@Retiredairforce,
You never consider the obvious, that wealthy people constantly complain about how taxes are disproportionately placed on their backs, while completely forgetting that the standard of living for middle workers has decreased for the last 30 yrs. When you were young, you could get a good paying job anywhere, buy a house, new car, and have a passle of kids. Now you need a college degree to work at Walmart, our kids are working 3 part time jobs with no health insurance, with huge student loans to pay off. Nobody is trying to rob the business owner, or cut medicare. But our kids are starting out in life way beneath you.

You are incorrect on the assumption we agree spending needs to be balanced with revenue. Spending should be done ONLY based on needs not wants. Revenue (taxes) should only be taken to support these needs. The problem with government now is over spending from frivolous things, then when people get accustomed to this they continually expect it; exasperating the problem; spending level never decrease, even when a project has been completed.

You again are confuting on taxing higher wealth. If you think it is a god thing, that it will raise revenue you disprove your own point by then stating those people will make a choice, one being to make less. As the governors of many eastern states have proven, raising these taxes on the rich has shown to decrease revenues not increase them. If your point is to increase monies to the government at least do it in a logical approach and not pretend to do it using a method that is not working.

So far everyone’s taxes are going up after Jan 1st, since congress and this administration has not acted to prevent it. Until they pass legislation, and not say they will, the consumer will respond in kind; simple economics.

You are incorrect in your assertions of zero sums. If the market was indeed zero sums any raise you receive must correspond to a loss by someone else. Since your raise was a business investment by your employer he/she/they assume this will be offset by production/sales/commissions the company will earn. This exchange (activity) is hardly a zero sum. The simple calculation for this is GDP. Since historic GDP is always a rising trend your conclusion of zero sums would result in other countries having to lose monies by the same amount. The other disproving portion of this argument is our GDP has risen despite increasing our import/export ratio; every export is moving dollars off shore. In your theory these dollars moved off shore could only be recouped by greater exports---never happens.

To you last point on taxes impairing income generation. Income is generated by offering a tangible asset and receiving compensation for this. Taxes are inversely proportional in relation to funds available; the more taxes paid the less money available to purchase other goods and services. When this expendable level drops income potential for others drop with it; less available resources to pay for goods and services.

RAF- You listen many counter points. I will try to address each.

First, your point about debts and deficits. Yes, deficits are caused by spending more that comes in. However, reducing revenues will create a deficit if spending is not reduced.

It would be the same as a business having a sale. They do so with the intent to make more revenue. Yet, if it doesn't work, they can't stop paying their fixed expenses.

Additionally, there are times when it is appropriate to be in the red. If taking on a debt with the intent of generating more income is warranted, many business will do so. However, there comes a time when this debt must be paid off. This has yet to happen. Neither the past or current administration has.

Increasing taxes is one way to do so. Cutting spending is another. However, spending cannot be entirely cut. Nor do I expect any meaningful cuts to happen. Regardless of which party has control, I have little faith that spending will decrease by an amount that will have much impact. Since Democrats are notorious for spending, there is no point in believing they will do so. Also, there had been nearly a decade of Republican control of congress (1995-2005). Spending increased during this period as well.

People argue about which party spends more, or what programs are working. However, I believe you and I both would agree that spending needs to be balanced with revenue.

As far as your post about incomes. Yes, income is the result of economic activity. However, keeping income is not activity itself. Granted, if the money is placed in a bank, the money will still move throughout the economy. Yet, this is a debt that will have to be paid with interest. If lending stops, the result is the credit crunch that occurred.

I'm not advocating for income caps. Doing so is a bad thing. However, I do acknowledge there is a difference between taxing money in the top bracket as opposed to every bracket. By taxing the top bracket at the previous rate, those effected by this tax have the choice of earning/paying themselves this much, or making more money to increase their net earnings.

They still get the same tax treatment as those earning less than them. It is only the income they keep after $200,000 that is effected by what is being proposed.

Now, for your point about the economy not being a zero-sum game. Instead of addressing this directly, I ask you these two questions.

By nature of zero-sum, one persons profit will have an affect on another. If the economy is not zero-sum, then profit of one does not affect another.

This being your position, how then can the market principle of competition exist?

Also, if the government takes more revenue in the form of taxes, how can this impair and individual or business from generating income?

minan, imagine that you still want your tax cut. If tax cuts are bad, step up to the plate and pay more; never met a liberal yet that thinks others should pay more be willing to pony up their own money and do it first.

Caveguy, your reasoned position makes for great class room talk. However, when balanced against what really did happen and current times it has large holes of inconsistencies.

The tax cuts did not cause debt, as your implied revenue decline comment suggests. Any debt and/or deficit is ALWAYS caused by spending not by lack receipts; every business adjusts spending based on real receipts, not receipts on spending wants.

The notion that money earned over any threshold has more or less economic activity is socialist non-sense; implying there should be a cap on income because it does no good to make more than X. Any income is economic activity by its very nature, a service has been performed and paid for; that is economic activity. What a person chooses to do with their money after it is made doesn’t matter; it is not a zero sum equation as you continue to believe.

Your suggestion that people will shun or increase activity to avoid or pay taxes is confuting. Either increasing taxes or decreasing taxes is a good thing; your statements declare both through the belief one might spend more to avoid and one might work more to pay. One supports you conclusion of needing a tax increase and the other declares it doesn’t work (to raise revenue).

The government data says there were 52 months(not 5 years) of continuous job growth, it does NOT say it was a result of tax cuts. What it does say is that growth was 4.2% in those 52 months, less than 1% a year, less than the little over 1% jobs growth of all other Republican administrations since 1945. Democrat administrations averaged a little over 2% jobs growth a year over that span.(politifact.com)New York Times, 3/16/08, Through Bush Colored Glasses, "Mr. Bush boasted about 52 consecutive months of job growth during his presidency. What matters is the magnitude of growth, not ticks on a calendar. The economic expansion under Mr. Bush-which it is safe to assume is now over- produced job growth of 4.2%. That is the worst performance over a business cycle since the government started keeping track in 1945." Over $2 trillion to get "the worst performance" does not look effective to me.

Money is 'stationary' when it is not being spent by politicians, preferably Democrats.

germancaveguy, Explain to me when money is "stationary"...never happens unless it is put in a private stash, ie under your mattress. If you save it in a bank: it is used, 401k or retirement: it gets used, where is money stationary? These politicians keep fooling people and making you believe that you need to pay them for services, but then they use the money to give to other countries. If that stopped, I would have no problem paying taxes.

RAF- The tax cuts intention wasn't simply to create jobs. I also won't deny the fact that jobs were create. Jobs are in fact being created now.

Yet, it is fairly clear that over the last decade, there were not enough jobs created to result in enough tax revenue to offset the tax cuts.

It stands to reason, that if you create a tax cut in an effort to create more revenue, you do so to create more jobs. Thus, the tax base is larger and more people pay taxes.

It also stands to reason, that if you remove the incentive to keep money over a certain threshold, people will spend their money to enter the lower tax bracket to avoid the tax.

If they have a need for money over this threshold, they will earn more money to make up for the lost income from the higher tax.

Either way, the money that is spent will have positive economic impact.

Over the last ten years, the tax cuts have shown that the money earned above and beyond $200,000 for an individual has the least economic activity. This is because that money is typically saved. This fact becomes more apparent when looking at the wealthiest individuals. Granted, they eventually do something with this money. However, during the time in between when they earn it and spend it, it is basically inactive.

Regardless of how you look at it, money moving has more impact than money that is stationary.

Jimbo, are you having memory problems? Perhaps you should read the comments I already made to your previous miss-statements on SS and medicare.

Maybe you all should take some time to read this

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/20...

raf...Since you don't like socialist programs, you don't have to sign up for SS and Medicare, no one will twist your arm.

raf. 2003-2007...LOL Welcome to 2010. Why keep something that quit working years ago.

7. "No one is talking about raising taxes beyond what is set to expire."

No one except for Administration officials and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Paul Volker, and Obama himself, who have all discussed the ened for a VAT and removing the caps on social security taxes, as well as taxes for Cap and Trade.

8. "The fact remains that taxes have been lowered for 95% of Americans under the Obama admnistration."

Of course, half the country (Democrats) doesn't pay federal taxes (those on the dole, but I repeat myself.) The way Democrats say they cut taxes for 95% of the country is to count credits paid (i.e. handouts) to those 50% who owed no taxes.

It is no surprise that this is the same bunch of clowns are managing to implement historic tax increases while historically gutting Medicare and still plan to roll up the largest deficits in history.

"Since the tax cuts did not have their intended effect"
-
False. They increased job creation, the government data supports it.

Your attempt to portray the current fiscal crisis as a result of the tax reductions from 2001 and 2003 are baseless. It was not just the US government revenue that decreased since late 2007 it was a world economy that declined. Spur'd mostly by the collapse of the over inflated real estate market and investments vehicles in that area.

We can argue over and over as to the reason for the housing bubble burst. But attempted blame for the fiscal crisis on tax reductions is baseless.

Remember, if you don't like the tax cuts you can always pay more taxes than required; the government will take it.

nice post

germancaveguy - BRAVO. Thank you for bringing reason to the discussion on taxes.

This debate over taxes has become one that is filled with so many distractions that it is hard to keep things straight. It seems to become less and less about government revenue, and more about what is right or wrong.

The underlying reason for the tax cuts in the first place was to spur economic growth that would in turn create more revenue for the government. The premise being that if individuals are allowed to keep more money, it will be reinvested in the private sector and more taxes will actually be paid.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case. Instead, the opposite has happened. We now have the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.

Now, I understand that almost everyone despises taxes. Yet, they are a necessity to having a government. When it comes to income taxes, our government has established a reasonable tax code that is a progressive one.

The tax code is reasonable in the fact that it offers many tax deductions in an effort to tax only profits. It is progressive in the sense that for each income bracket, everyone pays the same tax dollar for dollar. Essentially, people are taxed on the money they keep for themselves at the end of the year. In most cases, they do not get taxed on the money they spend to make money. It is the profits that get taxed.

Throughout the many debates regarding these tax cuts, people have been lead to believe it is a debate about who should pay and who should not. This is not the case. It is a debate about how much should be payed and on what amount of money.

Simply put, the Democrats are arguing that the money you earn in excess of $200,000/$250,000 should be taxed under the old rate. The Republicans are arguing that no money should be taxed at the old rate. No one is arguing that the rich should have to pay more taxes on all of their money.

Given the fact that these tax cuts where meant to allow the private sector to leverage their money in such a way that government would in turn benefit as well, and that has not happened, the tax cuts should expire. Doing so will increase the government's revenue.

Since the tax cuts did not have their intended effect, society should not argue that we should continue to do what has been failing. Instead, we should simply go back to what had been working. In fact, only taxing the top bracket of income is effectively a compromise since it allows everyone to keep most of the tax cuts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

BLS also shows unemployment was higher when Bush left office than when he entered, another fact which you choose to dismiss.

Jimbo said "Just like you calling everyone a hypocrite when you yourself are one."
-
If you are going to make accusations at least TRY and support them with facts. A simple non-supported sentence might make you feel good, it is the furthest thing from a factual position; at least attempt to point to something you think is hypocritical...

Jimbo, if you are correct and think the bush tax cuts didn't create jobs why does the BLS (Bureau of Labor and Statistics) show that jobs did increase for 5 straight years following the 2003 implementation of the tax cuts?

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOu...

Sarah, you are at least partially correct. The real truth is closer to 55% of working families received a tax credit. Since 40% of people who do work pay zero in federal income tax they received a check from the government; can't reduce their tax rate below zero.

The remainder of the working people either received a tax credit or nothing depending on their income level.

The bottom line, tax rates never changed; you are paying the same this year as you did following the bush tax reductions. The only difference last year there was a tax credit for some, a check for some, and nothing for the rest. There was no tax cuts as zoom tried to portray.

Those are facts, just that you choose to ignore them.

Jimbo if you are going to make accusations at least try and support them with facts.

Remember the GOP stating the Bush tax cuts would create jobs? Many years later and they still haven't produced results. Put the GOP back in control and we'll never see jobs. They want to run America like it's a corporation, cutback everything, outsource everything and let American citizens suffer the consequences for the glory of the CEO's golden thrones and portfolios.

I plan to blame Reagan and the Bushes for everything, LOL. The hole in the ozone, global warming, the mold on my cheese, and the failure of trickle-down economics. If free market capitalism is so great why are our jobs being outsourced to other countries???

Just like you calling everyone a hypocrite when you yourself are one.

That's wonderful news with regards to the tax burden being reduced on 95% of Americans.....If that truly is the case, how are we paying for the $860 billion stimulus and the $1 trillion HCR that the democrats have rallied behind? Are the 5% of Americans who didn't see a tax reduction fully funding these programs, or are we simply going to push a massive debt load off on another generation so we can run around bragging about how taxes have been cut........

Jimbo, good OLD story on democrat buffett and how he protects his money.

Since most of his "income" is derived from tax deferred bonds, his complaining is a common one from dems; "I am willing to pay more but not until I am required too". If he really wanted to pay more he would, until then he is just another hypocrite.

Zoom...care to state exactly how taxes have been lowed on 95% of the people in this country since he took office?

Republicans can repeat the tax lies all they want. The fact remains that taxes have been lowered for 95% of Americans under the Obama admnistration, and 16 small business tax cuts have been signed into law.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/t...

To those that think tax cuts are so bad, why did you accept the one(s) given to you during the last administration?

You can always pay more to the government in taxes than is required, if you haven't it is because you chose to keep it.

"The fact is, Republicans are creating uncertainty, by lying about the tax boogy man."
-
Wow, what spin.

Truth: If nothing happens in 3 months EVERYONES taxes go up, more than they already have; hardly a boogy man.

Where is the uncertainty: Congress and this administration has created it by saying one thing while not doing another. Since the last election there was talk of not raising taxes on some while raising taxes on others. So far taxes have been raised on all and the promised cuts (keeping existing level of taxes) has yet to happen...that equals uncertainty in the taxpayer and business world.

Kay13, the fact is dems and reps, both, blocked that bill from being voted on. Since you are unwilling to believe the truth there is little hope you will look up the information on your own.

Jimbo, should we play games of rhetorical questions?

Since I've had my a portion of wages taken this whole time to fund a program that is "suppose" to be solvent when I reach the legal age (20 years from now) are you asking will I take the check or do I expect the promise to be kept?

If given the opportunity, under a law, to remove myself from the SS system I would jump at it...would you?

raf, when you finally are of age, will you decline SS & Medicare, because they are socialist programs and are therefore in contrast to everything you believe?

im w sarahb

BOEHNER: "I think we need to do this in a more systemic way and have this conversation first. Let’s not get to the potential solutions. Let’s make sure Americans understand how big the problem is. Then we can begin to talk about possible solutions and then work ourselves into those solutions that are doable."
This statement all by itself shows what an idiot and how out of touch John Boehner is. The PEOPLE KNOW how bad the problem is, WE'RE LIVING IT! He doesn't want to get into solutions because the GOP does not have any solutions. Why in the he-- would anyone vote for someone who says they don't want to go down that road and discuss possible solutions?

RAF...Here is a linf to CBS Sunday morning where a woman in the highest tax bracket, says she is willing to pay more taxes to help the country get out of this mess. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/2...
It is the Ben Stien's of the world who feel "punished" for paying higher taxes. So now you can stop saying that you have never heard of anyone willing to pay more taxes.

More hyperbole and fear mongering from the right. The fact is, Republicans are creating uncertainty, by lying about the tax boogy man. No one is talking about raising taxes beyond what is set to expire, but Republicans want you to think the Dems are.

The Obama administration has CUT taxes for 95% of Americans, and given many tax breaks to small businesses.

6. Your taxes might go up or they might not. Worst case is they'll go up when the tax cuts expire, along with a few more 'tough choices' (Dem code word for tax increases) after the deficit commission reports out in November.

How much more certainty do you want? You're lucky to get that! Now get back to work, invest all your hard-earned money, and pay your taxes, whatever they end up being! Keep your mouths shut or we'll raise them higher, ungrateful filthy capitalists! You're lucky to be able to pay us to do all the good we're doing on your behalf!

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C.S. Lewis
- God in the Dock (Eerdmans)

There is no uncertainty. By law, the tax cuts will expire 1/1/2011. That also happens to be the worse case scenario, because no one has ever talked about raising taxes more than what is about to expire. Are Republicans trying to argue that businesses won't be able to adapt if the tax cuts are extended?

Gandalf......Got it! It's still Bush's fault. The democrats have had a majority in Congress for the last 4 years and that's still the best you can do.........20 years from now, you people will still be blaming Bush for every problem that comes up:)

Why are people on the left so ignorant. Its like they went to school, studied economics, got a grade and then forgot everything. Conservative economics and the free market work. You'll notice I didnt identify either party here. The reality is that ANY taxes which take my money and give it to others and anytime taxes are to change -- up or down, there is uncertainty and people will tend to wait , because their not sure what the impact will be on them personally or as a business. Lefties need to get a grip...

916WI, while the polls are showing tough times for the Dems during this mid-term election cycle, the polls still overwhelmingly show that the American public blames Bush and the Republicans for the current state of the economy, not Obama and the Democrats.

The Democrats are really framing their proposed tax plan wrong. Allowing the tax cut on the top tax bracket to expire, while extending the cuts for the lower brackets, is still a tax cut for EVERYONE.

