# Why are Republicans pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945 "2010-07-25T14:55:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/101 "2010-07-25T23:59:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > > > Fuck yes. Government by the people, for the people. Not government by the rich for the rich. You’re trying to turn the poor into second class citizens. > > They are a sort of second class citizen. They are not contributing their fair share to the common good. I’d thing they welcome the opportunity to contribute. I know I would. I see nothing wrong with having able-bodeied people contribute in order to vote. If you can’t right a check, you can paint bleachers, sweep the sidewalk, or clean up a beach. If you don’t care if you vote, no problem, but if you do want to vote, just pay into the system. This may seem superficially fair to people of a certain turn of mind. But I think it will have some pretty undesirable consequences. You’d see further tightening of labor laws to keep the franchise as small as possible so that existing employed people could help themselves to larger pieces of the pie. This in turn would drive less output over time and, sure enough, even fewer jobs. But as long as output contracts slower than employment rate, this would be a great policy for people with jobs. Terrible for “the system,” though. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/102 "2010-07-26T00:01:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > If you can’t right a check, you can paint bleachers, sweep the sidewalk, or clean up a beach. > > And think of the government jobs that would create, monitoring and adminstering public service for millions of poor people who want to vote! Sounds like we might need another cabinet department! We could pay for it with a simple poll tax. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/103 "2010-07-26T00:04:22Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Wow, so the poor are second class citizens? As I said, “sort of”. And then went on to explain. > [@Airbeck](#): > > What about an 18 year old H.S. student that just registered to vote and hasn’t started their career yet, should they have to perform community service just to be able to exercise their right to vote as well? Let’s give them two years to start. > [@Airbeck](#): > > What about someone that is disabled and can’t earn enough income to qualify for taxation, does that disability eliminate their right to vote as well? You ignored my “able-bodied”. > [@Airbeck](#): > > There seems to be some pretty cavalier attitudes here about taking away voting rights. Pretty surprising to me seeing as how far we’ve come from the original standards of only white male land owners being able to vote. I would think the more access to voting the better since this is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity and all. Nice try, but what I described has ZERO to do with gender or race. You, whoever you are, want to vote, great—contribute. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/104 "2010-07-26T00:06:02Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > > > If you can’t right a check, you can paint bleachers, sweep the sidewalk, or clean up a beach. > > > > And think of the government jobs that would create, monitoring and adminstering public service for millions of poor people who want to vote! Sounds like we might need another cabinet department! > > We could pay for it with a simple poll tax. Hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/105 "2010-07-26T00:06:18Z")
and who gets to decide what constitutes a ‘contribution’? Who makes that call? You? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/106 "2010-07-26T00:09:33Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > This may seem superficially fair to people of a certain turn of mind. But I think it will have some pretty undesirable consequences. You’d see further tightening of labor laws to keep the franchise as small as possible so that existing employed people could help themselves to larger pieces of the pie. This in turn would drive less output over time and, sure enough, even fewer jobs. But as long as output contracts slower than employment rate, this would be a great policy for people with jobs. Terrible for “the system,” though. You raise an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s much of an issue. First, it helps the country to have as much employment as possible. Second, if what you describe began to happen, people could still vote. But there’d not t be a mechanism to account for someone losing their job. Maybe people have to have contribute 3 of the past 5 years. Something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/107 "2010-07-26T00:11:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Hilarious. Kind of the way I feel about raising taxes on the rich. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/108 "2010-07-26T00:11:39Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > and who gets to decide what constitutes a ‘contribution’? Who makes that call? You? If you’d like. Here a start: you pay tax on your income or you do work in the community in lieu of it. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/109 "2010-07-26T00:15:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nice try, but what I described has ZERO to do with gender or race. You, whoever you are, want to vote, great—contribute. I was simply commenting that a lot of hard work and pain has gone into gaining the right to vote for every American citizen. I was just surprised to hear such enthusiasm for going the other way. I wasn’t implying that anything you said was race or gender based. Just comparing the hard fought increase in access to voting vs. your proposed decrease. Thats it. Also, very generous giving the H.S. kid two years to vote for free. So I’m guessing he’ll have to work full time while he goes to college or lose his voting rights then? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/110 "2010-07-26T00:18:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Maeglin](#): > > > > This may seem superficially fair to people of a certain turn of mind. But I think it will have some pretty undesirable consequences. You’d see further tightening of labor laws to keep the franchise as small as possible so that existing employed people could help themselves to larger pieces of the pie. This in turn would drive less output over time and, sure enough, even fewer jobs. But as long as output contracts slower than employment rate, this would be a great policy for people with jobs. Terrible for “the system,” though. > > You raise an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s much of an issue. First, it helps the country to have as much employment as possible. Second, if what you describe began to happen, people could still vote. But there’d not t be a mechanism to account for someone losing their job. Maybe people have to have contribute 3 of the past 5 years. Something like that. There are a lot of policies that would help the country that we do not do for a variety of reasons, many of which concern legislative politics and the structure of our electoral rules. It may help the country to maximize natural employment, but it would help _me_ as an employed person to have a small electorate so that I could capture a bigger share of the benefits that come from controlling the legislature. The benefits to high employment are diffuse to me as an employed person, but the benefits of capturing a larger piece of the electoral pie are concentrated. We probably don’t want to make it any easier for our politicians to concentrate benefits to small sections of the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/111 "2010-07-26T00:26:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > They are a sort of second class citizen. They are not contributing their fair share to the common good. Of course, this sad situation exists only because the wealthy do not pay them a fair wage for their labor… Your analysis can go circular very quickly, **magellan**. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/112 "2010-07-26T00:36:43Z")
To get back to the OP, for those supporting extending the Bush tax cuts, what programs are you going to cut to make them revenue neutral? That seemed to be very important to Republicans in the recent debate over extending unemployment benefits, so I can only assume they intend to include offsets in the legislation so as not to increase the deficit. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/113 "2010-07-26T01:14:09Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > To get back to the OP, for those supporting extending the Bush tax cuts, what programs are you going to cut to make them revenue neutral? That seemed to be very important to Republicans in the recent debate over extending unemployment benefits, so I can only assume they intend to include offsets in the legislation so as not to increase the deficit. DOE, DOL, and HUD gets you $106 billion. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/114 "2010-07-26T01:20:42Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > To get back to the OP, for those supporting extending the Bush tax cuts, what programs are you going to cut to make them revenue neutral? That seemed to be very important to Republicans in the recent debate over extending unemployment benefits, so I can only assume they intend to include offsets in the legislation so as not to increase the deficit. > > DOE, DOL, and HUD gets you $106 billion. I sincerely hope some GOP members of Congress propose those cuts, and have to explain them to their constituents. Any gains by Republicans in 2010 will be quickly reversed in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/115 "2010-07-26T02:01:27Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > …DOE, DOL, and HUD gets you $106 billion. Or the largest defense department in the known universe? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/116 "2010-07-26T02:07:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > …DOE, DOL, and HUD gets you $106 billion. > > Or the largest defense department in the known universe? Not as big a gotcha as you might’ve thought (though national defense, unlike education, is properly a federal function). But sure – cut any funds for Iraq, and cut pork barrel unneeded crap like the syupid Osprey. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/117 "2010-07-26T02:28:48Z")
The repubs told the people what they would do and why. Yet people persist with the idea is is about giving people more money. The ones like Nordquist who explained the concept have lots and lots of money. Cutting taxes, raising taxes, doubling taxes ,does not matter to the kind of money they have. It is chicken feed. They had an agenda and they achieved it. They have fundamentally changed the nature of America and they are not done yet. They installed the haves into a much stronger and more entitled position in the country. They have gutted the money and power of the middle class who presumed they should have some impact in how the country is run. They have taken much of the security and arrogance away from many once fairly powerful people. When they hear people arguing that the rich should not be taxed more it is music to their ears. We once taxes the upper class at 90 percent. The country did not crumble. Americans still created and built things. To many the challenge and creativity is the point of what they do. Money is a reward but when they get rich they are often surprised by how much they have. We create for many reasons of which money is merely one and not the most important. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/118 "2010-07-26T02:33:40Z")
