let bush tax cuts for the rich die.


by problembear

the wealthy shouldn’t just be taxed more. we should demand our money back.

warren buffet agrees the demise of the bush tax cuts will be a good thing for america.

for those of us who make less than $200,000.00 per year, there is little to worry about according to this wall street journal article.

excerpt from WSJ article above: “Raising taxes on the middle class seems unlikely in the near future. President Obama says he wants to renew the tax cuts for all those making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. Republicans, and some Democrats, want to renew them across the board.”

this issue promises to be a real showdown this fall when congress returns from summer recess.

  1. mr benson

    “How about married couples filing jointly? They’d get hit with higher tax rates and a lower standard deduction. (It was raised in 2001).

    A couple earning $80,000 a year in adjusted gross income might pay about $2,200 extra. A married couple on $160,000 a year: Maybe $5,500 extra.

    If they have children it would be more, as the child tax credit would revert from $1,000 to $500. Ouch.”

    The increase in taxes would be quite steep, even for families with moderate incomes. I remember a promise from the Obama camp that nobody under 200k would see a tax increase at all. But we all know promises from any presidential candidate are just bullshit.

    Using just the examples from the paragraphs above, a family with three young children making 160k would pay $7000 a year more in taxes. That is almost 600 dollars a month.

    Problembear, I can see why Warren Buffet thinks 600 dollars a month is nothing. But my hats off to you if you’re that flush you think that, too.

    The incremental increase in the rate in the lowest bracket is 50%. A 50% tax rate increase doesn’t seem like “nothing” to me. I know it does to Warren Buffet. But to those barely hanging in the middle class, say a family with three kids making 60k, fifteen hundred dollar increase and a fifty percent rate increase would seem very steep.

    Before you think, oh, 60k, they’re fine, let me point out, such a family would likely qualify for the health care for kids in Montana, and local affordable housing programs.

  2. Tax cuts would be extended for all under 200,000.00 taxpayers (see WSJ link I provided above)

  3. mr benson

    That’s not what the title of your post SAID, pb, at the time of my post. It said, “let the tax cuts die”. I see you amended it.

    Do you think that’s a bit disingenuous?

  4. the wsj link was provided last night. i amend my posts frequently, goof.

    what i find disingenuous is the party of no blocking the small business bill yesterday and claiming to be for 97% of us taxpayers while the GOP tries every dirty trick in the book to protect the richest 2%.

  5. JC

    Hey Goof, check out this graph. What do you care most about? The national debt, or protecting the rich?

    • Big Swede

      This graph works in bizzaro world.

      Ya know, where tax increases result in increased revenue.

      • JC

        So how would you pay for extending the tax cuts for the rich?

        We’re already cutting food stamps to pay for Medicaid. So the powers that be think it is ok to cut food for health care for the poor.

        What is the rich willing to give up to keep their tax cuts?

        • Big Swede

          False premise. The rich don’t have to give up anything. The tax cuts benefit everyone.

          Someone has to build the yachts and limos, someone has to mine the gold and silver. Someone has to cater the estate luncheon.

          My wife and I are in a high bracket, even higher when the marriage penalty hits.

          Will I be hiring more or less people after paying these increased taxes?

          • JC

            Trickle down don’t work. They are a failure. If the Bush tax cuts would have worked, we would not be in the economic mess we are in now.

            And you totally avoided my question:

            How do you plan on paying for your tax cut? Deficit spending? Or what spending will you cut to pay for them?

            Get it out on the table, BS. Where would you cut the budget to pay for continuing your “temporary” tax break?

            If Bush & CO. would have wanted the tax breaks to be permanent, they would have had to pay for them, instead of tacking them on to the deficit.

            • Big Swede

              Seriously JC, I want to know your economic intelligence.

              Will increased taxes on the rich increase employment?

      • Why bs? The rich will only invest it overseas anyway?

        See my first link provided in post.

        • Big Swede

          And raising taxes will discourage or encourage overseas accounts?

        • Big Swede

          Investing overseas-like Charlie Wrangel?

          Oh by the way, all profits made by overseas investments are taxable if you are a US citizen.

          But you knew that. You and Charlie.

    • mr benson

      I care about the debt, and I’m for a balanced budget amendment that forces the Federal govt to abide by the same rules Montana and local governments do. Then choices would have to be made. And I’d “means test” social security and medicare, and do everything I could to reduce spending, spending, spending, and yes, that does include military spending.

      The cost of regulation has become so high in this country that it is destroying our productivity. So, in addition to reducing spending, and, yes, changing tax laws to be both more progressive (income) and more regressive (gas consumption), and means testing social security and medicare, I’d look to reduce regulations and paperwork and bureaucratic sludge.

      However, “let the tax cuts expire” is very different than “let tax cuts for individuals making > $250k a year expire”.

      And again, should the “bush tax cuts” expire for everyone, THAT ARE CALCULATED IN THE GRAPH and therefore must be included in the conversation, for everyone, the lowest tax bracket will see a 50% increase in their rate and the loss of direct tax reduction child credits. That’s not “a slight increase for the rich”.

      You’ll, again, try to ignore that I’ve said nothing about the tax cuts expiring on individuals making more than 250k a year.

      • well thought out response goof- which does help spell out the enormous differences in thought which must unfortunately converge in that broken down washing machine we call congress this fall. it is anyone’s guess just what might come out in the wash but in the article i tacked on at the end of the post above the author ends it by laying out this scenario which does seem a plausible compromise:

        “…deficit concerns and the attention on the debt commission could help forge a deal: a short-term continuation of the tax cuts for the middle class, and perhaps some new tax breaks for businesses, that would buy lawmakers time to undertake a broad overhaul of the tax code in the next Congress.”

        as to concerns that small business owners will stop hiring if we allow taxes to go back to 2001 for those above 200,000.00 i just don’t know many small business owners making anywhere near that amount of money for themselves or their business after paying payroll, vendors, rent and utilities. do you?

        and no-one addressed my point my cpa mentioned- the spur to invest caused by the desire to avoid the increased tax by taking legitimate deductions. will this not create significant local spending in our economy rather than reward investing in foreign markets?

      • JC

        Well, you’ve said a lot. Some of which I agree.

        But by wanting a national balanced budget amendment, you are suggesting that the role of federal fiscal policy is unneeded in this country. That’s a tough row to how,in face of its use over history to even out the economy. Do your really want the national economy rocked by the business cycle as much as it would be in the face of a balanced budget and a highly restricted federal fiscal policy?

        As to the tax cuts expiring, all those who want to preserve the cuts above $250k are doing nothing more than pointing out what will happen to the little guy if they all are allowed to expire. Can we just agree that Obama promised no new taxes on those under $250k, and look at the effect of expiring cuts on the rich and its effect on the national debt? It would be significant.

        And if Congress did allow the tax cuts expire on those under $250k during the Great Recession, a tax revolt unlike anything the Tea party could envision would sweep through voter ranks and there would be a huge turn over in Congress. But maybe that’s what Republicans want: rolling the dice to hope that voters would blame dems because they are in power right now, and will assume the blame.

        But I think the idea of the rich using the unrich masses as a shield for their tax breaks, like BS is doing is disgusting.

  6. you’re honestly serving us up some more reagan’s piss down economics rehash again bs?

    works good for the aristocrats like you…

    but american workers are tired of drinking your urine….


    • Big Swede

      How about the unemployed PB?

      I’ll ask you the same question.

      Will raising taxes on the wealthy increase jobs?

      • there won’t be more jobs until there is a market that purchases enough american made products to fuel recovery.

        there are a myriad of issues keeping employment from growing as you well know bs. i doubt if 2% of the population paying slightly more in taxes will have any effect frankly.

        demand drives recovery which causes people to hire. until there is demand we get no jobs. until people are working again we have no demand. it is a death spiral. is it not?

        now i have a question for you bs-it is a question that my cpa suggested i ask you while we were floating the alberton gorge tonight….but my blackberry took a big wave today and was incapacitated so had to wait until i got home.

        what about the fact that increased taxes should actually spur capital spending and business expansion in order to get the deduction and avoid the tax?

        i am thinking the stick might create more jobs than the carrot.

        • Big Swede

          “there won’t be more jobs until there is a market that purchases enough american made products to fuel recovery.”

          And “that market” will increase with more taxes or decrease?

          • mr benson

            Six hundred dollars a month less in spending power for middle class families will close that market down, Swede.

  7. JC

    “Will increased taxes on the rich increase employment?”

    The goal of letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn’t to increase employment. It’s to decrease the national debt.

    My question to you is: did enacting the Bush tax cuts increase employment? Absolutely not. Will extending them increase employment? Absolutely no reason to believe so.

