# The tax cut debate, by the numbers

From msnbc.com's Tom Curry:

How much more would Americans pay in income taxes if Congress and President Obama cannot strike an agreement before the current tax law expires on New Year's Eve?

According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Foundation's online tax calculator, a married couple earning about \$75,000 a year, with two children under age 13, would pay \$1,850 more in income taxes in 2011 if Congress allows the current law to expire.

Thus the couple would face a 77 percent increase in the taxes they owe: a jump from \$2,410 to \$4,260. Another way to look at that is a tax increase of about \$35 a week in 2011.

A big part of that family's tax increase would result from the child tax credit –currently \$1,000 for each child under age 17 -- being cut in half if the current law expires.

Take another example, a single person earning \$350,000 a year and with no children.

If the current law expires, that individual would face a tax bill that would be \$11,850 higher in 2011, according to the Tax Policy Foundation's tax calculator. That would amount to a 13 percent tax increase over what she'd pay if the current law were extended.

Obama's tax proposal, detailed in his fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, seems to stand no chance of being enacted because Senate Republicans will block it. Congressional Republicans want to extend all the current tax rates and provisions such as the \$1,000-per-child tax credit. They oppose any increase in tax rates.

Obama wants to raise income tax rates for couples with incomes more than \$250,000 and for singles with incomes more than \$200,000, but to retain the current rates for taxpayers below those income thresholds. Obama would raise the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, which is what it was from 1993 to 2000.

Here's how the family and the single person in the scenarios above would be affected if the Obama proposal were to become law:

Couple earning \$75,000 a year, with two children
If tax law expires, their tax would be \$4,260
If Obama plan were enacted, their tax would be \$965

Single person earning \$350,000 a year
If tax law expires, her tax in 2011 would be \$98,759
If Obama plan were enacted, her tax would be \$92,585

The Obama plan would result in lower taxes for the married couple than they'd pay if the current tax rates were simply extended. That's because Obama and most congressional Democrats want to continue a tax break called "Making Work Pay" which goes to middle- and lower-income people.

Most congressional Democrats believe that higher-income people should pay higher taxes than they now do and they've already enacted a significant tax increase on them in the health care law which Obama signed this year.

Taxpayers with income in excess of \$200,000 for singles and \$250,000 for couples will pay an additional tax of 0.9 percent on earned income and 3.8 percent on investment income.

That new tax begins in 2013. By 2019 it will raise about \$40 billion a year. The new tax is not indexed – which means that as Americans' incomes increase in nominal dollar terms, the tax will affect more and more taxpayers.

As Sen. Kent Conrad, D- N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee noted on MSNBC Wednesday night, there's another unresolved question in the tax debate: "What do you do about the estate tax? We don't have anything in place for next year, other than to go back to the old rates on the estate tax, which I think no one thinks is the appropriate level."

If Congress doesn't take action before year end, the top tax rate on estates will go from zero today to 55 percent in 2011. That tax would apply to estates over \$1 million.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R- Ariz., the lead Senate GOP negotiator in the current tax talks with the Obama administration, and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., have proposed a plan that would raise the estate exemption to \$5 million and set the tax rate at 35 percent.

# Discuss this post

"government by thieves, features influential government employees exploiting their posts for personal gain (embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.), with the resultant deficit repaid by the native working people who “earn money”, rather than “make money”. Because of foreign (corporate) manipulation, the government is unaccountable to its nation, the country's private sector–public sector corruption operates the banana republic, thus, the national legislature usually are for sale, and function mostly as ceremonial government."

==========================================================================

The above desription is what we have become, and your vote can't fix it. Good Luck

#1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:40 PM EST

Let's repeat this together loud and clear:

TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WONT CREATE JOBS
TAX CUTS FOR THE WONT WONT CREATE JOBS
IF THEY DID 1992-2000 WILL NOT HAVE SEEN NET 25 MILLION JOBS
IF THEY DID WE WOULD'NT HAVE NET NEGATIVE JOBS SINCE THEY WERE ENACTED
THE PROBLEM NOW IS DEMAND NOT SUPPLY
More money for spenders or those with less disposable income (98% of you folks here) will more effectively stimulate the economy than tax cuts that will flee into better yielding emerging markets and savings. Why would the rich, currently flush with cash, and the most profitable quarters in corporate record going back decades invest in production here resulting in jobs while demand remains low and emerging markets yeild multiples.
TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY TODAY WILL NOT CREATE JOBS
TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY TODAY WILL INCREASE OUR DEFICITS

STOP HURTING YOUR OWN SELVES, OUR POCKETS, AND OUT DEFICITS FOLLOWING RICH POLITICIANS AND REPUBLICANS BOUGHT BY THE CHAMBER AND THE RICH.
Thank you.

#1.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:14 PM EST

Yep, that is exactly it in a nutshell, J. Richter

#1.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:39 PM EST

The tax increase is even greater for those making \$40k a year or less, due to the Earned Income Credit being cut in half if the tax cuts expire for everyone. The richest 2% have NO NEED nor ANY RIGHT to a \$700 billion tax cut (the cost to the deficit over the next 10 years). They're still getting the SAME TAX CUT AS THE REST OF US on their taxable income under \$250k a year. That should be sufficient.

#1.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:50 PM EST

Just remember everyone, we're still operating with the old congress at the helm, you know Nancy & Harry. Personally I hope they allow the tax cuts to expire just so everyone can see how their pay checks get affected come January 2011. The congressional phones will be ringing off the hooks by 1/15/11 and the TPM will be vindicated. As for the states that returned incumbent democrats to their seats, they'll be wondering what the hell they were smoking to do something so stupid.

#1.4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:12 PM EST

Who do you think you are telling me what amount is suffice,You shortsided people have no clue,once he raises taxes on the rich ,where does he go next,The middle class,he wont tax your income,but just about everything else,gas tax,sales tax,estae taxValue Added Tax,,at the same time cuttingback in places that w2iont really be noticed until after the next Re-election!!!

#1.5 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:14 PM EST

When will you lefty's learn, the rich will hide, defer, place their money offshore if their taxes are increased. So your wonderful estimates of \$700 billion over 10 years will go down the drain. Because there won't be more taxable income, there will be less, because of money hidden. Heck, take your own John Kerry for example.

Maybe we should scrap the current system, get rid of deductions, and tax everyone at the same percentage rate. The more you make, the more you pay.

Maybe still, we should get a government official to come up with a budget that will cut spending in order to save money. Or is that impossible. Why should the people, any people have to pay more to a government that continues to borrow & spend.

"Make Work Pay" is a joke, allowing 47% of the people to not have to pay taxes. That is wrong, no matter what country you live in. And most of those 47% get some type of government assistance--which means, they don't pay taxes, yet they take from the other 53%. Gotta love the way government works.

#1.6 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:16 PM EST

Dear "REal Americans First",

You are an ingrate!!!!!!!!!!!!I make \$250K a year, and I consider myself an Real American. I pay taxes that support the nation, and you pay virtually nothing. Stop talking to me like I am a criminal and just say "Thank you" to me instead of holding your pudgy little hand out for more.

#1.7 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:17 PM EST

If 5% of the -population now controls 95% of the wealth, dropping their control to 90% would add 5% of the wealth in this country to the people that really need the money. They will have more to spend and the economy will grow.

