E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS If Democrats concede to a 2-year extension of all the Bush-era tax rates (as seems likely to happen), will they be able to hammer out a deal on other priorities like unemployment extension or START? Thanks to Frank "Grimey" Grimes for the question.
As was reported earlier today, the Democrats passed an extension of only the middle class tax cuts by a 234-188 vote, after we shot the below video.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Don't forget to submit questions for the Boiler Room segments next week. Write questions below, post them on our Facebook page, or tweet it, to @NBCFirstRead or @mmurraypolitics or @DomenicoNBC.
Video was shot by Alexandra Moe and Ali Weinberg. Edited by Ali Weinberg.
Leave a Comment:
UTS FOR THE WEALTHY WONT CREATE JOBS
TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY 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.
Good post. At this point, only demand for goods and services from a strong middle class will create jobs. Supply side has already proven not to work.
A perfect opportunity to bring up the issue of passing middle class tax cuts through the Senate using RECONCILIATION and you skipped, actually botched, it. Are you sure you guys know anything more about politics than your readership? If you do, you ought to try to demonstrate that knowledge.
"You Know..." Domenico.
Paul, your assumption is based upon the premise that the senate leadership has the cajones to invoke reconciliation. Remember, we're talking Harry Reid here, not Nancy Pelosi.
What do balls have to do with it? What negative thing could happen to Harry Reid for exercising his power as Majority leader? That dog don't hunt, unless you are saying that he fears assassination.
He wants to give cover to the blue dogs; he fears losing the support of the repubs in dems clothing.
He would be outing them for the scum that they are. They aren't worth anything to him in the next session anyway, especially if they are going to vote with the republican minority.
No argument there.
When John Kennedy cut the top rate from 90% to about 70%, that got some wealthy people back to work investing their money. But why would cutting a millionaire's rate from 39% to 36% suddenly instigate a buzz of investment. We already have the lowest tax rates of any large Western nation. The tax cuts of Ronald Reagan did less for investment than the tax increases that Clinton enacted with Greenspan's blessing. When the economy gets stronger, all of the Bush attacks on the budget should be repealed. The man turned a huge surplus into huge deficits. Didn't anybody ever notice that Reagan's tax cuts caused HUGE deficits and W.'s tax cuts caused HUGE deficits. And I know somebody will write that Obama expanded the deficit. Yes, he did, temporarily, with a stimulus package designed to save state governments from bankruptcy and to prevent Great Depression II. The stimulus is a one-time thing, which will wash out over three years. Obama would not have had to propose the stimulus if three-quarters of a million people were not being laid off EVERY MONTH when he took office.
Funny how folks forget the damage the Reagan tax cuts caused. Even he noticed his error and raised them back again.
Thanks. Some people can not recognize a tax cut they will not fight for. What rate would be good 36%, 25%, 0%??? Even while we want to continue to fund the most advanced society and military in the world? If 39% for the top rate was so inimical to economic growth then the Clinton years would not be the success (jobs and deficit-wise) and opposite polar economically of the Bush years and their lower taxes.
Beyond Democrat -
John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and President Bush all lowered taxes. Each time taxes were lowered, tax revenues increased. Unfortunately, government spending increased at a faster pace. That's what created the deficits. Higher spending not lower taxes.
So if we lower taxes to zero, revenues will increase to infinity. Deficit gone. Instant surplus.
Hi, Paul. No one is against reasonable taxes.....if the money is used for sound purposes. Sadly, Congress forgets the money they are appropriating belongs to the people. They have lost (if they ever had it) the idea that the people's money should be spent with thought and care.
Beyond Democrat was saying that lower taxes create deficits. They don't. Spending more money than you have creates deficits. That's all.
Spending more money than you collect, creates deficits.
Yes, Paul. So cut spending.
Better yet, create jobs, keep taxes low - (both of which will increase revenues), exercise some fiduciary responsibility in spending, and reduce the deficit. Don't know how come Congress can't figure it out.
This morning on First Thoughts, there was a string of posters who nobly declared they would be happy to pay higher taxes if the taxes went for the common good. These folks have taken advantage of the Bush tax cuts for the last 10 years. But they didn’t have to. There’s no law that says you have to claim deductions or exemptions. These posters could have bypassed the 1040 and filed an Easy form without deductions. If appalled by the small tax liability they owed, they could have written a check to the government in excess of the amount required by law. After all, all of their money would go to through the government to the common good, right?
This is what divides us. It causes me to perceive that the liberal believes the government should dictate what they should do with their own money. Do they not have the wherewithal or capacity to decide on their own the best use of their own money? If the liberal can keep more of their own money they may use it to support the economy by buying goods and services. Or, he might give it to a targeted charity, a food pantry, a homeless shelter or, better yet, to a struggling family he knows. Or, he could invest it –which increases the capital of the businesses he invests in, which allows those businesses to survive, grow and expand – which is ultimately a good thing for the common good. These are things, I believe would be good and effective uses of personal capital.
