Bush Era Tax Cuts

[Cathy]

IMNSHO, it is ridiculous that anyone should entertain the notion of allowing the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy to stand. When the top Republican in the Senate says that the bills to reverse the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 or $1,000,000 are only "a show" one can only come to the conclusion that these good old boys on the hill are playing games. If $250,000 is too low surely $1,000,000 is not too low. Why not decide on $500,000 or $750,000? Is a million dollars a year really a middle income wage?

I think the president and the democrats should refuse to extend the tax cuts any further for wealthy Americans. When will this president stand his ground? If the two democratic offers are not acceptable then stop trying to make a deal.

Certainly our entire tax system needs to be reworked. There has not been sufficient consideration of cost of living changes in applying the Alternative Minimum Tax and there are too many write offs for the wealthy... The entire system has become too complicated and unfair. But allowing the Bush Era Tax Cuts that started us back down the path of deficit spending to continue is not a responsible strategy. A deal later on will require some bipartisan agreement. The republican leaders have no intention of agreeing to anything in the lame duck session. So be it. No deal, please!

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Dave Roberts]

[Jim]

The tax arguments are class-related and, whether by design or not, induce class warfare. In this country, that war is not between the poor and the rich as much as between the so-called middle class (whatever that is) and the rich. The differentiation in tax rates does what Obama said (during his campaign) the Constitution neglected, i.e., redistribution of the wealth. People in the middle class desire a certain life-style that they can’t afford, so through the tax system their life-style is subsidized by those who earn more than they. The top tax-rate 1951-63 was more than 90% (everything over $400,000) every year. The guy who earned $1,400,000 in 1953 could expect to pay at least $920,000 in income tax, though, of course, he would figure an adjusted gross income like everyone else. This is the situation many people in this forum would like to see now, the better to have life-styles they can’t afford but expect someone else to fund.

Current tax rates per (head of) household (adjusted gross income): 0% up to 11,950; 15% up to 45,550; 25% up to 117,650; 28% up to 190,550; 33% up to 373,650; 35% over that amount. Median household income in 2008: 52,029, income taxes – 13,007.25 less deductions. The guy who makes a million, if not 27 times as much, will still pay many times as much in taxes for the same protections and services as that median household. That does not seem unreasonable, but the president wants to make that guy even further subsidize those who intend to live above their means on his dime by taking 39.6% of his income. The guy who makes a million will probably cough up close to 59 times as much as the household earning 45,000. Just crunch the numbers, taking into account all deductions/loopholes (designed by Congress) for all parties. This is the stuff the media rarely if ever mentions.

The top tax-rate was 70% in 1980 (Reagan election) for ADJ of 215,400 and over. By 1988, while the nation prospered, that rate went down to 28% (29,750 and over). Reagan and the democrat Congress lowered the taxes, while George Bush and a democrat Congress raised the top rate to 31% in 1991 and Clinton and a democrat Congress raised it again to a whopping 39.6% in 1993. George Bush and a republican Congress cut it back to where it is, while the social engineers (mostly nutcase democrats and fast-asleep republicans) told every head of household he/she could own a house whether or not it was affordable, thus being the absolute and only cause of the recession as the truth set in. To his credit, Bush tried to fight this as far back as 2003-04.

The whining middle class needs to admit that it intends to make those who honestly and legally acquire wealth pay for their life-styles, thus putting themselves on the public dole. A blue-collar pensioner, I never made as much as $50,000 a year in my working life. My wife, who had a trade before we married whereas I was unskilled, never worked outside the home after our marriage, thank God in multi-anthems of praise, and we lived on what we had, precious little, especially when I worked in public schools and churches…just month-to-month. At age 43, I made a down-payment on a house, finally. In light of that and the envy some of the people in this forum have regarding those who are smart, industrious, lucky or brave enough to take risks, I don’t believe in soaking the rich to subsidize any other class. I believe that those who make it should get to keep it.

[KeithE]

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

Now that the Democrats are killing the deal, is there anyone in Washington concerned for the people who sent them there? I certainly don't see much concern.

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Dave Roberts]

Amos was hardly writing just to individuals when he wrote:

Therefore because you trample on the poor
and take from them levies of grain,
you have built houses of hewn stone,but you shall not live in them;
For I know how many are your transgressions,
and how great are your sins--
you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe,
and push aside the needy in the gate......
But let justice roll down like waters
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Could the modern equivalent to Amos' bribes be the Carribean vacations offerd by lobbyists?

I look around the area where I live and realize how many people sitting in church on Sunday see no problem with owning and renting slums to the poor. Baptist deacons, Presbyterian elders, and Methodist lay leaders own much of it in our community and see no problem. They are known for the coziness with building inspectors for city and county. Does not the church have something to say about this? Or do we keep silence because they are big contributors to the budget?

Again, Isaiah who may have been related to the royal family of Judah and certainly had access to it wrote:

Ah, you who join house to house,
who add field to field,
until there is room for no one but you,
and you are left to live alone
in the midst of the land! (5:8)

The prophet was addressing in his day an unbridled consummerism and acquisition without regard for others. It's a good text to support regulations that insure a level playing field and an opportunity for all. There are certainly biblical texts that do not support unbridled capitalism.

[ET]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Jim]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Chris]

[ET]

[KeithE]

[Bruce Gourley]

[Cathy]

I have been absent from this thread since my first post. Keith and Bruce have both ably argued the benefits of a progressive tax system. I completely agree with Keith that the income disparities that exist are not fair.

The suggestion that I am whining is pretty silly when my household would be paying more taxes with return to the 2000 rates.

A fairer tax system is needed. If this congress could sit down in the next few years and eliminate a lot of the loopholes that benefit the rich and get rid of silly, irritating measures like the AMT that hits the middle class I would be delighted. Even the top rates of the well-to-do could probably be lowered if the loop holes that allow many to avoid almost all taxes were eliminated.

In the meantime reversal of the Bush tax cuts (at least for the rich) is imperative to reduce the deficit.

[Dave Roberts]

Congress, on both sides of the aisle, seems to only posture about the deficit. No one seems to want to consider any changes that might cost them the next election. They are already living under the shadow of 2012 and asking, "How will this help or hurt my re-election chances?"

[Chris]