The Bush taxcuts are permanent.

[kentuck]

They will never be repealed. Why?

Because Democrats have grown accustomed to them and will never give them up. Even those Democrats that make over $250K per year, the top 2%, are hesitant to have their taxes go back up.

In most states, when taxes go down, "fees" go up. For example, in Colorado, the cost of automobile tags doubled last year, even for the oldest clunkers. Any way you look at it, "fees" are taxes. Income tax rates may stay low but other "taxes" will go up. There is no free lunch.

The tax debate will rear its ugly head in the next election, just like it did in 2008. The arguments will be the same. It will be deja vu all over again. Republicans will refuse to let the Bush taxcuts expire or agree to keep the taxcuts for 98% of America unless the top 2% is included. Democrats, once again, will be faced with the prospect of letting it all expire and increasing taxes on those that can least afford it - or agreeing to keep the Bush taxcuts in place and extending them once again for an indefinite period of time. There is no resolution without pain.

Unfortunately, there is no government worth its salt that has no tax base to help its people. We may as well be Somalia. The people that would insist on keeping their 5% tax break for themselves rather than putting it in the government kitty for the good of all will win the day. Government loses to individual greed or need. Either way, the Democrats do not have the backbone or the ideas to confront this dilemma. The Bush taxcuts are here to stay and government is in decline. That can be good or bad, depending on where you may stand or sit.

It is a mistake to put a $250K limit on taxes when the country is in need of revenues and when 80% of households make less than $75K per year.( http://www.bls.gov/cex/2009/aggregate/quintile.pdf ) Both Parties are beholden to that top 2%. The tax code needs fixed and done quickly. Unfortunately, there is no political appetite for it at the present time. Democrats had their chance and they blew it. They put the butcher knife in the hands of the Republicans and they will not stop cutting until they hit the bone.

Yes, everybody likes their 5% tax break. They cannot "afford" to give it up. It would be a hardship for them. No matter if they make $100K per year, they "need" that money. They have no desire to give it to the government. It is their money and they want to spend it how they wish. The Bush taxcuts were a brilliant but cruel joke on the American people.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Not so, Kentuck....

....when the specter of default rears its ugly head, you'll see action. That's thirty years away, though, so start jogging, and buy a lot of brown rice.

[Fire1]

13. default by who? n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. You.

[Fire1]

22. Whatever. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

2. Tax cuts are good

so paying no taxes is the best
eliminate all taxes and everyone will be happy

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Works for General Electric.

The rest of us just get that warm golden feeling of being trickled on.

[Angry Dragon]

7. 'warm golden feeling of being trickled on'

That my friend is called being pissed on

That is called a 'golden shower'
And it will be the only gold the bottom gets

[gratuitous]

3. I said that as soon as they floated the idea of a "temporary" extension

No way in hell they were going to make Paris Hilton pay an extra three cents on the dollar for her "earnings" above a quarter million a year. The hardship would be just too much to bear! Can you imagine the tear-jerking E! News report on Paris having to ask for an additional $10,000 to attend a party so she could cover her tax "burden"? The Republic would totter. Totter, I tell you!

[n2doc]

5. And those fees are regressive

The rich don't worry about auto tags, they just either have a chauffeur take them places from an agency (they don't own the car) or they bring in one from out of state. In any cast the extra few hundred dollars is trivial when one is saving tens of thousands in other taxes.

What we are seeing is a deliberate effort by both parties to make Government worthless. All we will get for our tax monies will be wars, payment on interest and subsidies to oil, agribiz and health care/pharma co's. Roads, research, education, health care, retirement, environmental regulations- those are "luxuries" we "can't afford".

[Johonny]

29. +1

[truebrit71]

6. No way on god's green earth that Obama even touches this in 2012...

..unless he WANTS to go on the lecture tour in Jan 2013...

His refusal to deal with it last year was just the first of his many future capitulations on this issue..

[JoePhilly]

10. The extension expires after the 2012 election.

Since he can't run again, he can let them expire then with no political fall out.

[damntexdem]

8. What else shall we just give up on?

Or should we take some inspiration from Wisconsin and fight?

