals can. In short, it simply doesn't add up.

And yeah, thanks for the nod to the orange shirted soccer studs. I was in Holland visiting family when they won ('80 or '82?) and the celebration made the Raider celebration at Jack London Square after their Super Bowl win look like grandma's lunch party. So I'll predict that if they win it all, the Dutch Army will once again have to close down Amsterdam at about three in the morning. It was the largest celebration I've ever participated in, by a factor of at least ten.

I wish 'em luck.

[BlackDragon24]

^^^ If I'm reading that chart correctly, it shows a loss of revenue from the tax cuts. Again, I don't see how an increase in revenue creates a deficit. I do understand that increasing spending does. I think that chart is misrepresenting reality and confusing taxation with spending as is so often the case when pushing the tax and spend agenda. I'm not an advocate of increasing government spending from either side of the aisle (and think my posts over the years support that, regardless of party).

We can't tax and spend to success as a country any more than individuals can. In short, it simply doesn't add up.

The main problem I see is that the CBO is projecting a $1 trillion deficit increase over the next 10 years at a minimum if we keep the tax cuts alive. That's if nothing else changes. So I'm trying to see how this would work, and not much is popping into my brain. We have to take on faith that the tax cuts which have been in existence for almost 10 years will somehow stimulate the economy when they haven't really stimulated the economy. We may have seen a temporary growth in tax revenue but I think we an certainly agree that a lot of the supposed "wealth" that was generated during those years was at best temporary and at worst was completely misrepresented....the 2008 crash taught us that lesson.

And yeah, thanks for the nod to the orange shirted soccer studs. I was in Holland visiting family when they won ('80 or '82?) and the celebration made the Raider celebration at Jack London Square after their Super Bowl win look like grandma's lunch party. So I'll predict that if they win it all, the Dutch Army will once again have to close down Amsterdam at about three in the morning. It was the largest celebration I've ever participated in, by a factor of at least ten.

I wish 'em luck.

I can't even imagine. The Dutch know how to party .

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ It see it like this... cut tax rates and the economy reacts. Raise tax rates and the economy reacts. Here's the rub. Straight line calculations show that increasing rates increases tax receipts. But the economy reacts differently. The economy grows if and only if investments can be made with expectation of profits. Taxes diminish that opportunity exponentially. So when Carter raised rates, shit happened and when JFK, Reagan and Bush lowered rates, different shit happened. Neither reaction fell in line with straight line calculations. Carter brought in less money and the other three brought in more. Obambi is bringing in a lot less than he expected. And receipts from taxes in his tenure will continue to plummet, especially if he raises rates. If he only raises rates on say, the people who earn a million bucks or more, he'll collect less from that group. They, like me, have options that exclude the collection of excess taxes by the feds.

An example. The federal government can raise the rate of my taxation but they will not increase revenue from me. I will (Already have) react in a protective manner that ensures they don't get more from me than I feel is reasonable. Period. And so will most everyone else. When they cut my rates, I feel motivated and am willing to take on more work, utilize the resources of others and the federal government in turn, gets mo money from Dutch and his cohorts. Like many others, I'll just wait 'em out, 'cause we've been through similar sheet before and sooner or later, we'll get back to sanity.

Look at the death tax. They wanna collect taxes from estates worth more than a million bucks. Do you or anyone else think those people won't react in a protective manner? Maybe they catch a few paydays from accidental deaths to people caught with their pants down, but for the most part, people prepare. It was this topic and Obambi that spurred revisions to my own Mother's estate.

Kinda like that rule in physics... every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

You watch. The Democrats will try to ride this out until after the elections and then they'll raise everyone's rates. And collect less money.

