Eat the Rich - Just Don't Let Their Tax Break Expire

[Zarathud]

You obviously haven't looked at the actual numbers.

Stick to art criticism, Grund. I not only read the actual numbers, but link to them (see above) rather than making ridiculous personal attacks.

I'm a tax attorney and follow the latest updates on the tax laws every morning. This last year has been...interesting, to say the least. My professional guess is that there's a good chance that Obama lets many of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2011 unless the Democrats do better than expected in November. He's proposed to extend most of these tax cuts for the last 2 years, but the GOP refuses any deal because they're holding out to preserve the "Upper-Income Tax Provisions" for political reasons. The play is that by saying "no," they'll get better terms (see Sen. Kyl) or at least an anti-tax platform for November. I expect the Senate will be too busy with the "Republican backlog" to pass many of the expected tax cut extenders. Obama can then play the role of "tax cutter" as needed for his re-election campaign.

[Grundbegriff]

You obviously haven't looked at the actual numbers.

Stick to art criticism, Grund.

I'm not an art critic. I'm a software developer.

I not only read the actual numbers, but link to them (see above) rather than making ridiculous personal attacks.

I'm a tax attorney and follow the latest updates on the tax laws every morning.

I herewith concede to you all disputes over the arcana of tax law. But then, bickering over the price isn't the same as determining the kind of vendor, and that's what I was discussing.

[Zarathud]

Dispute away, but don't make a personal attack calling me uninformed and then duck into broad generalizations. I enjoy a spirited debate backed by data, not mindless bickering.

Off-topic, this is the reason why I have come to loathe CNN and FOX. If I see another iReport maquerading as real journalism on CNN, I am going to destroy something.

[SpaceLord]

I think the best argument for extending the cuts right now has no basis in the number at all. The psychological effect of any tax increase right now would likely send the economy in a tailspin. It doesn't matter what the numbers say if people panic and start doing stupid things like hiding their money in the back yard.

In a more general sense the dirty secret that those people screaming tax the rich don't want to hear is that taxing the shit out of the rich doesn't help since there aren't enough rich people to tax, plus they have the money to hire people to hide their money anyway.

Brain. Frozen.

You've seen the graphs where 1% of the population owns 40% of everything? Doesn't that mean anything to you? And saying "it won't work anyway" is a cop-out. We could do nothing, and the tax rate for the highest earners will increase 4%. Or, we can vote to extend it, because we feel bad for the poor people making 250k a year.

Yay, class warfare FTL.

Sorry about the jab at the end. I really don't see how anyone could think letting the richest Americans pay less in taxes is going to help the economy, while espousing cutting the deficit. The only way to get the deficit down without a surge in the economy is taxes, or cutting spending. And I've yet to hear anyone here come up with a good plan to cut enough spending. The chart I posted earlier was roundly ignored.

[Arcanis]

I think the best argument for extending the cuts right now has no basis in the number at all. The psychological effect of any tax increase right now would likely send the economy in a tailspin. It doesn't matter what the numbers say if people panic and start doing stupid things like hiding their money in the back yard.

In a more general sense the dirty secret that those people screaming tax the rich don't want to hear is that taxing the shit out of the rich doesn't help since there aren't enough rich people to tax, plus they have the money to hire people to hide their money anyway.

Brain. Frozen.

You've seen the graphs where 1% of the population owns 40% of everything? Doesn't that mean anything to you? And saying "it won't work anyway" is a cop-out. We could do nothing, and the tax rate for the highest earners will increase 4%. Or, we can vote to extend it, because we feel bad for the poor people making 250k a year.

Yay, class warfare FTL.

Sorry about the jab at the end. I really don't see how anyone could think letting the richest Americans pay less in taxes is going to help the economy, while espousing cutting the deficit. The only way to get the deficit down without a surge in the economy is taxes, or cutting spending. And I've yet to hear anyone here come up with a good plan to cut enough spending. The chart I posted earlier was roundly ignored.

Your table wasn't ignored, it actually reiterates where most of us have been saying the waste in spending is, I just didn't comment on it because my point was that the Psych. effect will have more of an impact than the actual taxes.

[Zarathud]

Increasing profits should help take the sting out of higher taxes. Bitching about your taxes is the American way, but we've survived (and thrived) under higher taxes. Even Reagan raised taxes due to the 1981 recession. Obama's proposals bring taxes back into line consistent with Reagan era. But that's not low enough?

In Ronald Reagan’s heyday, capital gains were never taxed at less than 20%, and dividends were never taxed at less than 28%. Under the Democrats’ current proposal, the president aims to raise the capital gains tax to a maximum of 20% on long-term gains (from 15% at present). And in an even more pleasant surprise, the top tax on dividends will also go to just 20% as well.

Here’s the scorecard again so there’s no confusion: Reagan was at 20% for capital gains and 28% for dividends. Obama is at 20% for capital gains and 20% for dividends.

[SpaceLord]

Your table wasn't ignored, it actually reiterates where most of us have been saying the waste in spending is, I just didn't comment on it because my point was that the Psych. effect will have more of an impact than the actual taxes.

I've read your reply ten times, and I still don't understand. Where is the waste in spending?

[Fireball1244]

This is how we got into this mess to begin with. Democrats propose spending without either cutting other spending or raising taxes. And Republicans propose tax cuts without cutting spending.

This is not a fair analysis of recent legislative history. Aside from the stimulus, which was designed to be a shot-in-the-arm one time expense package, the major legislation President Obama and the Democratic Congress have passed have included provisions to offset the expenses contained therein or to increase taxes. The health reform bill, for example, would have been much easier had it been passed Republican-style, with no effort made to offset the costs (look at the longterm budgetary impact of the Republican's Medicare Part D legislation).

[Arcanis]

Your table wasn't ignored, it actually reiterates where most of us have been saying the waste in spending is, I just didn't comment on it because my point was that the Psych. effect will have more of an impact than the actual taxes.

I've read your reply ten times, and I still don't understand. Where is the waste in spending?

the most waste is obviously within those 3 or 4 items that are huge in comparison to the others. Those are also the spots almost everyone mentions when they say that spending needs to be cut.

[Kraken]

Your table wasn't ignored, it actually reiterates where most of us have been saying the waste in spending is, I just didn't comment on it because my point was that the Psych. effect will have more of an impact than the actual taxes.

I've read your reply ten times, and I still don't understand. Where is the waste in spending?

the most waste is obviously within those 3 or 4 items that are huge in comparison to the others. Those are also the spots almost everyone mentions when they say that spending needs to be cut.

I've been handling my MIL's finances ever since her husband died 16 years ago. I am honest to a fault, but every once in a great while I have to fudge a transfer or a payment that would be difficult to explain to an outside auditor (knowing that my inlaws will demand a full accounting when she dies). To that end I created a budget item under Medical -- her biggest category -- called G&C. Is my spreadsheet off by $100 at the end of the year? Put it under G&C.

It stands for Graft & Corruption.

Think how much easier this would be if the federal government had a G&C account.

[Zarathud]

To that end I created a budget item under Medical -- her biggest category -- called G&C. Is my spreadsheet off by $100 at the end of the year? Put it under G&C.

It stands for Graft & Corruption.

Think how much easier this would be if the federal government had a G&C account.

I've seen the same thing professionally as an "Accounting/Administrative Adjustment" aka AA or the "plug number."

A friend once called it the FFDS account -- aka "Fee For DipShits." Unfortunately, an office assistant overheard it out of context and thought it was a legitimate category to hide her personal embezzlement scheme. When confronted, the assistant informed her supervisor that my friend would know what the account stood for. He told the truth, and the assistant was caught red-handed by the irony and then fired.

[Kraken]

To that end I created a budget item under Medical -- her biggest category -- called G&C. Is my spreadsheet off by $100 at the end of the year? Put it under G&C.

It stands for Graft & Corruption.

Think how much easier this would be if the federal government had a G&C account.

I've seen the same thing professionally as an "Accounting/Administrative Adjustment" aka AA or the "plug number."

A friend once called it the FFDS account -- aka "Fee For DipShits." Unfortunately, an office assistant overheard it out of context and thought it was a legitimate category to hide her personal embezzlement scheme. When confronted, the assistant informed her supervisor that my friend would know what the account stood for. He told the truth, and the assistant was caught red-handed by the irony and then fired.

The beauty of G&C is that, being medical, it's tax deductible.

[helot2000]

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan, rings in with his opinion on the federal debt. He really takes it to Republicans for their love of tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts.

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.

Unfortunately, Stockman will be labeled a heretic and dropped from the RNC mailing list while Republicans continue to run ad infinitum on the promise that, if elected, they'll cut taxes.

[helot2000]

Stockman too boring for you all? Ok, how about Stephen Colbert demonstrating the trickle down aspect of the Bush tax cuts with a bottle of Bud Light Lime (shudder!). Once again, pure genius.

[Kraken]

I remember Stockman fondly from his "trip to the woodshed". He was one of the few Reps who dared say that the emperor had no clothes. I was going to credit him with the phrase "voodoo economics," too, until wiki reminded me that George HW Bush was the author of that bon mot.

The Colbert thing was cute, but we were calling it "trickle-on economics" as long ago as the 80s.