House Passes Middle Class Tax Cuts

[Schadenfreude]

But they didn't cut middle class taxes, as the thread title implies, thank you.

since it is a separate law, it would cut taxes - all levels of income will rise without the house tax cut bill on 1 jan 2011

with it, taxes for those earning less that the above stated amounts will remain the same if it becomes law in time, otherwise there will be a gap where everyone's taxes will go up until the law is passed

but never worry, bo will cave in and ask for a 'compromise' that the reps will tell him to fold until it is all corners and shove it

so most likely, another 'compromise' extending all the cuts temporarily for 2 to 3 years will pass - bummer

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I don't believe there is a single tax cut that he has ever voted against, without exception.

The Democratic strategy here is to pass these tax cuts, then block any permanent extensions of the Bush tax cuts for the rich through the senate or veto. If these tax cuts are blocked we'd have to negotiate some kind of deal with the Republicans or let middle class taxes go back up. So if you were a Republican it makes sense to vote against them so you don't lose 99% of your negotiating power when you take the house.

It will be easy to go through reconciliation to pass these in the senate, though.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

does anyone get confused as to how a nation created upon treating everyone equally and fairly would get so upset about different tax rates based on income and why we have them?

Clearly the only solution is to fund everything through a capital tax. I'd love for the Republicans to try that. It's what finally killed the Great Bitch in the UK.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

since it is a separate law, it would cut taxes - all levels of income will rise without the house tax cut bill on 1 jan 2011

with it, taxes for those earning less that the above stated amounts will remain the same if it becomes law in time, otherwise there will be a gap where everyone's taxes will go up until the law is passed

but never worry, bo will cave in and ask for a 'compromise' that the reps will tell him to fold until it is all corners and shove it

so most likely, another 'compromise' extending all the cuts temporarily for 2 to 3 years will pass - bummer

Even though it is a separate law, it doesn't lower taxes. It extends the rate we currently have, it does not lower that rate. If it is not passed, taxes will increase, but you still can't claim this bill is "lowering" taxes!

Now, I don't know why you insist on lying about this, maybe you presume there are enough really stupid people out there, who will just assume Obama lowered their taxes? Even though, they will take home the same amount of pay as always, nothing is changing. Perhaps you don't think people will remember these tax cuts you extended, weren't supposed to even effect the middle class, it was Bush's tax breaks for the rich, when it was passed.... but maybe you hope the stupid people won't remember that? Even with everyone calling them The Bush Tax Cuts, when discussing extending them.

I am honestly at a loss as to why Democrat Liberals feel compelled to just continue lying and distorting reality. It's proving to be a dead-end strategy.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Even though it is a separate law, it doesn't lower taxes. It extends the rate we currently have, it does not lower that rate. If it is not passed, taxes will increase, but you still can't claim this bill is "lowering" taxes!

Now, I don't know why you insist on lying about this, maybe you presume there are enough really stupid people out there, who will just assume Obama lowered their taxes? Even though, they will take home the same amount of pay as always, nothing is changing. Perhaps you don't think people will remember these tax cuts you extended, weren't supposed to even effect the middle class, it was Bush's tax breaks for the rich, when it was passed.... but maybe you hope the stupid people won't remember that? Even with everyone calling them The Bush Tax Cuts, when discussing extending them.

I am honestly at a loss as to why Democrat Liberals feel compelled to just continue lying and distorting reality. It's proving to be a dead-end strategy.

you love splitting hairs do you not

while the bill would extend the bush tax cut, it stands alone as any law does - why do you insist that someone is lying or for that manner a group is lying - you seem to love retreating to calling people liars whenever confronted with a continued opposition

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you love splitting hairs do you not

while the bill would extend the bush tax cut, it stands alone as any law does - why do you insist that someone is lying or for that manner a group is lying - you seem to love retreating to calling people liars whenever confronted with a continued opposition

There is no hair to split here, because the bill does not extend the Bush Tax Cuts, it extends a portion of them, and it stands no chance of passage in the Senate. It amounts to political grandstanding, the kind of demagoguery we've not seen in many years, all in order to gin up your base and pump some signs of life into your floundering party. It's intriguing that you now want to call this 'extension' a tax cut, it demonstrates for middle-America, the arrogance of the liberal democrats. Because we didn't raise your taxes like we could have, this counts as a tax CUT! Hey, we gave you proles a break! You should be thankful for our benevolence in not raising your taxes.

Oh.... but it gets better... this great and benevolent middle-class 'tax cut' the Obamites now want to claim for their messiah, were completely non-existent when the Bush Tax Cuts were passed to begin with.

So what we essentially have is... A tax cut for the middle class which never existed, was extended by the House and will not pass in the Senate. But since it was once a tax cut, and it was being extended, it is considered a tax cut, even though it never existed to begin with. Got it!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Even though it is a separate law, it doesn't lower taxes. It extends the rate we currently have, it does not lower that rate. If it is not passed, taxes will increase, but you still can't claim this bill is "lowering" taxes!

Now, I don't know why you insist on lying about this, maybe you presume there are enough really stupid people out there, who will just assume Obama lowered their taxes? Even though, they will take home the same amount of pay as always, nothing is changing. Perhaps you don't think people will remember these tax cuts you extended, weren't supposed to even effect the middle class, it was Bush's tax breaks for the rich, when it was passed.... but maybe you hope the stupid people won't remember that? Even with everyone calling them The Bush Tax Cuts, when discussing extending them.

I am honestly at a loss as to why Democrat Liberals feel compelled to just continue lying and distorting reality. It's proving to be a dead-end strategy.

Probably because the tax cuts to the rich portion, which was the primarily controversial portion, wasn't extended.

The bill as a whole was still pretty controversial simply because we were barely fiscally afloat as it was and it squandered all of the deficit cutting that Clinton and Gingrich had accomplished.

 

[apple0154]

I wonder if people polled were asked "Do you favor increasing taxes on 50% of small business"? What the outcome would be of these "808" people.

You who hates Rasmussen polls likes this one...LOL

From your link:

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 808 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone November 29-December 1, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

From a month prior:
A new AP-CNBC poll showed a majority of respondents (50%) agreeing that Washington should "allow the tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 to expire, but continue them for other people," while 34% believe the tax cuts should continue for everyone. Fourteen percent suggested that Washington should allow the tax cuts to expire for everyone. These results differ greatly from the pollster's November 8 look at the question -- in that survey, the majority (53%) favored extending tax cuts for everyone, while 32% supported income eligibility limits.


(Newsroom America)

A new survey says most Americans want to extend tax cuts passed during the first Bush administration, sending a signal to the lame duck Congress they hope will act on them before the end of the year.

Rasmussen Reports said its survey found that 50 percent of likely U.S. voters think those cuts, which are set to expire Dec. 31, should be extended for all Americans, while a smaller portion - 44 percent - think they should be extended to everyone but the highest earners.

Republicans, who won a majority in the House and picked up six seats in the Senate, have said they favor extending the cuts for every income bracket, especially while the economy is still performing poorly.

President Obama and most Democrats, however, have said they favor extending the cuts to the middle class but allowing the current rates to expire for individuals who earn more than $200,000 annually and couples with a yearly income of more than $250,000.

Obama has signaled in recent weeks he may be willing to go along with all the extensions, but has said he doesn't want rates for top earners permanently lowered.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on November 13-14. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.

They did not vote when they had the opportunity to pass what they wanted because they are chickenshit hacks holding their poloitical fingers in the wind. You can spin this all day long, but the facts and the signs are there for the the non-lemmings.

"Small business." What the hell is a "small business"? Well, here is a good example.

(Excerpt) For example, most Americans would not describe the nation's wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the "Top 400" individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income -- which means that they qualify as "small business owners" under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have these data) -- an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS. In addition to the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, the following types of individuals are commonly included in the definition of "small business" used in tax debates:

•partners in very large corporate law firms,
•partners in lucrative medical practices, and
•Wall Street bond traders who receive multi-million dollar bonuses and invest some of their income in investment partnerships.
The commonly used definition of "small business" also includes many wealthy executives of the nation's largest corporations and financial institutions, who are considered "small business owners" if they rent out their vacation homes. (End. Emphasis added.)
http://mediamatters.org/research/201009140030

Maybe Rasmussen found that 50 percent of likely U.S. voters think those cuts, which are set to expire Dec. 31, should be extended for all Americans but I doubt those 50% are aware of what constitutes a "small business".