On, Wisconsin, on, Wisconsin, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight!

[kentuck]

9. So, do you think Obama will let the Bush taxcuts expire?

And do you think the Republicans will let him keep the taxcuts for those under $250K without keeping it for the top 2% also?

Let's be realistic.

[JoePhilly]

11. They expire after the 2012 election.

He can't run again. He can let them expire and the other Dems can even act mad if they want to. Once he is reelected, the GOP loses its political leverage with him on this issue.

[kentuck]

15. That is a good point..

He will be pressured to say where he stands but he doesn't have to, you are right. The Democrats could stand firm on taxcuts for $250K and below, which would be a mistake, but maybe a political winner?

[JoePhilly]

16. I think that's why he went with a 2 year extension and not a one year extension.

We already saw how in 2010, the Dems in congress, even with solid majorities, were terrified to run on this issue. Personally, I think that's why they got their assess kicked.

But given their inaction, I think Obama looked ahead and decided that the only way to get rid of those high end tax cuts would be to have them expire in his second term.

[kentuck]

18. What's to keep the Repubs from passing it again?

If they keep the House and win the Senate? Also, it would hinge on Obama winning re-election so he could veto any Republican nonsense, if he were so inclined?

The Democrats could still say they support taxcuts for those making $250K or less and the ball would be in the Republican's court. And are the Democrats ready to pay the political price for "raising" taxes on the middle class? How do they get around that obstacle? Aren't the Democrats going to be just as terrified in 2012 as they were in 2010?

It seems like we are putting all our marbles on Obama? Is that wise?

[JoePhilly]

21. It does hinge on him winning in 2012. The rest does not really matter.

And there are no other marbles.

We already know that the Dem congress, even with "theoretically" filabuster proof majorities were still too weak to take on this issue.

I was very sad that Nancy could not get the House Dems to pass something. And given all of the things she was able to get them to pass, I have to believe that the blue dog opposition to this was strong in the House.

And of course, the Senate bluedogs were NEVER going to go along. Never. Ever.

So, once the 2010 election passes, Obama has few options. Let the tax cuts expire, let the media crucify him for raising taxes on the 95% under 250k (which we know they would have done from that day until the election in 2012), or cut the 2 year deal.

The GOP is gambling that they hold the House and win the Presidency. If the Senate were to remain unchanged, the bluedogs would vote to reinstate the Bush tax cuts (they voted for them originally too).

Obama is gambling that HE will win in 2012. If that happens, the GOP would need a veto proof majority, which they can't get.

So yes, we are putting are all marbles on Obama, and realistically speaking, I don't think there really is any where else to put them.

[kentuck]

23. Is Obama going to "compromise" with the Repubs once again??

And meet them half-way? Instead of cutting the top tax rate to 25%, as proposed by Ryan, will he agree to cut the top rate to 30%? Where will he meet them on other spending cuts? Can you positively guarantee that the President will stand up for progressive values and the working people of this country? Are you really that confident?

[JoePhilly]

24. So apparently now we change topics?

The discussion we were having was about the SPECIFIC tax cuts for the wealthy. And I think I covered that clearly.

Rather than agree with me or disagree with me on that specific discussion, you are now throwing out 3 new topics ...

1) A hypothetical ... "Is Obama going to "compromise" with the Repubs once again?? And meet them half-way? Instead of cutting the top tax rate to 25%, as proposed by Ryan, will he agree to cut the top rate to 30%?"

And then you move on, not to specific hypothetical examples of spending or tax cuts, but to broad generalizations of same ...

2) "Where will he meet them on other spending cuts?"

And then, you become even more general ...

3)"Can you positively guarantee that the President will stand up for progressive values and the working people of this country? Are you really that confident?"

My sense here is that you can't argue against the specifics I covered, and so you decided to move to a more general framing because doing so provides more room.

Debating generalities is easier.

But I'll answer.

On #1 ... depends on what he might get in return. But I doubt it. I can find no reason for him to do so.

