Should the tax cuts be extended?

[ProSense]

What to do about the Bush tax cuts

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	End all of them
	4 (50%)
	End tax cuts for those earning over $250K
	2 (25%)
	Keep them all
	2 (25%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[trotsky]

1. People who make under $250k...

(even those making at the very upper range of that) generally spend most of their income. That's what our economy continues to need is demand-side economics. Put more money in the hands of the spenders - business investments will follow the money, and jobs will result. Not the other way around as the supply-side liars have been telling us for 30 years.

[On the Road]

2. Economically, It Might be Better to End Them All

Politically it should be limited to those earning over $250 net.

[Nevernose]

8. Especially in an election year n/t

[savalez]

10. +1

[dawg]

3. An across-the-board increase in taxes on 1/1/2013 would be contractionary.

The wealthy won't have to restrain their spending if their tax cuts expire. At worst, it will affect their investment activity.

On the other hand, families making $150,000 or less would probably be forced to cut back, which would be bad for the fragile economy. As for families in the $250,000 range, they shouldn't be affected that bad, but some of them would be. People tend to lock themselves into the highest standard of living they can afford.

It wouldn't be a disaster for all the tax cuts to expire, but it would be far better if the middle-class portion is extended, at least temporarily.

[ProSense]

4. End all with a caveat:

Return to a tax structure similar to the 1960s



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/taxes-at-the-top/

Consider the following adjustments by Robert Reich.

<...>

The most direct way to get more money into their pockets is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (a wage subsidy) all the way up through people earning $50,000, and reduce their income taxes to zero. Taxes on incomes between $50,000 and $90,000 should be cut to 10 percent; between $90,000 and $150,000 to 20 percent; between $150,000 and $250,000 to 30 percent.

And exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes.

Make up the revenues by increasing taxes on incomes between $250,000 to $500,000 to 40 percent; between $500,000 and $5 million, to 50 percent; between $5 million and $15 million, to 60 percent; and anything over $15 million, to 70 percent.

And raise the ceiling on the portion of income subject to payroll taxes to $500,000.

<...>

http://robertreich.org/post/3277360050

Increasing taxes on people making $250,000 and lumping $500,000 and $5 million into the same category would be a tough sell.

The brackets could be adjusted:

$250,000 to $500,000 (no change)
$500,000 to $1 million (increse to 40 percent)
$1 million to $5 million (increase to 50 percent)
$5 million plus (increase to 60 to 65 percent)

[Johonny]

7. I'm for returning to a progressive tax structure

I think arguing over the poor and middle class is of course exactly what the uber wealthy want you to do. They do not want you to understand how vastly different they changed the game for those on top.

[TBF]

9. I love this plan -

you've got my vote.

[RC]

5. That $250,000 cut off is way too high,

$100,000 is more realistic. Median household income for 2006-2010 is only $51,914. That is per household, not individual. That median income of $51,914 is for 2.59 people. Or a little less than $26,000 a year per two people in a household.
So where does that $250,000 cutoff come from? $250,000 is in the 5%ter range.

Persons per household definition and source info Persons per household, 2006-2010 2.59
definition and source info Per capita money income in past 12 months (2010 dollars) 2006-2010 $27,334
definition and source info Median household income 2006-2010 $51,914
Persons below poverty level, percent definition and source info Persons below poverty level, percent, 2006-2010 13.8%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

[ProSense]

6. Agree, especially

when you consider how the income tax works. The tax rates on income apply to everyone on every level.

Getting It Right on the Obama Tax Plan

—By Kevin Drum

<...>

Basically, every news outlet in the country is reporting that Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 per year. In fact, even Obama himself describes his own plan that way. But it's not true.

What Obama is actually proposing is to retain the Bush rates on all income under $250,000. If you're a middle-class wage slave, this applies to all your income. If you're a Wall Street lawyer pulling down half a million per year, it applies to half your income. Everyone would have lower taxes than they did in the 90s. The table on the right shows how this would work. (The tax brackets are approximate and apply to married couples filing jointly.)



So the question is: what's the best way to describe this? The Obama way ("keep the tax cuts for anyone making less than $250,000&quot is more populist and a lot easier to understand. The technically correct way is more complicated, but it reduces the alleged class warfare angle a bit. Obama isn't taking away all the tax cuts the rich got from Bush, just some of them.

So which is better? More populist or more centrist-y? Decisions, decisions.....

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/getting-it-right-obama-tax-plan

The populist explanation is less complicated, but the rate applies to everyone up to that amount. If the limit was $100,000, it would also apply to everyone up to the amount.