Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

[Jimaz]

From Newsweek:

Raise My Taxes, Mr. President! -- We can’t afford the Bush cuts anymore., by Fareed Zakaria

The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending [[including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts....

The simple fact is this: all the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom. Conservatives thought they would force us to shrink the government. But with Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, did reduced taxes cause reduced spending? No, they led to ever-increasing borrowing and a ballooning deficit....

Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth. Bush cut taxes massively in 2001 and got meager growth in return. Three tax cuts enacted since the financial crisis have done little to spur growth.... Better yet, spend money on far more efficient ways to spur job creation, such as tax credits for jobs, which the CBO estimates would create four to six times as many jobs as would tax cuts....

We have in front of us a simple, easy way to bring America’s fiscal house in order, reduce our dependence on foreign borrowing, restore U.S. credibility and power, and give us a stable revenue base from which to make key investments for future growth. All we need is for Congress to do what it does so well—nothing.

[gazhekwe]

Aho! [[I agree with this!)

[oldredfordette]

Agreed. Plus, Ted Nugent came out against repealing the cuts, so you know it's a very very good idea.

[Ray1936]

Aw, come one. Ya gotta cut spending. Here's my plan:

1. Out of Iraq. Now.
2. Out of Afghanistan. Give it three months.
3. Out of Korea. Now.
4. Out of Japan. Now.
5. I don't have a problem with keeping Gitmo.
6. Deploy excessive troops after mustering many vets out of service on the Canadian Border. We gotta keep those illegals out.

Wait....something don't sound right......

Well, five out of six ain't bad.

[3WC]

Ray: With age comes wisdom.

I'd add: Cut foreign aid by 80% and then give only to unwavering allies on a proven need basis. Also reduce U.S. funding of the U.N. to the lower of [[i) that of the average per capita contributions of China, Russia and India, or [[ii) the per capita contributions of France.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm pretty sure that the suggestions offered by Ray and 3WC don't add up to $1 trillion per year.

The idea that the average American is overtaxed is a nice piece of populist pandering. In fact, federal taxes as a percentage of the economy are at their lowest level since the presidency of Harry Truman.

On top of that, we're one of the least taxed developed nations on earth. I'm not saying raise taxes through the roof in the midst of a recession, but one can only cut spending so far until you're gutting necessities. The wealthiest among us have been living high off the hog since 2001, and can afford to pay their share.

[Whitehouse]

I'm pretty sure that the suggestions offered by Ray and 3WC don't add up to $1 trillion per year.

There's you Trillion....

[barnesfoto]

[I'm pretty sure that the suggestions offered by Ray and 3WC don't add up to $1 trillion per year.

No, but they would be a great start, as would raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to Truman era levels.

And while we are there, subleasing Gitmo to the Spanish Hotel Industry would be great, as would selling the Northernmost Mariana Islands to some of those folks who want their own islands, or don't want to live with immigrants.

[MCP-001]

Ray: With age comes wisdom.

I'd add: Cut foreign aid by 80% and then give only to unwavering allies on a proven need basis. Also reduce U.S. funding of the U.N. to the lower of [[i) that of the average per capita contributions of China, Russia and India, or [[ii) the per capita contributions of France.

Why 80%?

Tell me why someone having a hard time here in America should be shaken down so that we can make nice with countries that don't like us?

Some of the entries about Pakistan from the Afghan "diaries" are interesting examples of what I mean.

[oladub]

Hey, sounds great. Let's all gather 'round and sing "Happy Days are Here Again" and reinstitute President Clinton's final 2001 budget of $1.9T which he submitted in 2000 with his pre-Bush tax increases and all. Let's even add an inflation factor of 24.6% to take into account the increase in the cost of living, as determined by the federal government, from 1/2001 to present.

$1.9T x 124.6% = $2.37T

Still with me Pioneers?

The 2010 federal budget as submitted by President Obama, assuming of course no cost overruns, is $3.6T. Yes, yes, yes this will work!!!

Reducing federal spending to Clinton levels including his tax hikes, eliminating Bush's tax breaks for the rich, and adding enough to cover inflation will save $1.2T annually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

[rb336]

fact: Clinton's 2001 budget reduced the "marriage tax" penalty - a decrease in taxes
fact: Clinton's 2001 budget expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit - a decrease in taxes

the tax increases? on tobacco [[including fines for marketing to minors) and closing loopholes in the corp. tax

[ghettopalmetto]

Then there's that whole recession thing, which we're just supposed to HOPE goes away on its own, right?

...and then blame the Big Bad Gubment that we hate so much for not creating jobs.

[jiminnm]

For those of you who think your taxes are too low, you can make a contribution to the US Treasury to reduce the public debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r.../gift/gift.htm

If you think only the other guy's taxes should increase, then this won't help you.

[Papasito]

One of the biggest problems with business planning and economic recovery is that no one knows what the White House or the Government is going to do. Everyone is bracing for the worst. Issues are handled as they arise, with no clear and calculated plan set ahead of time. There is way too much instability and unpredictability going on in Government.

As far as the "Bush" tax cuts being let lapse, having a tax increase during a recession is a solid recipe for guaranteeing the "double dip recession" that skeptics have been predicting. I know that our debt needs to be addressed, and more money to Government is not all a bad thing. However, you have to remember that Government is full of elected officials on both sides that will increase spending if we increase taxes, and the Government will not fix itself. More of our dollars = more wasted Government spending and recklessness.

Also, you need to remember this lapsing will effect many, many of the "non rich". It means everyone will be being more in taxes. Everyone with a child will have the child tax credit cut from $1000 to $500. May I remind you that a lot of low income Americans have kids? Even immigrants and minorities! This directly effects them. I could go on and on about how the low and middle class Americans are going to be effected, but why should I ? If you are reading this, you are already formulating your response to my post and whatever I am typing really does not make a difference in your response.

The Government [[The Obama Administration) has already proposed its' budget over the next few years, and it has annual deficits in the trillions. Letting the tax cuts lapse will not bridge the gap on these deficits + the unexpected billions and trillions the Government will send over and above it [[ Natural disasters, Emergencies, Unforseen Military Conflicts/Wars, Bailouts ).
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...this-year.html

IMO the Government should be being starved into Change by us, the people.
Giving them more dollars will only make them more reckless, pompous, fat and out of touch.

[ghettopalmetto]

One of the biggest problems with business planning and economic recovery is that no one knows what the White House or the Government is going to do. Everyone is bracing for the worst. Issues are handled as they arise, with no clear and calculated plan set ahead of time. There is way too much instability and unpredictability going on in Government.

Sounds like someone didn't pay one fucking iota of attention during 2008. Name one thing this Congress and administration have accomplished that was not specifically mentioned in an Obama campaign speech in 2008. Just one.

[oldredfordette]

He spits out right wing talking points like scripture. I'm learning to ignore him.

[johnsmith]

Name one thing this Congress and administration have accomplished that was not specifically mentioned in an Obama campaign speech in 2008. Just one.

EASY. Barry and Joe didn't specifically say they were going to flush the country down the crapper.

[ghettopalmetto]

EASY. Barry and Joe didn't specifically say they were going to flush the country down the crapper.

And by "crapper" you mean:

1. Save the American automotive industry
2. Enact regulations on the financial services sector
3. Extend health insurance to all Americans
4. Grow an economy that was in freefall
5. Eliminate subsidies to corporate banks for servicing student loans
6. Cut taxes for working people
7. Enact consumer credit protections in order to avoid a repeat of the current recession
8. Invest money in technologies that reduce our dependency on petroleum
9. Invest money in the beginnings of a respectable passenger rail network

[rb336]

The problem with the tea-bag set is they have no imagination. They can not imagine the state the country would be in if Obama had lost theelection and the republicans had done -- nothing.

Had GM and Chrysler gone out of business, and the financial bailout hadn't happened there would EASILY be 25-35% unemployment by now nationwide.

[Johnlodge]

The problem with the tea-bag set is they have no imagination. They can not imagine the state the country would be in if Obama had lost theelection and the republicans had done -- nothing.

Had GM and Chrysler gone out of business, and the financial bailout hadn't happened there would EASILY be 25-35% unemployment by now nationwide.

More likely a republican administration would have done the exact same shit, the dems would be saying they were wrong for doing it, and the dittoheads would be defending the decisions as necessary.

[lincoln8740]

For those of you who think your taxes are too low, you can make a contribution to the US Treasury to reduce the public debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r.../gift/gift.htm

If you think only the other guy's taxes should increase, then this won't help you.

they would never walk the walk--they just want other peoples money They think they are paying their "fair share"

[Jimaz]

From United for a Fair Economy:

Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability.

[ghettopalmetto]

they would never walk the walk--they just want other peoples money They think they are paying their "fair share"

If taxes are raised on the wealthy, we don't all get a cut of that, you know. But it would go a LOOOOOONG way toward balancing the budget that the Republicans and Tea Partiers so badly claim they want.

I'd like to think I do pay my fair share. On the other hand, you can't tell me that someone with 100 times my income eats 100 times the food, wears 100 times the clothes, drives 100 times the cars, takes 100 times the vacations, and has a housing payment 100 times mine. Certainly that person can get by with paying AT LEAST the same effective tax rate I do, if not greater.

You want to talk about "fair share"? Then why does Warren Buffet's secretary pay a higher effective tax rate than her boss?

[Jimaz]

Geithner: Tax cuts for rich a '$700 billion mistake'

"America is a less equal country today than it was ten years ago, in part because of the tax cuts for the top 2 percent put in place in 2001 and 2003," said Geithner. "The most affluent 400 earners in 2007 -- who earned an average of more than $340 million each that year -- paid only 17 percent of their income in tax, a lower rate than many middle class families."...

Geithner said the government has "limited resources," and that extending tax cuts to the nation's top earners would be an ineffective way to allocate the government's money and stimulate growth. But he emphasized that failing to extend the middle class tax cuts, which save families more than $2,000 a year, would be a big mistake that would further slow the economic recovery.

That's because, while the tax cuts will encourage most Americans to spend, helping to stimulate the struggling economy, top earners, with large disposable income, are much more likely to save, he said....

Debunking 'myths': Holtz-Eakin argued that letting the tax cuts expire for the top 2% of Americans would hurt small businesses, which often pay taxes under the individual income tax code.

But Geithner rejected the claim as a "myth," saying that less than 3% of small business owners would be impacted if the tax cuts expire.

He also discredited the argument some politicians have made that the tax cuts pay for themselves.

"There is absolutely no evidence to support it," he said. "And conservative economists and policy-makers -- even those who once hoped that this fiction was fact -- are embarrassed by the argument."

So it's pretty much been a welfare for the wealthy scheme all along. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the usual welfare opponents to agree with Geithner on this one. After all, how can we perpetuate a "global economic meltdown" without continuing George W. Bush's brilliant policies?

[ghettopalmetto]

What does Geithner mean that tax cuts don't pay for themselves? Didn't he see the enormous budget surpluses that we had after 2001?

Oh wait, my bad: 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11.