On #2 ... Yes. He will agree to some spending cuts that they want. This one is a no brainer to answer as again, it has ZERO specifics. So clearly, yes, he probably will agree to some cuts they want. btw ... last time he did that, he agreed to cuts that they wanted that he was already planning for too. So not a big deal.

On #3 ... How can anyone guarantee a demand that the President "stand up" (undefined term) for "progressive values" (undefined term). Its a ridiculous question.

Personally, I prefer to take each SPECIFIC issue on its face and judge it from there, because then you can have an actual discussion on that specific issue.

[kentuck]

27. No...

That is not changing the subject. That is only defining the subject. I am not trying to argue with you. I thought we were having a discussion - not an argument?

I am only stating what many people feel about this President. Will he stand with the people that vote him in? You may be certain that he will? Some are not so certain. If it all depends on Barack Obama, shouldn't we know where he stands? You may think "progressive values" are "ridiculous" but I think it is a very pertinent question.

What other "specifics" would you wish to discuss?

[JoePhilly]

30. Your original OP picked the specific issue we discussed.

I found that issue interesting and we had a nice discussion about it.

Your last response was no longer about that specific issue.

As for where I think Obama will stand. I think that the tax cut example is telling. I think that over and over, he tries to get as much as he can for progressive causes given the congressional support that he has had ... most for get that Al Franken was not seated for 6 months, and then Kennedy died not too long after ... yet most think Obama had a filibuster proof loyal dem congress ... he did not.

And, I don;t think "progressive values" are ridiculous. What I find ridiculous is a demand that one stand up for them when what it means to "stand up" is undefined, and the "progressive values" are similarly undefined.

As an example, I was in a discussion recently in which the notion of personal property (like me owning my home) was NOT a progressive value. That's an interesting debate. But I am not giving up my home any time soon. So when we talk about "progressive values", I prefer specifics.

[kentuck]

32. So you are saying Obama will not extend the Bush taxcuts?

Is that right? I hope you are right.

[JoePhilly]

33. Yes, that is my expectation.

And I also know that a GOP President WILL ABSOLUTELY extend them and make them permanent given the chance.

[kentuck]

34. Shouldn't we have more than just "expectation"?

Shouldn't we know where he stands?

[JoePhilly]

35. He's already said that he wants those cuts to expire.

Said that he extended them reluctantly to ensure that the 95% were not given a tax increase and to ensure that the unemployed got additional assistance.

I mean we could hold our breath until he pinky swears. Which gesture would satisfy you?

The bottom line is the same as it was way up this thread. If you want those cuts to expire, Obama's reelection is the only path that provides any possibility of it.

[Enthusiast]

12. 81% of the American people want

to raise taxes on the wealthy. It is imperative to raise taxes on the wealthy.

[JoePhilly]

17. 95% don't want their own taxes to go up.

And that was the key point.

81% supported letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. 95% (those under 250k) heard Obama promise to not raise their taxes.

Congress punted, and Obama could not do both. So, he kept the promise to the 95% under 250k and did not raise their taxes. If he broke THAT promise, it would have been his "read my lips" moment, and we'd see nothing but endless reports showing Bush #1 breaking that promise, and then Obama breaking it.

Nope ... smarter to keep the promise to the 95%, and then let the tax cuts expire in his second term, after which he can't run again anyway.

[BOG PERSON]

14. now all i need to do is get stinking rich!

then i'll be set for life! :think:

[Ikonoklast]

26. You got half of it down.

Now you just need the money part.















:P





.

[hfojvt]

20. I can afford to give mine up and I make less than $15k

last year I didn't even take my refund and was prepared to do so again until Obama caved on the tax cut issue.

[Drahthaardogs]

25. In most states, when taxes go down, "fees" go up

This is so true. In Alaska, where there is no income tax nor even a sales tax in Anchorage, my property taxes were over $6000/yr for a $117,000 house.

[walldude]

28. It's not the 3% they are worried about...

The Bush tax cuts put a flat 15% rate on capitol gains. That's what is scaring them. Tax on their free money.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. The problem is self interest, but you're not seeing the situation clearly.

The democrats in question have grown accustomed to the campaign donations that the beneficiaries of this largess shovel onto them.