2011-2012 Tax Extension Bill

[LongLiveYorke 38]

no it won't cost, not in the same cost as the stimulus package costs anyways. losses in revenue do not add to the deficit, they simply don't pay it down as quickly. it only costs to lower taxes in the same manner that it costs you not to be an investment banker. but as in that example, it's not necessarily going to lead to the best net outcome.

This logic makes no sense. If you do A, the deficit is lower than if you don't do A. If you don't do B, the deficit is higher than if you do B. With both A and B, there are two choices. Do you think the deficit changes if it is achieved through spending of lack of earning?

[ShakeZuma 585]

wait, what? the fact that there is a difference between cost and revenue doesn't make any sense? that's not logic, that's the definition of the words. the fact that raising taxes and lowering spending will, ceteris paribus, have the same effect on the deficit doesn't make them the same thing.

[ShakeZuma 585]

anyways, I want to get back on track to what we were talking about originally: you were vilifying the republicans for playing politics with the tax cut extensions, and through that ignoring other bills that the democrats were presenting. I pointed out that the reasoning wasn't (purely, or mostly even) political, but that it was based on importance and urgency of the tax cut extensions. even you agreed that the two year extension was a good thing (and though you didn't mention it, I'm assuming you approve of the unemployment extension and other add-ons in the bill). when questioned as to the reasoning democrats where unhappy with the continuation of the tax cuts for the highest bracket, you noted what I had assumed their only valid reason could be in concern about the deficit (I won't get into the whole "democrats care about the deficit?! when did this happen?!" thing as the republicans haven't cared either for much of recent history), which it seems nearly everybody agrees, isn't the most pressing concern right now with stagnant growth and 9.8% unemployment. so basically, the republicans are acknowledging and attempting to address the most pressing issue in front of congress right now and have taken a stand to force movement on the issue, and knowing this, the democrats have played politics by throwing roadblock bills that are blatantly aimed at making republicans look bad when they vote them down. so why, then, are the republicans the bad guys again?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

so basically, the republicans are acknowledging and attempting to address the most pressing issue in front of congress right now and have taken a stand to force movement on the issue, and knowing this, the democrats have played politics by throwing roadblock bills that are blatantly aimed at making republicans look bad when they vote them down. so why, then, are the republicans the bad guys again?

Well, first of all, I don't see an attempt to have a military spending bill pass before the end of the year, as it always has, as "getting in the Republican's way." It's one of the main reasons for the lame duck session, and Republicans have shot it down because of homosexuals. And how much time really would it take to vote on a 911 bill?But that's not the point. The point is that the bill to extend the tax cuts is one that will be very costly in terms of the deficit and, in my opinion, is a pretty bad way of spending nearly a trillion dollars. While you argue that not extending the Bush Tax Cuts (BTC's) would raise the taxes on many small business owners, which is true, I believe that the effect of this on the unemployment level would be small. Again, you could argue that ANY effect is bad since times are so dire, which is a fair point.I'm not going to try to speak for the Democrats because I can't read their minds and I don't know what sort of deals were proposed behind closed doors between the President, Republicans, and Democrats. But, if you're asking my opinion, I think we would be way better off spending the same amount of money that this tax cut would cost over the next two years on, say, more targeted tax cuts. For example, we could lower payroll taxes (as we are, but we could do more), we could make tax credits for small businesses that hire new employees, we could temporarily reduce capital gains to spur investment, or other means that specifically reduce the costs for small businesses. Reducing the income taxes of their doesn't seem the best solution. If I were in charge, I would keep the tax cuts for $250,000-$500,000 and then use the cost of $500,000-infinity to pay for the targeted tax cuts I alluded to above, as well as to increase unemployment benefits. So, maybe my anger that you're trying to understand comes from the fact that I don't really see any new, original, good ideas being presented by either party. Or maybe it's because Republicans unconscionably made a stand for DADT.Does any of that make sense?

[hblask 1]

In the mean time, the "Party of No" refused to sign a nuclear arms treaty with Russia because it would make the President look good and refused to fund the military because it would let homos sacrifice their lives for this country. Also, they refused to give health benefits to victims of 911 who sacrificed their time to clean up Ground Zero and became ill in the process.

CATO has some good podcasts on the START Treaty. Basically, it's a big symbolic move with little actual impact. The R's are holding it hostage to get military pork redirected to their district. Overall it looks like a very small reduction in nuclear warheads at the price of a lot of pork. (CATO seemed to be weakly in favor, by the way, but not excited about the deal).

[hblask 1]

even the most ardent deficit hawks (<-- I will hate this word soon I'd imagine) know that now is not the proper time to start paying down the debt.

I would consider myself an ardent deficit hawk, but the reason I don't want taxes raised is not because of the recession, it's because raising taxes never balances the budget over the long run, it just encourages a larger level of deficit spending during the next boom time. Basically, politicians spend [incoming taxes] + [some percent]. The more taxes coming in, the larger the second term, and the bigger the deficit gets. So in the short run it may reduce the [increase in] the deficit, but in the long term it is very bad policy.

your face is terrible

[hblask 1]

I should add, that "top 2%" that Obama wants to tax are the people who set the prices for the products everyone buys. How do you think that "tax the rich" thing is going to work out?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I should add, that "top 2%" that Obama wants to tax are the people who set the prices for the products everyone buys. How do you think that "tax the rich" thing is going to work out?

Worked okay in the 90s.

[ShakeZuma 585]

But that's not the point. The point is that the bill to extend the tax cuts is one that will be very costly in terms of the deficit and, in my opinion, is a pretty bad way of spending nearly a trillion dollars. While you argue that not extending the Bush Tax Cuts (BTC's) would raise the taxes on many small business owners, which is true, I believe that the effect of this on the unemployment level would be small. Again, you could argue that ANY effect is bad since times are so dire, which is a fair point.Does any of that make sense?

I don't agree, and I'm an econ major so I'm right and you're wrong, and it makes about as much sense as your FACE which is none, but I've got the last two discs of freaks and geeks to watch, so I'm handing off to henry now.PEACE OUT BITCH

[hblask 1]

Worked okay in the 90s.

During the 90s, the total net worth held by the top 1% wen from 37.4% to 38.1% in 1998.What this shows is that "taxing the rich" really means "taxing the poor indirectly".It's very likely that taxing the poor (who tend to be less educated) indirectly rather than directly is a better economic policy then letting them know what you are doing, but a "stupid tax" doesn't seem like a very liberal policy.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The top 1% has 70% of all the money and it's continuing to grow exponetially.

No.

During the 90s, the total net worth held by the top 1% wen from 37.4% to 38.1% in 1998..

Yes.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The point is that the bill to extend the tax cuts is one that will be very costly in terms of the deficit

How is it costly or somehow adding to the deficit when we aren't collecting those taxes today?

[Roll the Bones 74]

anyways, I want to get back on track to what we were talking about originally: you were vilifying the republicans for playing politics with the tax cut extensions, and through that ignoring other bills that the democrats were presenting. I pointed out that the reasoning wasn't (purely, or mostly even) political, but that it was based on importance and urgency of the tax cut extensions. even you agreed that the two year extension was a good thing (and though you didn't mention it, I'm assuming you approve of the unemployment extension and other add-ons in the bill). when questioned as to the reasoning democrats where unhappy with the continuation of the tax cuts for the highest bracket, you noted what I had assumed their only valid reason could be in concern about the deficit (I won't get into the whole "democrats care about the deficit?! when did this happen?!" thing as the republicans haven't cared either for much of recent history), which it seems nearly everybody agrees, isn't the most pressing concern right now with stagnant growth and 9.8% unemployment. so basically, the republicans are acknowledging and attempting to address the most pressing issue in front of congress right now and have taken a stand to force movement on the issue, and knowing this, the democrats have played politics by throwing roadblock bills that are blatantly aimed at making republicans look bad when they vote them down. so why, then, are the republicans the bad guys again?

Shake the reason they are fillibustering the tax cut is because their bosses, big business spent a billion dollars buying these clowns and putting them in office and if they don't they'll lose not only these jobs but the cushy millions in their swiss bank accounts and have their passes to the swanky men's whorehouse revoked.

[Balloon guy 158]

Shake the reason they are fillibustering the tax cut is because their bosses, big business spent a billion dollars buying these clowns and putting them in office and if they don't they'll lose not only these jobs but the cushy millions in their swiss bank accounts and have their passes to the swanky men's whorehouse revoked.

Can you blame them?

[ShakeZuma 585]

Shake the reason they are fillibustering the tax cut is because their bosses, big business spent a billion dollars buying these clowns and putting them in office and if they don't they'll lose not only these jobs but the cushy millions in their swiss bank accounts and have their passes to the swanky men's whorehouse revoked.

randy, now you're just being naïve. the evidence is pretty easy to locate that indicates that big business spends equal amounts on democrats as they do republicans, so to assume that the republicans and democrats aren't flopping around together, all naked and greased up, in the men's whorehouses is just being blind. like anybody would pass up that chance regardless of their political affiliation. COME ON

[Roll the Bones 74]