Good blog post by Martin Wolf on the [“political genius of supply-side economics.”](http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/119 "2010-07-26T03:08:36Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Good blog post by Martin Wolf on the [“political genius of supply-side economics.”](http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/) I was just about to post that. Bush and the repubs have put us in financial jeopardy and if they get back in power it will get worse. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/120 "2010-07-26T03:26:28Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > > [@DanBlather](#): > > > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > > > And to answer your question – if the beast decides it’s still hungry after being unable to take more than a mere third of my food, maybe it’ll take some food from the 50% of freeloaders who have the same vote as I do. I’d be more okay with that than I am with a further 10% increase in the bite out of my lunch. > > > > Cool, I wish all conservatives were willing to admit they want to raise taxes on the less wealthy. Nit sure how it would play with the voters, but at least it’s honest. > > If you mean “raise from a zero percent effective rate for half the population to some non-zero number,” of course I do. There is nothing more calculated to cause mischief than allowing people to vote on, among other things, fiscal policy when they have **absolutely no skin** in the game. > > So yeah, I want basically everyone paying something – a broad and not grossly stratified tax rate structure. How can you have a stakeholder/ownership society when two percent of the population is subsidizing half the tab, and fifty percent subsidizing none of it? I understand the sentiment and I agree. I think EVERYONE should pay something into the system. It is destructive to a democracy to have a group of voters who contribute who make no sacrifice, no matter how small, to the system. Most of the bottom 50% do largely in the form of payroll taxes. If you look at income taxes alone it looks pretty stark. The bottom 50% (HALF THE COUNTRY) pays 2% of income taxes while the top 2% pays 50% of income taxes. When we include payroll taxes the poor still pay a lot less (because they are poor) but their effective tax rate does not seem disproportionately low for anyone that believes progressivity has any role at all in taxation. > [@elucidator](#): > > Tell me, **Huerta** , is there no point at which private property becomes an absurdity? Are there no rational limits, simply a sacred principle that trumps all others? Suppose a man were to amass enough money to buy the Grand Canyon (or, more practically, buy enough Senators and Reps to make it so…) May he then fence it off for his own, personal enjoyment? You can do that with great works of art, why not with some of God’s work as well? > [@](#): > > A rich man can afford better medical care for his children. Are his children more deserving that yours, or mine? Are they to be disciplined for their rather foolish choice in parents? A rich man can afford better education for his children, are his children inherently smarter, save for that initial choice? Are they, by some magic, destined to be better citizens, or simply more powerful citizens? We simply cannot provide a millionaire’s medical care to every child, we provide the medical care that is in society’s interest to provide (or we will when we get a single payer system) but that millionaire is going to be able to purchase more medical care for his children than the average Joe, its one of the things that comes with a capitalistic society and I’m not sure that its bad as long as we provide the average Joe’s child with reasonably good health care. The same can be said for education, everyone should have access to a good one but the rich will always be able to send their kids to travel through the great museums of the world and go to high schools where the teachers all have doctorates. > [@Magiver](#): > > > [@DanBlather](#): > > > > Oh God, there is no hope at all if we really do have the Democrats believing this as well. > > > > The wealthy have a lower marginal propensity to spend, so all things being equal in our current situation we’d be better off letting the tax cuts expire and spend the resulting revenue on projects that create jobs. > > The Wealthy have a higher marginal propensity to invest. So all things being equal we would be better off not raising taxes so that capital investment creates jobs. We don’t tax the rich more than the poor because of marginal propensities to spend or save. We tax the rich more than the poor because of marginal utility. I remember when I made $800/month and I had about $120/month withheld. That $120, changed my lifestyle significantly. After law school, I made $$15000/month. They withheld $7000, I could have had a bigger house but I would have eaten the same food, worn the same clothes, engaged in the same leisure as I would have if I didn’t pay taxes. If you increased by taxes by $120/month I wouldn’t have even noticed it unless you told me. > [@yorick73](#): > > I don’t necessarily have a problem with people paying zero federal taxes. But, in my opinion, if you are not paying into the system then you should have no say and no vote on federal issues. What gives those who contribute nothing to the system the right to vote to take more away from those who do contribute. As the number of people who pay nothing approaches 50% this becomes a much more serious question. The only thing more destructive to modern democracy than voters who make no sacrifices is restricting the franchise