Contrary to what the liberal has been told, the conservatives, as well as the “rich” might do these very same things if they were allowed to maintain control of the money they earn.
I don’t want or need to tell some one else what to do with his money. I trust he will make his own decisions. But the liberal wants and needs to tell me what to do with mine. This is the most disturbing and divisive difference between us.
Amazing all you Self Proclaimed Educated People.. I call you Educated Idiots for a reason .. Are not smart enough to get rich yourself and so Depend on the Govt to provide for you. Yes we understand that it was a Bunch of Lefties that proclaimed they would pay more. all the while hiding behind their own Tax shelters and then Donating their Riches to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation so the Govt can't get it all. .. Why dont these self Proclaimed Rich People give every Extra dime they have to the Govt to help you people that so Depend on it..
Hello Candice,
It's still a pleasure to read your comments. Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving and are doing well.
Steve-O
You might want to slow down and reread Candice's comment again.
Actually, you should always look for them, they are very good.
Have a good evening Steve.
Hi, Bob.
Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays --- family, food, no presents, no pressure! And we have a lot to be thankful for.
I was taken back by Steve's comment, too, at first. On second reading though, I believe he is agreeing with me and is on our side.
I've been reading your posts, Bob, and didn't need to jump in --- you cover the issues very well.
Exactly Candice. I had no problem with your post.. just adding my own Two cents.. Yours was brilliant.
Hi, Steve.
The liberal likes to bring up Warren Buffett’s dismay about his paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Mr. Buffett could easily write a hefty check to his secretary if he wanted to. Or he could write one to the IRS. No one is stopping him from doing so.
Instead, with his excess cash, he buys companies. He employs people. He invests, which increases the capital of the businesses he invests in. He is a philanthropist. He directly supports at risk and disadvantaged youths, organ donation, children’s charities, and cancer research. He provides money to homeless programs and works against poverty. He funds the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation. All of these things are good.
He doesn’t give his money to the government and assume the government will support these worthwhile programs. He knows his direct contributions will be more effective. He talks a good game in support of tax increases, but he knows the government will not spend his money as effectively as he can. Plus he gets a massive tax deduction.
Here is the real Question he asked. Seems he put it alot differnt then the Liberals at FR did. why not just post it as he asked. or do you always need to put your slant on it..
Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA
What do you see as the most likely outcome of the current battle over the "Bush Tax Cuts"? Do you see the actions of House Democrats as undermining the President and his meeting with Congressional Republicans? How can I get over my anger at Qatar beating out the USA for hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup? (Come on...seriously...who wants to go to the Middle East in July!)
Thanks as always FR Crew.
The tax rates we pay are in direct correlation to the crusades we continue to run so Raytheon..Boeing..Halliburton etc stay in business because the senate /congress own the stock . And offer them the no bid contracts ..Otherwise we would be at peace ...I say get rid of the military..and the Pentagon and the programs very few people know about ..the covert operations in Iran..Iraq.. Israel..Russia..China.. Japan Korea etc ...
Candice:
Of course revenues eventually went up with inflation and other factors, even after tax cuts. But immediately after the Reagan tax cuts, the deficit rose quickly from about 80 billion annually to about 350 billion. And W.'s tax cuts took a 200 billion surplus to 400 billion deficit in just three to four years. Quit deluding yourself. Math does matter and the multiplier matters.
Again, we have the lowest rate of taxation this country has seen in about sixty years. We have the lowest rate of taxation of any first world country (at least any large sized first world country) and we maintain that despite spending more on defense than all of the rest of the world combined. The "taxed enough already" line is chicken crap. We are fighting two wars. We should have paid more taxes over the last ten years. Refusing to do so was irresponsible.
One more thing: Al Gore, with his reinventing government campaign, eliminated more federal government workers than any Republican ever has. And the Clinton administration created more private sector jobs than any Republican administration. And Clinton started the wave with a budget balancing tax increase - primarily on the wealthy. Interest rates plunged and happy days were here again. It took some complete incompetence on W.'s part to mess it up.
O.K. Candice, I've asked just about all other conservative posters here so now it's your turn. No one else has even tried to answer this question. What will you do?
We've had tax cuts, three times in the past 5 years. In 2004, Congress declared a tax "holiday" on revenue generated in foreign countries by U.S. companies. They paid 5.2% in hopes it would create jobs (the country was hemorrhaging jobs pretty bad back then). So in spite of all this, jobs were lost and unemployment remains high while companies are showing huge profits.
What makes you think tax cuts will create jobs and jumpstart the economy?