Yeah, the top 5% have well over 70% of the weath, not 1% but it's growing, and we don't have accurate numbers since 2007 but it gone up drmatically.Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The average income reported by the 400 highest-earning U.S. households grew to almost $345 million in 2007, up 31 percent from a year earlier, Internal Revenue Service statistics show.The figures for 2007, the last year of an economic expansion, show that average income reported by the top 400 earners more than doubled from $131.1 million in 2001. That year, Congress adopted tax cuts urged by then-President George W. Bush that Democrats say disproportionately benefits the wealthy.Each household in the top 400 of earners paid an average tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest since the agency began tracking the data in 1992, the statistics show. Their average effective tax rate was about half the 29.4 percent in 1993, the first year of President Bill Clinton’s administration, when taxes were increased.The statistics underscore “two long-term trends: that income at the very top has exploded and their taxes have been cut dramatically,” said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington research group that supports increasing taxes on high-income individuals.The top 400 earners received a total $138 billion in 2007, up from $105.3 billion a year earlier. On an inflation-adjusted basis, their average income grew almost fivefold since 1992, the data show.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, the top 5% have well over 70% of the weath, not 1% but it's growing, and we don't have accurate numbers since 2007 but it gone up drmatically.Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The average income reported by the 400 highest-earning U.S. households grew to almost $345 million in 2007, up 31 percent from a year earlier, Internal Revenue Service statistics show.The figures for 2007, the last year of an economic expansion, show that average income reported by the top 400 earners more than doubled from $131.1 million in 2001. That year, Congress adopted tax cuts urged by then-President George W. Bush that Democrats say disproportionately benefits the wealthy.Each household in the top 400 of earners paid an average tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest since the agency began tracking the data in 1992, the statistics show. Their average effective tax rate was about half the 29.4 percent in 1993, the first year of President Bill Clinton’s administration, when taxes were increased.The statistics underscore “two long-term trends: that income at the very top has exploded and their taxes have been cut dramatically,” said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington research group that supports increasing taxes on high-income individuals.The top 400 earners received a total $138 billion in 2007, up from $105.3 billion a year earlier. On an inflation-adjusted basis, their average income grew almost fivefold since 1992, the data show.

During this year that the income rose 31%, there were no changes to their tax rate.So tax cuts are not a cause necessarily of increases to the wealthy people's fortunes.And I would love to see what happened to those numbers in 2008 and 2009, when the world came crashing down. Taking out the 5-6 hedge fund managers who made over $2 billion each that year. (They skew the numbers by themselves )

[strategy 4]

And I would love to see what happened to those numbers in 2008 and 2009, when the world came crashing down. Taking out the 5-6 hedge fund managers who made over $2 billion each that year. (They skew the numbers by themselves )

tax revenue didn't shrink by as much as I expected in the 2007-2009 period. the budget/revenue pages on wikipedia have the figures, don't have time to look it up now.also, taking out the mega-earners pretty much defeats the purpose of the discussion. come on.

[strategy 4]

individual income tax receipts via wiki (trillions)2006: .962007: 1.12008: 1.252009: 1.212010: 1.06I can't explain why we didn't see a bigger drop in 2009. 2008 was a pretty okay year until september, so it makes sense that things continued to trend up. could be that the laid off people continued to get paid severance for a while or something, I don't know.

[Don Giovanni 0]

You didn't quite get it straight. See, Republicans threatened to filibuster any tax extension bill that didn't extend taxes to super-minority of rich americans (my graph allows me to call them that).

provided that our justice system works and those people earned their money legally, why do you think its morally right to have harsher economic policies for a super-minority of people in this country? and if they didn't earn their money legally thats obviously a separate problem that should be dealt with on its own terms.

[vbnautilus 48]

The Democrats want what they want and nothing else.

How could this be false about anyone?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

individual income tax receipts via wiki (trillions)2006: .962007: 1.12008: 1.252009: 1.212010: 1.06I can't explain why we didn't see a bigger drop in 2009. 2008 was a pretty okay year until september, so it makes sense that things continued to trend up. could be that the laid off people continued to get paid severance for a while or something, I don't know.

It seems that those receipts are based on year received and not year earned, right? So, in 2009, you'd have people both paying taxes on their 2008 income and for those paying estimates, they might still be basing those estimates on 2008 income instead of adjusting downward. Or maybe just not adjusting down enough.I couldn't find the data you posted on wiki or anywhere else.

[strategy 4]

It seems that those receipts are based on year received and not year earned, right? So, in 2009, you'd have people both paying taxes on their 2008 income and for those paying estimates, they might still be basing those estimates on 2008 income instead of adjusting downward. Or maybe just not adjusting down enough.I couldn't find the data you posted on wiki or anywhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_S..._federal_budgetthese pages.

[Roll the Bones 74]

http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/There was an expose a guy did on the topic and this is a slideshow.pdf versionhttp://img.slate.com/media/3/100914_NoahT_...tDivergence.pdfcurrent article on inequality showing it has increased the last year.http://www.slate.com/id/2268981

[SlapStick 0]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-dece...s-f--k-congress