Will You Miss The Bush Tax Cuts???

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Maybe we should have a "useless" tax. You know, pay more tax if you are not doing something of REAL value. Sports stars, singers, actors, talking heads, elected officials, all pay 60% on the first 10 million and 100% on everything above that. None of them do anything worth a flip.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I get sick and tire hearing people say the rich dont pay enough taxes especially the rich democrats like George Soros , the Hollywood left, Warren Buffett , etc

Whom in the Soapbox has said that? Especially in this particular thread.
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
You seem to be defending the idea of raising taxes on the rich , taxes should be cut for eveyone I dont care how much someone makes and do away with the stupid death tax
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Well unfortunately the Flat Tax, VAT Tax, ridding us of Income Tax, National Sales Tax and the "Useless" Tax isn't on the table to be discussed. What is being discussed is the Bush Tax Cuts and if they are going to let them expire, extend them all or extend all but the top 2%, do the Democrats have a plan, if so will they enact it and when?

All the other things you bring up other than the question at hand is just noise that isn't adding anything to the conversation. Kind of just what Palin did when asked the question by Wallace.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
You seem to be defending the idea of raising taxes on the rich , taxes should be cut for eveyone I dont care how much someone makes and do away with the stupid death tax

I haven't defended anything but the facts. Do I like the proposal from the Democrats, yes but I do not fall into the 2% so that is easy for me to accept.

Look, these tax cuts were written by Bush and passed by a Republican Congress with an expiration date on them for a reason. They were not permanent because they were worried about deficits, these tax cuts are not paid for, they add to the deficit.

I am actually on the fence on just letting them expire and start paying down the deficit. Do a little searching and read about Reagan's tax policies and tell me what you think.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Deconstructing conservative media's misleading claims about tax increases for small businesses

August 06, 2010 1:33 pm ET by Christine Schwen

Link: Deconstructing conservative media's misleading claims about tax increases for small businesses | Media Matters for America

As we get closer to the expiration of President Bush's tax cuts, the conservative media is working overtime confuse the public into swallowing yet another round of tax cuts for the rich. Their excuse du jour? If we don't extend the tax cuts, non-rich small business owners everywhere will suffer, ending job growth. But the reality couldn't be more clear: as a Tax Policy Center recently demonstrated, the vast majority of small businesses will not be affected by Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $200,000.

Take Rush Limbaugh, who claimed on July 27 that "most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 a year ... A 40 percent tax increase and [President Obama is] out there today talking about how we got to get money into the hands of small businesses."

And Karl Rove, who's turned spinning the Bush tax cuts into good news for the poor into something of a hobby recently, further advanced the narrative, saying letting the tax cuts expire for those making over $200,000 would "be affecting a lot of small businesses," adding that "50 percent of all the income received by small businesses will be taxed at a higher rate" if Bush's tax cuts for the rich expire. He also stated that the proposal would be "killing the incubator of new jobs in America."

Most "profits pay taxes" in the highest tax brackets? "Fifty percent of all income" will be affected? Limbaugh and Rove are working overtime here to try and convince people that "most" small businesses will be affected by letting these tax cuts expire, without actually saying it. So, why aren't they saying it outright?

Because it's not even a little bit true. As the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) noted Wednesday: "[N]ext year about 36 million taxpayers will report income" using the returns most small businesses use to report income, but "Only about 900,000, or 2.5 percent, would pay higher rates if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire for those in the top brackets."

The TPC went on to note that while that 2.5 percent did very well, earning "almost 44 percent of all the business income included in individual returns," the "average positive business income reported on 1040s is less than $40,000," a far cry from the $200,000 it would take for the business income to be taxed at higher rates under Obama's plan.

Three percent, it should be noted, is much less than 50 percent, and does not qualify as "most."

That's not to say that some people reporting business income wouldn't face higher taxes, it's just that those people are very wealthy, and are not necessarily engaged in the sorts of careers most of us think of as "small businesses":

On the other hand, some reporting business income would face higher taxes if the top rates returned to their pre-2001 levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent, up from today's 33 percent and 35 percent. Ninety percent of high-earners who receive business income will get at least half of their AGI from this source in 2011. A half million top-bracket filers will report net positive business income averaging more than $700,000. These are the people--not the mom-and-pop business owners-- who would be hit by the expiration of the top bracket tax cuts.