[BlackDragon24]

^^^ It see it like this... cut tax rates and the economy reacts. Raise tax rates and the economy reacts. Here's the rub. Straight line calculations show that increasing rates increases tax receipts. But the economy reacts differently. The economy grows if and only if investments can be made with expectation of profits. Taxes diminish that opportunity exponentially. So when Carter raised rates, shit happened and when JFK, Reagan and Bush lowered rates, different shit happened. Neither reaction fell in line with straight line calculations. Carter brought in less money and the other three brought in more. Obambi is bringing in a lot less than he expected. And receipts from taxes in his tenure will continue to plummet, especially if he raises rates. If he only raises rates on say, the people who earn a million bucks or more, he'll collect less from that group. They, like me, have options that exclude the collection of excess taxes by the feds.

An example. The federal government can raise the rate of my taxation but they will not increase revenue from me. I will (Already have) react in a protective manner that ensures they don't get more from me than I feel is reasonable. Period. And so will most everyone else. When they cut my rates, I feel motivated and am willing to take on more work, utilize the resources of others and the federal government in turn, gets mo money from Dutch and his cohorts. Like many others, I'll just wait 'em out, 'cause we've been through similar sheet before and sooner or later, we'll get back to sanity.

Look at the death tax. They wanna collect taxes from estates worth more than a million bucks. Do you or anyone else think those people won't react in a protective manner? Maybe they catch a few paydays from accidental deaths to people caught with their pants down, but for the most part, people prepare. It was this topic and Obambi that spurred revisions to my own Mother's estate.

Kinda like that rule in physics... every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

You watch. The Democrats will try to ride this out until after the elections and then they'll raise everyone's rates. And collect less money.

I agree with you in principle Dutch.

I think where we disagree is that once you cut taxes, the wealthy people who aren't getting taxed as much will then suddenly find their philanthropic side and use that money for the better of our economy as a whole rather than their own pocketbooks.

Can we count on the folks who have the money and are supposed to create jobs to actually create American jobs and spend the money in the American economy?

I don't think they will.

[Dutchcedar]

I agree with you in principle Dutch.

I think where we disagree is that once you cut taxes, the wealthy people who aren't getting taxed as much will then suddenly find their philanthropic side and use that money for the better of our economy as a whole rather than their own pocketbooks.

Philanthropy? I don't see any economy growing through philanthropy. Greed is a better motivator. Philanthropy would eventually dry out when the money runs out.

Can we count on the folks who have the money and are supposed to create jobs to actually create American jobs and spend the money in the American economy?

I don't think they will.

Great question. When the American economy taxes corporations at rates higher than even Western Europe (the case today), I would agree with you. They'll make the jobs elsewhere. Its a big world.

Look at California as the example and predictor for the future of the United States. Tax the crap out of people and they do business elsewhere. Yeah, California gets a bigger piece of everyone's pie, but pretty soon the pies are tarts. Do you want to cut up a big arse home-made apple pie or a frozen apple turnover from 7-11? California ain't doin' so well on those 7-11 treats.

America's headed in the same path as California. Eliminating Boosh's tax cuts will be just one of the steps toward that end.

[BlackDragon24]

Philanthropy? I don't see any economy growing through philanthropy. Greed is a better motivator. Philanthropy would eventually dry out when the money runs out. Great question. When the American economy taxes corporations at rates higher than even Western Europe (the case today), I would agree with you. They'll make the jobs elsewhere. Its a big world.

Look at California as the example and predictor for the future of the United States. Tax the crap out of people and they do business elsewhere. Yeah, California gets a bigger piece of everyone's pie, but pretty soon the pies are tarts. Do you want to cut up a big arse home-made apple pie or a frozen apple turnover from 7-11? California ain't doin' so well on those 7-11 treats.

America's headed in the same path as California. Eliminating Boosh's tax cuts will be just one of the steps toward that end.

We cut taxes in 2001 and companies still took their jobs overseas. There was a net increase of 3,000,000 jobs in the Bush Cheney administration. Compare that to 22 million during Clinton Gore (at the higher rate).

And on that note, GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL 1-0 Dutch!