Bush's tax cuts

6 replies [Last post]
Jeff Lewis's picture
Jeff Lewis
Offline
Joined: 09/12/10 8:08PM

From "The Other 98%" organization...
It's the $700,000,000,000 Question:

Do we keep the Bush Tax Cuts for the Richest 2%? Or do we end them for good, and invest in the Other 98% of us instead?

Congress will decide this month. Let's tell them to be Mighty Ducks, not lame ducks.

We're going to blast Congress with calls, letting them know that if we don't see the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich put to better use, we'll make sure they pay a political price.

Haven't signed our original petition to Congress yet? Sign our petition today.

http://other98.com/end-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-mega-rich/

Further reading, if you wanna:

Five Reasons to Let the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich Expire
by Chuck Collins

Congress is actively debating whether to retain President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy that are due to expire at the end of this year. President Obama supports extending tax cuts for households with incomes under $250,000, but ending the tax breaks for higher income households.

Here are five good reasons for Congress to let them go.

1. Borrowing to Give the Rich Tax Breaks is a Really Bad Idea. We’ve already borrowed $700 billion since 2001 to pay for these tax cuts. Maintaining them for another decade would cost an estimated $700 billion, plus interest on the national debt estimated at $126 billion. Does it really make sense to send interest payments to China and millionaire bond-holders in the U.S. – so that we can cut taxes for U.S. millionaires and billionaires?

2. There are 700 Billion Better Ways to Use the Money. Consider the superior ways to spend $700 billion. We could use a portion to reduce budget deficits. We could make long overdue investments in infrastructure such as bridges, roadways, railroads, water treatment facilities, retrofitting buildings –things that make our economy strong and competitive. We could direct funds to make the transition to the new economy that is less dependent on foreign oil. In the short-term, all these investments would create millions of jobs. In the long term, it would put the economy on better footing for the future. There are a billion better ways to use the money.

3. Restores Balance to Tax Code. Over the last half century, Congress has steadily reduced tax obligations for the very rich and global corporations. Between 1960 and 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers –the wealthiest one in one thousand –have seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop from 60 to 33.6 percent. Restoring the tax rates to pre-2001 levels would be a very slight increase, yet begin the process of rebalancing the tax code.

4. It Won’t Hurt the Economy. You’ve heard the blather about how taxing the rich is going to hurt the economy. But cutting the taxes for the wealthy are an ineffective way to help the economy. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Service ranked 11 strategies to spur the economy and create jobs. Cutting taxes for the rich was the worst ranked strategy. Here’ the reality: Taxing the rich is different than taxing the middle class. The rich save more of their tax cuts while working people and middle class spend it in the economy. Over the last decade, the top wealth holders have shifted trillions of dollars into speculative investments that have hurt the economy.

5. Reduces the Dangerous Concentration of Wealth and Power. We’re living in a period of unprecedented economic inequality. A recent series in the online journal Slate examined the “Growing Divergence” of wealth and income. Taxes is one of the ways we reduce these inequalities.

A final reason is that the U.S. public supports letting these tax cuts for the rich expire. A recent Gallup Poll reveals that 57 percent of the population support letting the tax cuts for the rich expire –while 37 percent support extending them. Polls rarely reveal support for any form of taxation –which indicates that a majority of Americans –including those who will pay the hire taxes – recognize the imprudence of extending them. Alan Greenspan, who supported the tax cuts in 2001, has now reversed his position and believes the time has come to raise taxes.

Take action: Organizations such as Wealth for the Common Good and Americans for Responsible Taxes are working to build public support for letting the tax cuts expire.

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy (IPS) and directs IPS’s Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He is an expert on U.S. inequality and author of several books, including Economic Apartheid in America: A Primer on Economic Inequality and Insecurity (New Press, 2005). He coordinates a national effort to preserve the federal estate tax, our nation’s only tax on inherited wealth. He co-authored with Bill Gates Sr. Wealth and Our Commonwealth, (Beacon Press, 2003), a case for taxing inherited fortunes.

MMM's picture
MMM
Offline
Joined: 08/19/09 11:28AM
It's educational

"Here to do great things."

Jeannie's picture
Jeannie
Offline
Joined: 08/26/10 4:33PM
Before I Decide

I need to know how much of that $700 billion is from taxes on the top 2%. The reason I ask this is because the rich have ways, without that tax cut, of avoiding taxes altogether. They hire a good accountant, invest in tax free bonds, etc., put everything into a trust or a million other ways so they don't have to pay taxes.

I hate those polls that say what the American people feel should happen cause the American people don't have all the facts to make a reasonable decision.

I need to know what it means should the tax cuts expire. I'm sure its not the full $700 billion given that figure includes tax cuts for the middle class.

I ask this because there were years when my gross income was over $90k/year, but with deductions I showed a gross of just over $30k and paid little in taxes. Even with the capital gains on the sale of my house this year, which were substantial, along with my income if I can show, after legitimate deductions, a net income of $10k it'll be a lot. I don't expect to pay much in taxes if anything for 2010. The bulk of my estate is in tax deferred accounts, which means I don't pay any taxes on that money, or the interest it gains, at all until withdraw it from the accounts.

Now if I can figure these ways of legally avoiding paying taxes do you really think the top 2% can't? I need to know the bottom line. If this tax cut is repealed, how much in savings are we talking about cause it sure ain't gonna be $700 billion.

Yes, its me. You may now genuflect.

Amos's picture
Amos
Offline
Joined: 08/28/10 12:49PM
People will always seek ways around laws that don't favor them..

Does that mean that the laws shouldn't be put into place?

To me, this argument is very similar in to the one used by those who advocate not voting. "If it isn't gonna work anyway, why do it?"

I don't wish to reopen that can of worms here, I am just saying that is how it looks to me.

Yes, the unfathomably rich will seek loopholes to preserve their wealth. That is what they do. Does that mean the first steps shouldn't be taken to correct unfair and detrimental policy?

These people don't think so, and they're rich!
http://www.salon.com/news/taxes/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/1...

If you keep reading, on this page, past the Charlie Rangel story, you'll see a piece by Robert Reich about how extending unemployment benefits vs. extending tax cuts for the wealthy will impact our economy. It would be funny, if ordinary people weren't losing their homes and going without, while the rich get, you guessed it, richer.

You should know what Sibel Edmonds knows.

Jeff Lewis's picture
Jeff Lewis
Offline
Joined: 09/12/10 8:08PM
To Jeannie, et. al.

Jeannie, thank you for the important question.
You ask:
"I need to know how much of that $700 billion is from taxes on the top 2%. [...] I need to know what it means should the tax cuts expire. I'm sure its not the full $700 billion given that figure includes tax cuts for the middle class."

Answer: The $700 billion in funds IS only based on the taxes from the top 2%. If you include the figures for the other 98% the $700 billion grows to $4 trillion.

Here's the facts as of today, via Colorado's Daily Camera:

"The Bush-era tax cuts expire on Dec. 31. Republicans want the cuts to be made permanent. President Obama and most Democrats want to extend the cuts for families earning under $250,000 and drop them for those above that level.

"A permanent extension for all would add about $4 trillion over the next 10 years to the growing national debt. Of that, $700 billion reflects money the government would not get from families earning more than $250,000."

The full page article is very interesting and informative, see it here
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_16640404

Read more: Compromise can save middle-class tax cuts - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_16640404#ixzz15kAc6dGB
DailyCamera.com

And, quoted by CNN, here's Obama himself:

"Here's the right interpretation -- I want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle class families starting on January 1st," Obama said at a news conference at the conclusion of the G-20 Summit [...]. "That is my number one priority for those families and for our economy. I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their number 1 priority is making sure that we are dealing with our debt and our deficit."

Are you convinced yet? Republicans want to increase the gap between rich and poor - Democrats and Obama want to decrease it. Please vote accordingly, that's how these matters are most directly decided in America (in the absence of a viable revolutionary movement against injustice).

Jeannie's picture
Jeannie
Offline
Joined: 08/26/10 4:33PM
Wait a minute, Wait a minute,

Wait a minute, Wait a minute, Wait a minute! That entire $700 billion is from the top 2%?????????
Okay, we got a whole new ballgame here!

Are they fucking crazy? Are the Republican economists insane? They're snuffing too many oil fumes! Man, they're banking on people's stupidity, or ignorance. I'm betting on both.

The whole theory of trickle down economics has just been shot to shit cause if it does work, then where the hell is all the money? Someone is sleeping on one hell of a stuffed mattress and it sure ain't the middle class! Yet I still hear folks saying, but the rich will spend their money on cars and other toys & that will keep us all working. One major problem with that is America doesn't make anything the rich, or anyone else, wants to buy that will get our economy going. What does America manufacture anyway? America, likes to buy, stuff from China, stuff from Korea, stuff from Germany, etc. Heck, most of our clothing isn't even made here. Heck, I wanted to drive up to North Carolina to buy furniture direct from the factories & was told I'd have to fly overseas. The bedroom set I ordered is made in West Java. can anyone explain to me how that's helping America get back on its financial feet cause I ain't seeing it.

I was watching John McCain on some news show the other week. He was saying how in 2004 he didn't support keeping the Bush Tax Break for the rich, but today, given the state of our economy, he does support it because no one can afford a tax increase. Given that I am 99.9% sure that even with all the ways there are for people to shelter their income that $700 billion is a drop in the bucket and that tax break for the rich really needs to be put to bed. And what a comfy bed, stuffed with dollar bills it is.

Thanks Jeff for spreading the truth & getting me informed! I'll spread it where & when I can to other folks who don't understand either & hopefully enough folks will know the details so this tax break can get shot down.

Yes, its me. You may now genuflect.

Amos's picture
Amos
Offline
Joined: 08/28/10 12:49PM
Thanks!

For the links Jeff!

I do hope you know that while I may disagree with you on some issues, I wholeheartedly support your activism and continuing pursuit of a democratic system that serves the greatest good.

More troubling stuff:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45356.html

On backlash:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/15/bush_tax_cuts_dem...

You should know what Sibel Edmonds knows.