from the poor, its a good way to keep them poor. > [@Huerta88](#): > > The program’s very simple: you don’t vote in elections for a jurisdiction in which you don’t pay taxes. No punishment, it’s just the way all of life works – kibitzers’ opinions are worth exactly what they paid into the system. I sense conservative consensus is forming on a pretty bad idea. > [@Huerta88](#): > > And just to keep our eye on the ball – remember that anyone opposed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is, in the first instance, merely supporting a regime in which “the rich” fund the vast majority of a huge federal budget, pay 35% marginal rates and often another 10% in state and local taxes, and pay a more modest but still significant 15% rate on their gains from investing in American businesses. I will argue separately for further cuts from the Bush-level rates, and a more broad-based tax code in which everyone but the most destitute has to pitch in something, but for purposes of this debate, the Bush-era rates still fund a massive government and still take a very goodly amount from “the rich.” The Bush era cuts NEVER funded a massive government. The Bush tax cut not only gave away the Clinton era surpluses, they created huge deficits (the argument was that the tax cuts would pay for themselves so those deficits were illusory). There is simply no way to get to a balanced budget from where we are to where we need to be without a tax increase UNLESS the Republicans want to try and take a crack at cutting medicare, social security or military spending. I’m sure the Democrats won’t beat them over the head with it the way the Republicans beat the Democrats over the head when the Democrats tried to get rid of waste in medicare. > [@Huerta88](#): > > It is by every definition of the word. American business would be vastly different, and vastly less successful, and employ vastly fewer people, if access to capital markets did not exist. I agree that we need the stock market to provide liquidity for the folks who buy IPOs and we need speculation to absorb excess demand or supply of a commodity, but we don’t need the whole system to revolve around facilitating speculation and trading rather than investing. > [@Huerta88](#): > > (a) speculation as you’re defining it there is dis-incentivized under the current rules to a significant extent by taxing short-term (less than one year) capital gains at the marginal rate, not the lower long-term cap gain rate. True but the regulatory disincentives have withered quite a bit. > [@](#): > > (b) The guy who buys and holds BRK or JNJ for six years (me) still gets punished by having to pay some cap gains on what clearly is not speculation; If you are going to whine about a 15% ltcg rate then we are really too far apart to have a reasonable discussion. > [@](#): > > (c) When public capital markets did not exist, I think you would find trade and income disparities were much worse than in today’s America. Think average Italian peasants in the time when the Medicis and their cronies were the only business game in town. Capital markets isn’t what caused the closing of the gap. Not by a long shot. The capital markets are crucial for capital formation (they are the main reason society no longer need rich individuals when we can all own a small peice of a really rich corporation). > [@Huerta88](#): > > And I could say you might want to make a deal with me at my 35%, 'cause 75% of nothing is nothing. I’ve got enough accumulated to go off to the woods and raise chickens. I don’t want to do it just yet, but at 75%, f that. Telecommuting from the Argentine finca also beckons. The soak the rich crowd needs to remember that they **need** the “rich” – more than the rich need them . . . There is always another qualified person who will step into your job. The rich like the poor will always be with us. We couldn’t get rid of either if we tried. The rich have threatened to leave the country if taxes go up since Eisenhower but we seem to keep growing more of them even when tax rates were at 90%. > [@Huerta88](#): > > The governmental structure as currently constituted absolutely requires a subset of high-income earners (I should have said that, not the rich, 'cause as noted, they in many case don’t work) to shoulder 50% of the budget. The rich will always be with us, we shouldn’t abuse them but frankly they have been acting like soccer players. (I watched some soccer this year and it became obvious that whining was a soccer skill). Suck it up, play the game or get off the field, theres another guy sitting on the bench that wants to take your place and he’s just as good as you. > [@elucidator](#): > > But it looks like you’re throwing the rich under the bus, and now only want to protect the “earners”. Well, that’s some progress. Enough for one day, perhaps. See ya tomorrow. I think he’s whining about the 15% capital gains rate as well. He just feels very put upon by the fact that he is paying more money in taxes than some people make and it just doesn’t seem fair. > [@kingbighair](#): > > Just wondering because I honestly cannot think of it right now - from where do we derive our right to property? I think it might be states. > [@Huerta88](#): > > I won’t because been there, done that. Phase-out of itemized deductions, and AMT, mean that lots of high earners are effectively paying well over the 35% rate that I’ve been positing as the top bracket now. Do you understand how AMT works? Its like a minimum flat tax at about 28%. Do you understand how the phaseout works? “if in 2006 your AGI is $250,500, your itemized deductions will be reduced by $2,000.” > [@Chronos](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Inherited wealth is earned at some point. The money has already been taxed and is a gift…not an income for a provided service. Why should a person be taxed for giving something away. Should the $10 bill you put in your nephew’s birthday card be taxable income for the tyke? > > All wealth is earned at some point, indeed, at many points. People object to the inheritance tax on the ground that it’s “double dipping”, that that money’s already been taxed. But every dollar you’ve ever had has already been taxed hundreds or thousands of times. Much inherited wealth was never taxed in the hands of the decedent. And YES the $10 to your nephew is income, but they don’t get taxed on it until they receive over $11,000(?) from one source in a given year or from someone who died. The best argument for estate taxes is that the folks getting the money didn’t do a damn thing to earn that money and all it does is perpetuate dynastic accumulations of wealth. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Those rights are just as self evident as free speech is. It may be right but they are not rights. They are certainly not inalienable rights, heck even inalienable rights aren’t inalienable rights (just ask the blacks and indians). **Huerta88** : > [@](#): > > Taking money from people coercively and without right is theft. Period. Theft is wrong. Cf. Seventh Commandment. Yeah I thought that was fucking ridiculous too. > [@magellan01](#): > > Well, you might think you are arguing for principle, but your stance isn’t principled at all. A person is entitled to the fruits of his labor and of his mind. You have to be willing to treat Gates and the others the same. That is the beginning of a principled stance. > > If, in fact, the argument for not taxing those with low incomes, say $20K, or taxing them less than someone who makes 200k is that the person makes 200k doesn’t feel it as much, then it seems logical to me to argue that a multi-billionaire be taxed until he has a mere billion. He won’t feel that at all. He still gets to keep his multiples homes, staff, and private plane and provide for his family’s future. Diminished marginal utility doesn’t mean NO marginal utility. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the metric should be pain. Everyone should contribute. If someone who make 20k can’t pay something in taxes, let him contribute through labor of some sort. The tax bill is determined (or at least should be) by the amount of spending we do. The tax code determines how that burden is borne. Society has determined that the burden should be borne by those who can best bear it. In other words the rich bear a disproportionately high share of the burden because they Can while the poor bear a miniscule portion of the burden because the burden of that miniscule contribution is magnified because of their poverty (I do agree they should pay SOMETHING). Since Jesus has been brought up, I will note that Jesus understood the concept of marginal utility when a poor woman put a penny into the offering plate and the disciples scoffed at her. Jesus immediately chastised them and said that the pennies from the poor old woman meant more to God than a lot of money from a really rich guy because the pennies represented more of a sacrifice. (I’m paraphrasing). He was using it in the context of sacrifice but it is directly applicable to the concept of marginal utility. > [@magellan01](#): > > They are a sort of second class citizen. They are not contributing their fair share to the common good. I’d thing they welcome the opportunity to contribute. I know I would. I see nothing wrong with having able-bodeied people contribute in order to vote. If you can’t right a check, you can paint bleachers, sweep the sidewalk, or clean up a beach. If you don’t care if you vote, no problem, but if you do want to vote, just pay into the system. I appreciate the notion of making sacrifices for your government but the notion of the franchise being pay to play seems a bit at odds with our history and democratic tradition. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > > [@Airbeck](#): > > > > There seems to be some pretty cavalier attitudes here about taking away voting rights. Pretty surprising to me seeing as how far we’ve come from the original standards of only white male land owners being able to vote. I would think the more access to voting the better since this is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity and all. > > We have come a long way, which is why I’m never surprised when people want to revert. The tradition of this country isn’t equality. You say that like there is some country that has a tradition of equality. > [@magellan01](#): > > Nice try, but what I described has ZERO to do with gender or race. You, whoever you are, want to vote, great—contribute. I think he’s saying that the march of democracy has always expanded the franchise to more and more people and the notion of restricting it from poor people seems at odds with our tradition. > [@magellan01](#): > > You raise an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s much of an issue. Yeah I woulda never guessed 🙂 > [@Huerta88](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > To get back to the OP, for those supporting extending the Bush tax cuts, what programs are you going to cut to make them revenue neutral? That seemed to be very important to Republicans in the recent debate over extending unemployment benefits, so I can only assume they intend to include offsets in the legislation so as not to increase the deficit. > > DOE, DOL, and HUD gets you $106 billion. Its a drop in the bucket compared to the multi trillion dollar cost of extending the tax cuts. You simply cannot cut enough spending to pay for those tax cuts unless you are ready to cut deep into military spending, social security and medicare/medicaid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945.md?page=7)