Paying for a Tax Cut....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am having a real fundamental problem with the course of discourse on this whole argument of extending the Bush tax cuts. It is constantly referred to as if it were a "tax cut" and it's not. It is an extension of cuts made already. So our taxes will remain relatively the same this coming year, as they were this past year. Where is the "cut" in tax? Not there! It's a great misnomer that this is a "tax cut" in any sense of the phrase.

This characterization of the subject, leads us to the next logical fallacy, the idea we must "pay for" a tax cut. This term just smacks of arrogance to me, as if our money already belongs to the government, and in order to allow us to keep it, they must "pay for" it. When it is a proven economic principle, to lower tax in order to free up capital, and thus, generate more tax revenues... how is the "pay for" number derived? Cutting taxes, will generate increases in tax revenues, not a decrease. The question shouldn't be "how do we pay for the tax cuts", it should be, "what do we do with the windfall?"

But we're not even cutting taxes! That's the whole thing! Everyone is discussing it as if we are, discussing Supply-Side vs. Keynesian ideals... regarding tax cuts... we ain't cut tax!

Now..... where will idiot pinheads take this whole episode.... by the time the election season heats up, this will be an example of how tax cuts for the rich don't work, because no jobs were created in extending the Bush tax cuts. You can already see the little pinhead wheels turning inside their heads, as they line this all up with their liberal ideology. But no tax was cut! Will the fence-sitting proles who could ultimately make or break the election, possibly buy the distortion, that we have enjoyed an Obama tax cut?

 

[Bfgrn]

Bush's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill

November 2002 meeting at the White House of the economic team.

“It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

“Bush asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

“He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, Bush comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

“Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

In the end, the president didn't.

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

 

[evince]

Dixie its a tax cut from the current policy.

If nothing is done taxes will be what next year?

If they are extended taxes will be cut from what they would be if the original tax took place as planned.


I am so fucking sick of the dishonesty on the right.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie its a tax cut from the current policy.

If nothing is done taxes will be what next year?

If they are extended taxes will be cut from what they would be if the original tax took place as planned.


I am so fucking sick of the dishonesty on the right.

You're the ones being dishonest, this is not a tax cut! The taxes were already cut! If your landlord decides not to increase your rent by $500 a month, can he parade around claiming he reduced your rent by $500? Maybe that flies in your fucked up little world, but not in reality.

 

[Damocles]

It's a retention of tax rates, not a cut, not a hike. Status quo.

 

[cawacko]

At the end of the day people will be paying taxes at the same rate as the year before. Folks are not going going to see more money in their paycheck from income rate tax cut.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

If nothing is done taxes will be what next year?

raised?......

 

[Liberty]

Dixie its a tax cut from the current policy.

If nothing is done taxes will be what next year?

If they are extended taxes will be cut from what they would be if the original tax took place as planned.


I am so fucking sick of the dishonesty on the right.

Say it like it is.

Not a lie.

 

[Good Luck]

Dixie its a tax cut from the current policy.

Current policy is the rate of taxation established under the Bush administration. That policy could sunset as of January 1, 2011. But currently, it is the rates Bush put in place.

If nothing is done taxes will be what next year?

Taxes will INCREASE. Doing nothing will end up RAISING taxes. But democrats already know this because the sunset clause is their fuckup in the first place. That is why they are so set on lying about the whole thing.

If they are extended taxes will be cut from what they would be if the original tax took place as planned.

No, if the current tax rates are extended past the original sunset date, they will remain the same. That is NOT a cut - it is an EXTENSION of cuts already made.

I am so fucking sick of the dishonesty on the right.

Then you must be projectile vomiting from the lies coming from your side of the issue.

 

[Good Luck]

That being said, there is some merit in the idea that tax cuts must be "paid for". ("Paid for" as a generalized concept of balancing revenues after tax cuts are made with expenditures after tax cuts are made.)

Of course, if the tax cuts result in economic growth such that revenues increase from said growth despite the lower rates - then that is how the cuts are "paid for".

But, since the economy did not grow as anticipated, due largely to grossly bad decisions in other areas, then the resulting lowered revenues have to be compensated for in the budget in some manner. (ie: "paid for")