#1.8 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:25 PM EST

@Brian..have you looked at the numbers put forth for the Democratic plan? You comment makes no sense. The Democrats want to put more money in the pockets of the lower, middle and upper middle class. Please read the story; digest the numbers and then repost something that makes sense

#1.9 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:31 PM EST

And raising tax rates on the top 2% means more money would remain in the US economy instead of being stashed in offshore bank accounts and foreign stocks.

#1.10 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:31 PM EST

RealAmericansFirst,

How do you figure there will be more money in the US economy if you raise taxes on the top 2%-these are the people that already hide and defer all their money. Do you really think they are going to pay 4-5% more in taxes or move other places.

As a small business owner making over \$250K-I will rid myself of expenses first off, to get under the \$250K part-meaning I may have to lose a couple of employees--basically the tax credits to me don't offset the health care costs and raise in taxes, and besides those are your biggest costs. Then when I need extra help, hire a temp, or illegal and pay cash--no trace then. Next-I would cheat and lie about as much as I could, trying to get to that "make work pay" area, so I can join the 47% of the people that didn't pay taxes last year. Of course this is all hypothetical.

#1.11 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:42 PM EST

@ RealAmericansFirst

"Of course this is all hypothetical..."

... and idiotic.

So, the best bet is to do what many are already doing anyway (I don't - but many of my friends do) and not only put yourself and your business at risk, but also diminish the net on your returns? Duck and dodge is the solution?

Really?

Why is it that so many are afraid to pay taxes? My taxes do what I cannot because I don't have time to do it (like drop by the police station and hand these good guys a check in appreciation for their hard work - or the veterans that deserve a Christmas flight home - or the educational programs for my kids - or - or - or...). Further, if I might be paying more taxes, that means that I've done very well. If, during a normal year, I find myself in a higher tax bracket - OUTSTANDING! - I did fantastic that year and will work that much harder to reach the next higher bracket the year after.

What is it about running from taxes that seems to fill so many with passion? I'm proud that the work I an my employees do supports so much, including providing assistance to those not so fortunate ... isn't that supposed to be the perspective we built this country on? Ready to offer assistance to those in need?

Sure, we have all heard the inane argument of "Well, I'd rather be the one in charge of how my money helps out others..." Maybe so. Maybe so, but how many of us actually take the time to become so involved within our communities to put such words into practice? Right now I volunteer at the Boys and Girls club as an academic tutor and help the local high school biology class with field trips ... but my time is not unlimited. However, my tax dollars can be stretched across hundreds of programs that everyone benefits from - everyone.

I'm proud of that. I don't seek loop-holes to dodge my fair share, and I don't mind contributing some of my extra cash to a few additional worthy causes.

Why not? What am I working hard to make this money for if I'm not contributing to the betterment of my neighbors? The kids and the schools? Even the local environment or habitats abroad?

What's it all for?

#1.12 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:03 PM EST

As a small business owner making over \$250K-I will rid myself of expenses first off, to get under the \$250K part-meaning I may have to lose a couple of employees.

Also, realize that the extra 2% is on profits (not revenue) over \$250K.

#1.13 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:19 PM EST

@topicnumb - So well said!!

thank you!

#1.14 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 7:07 PM EST

Let's get one thing straight, Obama IS NOT RAISING THE TAX RATE. When the Republican led congress passed the tax cuts that are about to expire they INTENTIONALLY made them temporary because it would have been obvious that they were too big and would result in large deficits unless major cutbacks were made in government spending. That same Republican led congress actually INCREASED SPENDING which aggregated the problem. Soon after that came the 9/11 attack and we went to war, twice, and for the FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY that same Republican led congress FAILED TO FUND THE WAR EFFORT leading to huge increases in the deficit.

Let's also remember how our current financial crisis came to be. The financial collapse is DIRECTLY LINKED to the Republican led congress rollback of banking regulations. Their claims that "Deregulation" was critical to make America competitive globally have instead made us as a nation far weaker and less competitive. What's worse is this wasn't even the first time they did this to us, in the 80's the Republicans rolled back regulations put in place after the Great Depression which then resulted in the Savings And Loan Scandals. Surprise, surprise, George Bush's little brother Neil was right in the middle of this mess that cost the tax payers about 1.3 billion dollars and was found to have violated many laws but no charges were ever filled. Ultimately he was ordered to pay a paltry \$50,000 from a civil suit and once again, surprise, surprise, a Republican led fundraiser was held to pay the settlement.

The tax cuts when they were created were supposed to help stimulate the economy. The wealthiest Americans have faired extremely well over the last few years and for them the recession is over or never affected them so it's reasonable that their tax cuts should end. The logic posited by Republicans was that if the wealthy had more money they would hire more people. Instead we have seen no significant change in hiring but we HAVE seen a significant change in the distribution of wealth. The results are clear, the rich have gotten richer.

It doesn't take a world class economist to figure out that businesses don't add employees because they have more money, they only hire more people when there is increased demand for whatever it is they produce. Now the Republican's plan is to cut spending to control the deficit. Less spending means a decrease in demand for products consumed by the government which translates to lower sales for the companies supplying those products which will lead to more cutbacks and unemployment. Deficit spending isn't good but cutbacks in a recession are even worse.

#1.15 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 8:25 PM EST

Jay:

Everything you say is right on the money and accurate in presentation. I worked in financial services for over a decade, so I agree with your assessment of the deregulation of the banks.

As you know, it's pointless to try to educate the conservatives. They're less educated and refuse to listen to anything that challenges their world view (that they get from reading "all of them" - those magazines that come across their desks).

Good job detailing exactly who is at fault (the GOP). Too bad the people who keep putting them into office won't use their brains to actually consider what you wrote.

#1.16 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 10:41 PM EST

Otherwise known as a Corporatocracy (there are even some Corporatofacists out there), resulting ultimately in Neofeudalism. Or in this case, a neotechnofeudalist state where corporations with budgets the size of most countries nominate, promote, elect (as Stalin said, he who votes has no power, it's he that counts the votes), and control representatives and senators to further their own agendas regardless of the will of the people. The people are 1) gradually dumbed down, 2) distracted with electronic toys and with computer generated realities rather than being encouraged to read, and 3) monitored continuously (Total Information Awareness).

In the Eisenhower/Kennedy years, the highest tax rates were 70-90%. How did this work? To get deductions, the wealthy had to invest in their businesses, thus expanding the business and hiring more people. Has anybody looked at what the wealthiest folks did with their Bush tax cut? Did they start or expand businesses or just buy more luxury items (a new Gulfstream)? Contrary to what some folks believe these are not the same thing nor do they have the same impact on unemployment. Republicans always trot out "the small business (straw) man" in their arguments. OK, raise the cutoff to \$1 million. You think the Repubs would go for it? No way, because the "small businessman" is just a device they use to justify tax breaks for people controlling 80-90% of the wealth in this country. If this isn't institutionalized feudalism, I don't know what is.

Meanwhile unemployment and "entitlements" (just give me back what I paid in, thanks) are being targeted as the problem, while we continue to flush billions down ratholes in Iraq and Afghanistan. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, sending money to these countries is like "sweeping fleas across a barn"... not half of it has the effect intended, as it is skimmed at each transfer. Speaking of...﻿why aren't the poppy fields that support the Taliban simply napalmed? Because Karsai's brother would be offended. Just today, five of our GIs (including a 19 year old kid) were killed by an Afghan border guard. Our response should be to to pack up, leave, and fill their airspace with drones. They're cheaper.