    Here’s a few things to think about Bush and his economic policies:

    Unemployment in January 2001: 4.2%
    Unemployment in January 2009: 7.6%
    Jobs created under Bush: 3.0 million
    Jobs created under Clinton: 23.1 million
    Fiscal surplus in F2001: 128b
    Fiscal debt in F2008: 962b
    Total debt accumulated under Bush: 4,000+bilion
    Percent of debt incurred through Bush Tax cuts
    between 2001–2006: 51%

    Now look at those numbers and tell me just how Bush’s tax cuts positively influenced the economy and employment levels.

    Put away those rose colored glasses, BS.

    • Big Swede

      I see. Obama spends more than Bush and now we got to pay. But you’re diverting, and frankly the mention of Bush blame is starting to cause spontaneous laughter.

      How about living in the present. Answer please, based our your economic prowess, will the rich (meaning business owners) hire more people after Jan 1st. with the tax cut or without.

      • mr benson

        Swede, they ain’t gonna learn what they don’t want to know. However, there is a tipping point beyond which tax reductions don’t create additional tax revenue. Otherwise, we’d cut taxes to zero…

        • Big Swede


          What these economically ignorant don’t realize is the fact that the only way out of this mess is controlling govt. spending and putting more people to work.

          More people working means more federal, state and local tax revenue. More FICA, SS, and the ability to pay ones own health care.

          Their solution is tax the remaining workers, especially the business owners, who will in turn decrease their work force adding to the death spiral.

        • Big Swede

          Come to think about it Texas has no income tax and they’re doing great.

      • JC

        If our economy has declined to a point where we are taking on the necessity of a feudal economy, then all is already lost, BS.

        FWIW, most of those luxury items that you think the rich will buy, or the jobs they will create, are mostly offshore anyways.

        That yacht? Built in Great Britain. That limo? Germany. Those nice stainless steel appliances? Japan. Those computers? China. Those clothes? Italy. On and on.

        Where are those jobs they’re going to create located? Not in the U.S. One just needs to look at the increasing outflow of foreign direct investment to see that increasingly the rich are investing outside of the U.S. Not to mention hiding those profits in offshore tax havens.

      • JC

        Living in the present? Sure–but the present is a direct result of Bush policies.

        And I’m sure after Obama’s left office, you’ll grant him the same deference you are demanding that we give Bush.

        Let’s say we get a president Palin in 2012. At what point will you quit blaming Obama for the economy? Let’s say president Palin runs the country into an iceberg, and we slide into America’s version of Japan’s “lost decade,” with a stagnated economy that doesn’t produce the jobs needed to bring the country into a health employment scenario.

        Who will you blame then? Her and her conservative politics? Or Obama and the dems?

      • JC

        Living in the present? Sure–but the present is a direct result of Bush policies.

        And I’m sure after Obama’s left office, you’ll grant him the same deference you are demanding that we give Bush. Right? And you’ll quit blaming Freddie and Fannie for the housing boom and bust, and for creating this economic mess. Right?

        Let’s say we get a president Palin in 2012. At what point will you quit blaming Obama for the economy? Let’s say president Palin runs the country into an iceberg, and we slide into America’s version of Japan’s “lost decade,” with a stagnated economy that doesn’t produce the jobs needed to bring the country into a health employment scenario.

        Who will you blame then? Her and her conservative politics? Or Obama and the dems?

  8. JC

    “Come to think about it Texas has no income tax and they’re doing great.”

    Texas is doing great? It’s unemployment level has doubled to 8.2% since January 2001.

    tx unemploy rate

    • Big Swede

      In perspective.

      Friday, 23 July 2010 13:21
      COLLEGE STATION (Real Estate Center) – Texas is leading the United States in the current U-shaped economic recovery. The state’s economy experienced its second month of positive annual employment growth after 16 months of job losses.
      Texas’ annual employment growth rate was 0.9 percent from June 2009 to June 2010 compared with a negative rate of 0.1 percent for the nation. After 17 months of job losses, the state’s private sector posted a positive annual employment growth rate of 0.4 percent.
      The state’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 7.8 percent in June 2009 to 8.2 percent in June 2010, while the U.S. rate in June was 9.5 percent, the same as in June 2009.

      • bs- 8.5%sales tax in texas seems kinda stiff & not too popular with montanans. what else ya got?

        comparing texas to the economy of the entire us will not solve any problems. any more straws you wanna grasp yet? or should i just throw out the boat cushion and let you dog paddle to shore?

  1. 1 The promise of Neo-Feudalism « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] post the other day about letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire has sparked a lively debate between Big Swede and Mr. Benson, and pb and I. The governing philosophy on their side it seems, is […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,161 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,736 other followers

  • July 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: