has anyone heard a Republican plan on how they plan to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts?
just curious... because all i hear any Republican do is dodge the question and blab on about how they don't want to raise taxes. then in their next breath they talk about how we have to lower the deficit and cut spending... and yet they ignore the logic that you can't have it both ways. the tax cuts cost money and right now they just get tacked onto the deficity.
you're holding them to a standard that the dems haven't lived up to
http://www.youtube.com/user/rexander.../0/KoE1R-xH5To
In any event... with high unemployment and a sputtering economy taking more money out of the hands of tax payers is a pretty good way to lengthen and deepen a recession.
Read: ObtuseObserver dammit
I know I'm probably going out on a limb here but I think the time for tax cuts is over(except for small businesses, i'm partial to those). We're never going to get out of the hole if we continue at the current pace. For example, I got more money from tax refunds last year than I paid in. Why did I get free money from the government for not making any money to begin with? I got paid not to make money. It doesn't make sense. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but if they took it away next year I wouldn't really have anything to bitch about.
???
Do you even know anything about paper? It's not like steel. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT PAPER IN A FURNACE? YOU RUIN IT!
well financial experts, experts that no one disagrees with their status as experts, disagree with that statementOriginally Posted by PETA
we are killing the deficit with all these tax cuts and NO ONE has any plan on how to pay for the extension of these tax cuts...
the only people who want to extend these tax cuts are Republicans and god only knows why because all they do is keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again
Tax cuts are difficult to quantify because their given effect is seen further down the line and in most cases as indirect tax revenue gains.
The idea behind extending the cuts is to place a very important level of certainty within the private sector.
The key to lowering unemployment is when the private sector start to hire or rehire. Private sector jobs will not be created in a high tax environment.
The argument behind cutting the previous tax cuts is that more revenue needs to be squeezed from the highest income earners. Which is reasonable on the surface level.
Debates about these cuts rest heavily along party lines but the reality is this is really a complex equation with variables that are constantly evolving.
Say you have a business owner who has a pizza shop with 5 employees.
Those 5 employees are direct employment and earn gross taxable income. Their net income is spent throughout various parts of the economy that keep or create indirect employment (such as the grocery scanner, the bank teller, the retail sales associate, etc). Those indirect jobs can also be quantified by further derivatives that larger companies use to predict how to inventory products, sell products, and even hire which starts the whole chain over again.
The business owner in this scenario likely has a gross income over 250k. Lets not get into the tax loops and such here... because thats not the point. This is a private business that puts 5 people (plus the owner) to work. If the owner has to incur a larger tax burden his willingness to keep 5 employees is at risk.
Say that pizza shop has to cut a worker. The indirect and derivative chain (In my opinion) has a larger effect than the extra percentage points gained from the owner of the business.
That newly unemployed worker not only places strain on the indirect but also strain on the newly direct situation that his unemployment has net him... an unemployment check... which is a cost to the government.
Obviously this is a VERY generic situation but this is the general model used when trying to quantify the good or lack thereof that a tax cut brings to the table.
In the end you really have to chose which equation you believe in.
Will the net government benefit be greater with:
A) The direct benefit of more revenue from higher earners
or
B)The indirect benefit of more revenue from the derivatives or what high income earners spend via personal income and private sector opportunity employment.
Last edited by Fibonacheech; 08-24-10 at 02:48 PM.
-273 = absolute zero. You can only go up from there.
Liquid DnB - DDM Link
http://soundcloud.com/david-austin/david-austin-cocktails-with-major-tom-01
This is just plain opinionated.
There are dozens of experts who believe cutting the tax cuts would do much more damage than keeping them.
Cuts dont increase the deficit directly like a spending bill does. Thats what the pundits dont ever say.
A cut doesnt 'cost' anything directly.
Comparatively higher taxes will have a direct effect... higher government revenue.
But at what indirect cost to the people paying those taxes?
Thats the debate. Will higher taxes cut the nose to spite the face?
-273 = absolute zero. You can only go up from there.
Liquid DnB - DDM Link
http://soundcloud.com/david-austin/david-austin-cocktails-with-major-tom-01
Government (Keynsian) spending does not pull countries out of recession. Japan tried this for a decade without success and now has a debt that is approach 200% of GDP.
When the government takes more money from citizens they have less to spend (real leap there huh?). When they have less to spend they have less to invest. Less to invest means fewer businesses are started or expanded.
we are growing the deficit and the debt by run away spending
Read: ObtuseObserver dammit
Soetoro's, Hitlery's and Reed's deficit spending FAR eclipses any paltry revenue that would be gained from allowing the cuts to expire. Let's hear it for 50% unemployment!
Seriously, look at the percentage that domestic spending has risen and far eclipsed that of the Iraq war. The graph is most telling:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...45651&caption=
Repubs don't need to answer the question by and large (and remember the Dems in charge of Congress controlled the purse-strings starting in 2006)...the Dems need to justify that maddening spending because we have little to show for it after 2 years other than ridiculous debt. Fortunately, there are enough people who can see this and have finally put down the Kool-Aid.
tqiuwoc (that quote is useless without context)
Oh, and the Democrats may be tax and spend, but the Republicans are spend and spend.
Yeah, but as a rational business owner, isn't he already going to be operating his pizza shop with the fewest number of employees he can, in order to keep labor costs low? It seems to me that he'd have to put up with making slightly less money, as firing an employee is going to cut his production capacity and make him less competitive.
Come to think of it, wouldn't the rational thing to do in that situation be to hire more workers and expand his production capacity, so he can maintain the same level of profits?
haha, fantastic logic. A tax increase spurring employment! When taxes are higher, there is generally less spending money available, so the rationale behind expanding capacity in such an environment is specious at best. If anything, the employer would want to decrease earnings below the 250K bracket so there would be less fleecing by Uncle S(c)am.
see that bit above where I noted that when citizens have less of their own money it makes pulling out of a recession more difficult
Read: ObtuseObserver dammit
At the time she said it it was splashed all over the news - it isn't out of context. She really did say and mean that we needed to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Here's a transcript of the entire speech.... enjoy http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576
The Dems quadrupled GWs deficits. That means they are spending at a clip that is truly dizzying
The Dems pushed the debt up 20% points to GDP
The comparison of kind is valid. Both spend (and spent) too much but the comparison in degree is not.
Read: ObtuseObserver dammit
And NCR calls me a loon with a crazy bitch like that as the speaker of the House? Again, chief, I'm honored to receive insults from someone with your poor judgment of character.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks