Obama: Let's end the Bush tax cuts

Great Debates
141

I don’t get the sense of entitlement. Many places in the world don’t have much in the way of opportunity for getting ahead and social mobility. Trust me, you don’t want to try to pull yourself up by the bootstraps in China. The US still has opportunities for great public education, secondary education, working hard, catching the right breaks and doing pretty well. Yes, you compete against peers who had Daddy pay their way through the Ivy League and then got 'em an “entry” level job far above where the regular plebes start.

Yet, on these boards and real life seems to be pretty light on the “this country let me get my piece of the pie and that comes with paying back for being able achieve this level of income.”

142

[QUOTE=China Guy]
Yet, on these boards and real life seems to be pretty light on the “this country let me get my piece of the pie and that comes with paying back for being able achieve this level of income.”
[/QUOTE]

To me it seems to be oriented more towards to ‘soak the rich!’ side of the argument. As I’ve said, I’m all for everyone paying their fair share. Want to get rid of the Bush tax cuts (that were supposedly only for the rich according to the cumulative wisdom of this board)? Fine by me…get rid of them. All of them. Let everyone pay their fair share. Soak the rich…and the middle class too. I’ll have to pay more, to be sure…I’m good with that. As long as the rest of you have to pay as well.

I see this as more of the attempt at social engineering via taxation. The taxes they will get back from just ‘the rich’ aren’t going to be a drop in the bucket wrt the deficit. What’s the realistic estimate? $50 billion/year? $100 billion/year (:dubious:)? From the, what 50k families in this country who make more than $250k/year?? Even if you squeezed $100 billion in additional taxes per year, something I’m highly skeptical of, it’s a tithe of what’s needed to fix the problems we are having.

-XT

143

I am in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts on all the poor people making more than $250,000 a year.

144

Heh. I’m good with that.

145

Since the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for ‘the rich’, I’m all in favor of repealing them for ‘the rich’. :stuck_out_tongue: And I’m all in favor of using the collective wisdom of this board to define ‘the rich’ as only those who received benefit from the evil Bush tax cuts…

-XT

146

If you want to be scientific, you can measure the marginal utility of an extra $1000 for a wide range of people at different income levels, and decide where to cut it off. But as far as I can tell your definition of rich is just far enough above any proposed point of increase, so that you can complain about the tax increase hurting the non-rich.

147

My definition of ‘rich’ is irrelevant, since I’m proposing that all the tax cuts be revoked. And since for years I’ve been hearing how the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for ‘the rich’, I’m failing to see the big problem here…if we revoke them all, then only ‘the rich’ will be affected. Right?

-XT

148

This presupposes that the amount the middle class is paying right now isn’t already a fair share. Presumably you have some simple, objective criterion for saying how much of a share is fair?

149

I still don’t know what this word ‘fair’ means in the context of this discussion. So, IOW, no…I don’t have a simple, straightforward and objective criterion for how much everyone SHOULD be paying that would be ‘fair’. I suppose the same definition that is used by the soak the rich crowd…‘fair’= whatever the government can get away with.

Taxes, no matter who they fall on, are going to have an negative impact. I think that to be ‘fair’, there needs to be a perception that everyone is doing their part. My objection to all of this discussion about the Bush tax cuts is that I see a lot of weaseling going on here. For years (since Bush proposed the thing) I’ve been hearing about how they were just ‘for the rich’, that the only benefit was to ‘the rich’, etc etc, blah blah blah. Yet, interestingly enough, when it comes time to revoke the things there are all these objections about getting rid of all of them, and instead a desire to keep some of them in while letting them only expire for ‘the rich’…which seems to have changed definitions based on who did or didn’t get those tax breaks, right? :stuck_out_tongue:

I say get rid of all of the things, and if the burden is too great on the middle class (a class I belong too btw) then let freaking Obama get his own tax cuts enacted. Or, if higher taxes are so important to getting the deficit under control, then perhaps we all need to make sacrifices in these trying times, and put the needs of the country before our own needs. I’m willing…you guys who are so free with giving away other peoples money for the common good (i.e. ‘the rich’) need to step up and do you parts as well. Right? For the good of ‘the people’ and all that jazz.