Kay-You got your info from Obama himself?? Well that definately changes my mind. (sarcasm)

Kay....yeah, because anything Obama said at his rally would be completely objective and wouldn't have a leftist slant to it.........right????

"Obama and the Democrats are doing the heavy lifting needed to get us out of the ditch".
.
out of the ditch and somewhere into the hinterland..dude, the road is the other way...

RetiredAirForce, I was in Madison yesterday where President Obama himself said the exact same thing. Pretty sure that it's fact, but I wanted to include another source for those that couldn't come to the rally or only watch Fox News.

Always nice to come here and get a fresh dose of stupidity from the left. What's on the menu today?

1. There is no evidence people are living longer.

2. Voting for a budget that raises taxes is not voting for a tax increase.

3. Businesses don't mind uncertainty as long as the issue of how high taxes will go is left up to the Democrats (who don't even agree amongst themselves how high they should go).

4. The Democrats are proposing lots of solutions to rein in spending and taxes (like implementing a new trillion dollar, job-taxing ObamaCare entitlement that's not paid for, or paying for unemployment compensation through debt on our grandchildren, or raising regulations and taxes on the economy through cap and trade, etc.)

4. The Republicans are blocking all these good ideas like ObamaCare even though it was signed into law and even though they have the smallest House and Senate minorities in a generation. In fact, the Republicans are evidently still passing legislation harming America even though they haven't been in control of Congress for 4 years.

5. The polls show Americans are onto this Republican trickery even though they are going to vote Democrats out by the thousands in 6 weeks.

Keep 'em coming boys!

Kay13, your information is an opinion from a leftest columnist...next time try looking up facts.

Jimbofish, since I am too young to collect either of these your question is a dumb one.

If you'd like to know anything else don't hesitate to ask...

Both parties suck, everyone. If you think the power of a certain party is going to ensure health and prosperity in this country, you've drunk the KoolAid.

Gandalf.......Which polls are you referring to? Everything I've seen points to widespread Republican victories in November. Please give specific examples of the "heavy lifting" Obama and the democrats have done. You can't be referring to the $1 trillion health care reform that Obama is forcing on a majority of Americans that don't want it--or are you?

The Republicans are blatantly in the back-pocket of corporate lobbyists and other special interest groups that are funded by a very few extremely wealthy individuals. The Republicans are addicted to the cash and special considerations from lobbyists. As a political party, they have done (and are doing) more damage to our nation than than any foreign enemy since WWII. Refusing to allow any solutions to be passed in Congress, the Republicans are following a strategy that actually encourages the nation to fail economically in order in order to cause widespread disgruntlement and to place blame on the Democrats and Obama. This strategy is premised on the idea that the American people are either disinterested in politics or woefully dumb. Thank goodness polls show that the people know that the Republicans drove the wheel of state into the ditch we're in right now. Obama and the Democrats are doing the heavy lifting needed to get us out of the ditch with no help from the Republicans who perpetrated our severe recession.

The Republicans are willing to increase taxes to the middle class so that the richest Americans can continue to receive tax breaks.
*
From a NY Times article: "In response, President Obama is proposing legislation that would keep tax rates essentially unchanged for 98 percent of Americans but allow rates on the richest 2 percent to rise. But Republicans are threatening to block that legislation, effectively raising taxes on the middle class, unless they get tax breaks for their wealthy friends. " Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/opinio...
*
Is it ironic that the GOP and media pundits twist and misconstrue this fact?

Jimbofish.......That's a ridiculous question. Both of those programs are soon to be completely broke. There will be absolutely nothing to give up......

I wonder if RAF is going to give up his social security and medicare.

jimbofish.....your comment is the equivalent of someone saying that the democrats cater to the greedy, inept, seriously out of touch labor unions and the lazy Americans who don't want to work for anything, but would rather have the government provide everything for "free".......I guess there's some truth to that though....huh?

jimbofish, Good point.

The GOP need to change their name to the CORP, after all that is who they cater to.

Julie, "more for him and less for the middle class worker"
-
Not sure what you meant by this.

btw, did you give up your tax cut?

I already heard Boehner's conversation, more for him and less for the middle class worker. The republicans have no intention of raising SS contributions on the richest most wealthiest of Americans. He may have grown up in a one room shack, but that hasn't affected him for the better one little bit. He says his brother and sister are both laid off. I guess with brothers like that, who needs enemies. The republicans would prefer to raise retirement age for our kids, with no evidence that people are living longer, rather than give up their tax cuts.