Tax cuts should end. (Did that get your attention?)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Imagine that.  More millionaires who understand reality as Buffet, Gates and Bogle have for so long.  Reality of the horrendous damage the Bush tax cuts did and continue doing to this country.  <Insert here> the previous discussions about how the tax cuts have not benefited the economy in any way - jobs or otherwise, and in fact have hurt the economy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101119/ts_yblog_theticket/millionaires-to-obama-tax-us

[bokworker]

Provide a line on the tax form for "additional governmental donation" and be done with it...

[RecycleMichael]

The Treasury says that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Which would be better, giving the wealthiest more money or lowering the National Debt? 

[guido911]

The Treasury says that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Which would be better, giving the wealthiest more money or lowering the National Debt?  

I do not care about tax cuts for the rich, just lower mine, and mine alone.  

[Conan71]

The Treasury says that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.7 trillion over ten years. Which would be better, giving the wealthiest more money or lowering the National Debt?  

Cut spending by $370 bln per year and it will be a wash.  Did they not teach simple math to the eggheads in D.C.? 

Honestly, I think it amounts to a 3% increase.  I really could care less since I'm relatively unaffected by it, but I get incredibly pissed off when people make extending tax cuts sound like a hand out to rich people because libs keep mischaracterizing what this is.  It's not GIVING anyone money.  It's allowing people to keep more of the money they EARNED.  Something the entitlement slaves libs pander to can't possibly understand so that's why they keep playing on class warfare trying to create resentment where it doesn't belong.  We need to be angry that the government keeps consuming more and more money, not angry that people would like to be able to keep more of the fruits of their productivity.

So long as the money is available, it will be spent.  The idea it will be used for debt reduction is a fantasy, RM.

And, FWIW, they have simply talked about extending the cuts for two years, not ten.

[RecycleMichael]

These were sold to the American public that they would stimulate the economy. Give the richest 3% more money and they will create jobs and make rainbows.

Guess what? It didn't happen. The richest just got richer. That is all.

I would rather lower the national debt than to extend tax breaks to a gategory of rich that 98% of all Americans will never see. But I guess you conservatives never really did care about the national debt.

The difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats embrace taxes to pay for their programs, the republicans just make their kids pay for their spending.

[we vs us]

Class traitor and gazillionaire Warren Buffet had an interesting interview with Christianne Amanpour this weekend in which he essentially stated the obvious:  that the rich have never had it so good (though I take issue with that from an historical standpoint); and that they should most definitely be taxed more.  Another interesting snippet:

"When Amanpour pointed to critics' claims that the very wealthy need tax cuts to spur business and capitalism, Buffett replied, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

Also:  Warren Buffet in praise of the Federal Gov's response to the crash. 

[Conan71]

Brutally raise corporate taxes either as a net rate increase or eliminate accounting gimmicks like depreciation & amortization and cut off tax write-offs for luxury corporate retreats, complany cars, aircraft, etc. and see how bad Buffet, Gates, et al scream.  People like these spend massive amounts of money on tax avoidance and their corporate empires depend on tax breaks to hire people and make a profit.

If Microsoft or Geico were to look at Tulsa for a new 4000 employee center, they would want property tax breaks, quality jobs credits, and all sorts of write-offs on the physical plant.  In fact, they wouldn't expand to Tulsa or Pocatello if there were no tax breaks of some sort to help fund expansion.

It's laughable when people point to two of the wealthiest people in the world saying taxes need to be raised.  It's disingenuous for Warren Buffet to make it sound as if people earning over $250k are getting some sort of special gift with the Bush tax cuts.  Buffet's entire business empire relies on these "gifts" every day.

The Bush tax cut expiration is nothing but a class envy/warfare meme.

Raise the rate by 3% and people will find clever ways to avoid paying it.

[Hometown]

Class traitor and gazillionaire Warren Buffet had an interesting interview with Christianne Amanpour this weekend in which he essentially stated the obvious:  that the rich have never had it so good (though I take issue with that from an historical standpoint); and that they should most definitely be taxed more.  Another interesting snippet:

Also:  Warren Buffet in praise of the Federal Gov's response to the crash. 

Perhaps Mr. Buffet understands that the status quo is unsustainable and that the best shot we have at protecting the upper class is to moderate our tax policy.

[Hoss]

Perhaps Mr. Buffet understands that the status quo is unsustainable and that the best shot we have at protecting the upper class is to moderate our tax policy.

I think Conan is channeling Gweed today.

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-billionaires-want-mor_b_786192.html

"The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent."

"In the next month, despite all their loud rhetoric about the "deficit crisis," the Republicans want to add $700 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years by extending Bush's tax breaks for the top 2 percent. Families who earn $1 million a year or more would receive, on average, a tax break of $100,000 a year."

"The Republicans also want to eliminate or significantly reduce the estate tax, which has existed since 1916. Its elimination would add, over 10 years, about $1 trillion to our national debt and all of the benefits would go to the top 0.3 percent. Over 99.7 percent of American families would not gain a nickel. The Walton family of WalMart would receive an estimated tax break of more than $30 billion by repealing the estate tax."

[Gaspar]

How anyone can campaign for tax increases for anyone is beyond me.  Reading Huff and Kos this morning, it seems like the fringe is still on a track of self flagellation.

Far be it from me to diminish an enemy's drive towards defeat.

Carry on. 

[Hoss]

How anyone can campaign for tax increases for anyone is beyond me.  Reading Huff and Kos this morning, it seems like the fringe is still on a track of self flagellation.

Far be it from me to diminish an enemy's drive towards defeat.

Carry on. 

Next year I bet the dems will be saying that about the fractured Republican party.  It's not like the writing isn't already on the wall for that to happen.

[RecycleMichael]

Former President Bush proposed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that would expire in 2010 saying that they would stimulate the economy. They didn't.

Stop calling it a tax increase. It was a coupon for the very rich. Now when they pay the same as before doesn't mean the price went up.

[Conan71]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-billionaires-want-mor_b_786192.html

"The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent."

"In the next month, despite all their loud rhetoric about the "deficit crisis," the Republicans want to add $700 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years by extending Bush's tax breaks for the top 2 percent. Families who earn $1 million a year or more would receive, on average, a tax break of $100,000 a year."

"The Republicans also want to eliminate or significantly reduce the estate tax, which has existed since 1916. Its elimination would add, over 10 years, about $1 trillion to our national debt and all of the benefits would go to the top 0.3 percent. Over 99.7 percent of American families would not gain a nickel. The Walton family of WalMart would receive an estimated tax break of more than $30 billion by repealing the estate tax."

You are all over the place.  Is it $3.7 trillion or $700 billion extending the cuts would cost?

Your sources are incredibly suspect and only serve to pour fuel on the fire of class envy and nothing more.  I don't see how the Waltons would recieve a tax break on estate taxes since virtually all their wealth is held in trusts.

Quit reading the moonbat blogs and think for yourself on this.

There were most definitely jobs created during the Bush years, whether or not his tax cuts were responsible are anyones guess since people hire people, taxes and tax cuts cannot physically hire anyone.  Small business owners say tax cuts create jobs.  Much as we don't really know how many jobs were saved over the last three years with those cuts being in place.  It's sort of like the creative mathmatics of jobs "saved or created" the Obama Admin was using.

Looking at this simply from a consumption stand-point, not the economic gymnastics of tax cuts translating to wealthy people hiring other people: I think we all agree extra money flowing in the economy helps create jobs, yes?  So do you allow the wealthiest consumers to keep consuming, or confiscate money from them to repay debt during an economic crisis?  Getting more people onto payroll and increasing production will necessarily increase overall tax revenue.  That much is indisputable.