-XT

150

I believe in a progressive tax. Bill Gates should be paying a shitload more taxes and a higher percentage than I do. Now I betray my tax bracket when I say this but I think it’s the right thing to do. Having grown up at the absolute bottom of the middle class, I’m happy to pay higher taxes than my father did. It means I’m making 5 times what he made. By comparison - I’m rich. Not fuck you money rich but I’ve got investments and when my credit score was non existent I bought a new car with cash without blinking.

And yes taxes on the middle class have to go up. Are you kidding me? That’s the biggest tax base out there. But at the same time the taxes on the wealthy, who have gotten disproportionately wealthy over the past decade or so, need to go up a fuck lot more. And at the same time, let’s not cut the services like great public schools or healthcare or special needs to the middle class and below. This tax cut stuff just means shifting the real cost to the lower and middle class (crappy schools, crappy healthcare) and *effectively *raising their cost base. The rich will continue to send their kids to private schools and have cadillac healthcare, which as a % of their disposable income is tiny, and so if income taxes are cut they are net winners.

Back to the point, I have no problem with the rich paying their fair share. And however you define the rich, I’d be fine with starting their fair share at 50% of income. Don’t like it, they are free to leave and try get a better deal in China. I mean, christ, China only has a 45% top marginal rate on earned income, so all these hot shot rich folk could easily thrive in China and get a 5% tax cut. I’m waiting for y’all to move with baited breath.

151

You’ll only be getting Le Jac, sadly, since he’s so hot on how great China is and how they are taking over. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m not suggesting a flat tax…I also have no problem with a progressive tax system, though there should be less loopholes IMHO. I’m merely saying that if we are getting rid of the Bush tax cuts that I’ve been assured over and over are ONLY for ‘the rich’ that, well, we should go ahead and get rid of them…ALL of them. If Obama wants to show the cojones, I’m cool with sweeping tax reform that eliminates a lot or all of the current loopholes on all brackets, and if, as I said, there is a perception that the middle class is somehow being crushed under the weight of taxation, then he’s free to try and change that as well.

We seem to be generally in agreement, at least as far as the tax cut goes…get rid of them all. We fundamentally disagree on where the limits of taxation should be, but that’s not really a mystery, since as you say you live in China where taxes on at least SOME of your rich max out at 45%…

-XT

152

Want to give a cite for this straw man? We all know that the Bush tax cuts had a little extra right at the median income level, so they could proclaim how well people with median income did. (Or it might have been mean income, I forget.)
After all, if the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the rich, preserving the middle class ones, as in the Obama proposal, wouldn’t make a lot of sense, would it?

153

We don’t want to soak the rich. We just want to we them down to the same level they were at during the Clinton years - though I know they suffered terribly then.

You do understand why “class warfare” is such a bad argument, don’t you?

154

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Want to give a cite for this straw man?
[/QUOTE]

A cite for what? That people on this board have been saying for years that the Bush tax cuts were only ‘for the rich’? Seriously? :stuck_out_tongue: No…I don’t want to bother looking that up for you. If you want to consider this a great victory, well, I like to spread a bit of cheer where ever I go.

Well…I knew that, to be sure. I’m unsure if that word had gotten out to everyone, however, at least based on the discussions I was seeing on the subject. I’m curious…if it was just a token gesture towards us lower class peasants, why are the Dems fighting so hard to keep those parts of it in place? Shouldn’t they be fighting to get rid of them all, so they can clear the way for REAL tax cuts? This peasant would LOVE a ‘real’ tax cut. :wink:

Exactly, my friend. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

-XT

155

[QUOTE=Voyager]
We don’t want to soak the rich. We just want to we them down to the same level they were at during the Clinton years - though I know they suffered terribly then.
[/QUOTE]

No doubt. And that’s fine. I’m all for it. I think we ALL should be paying the same as in the Clinton years…one for all and all for one, so to speak. If you want to get rid of the Bush tax cuts then get rid of them. All of them. That way the peoples eyes can be opened to how they really were only for ‘the rich’. And then Obama can do what Bush did…get his own tax cuts passed. Except this time the cuts will be for us common men and women, toiling under the weight of our collective misery. Again, I’m all for it.