Who are they? Many are doctors, lawyers, and investors. Others are very successful entrepreneurs who may own a chain of grocery stores or dry cleaners, or a lot of real estate. Do they fit your image of a small business owner? That, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder.
Further, contrary to Rove's suggestion that letting the tax cuts expire for the small percentage of people reporting business income who are wealthy enough to see their taxes increase would be "killing the incubator of new jobs," The TPC noted that some research suggests those increases may actually encourage the growth of small businesses:

And now to the bottom line: Would raising their taxes be a job-killer? That is less clear. Some research suggests that higher tax rates actually encourage small business formation. Why? Because these firms allow their owners to shelter lots of income, behavior that is more lucrative when rates are higher. Other research suggests that higher rates do retard investment and hiring by existing firms. Donald Bruce and Tami Gurley-Calvez, who study small business for the Hudson Institute, have written a nice review of all these issues.

While we are not certain about what higher taxes will mean for small business, we know these firms will suffer if they are unable to access capital. And to the degree that ever-greater government borrowing makes it harder for these firms to raise money, they and their employees will pay a price. That is the other consequence of keeping taxes low for high earners, which will cost nearly $700 billion over the next decade.

Wow, it's almost as if the right-wing media are trying to confuse the issue on purpose...
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
But the reality couldn't be more clear: as a Tax Policy Center recently demonstrated, the vast majority of small businesses will not be affected by Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $200,000.

That's a lie. Downstream, the less money in the system for people to spend, it affects people below that income.

One blaring example is the luxury tax and how that slammed the large boat industry. That was supposed to only affected the "rich" but it put a lot of people out of work and ruined an industry.

OVM, no company "pays" taxes, it is passed on to the consumer - the end user. If they pass a VAT tax, the economy will tank because it is not a planned economy yet and we are no where near where we should be to absorb any new tax forms. The need for a VAT tax can not by any means be justified by the way.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
How can anyone confuse an issue that is already be lied about by everyone involved at every level? The goofy news is spinning it their way. The Dumb-O-Crats their way and the ReBumLicans their way. Who cares about the talking heads? Be it Rush or Randy?

We are WAY over taxed. While this particular discussion might be about letting cuts expire (raising taxes) but talk flows. Too bad our useless congress is NOT doing anything responsible and LOWERING taxes DRASTICALLY!! They don't WANT to. Why? They use the tax code to control use. It is power to them.

Different rates for different people is a very socialist/power monger idea used in Europe for years by the incestious royal families and their puppet governments to keep people from getting ahead and gaining power.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Different rates for different people is a very socialist/power monger idea used in Europe for years by the incestious royal families and their puppet governments to keep people from getting ahead and gaining power.

Well I guess the United States of America has been a Socialist, power monger, Royal Family, European country since 1862, who knew.

Full Article here: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well I guess the United States of America has been a Socialist, power monger, Royal Family, European country since 1862, who knew.

Full Article here: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

Yep, we have been for YEARS. It is not working here just as it is not working in Europe. I know the history. We are very much tied to the "old money" in Europe. Those in power want to stay there and increase their power at OUR expense. I have a hard time understanding why you agree with this stuff. Maybe you could explain it to me. Equal RATES does not mean equal tax payments. Those who earn more, pay more, even if the rate is the same.

A national sale tax is even more fair. Rich people buy more.

I want to curtail the power of the Federal government. Put the power back where it was intended to be, with US. Getting rid of the income tax is a GREAT first step.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I haven't defended anything but the facts. Do I like the proposal from the Democrats, yes but I do not fall into the 2% so that is easy for me to accept.

Look, these tax cuts were written by Bush and passed by a Republican Congress with an expiration date on them for a reason. They were not permanent because they were worried about deficits, these tax cuts are not paid for, they add to the deficit.

I am actually on the fence on just letting them expire and start paying down the deficit. Do a little searching and read about Reagan's tax policies and tell me what you think.

The Bush tax cuts were passed with an expiration date because they didn't have enough votes without some Dems. Letting just the 2% have higher taxes will be bad for the economy and in the long run will be worse for the deficit.Why Did Bush Tax Cuts Expire? - Video - FoxNews.com
 

jimby82

Veteran Expediter
I may not miss the Bush tax cuts, but I do miss common sense. There is a quick and easy solution to the entire budget deficit problem, if someone would just have the guts to put it in place:

Stop spending money!



Why is that such a hard concept for our government to grasp? Are they really that Stupid? Its like the entire bureaucracy is some twisted, deviant Rube Goldberg contraption, h*** bent for leather on spending us into oblivion.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Agree Jimby. They need to put that da*n credit card down.:D

WE, the PEOPLE, need to take away their "monopoly money" It is LONG past time for a good, old fashioned, TAX REVOLT!!! STOP GIVING IT TO THEM!! VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!

They have PROVEN beyond any doubt that they are NOT able or willing to live within their means, or ours for that matter. The power MUST be taken from them. They are OUT OF CONTROL!!
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Letting just the 2% have higher taxes will be bad for the economy and in the long run will be worse for the deficit.Why Did Bush Tax Cuts Expire? - Video - FoxNews.com

C'mon man, Karl Rove, Fox News, do you have any other reputable sources to back up what you are saying?

The Bush tax cuts were passed with an expiration date because they didn't have enough votes without some Dems.

They didn't need any Democrat votes, Congress was split 50-50 with Bush in office and Cheney the Vice Pres. he was the tie breaker. The Sunset provision was used because you cannot significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten year term.

Here is another good source on America's tax history:
U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

Pay special attention to the Reagan years.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
OVM, leave the Canadian/European mindset for a moment and learn about why we took the approach to the entire economics of the country differently.

Once we became a country, our approach was to allow individual freedoms flourish and we used exports and imports for a small tax funding of the federal government, not funding through the labor of the individual. We cast off the idea that we were subjects king or queen and used our labor to forge ahead in the world.

In 1862, we had the war between the states and the feds fell short of money so we ended up with a tax. It was pretty much unconstitutional and when it was brought up again, it was shot down by the supreme court. This led us to several attempts to change the constitution so the feds can tax our labor, and under Taft, it was proposed and passed by the congress.

Since then it has been used to control behaviors, control manufacturing and control the economy. The system is punitive, it actually punishes those who want to achieve while rewarding those who want to just be.

Since we do have to deal with these taxes, there is this mindset that we should be like other countries. Europe paid for their monarchy and their wars through high taxes, for centuries. The people who look at the EU and think it is working, miss the point that money is finite and their economy is not free at all and never was but in many ways is a planned economy (soviet style). It is still working like it was 300 years ago.

The fair tax can work.

It is simple, you buy something, you pay taxes on it that are federal taxes. The percentage of the tax is 23% and that is pretty much what we actually run on as a nation. With the fair tax, the other taxes are stripped away and there is an adjustment period where prices will change. BUT because our present tax system is not just a punitive system, it is also experimented on with every congress, there is not one reason why we can't change and try something different.

What the fair tax does for me is simple, it lifts the burden of taxes that my wife and I have to pay. Now I can take that money and pay my bills, plan my business and not worry about tax liabilities. Instead of planning around the taxes, now I can risk the money by investing it.

It is the freedom to now invest that money that matters. If I can take that money and say invest it in Ford, then Ford benefits. If I can take that money and invest into a business that employs 10 people, then it benefits those people and myself. The key is that the money should not be taxed as labor but until it is spent on a product because the overall benefits to the economy and the country outstrips the benefit of taxing at the source.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Our tax system should do the following:

Limit the power of the Federal government

Empower the People to advance

Encourage self-sufficency

Discourage laziness

The system we have today does NONE of the above.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
That guy is 180 degrees off on taxes and the mosque. I imagine he's just as wrong on pretty much everything. Reading something like that is good now and then as a reminder of how stupid many people are and how desperately we need to better educate anyone who has the privilege of living in this nation.
 
Top