If big money is not removed from our government and some kind of term limits imposed, we have lost the Republic forever, and are living in an illusion of what this country used to be.

#1.17 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:40 AM EST

Let all the tax cuts end for all levels. If you decide to have a family then you pay for it, so why a \$1000 child credit, you should pay for the cost of school, etc. Not me. Oh I know people will say I am selfish. No I am not, I am sick to see that since the 1960's Family values have come to mean that 14 year old girls have babies now, men do not pay for the kids they make, women's lib has come to mean a woman does not have to marry to have kids, NO, the woman now gets food stamps, earned income tax credit, free lunch program at schools, and gov. paid day care, and not a wage earning husband. So no wonder woman no longer get married before having kids. Oh I know I am against women's rights, no I am not, a woman can have a baby, just pay for it, either yourself or the father of that baby, No more state hand outs to Woman that have babies with out a husband in the picture or a man that is under court order that pay for the baby with the woman, yes the woman works to, and it is the responsibility of her family to figure out day care, and feeding, not the Gov. and taxpayer. You make it you feed it, cloths it and raise it. That is how it was done before the 1960's war on poverty LBJ, a total failure that America can not afford,

This has led to children having children, the complete breakdown of the family, men are no longer needed, as women's lib made sure of, men only need supply the tool and the fluid to make the baby and then the mother does not want them around any more, they have the Gov. to pay for everything. This is not fair to the kids, and it is not fair to the honest tax payers, and it is time that even if you are married you pay what it cost to raise you kids, if that means two or three jobs that is what you do.

Just say NO, to earned income tax credit, NO school lunch programs, NO Gov. paid day care period, grandma and grandpa, aunt and uncle sis and bro pitch in (FAMILY CARE FOR FAMILY). and yes Let the Tax Cuts Expire, pay off the deficit and buy our Country back from China. And Charity, and welfare that is the role of Church, instead of the mega Church investing all of its money paying the preacher million dollar incomes and paying all the money fighting gay rights, and abortion rights they should spend that money on helping the members of their flock put food on the table, free day care for working mothers, a preacher should drive 10 year old Chevy not a brand new \$150,000 BMW or Mercedes or Rolls as many of them do, If you go to a church and the pastor is driving a better car then you, then you may need to go to another church that is doing gods work and not working for the financial benefit of the pastor.

#1.18 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 11:21 PM EST

Looking at it from the governments point of view, letting the entire set of Bush taxes rates expire will mean the government can expect about \$4.3 trillion dollars of additional tax revenue over the next 10 years, or on average \$430 billion a year. Seeing the projected deficits are around \$1.3 trillion a year, all things being equal, that would reduce the deficit to about \$900 billion a year.

The "all things being equal" part of the deal is the rub though. The government will be taking hard earned money out of taxpayers pockets, so that money will not be available to them to buy a bigger house, or put on a new addition to the house, or save for the their children's education, or buy a newer model car, or invest in their business, or invest in the stock market, or invest in their 401K, or take that vacation they were planning. In short, the economic activity with a tax increase of this amount will further slow economic growth, and further hurt the job market, and reduce the tax revenue. And for some strange reason, the Liberals are all for doing it that way!

To kind of quote Billy Clinton and his gang from the '90s: "It's the spending stupid".

#2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:42 PM EST

Because redistribution of wealth is in their DNA.

#2.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:44 PM EST

"The Obama plan would result in lower taxes for the married couple than they'd pay if the current tax rates were simply extended. That's because Obama and most congressional Democrats want to continue a tax break called "Making Work Pay" which goes to middle- and lower-income people."

Why do you have a problem with this JoAnna?

#2.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:49 PM EST

JoAnnaSmith1 -- why is our country in the economic fix it's in? The "Bush tax-cuts" have been in place for nine years, and yet economic activity has ground to a halt. The bigger homes are in foreclosure, the companies who make "newer model cars" were on the verge of bankruptcy, 401ks lost much of their value. We can easily conclude that those tax rates (promoted "temporarily" by President Bush) did none of the things you think they might do now. Why would the situation be any different going forward? Most people, if they do have extra money today, will not use it to buy anything new, but will use it to pay off debts or put it into savings. What "newer model cars" would people buy? What companies are left to build additions to homes?

#2.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:50 PM EST

kate,

The Bush tax produced 8 million jobs between 2003 and 2008.

The crash lost jobs. The crash was an unrelated credit issue, not a tax issue.

With regard to today, unfortunately Obama has saddled the country with more problems than tax policy can correct. That being said, he can always make things worse (which he does on a daily basis) and raising taxes would make it worse/delay recovery.

#2.4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:04 PM EST

kate - Nancy Pelsoi agrees with you. She too thinks the government was shorted money from the Bush tax cuts, and she wants that money back! Nancy wants to increase the tax burden on every taxpayer in the country, and seeing Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, she does not have to hold a vote in the House on any extensions of the current tax rates. In other words, it's in her power to let those tax rates expire. Even when the Republicans take over the House in January, Harry Reid can block those extensions in the Senate. You think the Democrats are ready to take the "credit" for raising everyones taxes?

And when everyones tax rates go up in January, a couple with two children making \$75K will see their federal income taxes increase by 77%, people will have that much less money to spend, but the government will just spend more.

And somehow the Liberals think this is the way to prosperity in America.

To recap: It's the spending stupid.

#2.5 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:04 PM EST

kirby in Idaho: Because redistribution of wealth is in their DNA.

The Liberals are not interested in the redistribution of wealth, they are interested in the destruction of wealth.

#2.6 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:07 PM EST

JoAnnaSmith1

If the tax cut when in acted had accomplished its job, and that was to help sustain economic growth. they did not, the were a failure. the only thing they did was balloon the deficits. if they had worked we would not have had a recession that was as worse as the recession of the 1980s. so while i agree that, you should not let the cut expire, but for me we gave them 10 years, 10 years was long enough, its time to let the cut expire. build up our revenues back the way they were during the Clinton administration. during that time we were able to reduce the amount of interest we were paying on the deficits.

But how can our lawmakers right now say we have to PAY for extended unemployment but we don't have to pay for tax cut for anybody. the thinking is that they will pay for them selves. Joanna, have they payed for them selves ? the answer is no. so why do it again.
How can we justify spending 70 billion per year for tax cuts, when they don't want to pay for extending unemployment for 24 billion. that does not make since.

the republicans are playing games with the little people like we are not there, but the rich who had there tax's cut, that did not do the job they were meant for, sustaining long term growth. last, you dio know we are still spending billions every month in afgan and iraq, how are we going to pay for that?

welcome back long time not hear.

#2.7 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:10 PM EST

Why do you have a problem with this JoAnna?

She's a Republican. Math and science? Not their strong suits.

#2.8 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:13 PM EST

Nancy wants to increase the tax burden on every taxpayer in the country

Well since 2008, all Nancy has done is REDUCE your taxes. 15 different Bills with tax reduction including nearly 40% tax cuts that was in the stimulus. So she ACTUALLY reduces your taxes. And her current proposal REDUCES your taxes (unless you earn over \$250K) and yet you argue the opposite. You would rather continue to give the money to your richer neighbors and those on Wall street that Bush referred to as drunk and crashed the economy? Why do you hate yourself so much?

#2.9 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:19 PM EST

J Richter,

All Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have done is Added 5 Trillion dollars to the National Debt. I understand you dont have enough Confidence in yourself to get Rich and you Depend on the Govt to provide for you. Sorry that you feel so bad about yourself that you need this type of Support. and your only Solution is to take other peoples money to support your wants and Needs.. I for one have tried to help you on a Daily Basis. but to no avail you will continue to listen to Liberals that Want nothing more then to keep you in Finacially Enslaved to them all for your Vote. You are a lost Cause..

#2.10 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:34 PM EST

## bob-180,

You bring up the 8 million jobs number all the time (actually 7.8 million) but why do you exclude his first two years and last year where he lost 5.9 million jobs.

The fact is that during his 8 years he created fewer jobs than any modern President, even those that only served 4 years or even the 3 years of JFK. He created fewer jobs than Ike who had job losses in 5 of his 8 years.

Data from BLS

#2.11 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:43 PM EST

The redistribution of wealth has already occured as the rich get richer and the middle class dissappears into unemployment lines and homeless shelters keep the taxes on the rich and if that cannot be done allow all the cuts to expire

#2.12 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:19 PM EST

Who really believes that thse politicians will pay down the debt of this country ,they will just find something else to spend it on,Cut spending!!! ,without that simple idea beimg followed,Cutting or raising taxes wont mean a thing,

#2.13 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:19 PM EST

Or Dennis,

he will be ahead of our current president who in June of 2010 had a negative 3.3 million job loss under his term. It might have been worse, but still well behind Bush, by about 4 million jobs.

#2.14 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:20 PM EST

Jeff,

When should unemployment end?

99 weeks, 125 weeks, 200 weeks, 500 weeks, please tell us.

Why should people have to pay an overspending government more that 1/3 of their salary?

It is time to repeal the 16th amendment and make the government come up with a new plan.

#2.15 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:25 PM EST

BigBear62

I was not trying to say people deserve 99 weeks, all i was saying is that how can you say no to 24 billion unemployment extendtion unless its paid for and yes to 70 billon a year for tax cuts that are not paid for, that does not make since.

#2.16 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:46 PM EST

Exactly BigBear62.

Why don't people and the government get it. Cut the spending!!! Why do people have no problem giving their money and other peoples money to the government so they can just spend it as they see fit? I don't get it.

#2.17 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:48 PM EST

Exactly BigBear62.

Why don't people and the government get it. Cut the spending!!!

Where!!!!!!!!!! do you have the stomach to go with what the deficit commision want to do.

I'm a liberal and what they are saying is fine with me. On tax the are saying to let all the cuts expire.

#2.18 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:55 PM EST

Dennis,

The cuts that apply, the ones that we are discussing about extending, were the 2003 cuts.

The fact is that Bush let the value of the dollar get away (dollar devalued 35%), or job growth would have been better. You should know that.

I also stated that the crash lost jobs, that the crash was a credit issue - not a tax issue. You should know the difference.

Can you not read, or are you repeatedly and intentionally obtuse?

#2.19 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:58 PM EST

Jeff - they're NOT tax CUTS. They're existing rates... expiring them means a tax INCREASE for everyone. The 70 billion number is a sham... BY LAW, the CBO cannot take into account human behavior when coming up with cost estimates. Economics 101 shows that when tax rates increase, tax receipts actually decrease as people shelter more money. So to say that 70 billion would be collected each year if the rates expire for the top brackets is woefully inaccurate.

Besides... the money collected in taxes was EARNED by the people who paid - it's not the goverments money (much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere). If the goverment wants to extend jobless benefits then fine - just come up with a way to pay for it.

#2.20 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:59 PM EST

Cut the size of the Federal Government for one. Give more control back to the states. Cut some of the entitlement programs. What do you mean where? Let me see everything they spend their money on and I will tell you where to cut.

They cut spending and they wont need to raise taxes... Have you ever had to deal with the inefficiencies of the Federal Government?? I have, its a joke!

• 1 vote
#2.21 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:01 PM EST

Why do you Dennis and the rest of the liberals give up the "its all Bush's fault"?Since Obama took office unemployment has stayed around 10% and higher in some parts of the US? I though the stimulus would keep it below 8%. This is Obama who dosnt know what he is doing. The Dems have actually been in power the last 4years so you should be blaming your own party for the housing meltdown and financial fiasco. If you run both houses than take the credit good or bad. Right now its just bad so sleep in the bed you made. It will take strong conservative thinking and spending cuts to get the country in financial order.I love how the lamestream media trys to spin it that its Obama's tax cuts. The only thing from Bush he gives himself credit for. No one is getting fooled Sir. I also hear him saying "We can't give tax cuts to the millionaires and billionairs".Well I didn't know that someone making more than \$250k a year was a "Millionaire or Billionaire". Mr President we the people understand your play on words.

#2.22 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:01 PM EST

"To recap: It's the spending stupid."

GIVING money to already wealthy people IS SPENDING, ya nit wit. Worse, it's giving 'em BORROWED money!

• 1 vote
#2.23 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:26 PM EST

drive-by...

Nobody is GIVING anything to the wealthy... the problem with you liberals is that you don't understand that the money is THEIRS to begin with, NOT the governments. When you tax people's income, you TAKE money they EARNED. When you tax people's money LESS, you TAKE less money they EARNED - The government doesn't GIVE them anything, they TAKE LESS.

#2.24 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:39 PM EST

Mark-1712328

Besides... the money collected in taxes was EARNED by the people who paid - it's not the goverments money (much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere). If the goverment wants to extend jobless benefits then fine - just come up with a way to pay for it.

Extend the tax cut for the wealthy, just come up with a way to pay for those too, Cut defense, cut forgien aid, cut lawmakers salaries, cut the presidents salary, cut SS, give me a good off set to pay for tax cuts. let make the republicans put their money where their mouth is, off set all tax cuts with spending cuts, real spending cuts. I'm willing to sacfrace what ever i must to see these deficets go away.

I wish the republican felt the same way, they are willing to add 70 billion or what ever the numbers is to the deficets every year and not give to sh*ts what impact this will cause. they are telling us that tax cuts means jobs, but my question for them is, where the hell are the jobs from the tax cuts? why did we have a recession if the tax cuts are suppose to prevent that from happening.

its all double talk, they are not repersenting the average working stiff, the don't care about the deficits, they don't care about any thing but the 2%of our country that has had a free ride for 10 years. well we are in a sh*t hole and this time the middle is tapped out and we don't have it this time.

mark if your a rich man, making millions per year then i understand how you feel, but if your like me making 80k a year, your stupid to follow these goofs.

#2.25 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:48 PM EST

It actually doesn't matter who's in charge, Republicans or Democrats, because either way they're going to face the same problems. The U.S has a fiscal crisis: Medicare and Social Security costs are going to increase exponentially because of the retiring baby boomer generation. In addition, many states are on the brink of defaulting because of broken pension costs. Whether taxes go up or down right now is moot; the fact of the matter is that taxes will have to be raised eventually, and government spending reduced else the nation is heading towards bankruptcy.

If you want more details, read my blog post: http://www.blue-kaos.com/?p=1175

#2.26 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:16 PM EST

JoAnna -

We may not like to say it, but we the people have already foolishly SPENT this money over the last 10 years on two wars, a medicare care for seniors and Osma Bin-laden is still out there !

The money was spent on the federal credit card with no view as to how to pay the bill when it came in. Yes, people will have less money to do all those things that you mention above and this is what happens in a "credit-card" society when we spend foolishly and then later want to spend wisely.

I'm personally for pissing everyone off and letting the tax breaks expire for all. My only problem is that the government WILL NOT use the additional taxes to pay down the debt but may take a run at North Vietnam or Iran with the extra cash

#3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:55 PM EST

America has literally become a society where 95% pay in excess to provide 5% substantial wealth and the 5% pay to keep the 95% conned and manipulated. In the process the Republican Party, Tea or otherwise, has become ‘puppets’ for those few who strongly support them, who benefit and who ‘pull the strings’, while they give the majority only apathy, the costs and an abundance of subterfuge. All of this is clearly evident in their focused efforts to protect the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy (which proved to be of no value to the economy) and in their concentration on repealing Health Care reform and other changes (which then greatly benefits Special Interests).

Here are some points of interest that have been pushed to the side: Bush-Cheney already proved that the ‘trickle down’ theory is a fraud; tax cuts for the very wealthy really only serve to solicit political support; before the Bush tax cuts the economy was more robust even providing government adequate revenue without requiring deficit spending; America’s health care system, while being the most costly, is not anywhere near the top in quality (even falling short of several countries with Socialized Medicine); it is also rampant with fraud; is bankrupting Medicare; is near prohibitive in cost for small companies, for many individuals and is a drastic burden for large companies; the costs are growing dynamically and are simply out of hand; as a result many are without insurance and dependent on emergency rooms for ‘free’ services; the majority will always pay for those ‘free’ services in increased costs for healthcare, for taxes and for insurance premiums; that neglecting to fine tune and adjust the reform and instead repealing the changes only satisfies Special Interests and facilitates the result of ‘no real change’.

All of the deceptive rhetoric offered to justify, rationalize and disguise these negatives is done to manipulate public opinion while patronizing and placating Special Interests and the influential, powerful and very wealthy few. The Republican Party demonstrates an arrogant, stubborn and even cocky attitude as they have become irresponsibly fixated on their political ambitions at any cost to the people and just take the people for granted as they, with the overt and covert help of their backers, continually offer nothing but subterfuge.

#4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 2:56 PM EST

The Republican Party demonstrates an arrogant, stubborn and even cocky attitude as they have become irresponsibly fixated on their political ambitions at any cost to the people and just take the people for granted as they, with the overt and covert help of their backers, continually offer nothing but subterfuge.

==========================================================================

True, but when the electorate through it's own complacency and ignorance supports them what can one do? I used to think the day would come when people would say enough, but not any more, I mean face it people don't care if their neighbor loses their job and starves to death, as long as they don't, and when it's their turn no one cares about them, the Republicans know how the average American has been programmed to be greedy and selfish and they use it against them, a more evil and sinister organization would be hard to find, this country is doomed, count on it.

#4.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:32 PM EST

I DO care when my neighbor loses his job. I do NOT let the Republicans program me! I'm a Democrat!! We are NOT doomed yet. I say no tax cuts for anyone. Extend unemployment for 3 more months. Tighted our belts and hold on!

#4.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:41 PM EST

The democrats really want all the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year. This would give Obama and other "share the wealth" liberals more money for their liberal programs of the government taking care of everyone for all their needs. If you liberals want more money then go out and earn it like other people, open up businesses, worker harder and save more, quit looking for the government to baby sit you. The tax code needs to be completely overhauled and maybe we should go to a flat tax with everyone paying the same rate and no one gets any deductions. Why children tax credits, the government never made people have children, and why interest rates on home mortgages, the government never made anyone buy a house. By the way if the rich have to pay more they will just find more tax shelters to put their money in.

#5 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:03 PM EST

sounds like a puppet talking

#5.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:51 PM EST

Sfcret

Try opening that business in Detroit and see how sucessful you can be.. God knows they can use a smart business person there to help rebuild. So if you have the midas touch step right up.

#5.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:52 PM EST

"By the way if the rich have to pay more they will just find more tax shelters to put their money in."

So why do you care then if we increase their tax rate...? They don't seem to pay it either way.

• 1 vote
#5.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:59 PM EST

You can always spot a liberal by their lack of any capability to make an intelligent argument.

When someone simply responds "Sounds like a puppet talking" it only sounds like they are a puppet talking. Or maybe just the typical, lazy, welfare collecting liberal.

Get a job. get an idea, actually create some wealth for once in your life and then see how you feel about Representation without taxation. Which is what all Dems rely on.

#5.4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:01 PM EST

Hey Salt Grass... Detroit is suffering more than other places for one simple reason... UNIONS! Why the hell would anyone in their right mind set up shop in such a place where the cost of doing business is so much greater than in right-to-work states. Just look how Texas is thriving right now compared to those states like Ohio and Michigan where unions have caused the destruction of so many jobs.

#5.5 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:04 PM EST

Hey Mark, why were unions created? Mostly in response to the actions of corporate robber barons during the Great Depression. Texas is thriving by selling off America's oil resources as their own, as are most of the other states who aren't in recession.

When corporate CEO's are paying themselves an average of 531 times the average workers' salary and refusing to pay workers even enough for basic living expenses, the environment is ripe to create MORE unions, not fewer. If the corporate class wants to do away with unions, they need to look at their own behavior and make unions unnecessary.

#5.6 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:13 PM EST

Why do you Dennis and the rest of the liberals give up the "its all Bush's fault"?Since Obama took office unemployment has stayed around 10% and higher in some parts of the US? I though the stimulus would keep it below 8%. This is Obama who dosnt know what he is doing. The Dems have actually been in power the last 4years so you should be blaming your own party for the housing meltdown and financial fiasco. If you run both houses than take the credit good or bad. Right now its just bad so sleep in the bed you made. It will take strong conservative thinking and spending cuts to get the country in financial order.I love how the lamestream media trys to spin it that its Obama's tax cuts. The only thing from Bush he gives himself credit for. No one is getting fooled Sir. I also hear him saying "We can't give tax cuts to the millionaires and billionairs".Well I didn't know that someone making more than \$250k a year was a "Millionaire or Billionaire". Mr President we the people understand your play on words.

• 1 vote
#5.7 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:18 PM EST

Do you live in Texas? We have an unemployment rate or 8.2 percent and at least a 15 billion state budget short fall.

• 1 vote
#5.8 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:31 PM EST

...which is FAR better than Michigan or Ohio... and we won't even talk about the disasters that are California and New York. Public Unions have destroyed those two states beyond all recognition.

#5.9 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:42 PM EST

My point Salt Grass Democrat ideology dosn't grow the economy conservitive ideas do.Like you said Look at texas a conservitive state then look at California very liberal. trying to be everything to all dosn't work financially. A great idea however one that just can't be resonably applied. If you tried to take care of your neighbors bills you would be be broke wouldn't you. the proof is there conservitve states are doing way better economically than liberal states. Can't spin your way around that one.So try and make yourself feel good by taking money away from others and giving to whom you feel is better deserving.I am one to believe work around the paycheck you have and not rely on the hand out from the big bad rich.Its the big bad rich that is paying for it all so can't be to bad I guess

#5.10 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:38 PM EST

DAVID BOOKS SLAMS GOP OBSTRUCTION

Think Progress:

Yesterday, the entire Senate Republican caucus signed a letter vowing to block every piece of legislation unless the body holds a vote on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. This came after two years of a concerted GOP effort to “obstruct, delay, obstruct, delay,” as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yesterday. This morning, at a debate with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) at the American Enterprise Institute, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks slammed the GOP’s reflexive obstructionism and demand for ideological purity, saying their “rigidity” harms “governance” and is based on a false world view that progressives are a “bunch of socialists”:

BROOKS: And my problem with the Republican Party right now, including Paul, is that if you offered them 80-20, they say no. If you offered them 90-10, they’d say no. If you offered them 99-1 they’d say no. And that’s because we’ve substituted governance for brokerism, for rigidity that Ronald Regan didn’t have.

And to me, this rigidity comes from this polarizing world view that they’re a bunch of socialists over there. You know, again, I’ve spent a lot of time with the president. I’ve spent a lot of time with the people around him. They’re liberals! … But they’re not idiots. And they’re not Europeans, and they don’t want to be a European welfare state. … It’s American liberalism, and it’s not inflexible.

#6 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:18 PM EST

I respect David Brooks, but their fearless leader calls him a RINO.

#6.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:56 PM EST

The above desription is what we have become, and your vote can't fix it. Good Luck

Mitch McConnell is leading the Republicans in their quest to defend the rich is really frustrating.

But, what's more frustrating is the left and right wing Americans calling THIS President weak. Mitch McConnell needs to put his fat turtle face back in his shell since he has nothing productive to say. What plans does the Republican/Tea Bagger have for Americans apart from greed and snookering?

How many are standing with President? The antidote to this economically devoid country is not instant gratification. This is class warfare. Republican and tea bagger are surping all legislative proposals.

They want the millionaires, the top 2 % of all American households, be required to get their tax cuts. No unemployment benefits extensions. No debate on the DREAM Act, no Defense Authorization Bill ,which includes Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, No START Treaty. Nothing, nada!

Why can't we stand against the Republican wish-list with the President?

The Republicans have proved their point. Tomorrow the joblessness rate goes up. Add that to the Republican wish-list. This was all all a part of the Master Plan so the weakened left and vociferous right wing can say I told so --this President is incompetent.

The President's arms are to short to box with the devil along. We need to support what he is trying to do for US.

The corporate democrats won't stand with the President we need to start a non violent revoltion against the corporate Dinos and the Republican/Tea Baggers to help our President and our selves.

#7 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:23 PM EST

"The corporate democrats won't stand with the President we need to start a non violent revoltion against the corporate Dinos and the Republican/Tea Baggers to help our President and our selves."

===============================================================

That's what it would take, and the people aren't up for it, yet. Beverly I support Obama but he has consistently given into Republican demands without a fight, he should have vetoed the healthcare bill without the public option, he should veto any tax cut bill that extends the cuts for anyone making over \$250,000, damn give people something to fight for, the Dem's have allowed the Republicans to run over them, now they expect it. The fight has all come from the Republican side, and they have done a hell of a job protecting the wealth of their corporate interests, the Dem's on the other side have done a piss poor job protecting the people.

#7.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:47 PM EST

Obama made the mistake of thinking that republicans would act in good faith, when it's apparent they had no intention ofdoing so.

#7.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:17 PM EST

The corporate democrats won't stand with the President we need to start a non violent revoltion against the corporate Dinos and the Republican/Tea Baggers to help our President and our selves.

#7.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:46 PM EST

Each senator and congressman has a USG web site and a contact me link. Flood them. Think Wikileaks denial of service.

#7.4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:01 PM EST

What fails to be mentioned in many tax cut articles is that both the democratic and republican plans are similar in nearly every tax bracket except one. The Obama/democratic plan actually gives slightly larger breaks for most people. The difference is the top bracket as it applies to millionaires and above--they get a tax cut under the democratic plan of about \$7,000. Under the GOP, that same bracket tallies in at a whopping \$103,000. At a time when the economy is limping along, the debt is hindering Government's ability to do more--it makes sense to allow the upper bracket to increase back to 39.6%. If the GOP was serious about the deficit and the debt, they would consider what Newt Gingrich did, raise that tax level to help get the debt under control. We forget that millionaires and billionaires do not pay taxes on much of their income because of tax credits, deferments, loop holes and much of their income is capital gains and investment income taxed at 15% not at the same rate as their actual income. Somewhere in this scenario, there is common ground. The mistake is for GOP to hold everything else hostage, including the unemployed, for the sake of 2% of the people who do not need help because they're doing quite well and have been for 10 years. In fact, that group has been doing well for 28 years. David Stockman, Reagan's guy, admitted that this is madness.

#8 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:41 PM EST

Jody the Dem's have already signaled repeatedly they will take whatever compromise the Republicans demand to save the middle class cuts, why would the Republicans be inclined to give up anything when they know they don't have to? The Dem's need to learn how to demand what they want and stick to it, and keep their mouths shut until a real negotiation begins.

#8.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:57 PM EST

#9 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:51 PM EST

These figures show just how insane this debate is. The working stiff would pay \$3,000 more if the rates aren't extended, but our high earner, no kids gets whacked for a mere \$4,000 more. And who is crying foul? The government runs on taxes - that's a fact. The person who makes \$350,000 is benefiting disproportionately from living under the umbrella of the US. They couldn't likely earn this in any other country. Especially if they are a physician/medical care service provider. So they begrudge paying a little more in taxes? Is it because they are cheap and don't see the blessings that they have by living in this country? Is it because they feel superior to the average working man/woman? Is this some sort of twisted Puritan belief in virtue, grace and wealth (Calvinism?) The working guy doesn't begrudge the high earner's 4 car garage, pool, 2nd home, new cars/monster SUV's, nice schools, etc., but he does begrudge them holding on to every last penny under the mantra, "it's mine, I earned it." The working guy didn't screw up the economy forcing a bunch of his fellow citizens into UE or worse, so why should he pay that bill? The working guy could give a rat's a_— whether the US has missile defense, so why should he pay for that? The working guy didn't create/encourage the poor, but he has to live with them or much closer to them than the higher earners in their houses on the hill. You want that isolation, you have to pay for it. In the past, the rich were satisfied belonging to the country club with their own pool, while the rest of us sleptet our own bags on the public courses. Apparently the rich need much more, now.

#10 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:54 PM EST

Wanting to provide additional tax cuts (everyone gets a tax cut in Obama's plan) to the richest of us is a litmus test for being serious about cutting the defect. Anyone who wants to give them additional tax cuts clearly couldn't care less about the deficit. Every time someone tells you otherwise they are lying to you!

#11 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 3:56 PM EST

9 years of tax cuts still no jobs, economy in the tank ,still trillions in debt what have the accomplished so far?

If the Stimulus didn't work what makes anyone think tax breaks for the rich will work NOW we had 9 years for it to work and all we got was worst

#12 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:01 PM EST

Bob-180,

The Bush tax cuts were a major CAUSE of the crash. He gave too much money to the people that didn't "earn" it, they just invested it to screw up the market. So you can't say it produced 8 million jobs before it caused them to all be lost!!

Sure you can run a Ponzi scheme successfully for a while, but at some point it's going to come back to bite you. If his tax cuts for the rich worked, we wouldn't be in a recession right now!!

#13 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:05 PM EST

Washington is just like Health Care it's the cost. Cut the spending!

#14 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:11 PM EST

Hey J. Richter go to work for a poor person and let me know how that works out for you.  Better yet, start your own company put in countless hours over ten years and when your finally successful, tell me how you feel when the government decides you have too much and you must give up half of it.

It is past time to allow the people who work hard to become successful keep the fruit of their labor instead of being forced to give up over 50 % of it to bums who do nothing to improve thier own life except watch TV.

#15 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:15 PM EST

It is past time to allow the people who work hard to become successful keep the fruit of their labor instead of being forced to give up over 50 % of it to bums who do nothing to improve thier own life except watch TV.

Stereotype much? Are you saying that only people who earn a lot of money work hard? Millions would disagree.

Re: someone else's comment - the Making Work Pay credit is tied to Earned Income (which does not include unemployment benefits). If you don't have earned income (salary, wages) you aren't eligible. And it phases out at a fairly low level, so it is geared to help the working poor - emphasis on working.

• 1 vote
#15.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:00 PM EST

Do you have any employees for this 'company'? They made you wealthy.

#15.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:12 PM EST

'Patriotic'

If you want us to believe you have your own company... Do you work it by yourself, or are those TV watchers working for you, at minimum wage? Not everyone gets to make a Million a year that's just the facts.

If you do run your own company than you DESERVE to pay more taxes because you used more services like the roads, airports, commercial docks, postal service, with more to protect by the local Govt and Fed Govt. I DO run a business and I DO use the above services way more than the person who makes coffee at StarBucks.

• 1 vote
#15.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:13 PM EST

There are only two sources of job creation.

1 The government - who creates gov't jobs fueled by tax dollars. Whose sole purpose is to spend even more tax dollars

2 People who have an idea, a motive and a dream of being rich, or are already rich.

Poor, stupid people don't create jobs or have jobs or have ideas or have any desire to work or any desire to do anything but watch Oprah and smoke crack. These people still have money and get paid by the government for not working. Why is that ? Why are my tax dollars being spent on scumbags ?

If I could choose where my tax dollars were spent, I would let the useless, lazy, scumbags starve and spend my dollars to shoot Afghanis. Or maybe send someone to Mars, maybe a one way trip for all those useless, lazy, scumbag liberals.

#15.4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:13 PM EST

#15.5 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:16 PM EST

Patriotic- "Forced to give up 50% to bums..."

What the ?

What tax advisor let YOU pay 50%, when that's not the top rate????

• 1 vote
#15.6 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:32 PM EST

OH, my god,this kind of discrimination hurts the economy,I was injured back in 5th grade when I fell off my mammas boyfriends motorcycle ,while I was on my way to the welfarer office to apply for money that I deserved to get ,because I was pregnant and my babies daddy was locked up in prison forbreaking into wal mart and stealing 3 x-boxes and a Kanye West C.D.,he innocent,the police say they found the X-boxs in his room after his cousin was busted for trying to take it back to walmart and get a refund,with no receipt and no box to package it in,and said he wanted to exchange the Kanye West cd he found inside theX-box player for some Kool _aid and a pack of unused condoms.So as you can tell by part of my story,it isnt my fault that I collect welfare,social security,Food stamps Child support (of which only 2 of my baby daddies pay me anything)The other 3 daddies are locked up in jail or DNA tests were inconclusive for the last one,So ther again ,it aint my fault I have no money ,to feed my kids ,Thats the Govt responsibility,By the way I hear that the Government might cut my check next year by at least %10,that would only leave me \$1100 a month to live iff of,You know the \$500 I get through disability due to my chronic asmthma I get from all the Marijuana my docter presdcribes me,barely covers the cost of my monthly car payment,so after the \$600 iget for child support I barely have enough to feed my kids andpay my cell phone bill.The government wrong,thats my money and I deserve it,next election I vote for Jerry Brown,he says he will take care of the poorpeople ,like me!!!!!!

• 1 vote
#15.7 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 8:12 PM EST

sorry but the majority of jobs in this country are created by small businesses, and the majority of those are created by Democrats.

#15.8 - Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:27 AM EST

tax increase is not going to solve the problems created by congress spending more than is taken in. the more money brought in will only be spent prematurely because that is the way these think. they spend money that is not there yet. they add prok for their constituants. not much, but it adds up to more than 900 billion per yr. that would be the amount realized if the new plan were adopted. heck, 900 bilion for these thieves is just a drop in the bucket. collecting hgher taxes from people making 500k is not the answer. our gov. needs to reduce size and quickly, bring home troops from all over the damn world would save billion, fire halliburton making \$16.00 per tray for food. (think chaney aint getting some of that). another inside deal. the gao is not doing its job and getting real info from them is damn near impossible because it so huge and nobody knows anything. (not my dept) let me transfer you. 'God, this country is gone to hell" and our fricking congress doesnt give one crap about you. for some unknow reason, people let obama steal the pres. by manipulating the electoral collge and now look at what this guy has done for you. and he trying to help you some more. he is a muslim and he wants Americans equalized with 3rd world countries. we can all sit around camel-dung fires in a few years if you idiots re-elect him because we will all be broke. he wants a socialist-marksist regime. he has stated that he would implement a "state militia",answerable only to him for whatever reason. sounds like hitler and the ss doesnt it? this group of people would be independant of the existing armies, navy, etc. this is what is in the mind of the president of the united states. guess our taxes would pay for that too. wake up america, you are being screwed left and right, day and night by these people in congress

#16 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:21 PM EST

Wow! I guess it takes all kinds of mis-informed bigots in the world.

LL

#16.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:30 PM EST

Well, these tax cuts were designed and approved and voted on 10 years ago. At that time, for some reason, it was, yes, agreed and voted on that they would expire. What's the big deal?

• 1 vote
#17 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:24 PM EST

J Richter is correct. Demand creates jobs, not wealthy tax cuts. I, as an employer, will hire as many people as necessary as to meet the demand for my product. If there is no demand no amount of tax cuts will make me want to keep folks on the payroll. Taxes go into my equation for prices. Raising taxes on the wealthy does not cut demand. There is simply not enough of them to do much with the economy. However, the middle and lower class tax cuts go directly into the economy because they have no choise but to spend.

LL

#18 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:27 PM EST

Couple earning \$75,000 a year, with two children
If tax law expires, their tax would be \$4,260 (which is 5.7%)
If Obama plan were enacted, their tax would be \$965 (1.3%)

A couple making \$75,000 is far from wealthy, but also not close to poverty. I have a hard time thinking a 5.7% tax rate is onerous. A rate of 1.3% does not seem to be paying a fair share.

• 1 vote
#19 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:36 PM EST

We already pay way too much in taxes. Gasoline, food, electricity etc. there should be no personal income tax - ah, but that's a pipe dream!

• 1 vote
#20 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:37 PM EST

a majority of the people still making over \$250,000 are the freaking politicians anyway....

#21 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:38 PM EST

Yah ,the politicians dont have to worry about paying for health care or saving for retiremnet,thats all payed for by everyone else (Dems and Rep)With a pension that pays almost %75 of there wages until death immediatly after reirement, are the ones that look at us and say SUUUKKAAAS!!!And dont even think about freezing federal employeee wages,Hell there crazy enough to all retire at once and therefore making all there pension obligations due immediatly,also they truly believe that not evryone could step in and do there job as Effeciantly as them(That Last Part was meant to be a Joke!!!!)

#21.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 8:30 PM EST

Really? Seriously? One more time... these are not tax cuts we're talking about... they're tax RATES that are in force NOW... letting them expire means a tax INCREASE. Maintaining them is not a tax CUT.

I'm not sure what planet you're from, but your understanding of economics is really pretty poor. The less money paid in taxes to the government, the better off the economy is. This has been proven over and over again - after the ridiculous tax rates in effect until the 80's were finally cut substantially, we ended up with a boon in economic activity that lasted practically uninterrupted for over 25 years. Why? Pretty simple really, people had more money to spend on things THEY saw fit to spend it on, NOT what the government dictated it be spent on.

I never understand why people seem to think it's wrong for people to keep more of the money THEY earned. I really fail to understand why a progressive tax system is such a great thing? I can't claim credit for the following, but it does really illustrate the problem with liberal tax policy.

BAR STOOL Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to \$100 and If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay \$1.
The sixth would pay \$3.
The seventh would pay \$7.
The eighth would pay \$12.
The ninth would pay \$18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay \$59.)

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by \$20." so drinks for the ten now cost just \$80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected...They would still drink for free...But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the \$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'...They realized that \$20 divided by six is \$3.33...But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer..So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he roceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid \$2 instead of \$3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay \$5 instead of \$7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid \$9 instead of \$12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid \$14 instead of \$18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid \$49 instead of \$59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before...And the first four continued to drink for free...But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the \$20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got \$10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get \$10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

#22 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:40 PM EST

Methinks you think too much of your own drivel.

#22.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:59 PM EST

Me thinks that I actually THINK which is more than I can say for most of the liberals around here. Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism is that "eventually you run out of other people's money to spend". It appears that the liberals in this country have absolutely no clue about basic economics which is hardly surprising given the ineptitude of the education system in the US.

#22.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:13 PM EST

Read Warren Buffett's interview with the NY Times (Ben Stein) last week and get back to me on how hard you're thinking.

#22.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:17 PM EST

But- did teh tenth guy REALLY pay his share, or hide it in an overseas bar?

#22.4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:36 PM EST

drive-by... what percentage do you think he should pay? 80%, 90%, heck, why not take everything and leave him with the same amount as the other 9? Maybe that would be fair... typical liberal - seems to think that the wealthy got that way by cheating, not by working smarter, so deserves to have everything taken from them.

#22.5 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:45 PM EST

Mark- they got that way by taking jobs and livlihoods away from their fellow citizens and giving those jobs to foreigners so they could pocket even MORE profits for themselves. No, I don't think they cheated- the laws allowed it.

I'm just saying, if you wonder why not all of us are enthralled by the wealthy, re read above.

#22.6 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:56 PM EST

Hey People, it's a Democracy. The vote is by population, not land holdings or income level. Rich People and Land Owners are the ones who will always get used!

PS. Just wait till the prison population is the target demographic of the politicians!@#\$

#23 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:42 PM EST

No its a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy but maybe... only land owners should be able to vote. Not a bad idea...

#23.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:51 PM EST

Erm, Marc - did you fight for the Confederacy, by any chance?

#23.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:00 PM EST

Uhhh.... the second part was a joke...Duh

#23.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:02 PM EST

See the original constitution was admended to give all citizens voting rights.

#23.4 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:08 PM EST

And a rather unfortunate result that was... just think if only educated people could vote, we'd actually be in a much better place now. No liberals spending money pandering to the dumb masses buying their vote in exchange for power. That really would be a wonderful place to be. Such a shame.

#23.5 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:20 PM EST

And thus Mark shows his disgust for Americans. Christian, I bet.

#23.6 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 9:17 PM EST

If tax cuts won't stimulate the economy, all of you that work for a poor person, raise your hand.

It's proven over and over, tax cuts increase revenue to the Gov't. It's the reductions in spending by congress that doesn't happen.

#24 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:54 PM EST

Actually, that's not true. Raising the top tax rates and lowering working-class rates has consistently maximized revenue (and created the best overall economic conditions). The top tax rate in the 1950's was 91%, and the economy was just fine.

Our current tax structure actually rewards wealth over work, as capital gains (unearned income) are taxed at only 15% and are not subject to Social Security or Medicare taxes (as earned income is).

"lower taxes are better for everyone" is a fairy tale, not to be confused with truth

#24.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:08 PM EST

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you are actually suggesting that a 91% tax rate is a GOOD thing and would not hurt the economy, you are an idiot.

Take the example of a doctor who spent 12 years of his life going to school. He or she takes on approximately a quarter of a million dollars in student loan debt (not to mention the opportunity cost which would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as well). After graduating from med school and having hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, he or she might make \$300,000 a year (if they were lucky). If they were taxed at 91% that leaves them with less than \$30,000 a year in take home pay. No one in their right mind would take on that kind of debt and spend that many years working their butt off to achieve no return on their investment. They'd be paying off student loans for the rest of their life and never break even!!!

Same with a business owner - If they are EXTREMELY lucky, after building a business for years and working 75 hour weeks (which is the average most small business owners worked), they MIGHT finally be able to earn a high income like that (although it is highly unlikely since 9 out of 10 businesses fail and the ones that do "succeed" barely make any profit. So after investing their life savings into their business against the odds and creating jobs....why would they choose to invest that kind of money to start a business and assume all the risk when even if they are successful, they are just going to be taxed like crazy and bring pretty much nothing home? You must be ignorant if you think people are going to keep working their butts off and investing thousands of dollars or taking on student loan debt for nothing. Higher tax rates are a disincentive for hard work and ambition.

• 1 vote
#24.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 8:13 PM EST

"By the way if the rich have to pay more they will just find more tax shelters to put their money in."

So why do you care then if we increase their tax rate...? They don't seem to pay it either way.

#25 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 4:57 PM EST

You are absolutely right. Anyone that thinks the rich are going to have less money is crazy. They are

1. Going to Shelter it

2. If they own a business and sell a product, the prices WILL go up

3. If they can't raise prices enough, they will lay off workers.

It is their money, they earned it and they deserve to keep it. They don't owe you a job, they don't owe you anything.

So go ahead, raise taxes and see how that works out for everyone.

Maryland and New York both raised taxes on people making over a million dollars, guess what the people moved. Both governors readily admit it was a big mistake, and they didn't see nearly the increase in revenue they had anticipated.

Granted most wealthy people aren't going to move out of the United States, but they WILL do the things I listed above. Again because they owe you nothing.

#25.1 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:14 PM EST

Actually, many economists say that because so much of the wealthy's money is being invested or put into savings overseas, raising the top tax rates would almost certainly cause more money to remain in the US economy than otherwise.

Also, higher tax rates on upper income levels has not historically caused a decline in tax revenues. Maximum tax revenue actually occurs at about a 69% top tax rate (a level which was exceeded during most of the period after WWII and prior to the Reagan tax changes.) If raising taxes causes more money to stay in this country, that's a good thing. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts accomplished that.

#25.2 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:29 PM EST

Janet- you speak the truth. Since when do buiness owners pay the increased cost of anything? They pass it on to us. Taxes? Gas prices for their delivery trucks? Yep- it all goes on to US

• 1 vote
#25.3 - Thu Dec 2, 2010 5:38 PM EST

RealAmericansFirst,

Could you please list some of those economist that say if you raise taxes more money will stay in the US? And if they are professors, please list their school, so that we can all decide whether they are worth listening to. University of California & Harvard professors are not allowed on the list--see the financial state of California & Harvard professors--They make Obama look Conservative:)