I think it's time to lay to rest the inappropriate sympathy for "small businesses". Instead of thinking of a plumber with a 10 year old pick-up trying to scratch out a living perhaps it's more appropriate to vision a Jaguar driving guy renting out his Cayman Island retreat.

Some politicians want us to believe a business person getting a tax break is thinking, "Gee, maybe I can use that money to create a job for someone."

When the idea of "trickle down economics" first surfaced didn't a light bulb come on? Since when do we associate "trickle down" with something good? Synonyms: dribble, seepage, drip. And the people paid to clean up the dribble and seepage from the financial crisis, a vehicle that would supposedly increase the wealth of the wealthy and the people would benefit from the seepage.

When will folks learn?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

some people are more equal than others - the founders regarding blacks and females

while free blacks could vote, their votes counted less than whites

females could not vote at all

and since the founding of our country, we've mad decent gains at making sure that freedom and equality comes to all our citizens, unless they make more than anyone else.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nancy Pelosi get shit done.

but who do you call if you want legislation that isn't shit?.........

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

and since the founding of our country, we've mad decent gains at making sure that freedom and equality comes to all our citizens, unless they make more than anyone else.

In which case they've always been hugely favored.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Anyone who thinks the rich are discriminated against needs to be guillotined. Everyone's income above 250k is taxed at 35% equally. There is no discrimination, and it's absurd to claim discrimination just because everyone doesn't pay an exactly equal amount in taxes.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In which case they've always been hugely favored.

in some ways, yes, but who gets taxed more?

 

[Canceled2]

"Small business." What the hell is a "small business"? Well, here is a good example.

(Excerpt) For example, most Americans would not describe the nation's wealthiest 400 individuals, some of whom are billionaires, as small businesses. Yet the "Top 400" individuals have a great deal of money to invest and consequently receive significant business income -- which means that they qualify as "small business owners" under the broad definition of the term. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have these data) -- an average of $83 million each, according to the IRS. In addition to the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, the following types of individuals are commonly included in the definition of "small business" used in tax debates:

•partners in very large corporate law firms,
•partners in lucrative medical practices, and
•Wall Street bond traders who receive multi-million dollar bonuses and invest some of their income in investment partnerships.
The commonly used definition of "small business" also includes many wealthy executives of the nation's largest corporations and financial institutions, who are considered "small business owners" if they rent out their vacation homes. (End. Emphasis added.)
http://mediamatters.org/research/201009140030

Maybe Rasmussen found that 50 percent of likely U.S. voters think those cuts, which are set to expire Dec. 31, should be extended for all Americans but I doubt those 50% are aware of what constitutes a "small business".

I think it's time to lay to rest the inappropriate sympathy for "small businesses". Instead of thinking of a plumber with a 10 year old pick-up trying to scratch out a living perhaps it's more appropriate to vision a Jaguar driving guy renting out his Cayman Island retreat.

Some politicians want us to believe a business person getting a tax break is thinking, "Gee, maybe I can use that money to create a job for someone."

When the idea of "trickle down economics" first surfaced didn't a light bulb come on? Since when do we associate "trickle down" with something good? Synonyms: dribble, seepage, drip. And the people paid to clean up the dribble and seepage from the financial crisis, a vehicle that would supposedly increase the wealth of the wealthy and the people would benefit from the seepage.

When will folks learn?

And they represent how many of the 50% of small business entities that would be impacted by the "250k" litmus test? You almost always take the sensational example in an attempt to make your case apple. In addition, the fact that the super rich can take their money off-shore is a problem that government should and can address...burdening the small business owner does not stop that kind of tax evasion!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Once again, Nancy Pelosi get shit done. Now the Senate will fuck it up.



http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201099-1.html

LMAO.... a purely symbolic vote... nothing more. It is FAR easier to pass something with her majority in the House than it is to pass something in the Senate.

No chance in hell the Senate passes something like this.