I understand why ‘class warfare’ is a bad IDEA…do you?

-XT

156

Whoa, steady up there, hoss. Pretty loaded term there, don’t you think? Is it only “class warfare” when we do it to them? When they do it to us, its "encouraging investment’ and “rewarding entreprenuership”. Used to be “God’s will”, but they’ve been edging away from that.

Perhaps we could better judge the gooditude of the idea if you gave us more definition?

157

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Whoa, steady up there, hoss. Pretty loaded term there, don’t you think? Is it only “class warfare” when we do it to them? When they do it to us, its "encouraging investment’ and “rewarding entreprenuership”. Used to be “God’s will”, but they’ve been edging away from that.
[/QUOTE]

Ah 'luci…bless your heart! I’m not going to play the ‘define the term’ game with you over what is or isn’t ‘class warfare’…not with the man who practically invented it and who lives, eats, breathes and sleeps it. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m not participating in any form of ‘class warfare’ here, 'luci, one way or the other, so your ‘Is it only “class warfare” when we do it to them?’ falls a bit flat. I’m merely saying that all of the Bush tax cuts need to be removed, instead of the rather selective way it’s being offered up here. I’ve been assured that said cuts are only for ‘the rich’ anyway, so what’s the problem? Getting rid of them should merely get rid of them for ‘the rich’…right?

Of what ‘class warfare’ is? I don’t think so. You know very well what the term means after all. Rather like a fish asking for the definition of water, that. Since you seem to have some issue with my proposal of revoking all of the Bush tax cuts, perhaps you could, er, elucidate exactly what your issue is? Perhaps it’s that the Bush tax cuts for ‘the rich’ actually had some small, meager benefit to folks other than ‘the rich’? Is that it?

Leaving aside the heavy amount of humor I’m deriving from all of this, especially after the endless discussions about this topic in the past, we all know why the Dems ACTUALLY want to keep some of the Bush tax cuts in place while allowing others to expire…don’t we? I still say that it would be better for Obama et al to junk the whole thing, and if he feels it’s important, he should get NEW tax cuts (they could be called, oh, say The Obama Tax Cuts™…it’s got a nice, catchy ring to it) put in place, if that’s what he really wants to do. Why is this a problem? They could be crafted to better take advantage of the situation as it is now, to better reflect the realities of the current economy, to better show off Obama and the Democrats efforts for the common man, yadda yadda yadda. Right?

Of course, the real issue is that the Republicans want to keep ALL of the Bush tax cuts in place…and they would fight just as hard to stop the Dems from whacking the BTC(aar)s for everyone as they are from having the Dems selectively whack some of them based on an arbitrary yearly income.

-XT

158

You offered the term dipped in condescension and sarcasm, along the lines of “Shirley, you are not so stupid as to think this is a good idea, now are you?” You might mean it in the old-fashioned Leninist-Wobbly sense of the words, or you might be willing to classify any effort at economic justice and political equality as “class warfare”, and thereby a worthy target for your breezy contempt.

You have no obligation to clarify, perhaps your contempt applies to both equally.

Droll.

159

My definition of ‘class warfare’ is irrelevant, since I’m saying to treat the Bush tax cuts equally for all classes and get rid of the things. I have no wish to hijack the thread into a pointless discussion of semantics and meaningless definitions…just as I have no wish to endlessly debate what is or isn’t ‘rich’, or where the mystery point that one becomes ‘rich’. If you want to debate the actual OP, or if you want to discuss my main point, which is getting rid of all of the Bush tax cuts, then you are welcome to do so. If you want to side track the discussion into your or my definition of what is or isn’t ‘class warfare’, then I suggest you start your own thread on that subject.

ETA: And just to be clear here, I didn’t bring up the subject of class warfare…I merely said that IMHO, class warfare is a bad idea and dropped it there.
-XT

160

Primarily for the rich, definitely. Only for the rich? I call bullshit, It’s not like they weren’t marketed heavily. If you are calling all liberals here too stupid to remember this, you had better give a cite.