Do you support making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for those making under $250k per year?

Why or why not.

Bush tax cuts? Those already expired.

You mean the 0bama Tax Cuts of 2010?

no. that said, the idea of any tax cut, or really, tax level, being permanent is kinda silly.

All the bush tax cuts need to expire. We have to wait a little longer to let the ones under 250k a year expire atm.

expire. reason? Vast majority of Americans need to pay taxes in order to understand the impact of more gov spending. even if its 1% of income.

Quote from SigX : expire. reason? Vast majority of Americans need to pay taxes in order to understand the impact of more gov spending. even if its 1% of income.

And will the expiration of those cuts actually achieve that goal?

In orther words, are they the reason for the "47%"?

The % of the Bush tax cuts for the poor was always paltry--it was just cover for the vast piles of money being thrown at the rich. It's time to end these phony tax cuts for the poor and deny the GOP the ability to camouflage things.

Quote from gunnerusa : The % of the Bush tax cuts for the poor was always paltry--it was just cover for the vast piles of money being thrown at the rich. It's time to end these phony tax cuts for the poor and deny the GOP the ability to camouflage things.

That's bullshit. If you say it enough times and here it on MSNBC enough times, I guess one starts to believe it. I remember when the tax cuts went into effect. As a grad student making ~$15000 a year, I saved a little over $600 in taxes (which was huge to me since I was living paycheck to paycheck). Also, Bush tax cuts would be paltry to half the population not paying federal taxes. 5% reduction in someone paying zero federal taxes is still 0%!!! To those who actually pay taxes, everyone benefited.

Also, to that liberal propaganda that the Bush tax cuts didn't help, what a bunch of uneducated dumbasses when data proves them completely incorrect. Bush tax cuts were signed into law June, 2001. Keep in mind, he started his term in a recession and had to deal with the fallout from the corporate scandals and the economy tanking after 9/11. From the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ta...?Docid=200 Go to Table F-1, page 169)), you can see revenue ticked up about $500 billion under his term (about $800 billion under Clinton). The difference is spending only increased about $400 billion under Clinton, but over $1 billion under Bush. Sadly it jumped another $500-600 billion under Obama. So while revenue has pretty much stayed stagnant 5 years, spending has gone up $1.3 trillion. To quote Clinton (who I actually like), "it's the economy (or more specifically the spending) stupid". The fact is that the Bush tax cuts had no negative effect on revenue as you can see it kept going up after being passed, re-passed, and re-passed again. If it was as bad as liberals like to say, revenue would have decreased. The spending has been the difference! Revenue was highest under Bush following his tax cuts. Spending is 20% higher under Obama and will be nearly a billion higher in the next few years compared to Bush's worse complete year as entitlements and Obamacare start creating more outlays.

Also if you ever get a chance, go look at the federal tax income and what % comes from those making $250,000. If they were taxed at 100% (the liberal utopia), it would still not make up for how much the spending has increased. WE WOULD STILL HAVE A DEFICIT EVERY YEAR!!! If you want to fix the economy, you have to come back to 2004 spending levels:

Quote from Hurricane : That's bullshit. If you say it enough times and here it on MSNBC enough times, I guess one starts to believe it. I remember when the tax cuts went into effect. As a grad student making ~$15000 a year, I saved a little over $600 in taxes (which was huge to me since I was living paycheck to paycheck). Also, Bush tax cuts would be paltry to half the population not paying federal taxes. 5% reduction in someone paying zero federal taxes is still 0%!!! To those who actually pay taxes, everyone benefited. Also, to that liberal propaganda that the Bush tax cuts didn't help, what a bunch of uneducated dumbasses when data proves them completely incorrect. Bush tax cuts were signed into law June, 2001. Keep in mind, he started his term in a recession and had to deal with the fallout from the corporate scandals and the economy tanking after 9/11. From the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ta...?Docid=200 Go to Table F-1, page 169)), you can see revenue ticked up about $500 billion under his term (about $800 billion under Clinton). The difference is spending only increased about $400 billion under Clinton, but over $1 billion under Bush. Sadly it jumped another $500-600 billion under Obama. So while revenue has pretty much stayed stagnant 5 years, spending has gone up $1.3 trillion. To quote Clinton (who I actually like), "it's the economy (or more specifically the spending) stupid". The fact is that the Bush tax cuts had no negative effect on revenue as you can see it kept going up after being passed, re-passed, and re-passed again. If it was as bad as liberals like to say, revenue would have decreased. The spending has been the difference! Revenue was highest under Bush following his tax cuts. Spending is 20% higher under Obama and will be nearly a billion higher in the next few years compared to Bush's worse complete year as entitlements and Obamacare start creating more outlays. Also if you ever get a chance, go look at the federal tax income and what % comes from those making $250,000. If they were taxed at 100% (the liberal utopia), it would still not make up for how much the spending has increased. WE WOULD STILL HAVE A DEFICIT EVERY YEAR!!! If you want to fix the economy, you have to come back to 2004 spending levels:

Reduce spending?! What a concept.

Quote from SigX : expire. reason? Vast majority of Americans need to pay taxes in order to understand the impact of more gov spending. even if its 1% of income.

I am confidant 9.99% of Americans pay taxes.

Quote from gunnerusa : The % of the Bush tax cuts for the poor was always paltry--it was just cover for the vast piles of money being thrown at the rich. It's time to end these phony tax cuts for the poor and deny the GOP the ability to camouflage things.

Since some of us are so enamored with flat taxes and absolute equality, say we let Bush's tax cuts (for his buddies) expire and instead we institute a $5000 tax cut per dependent for each household.

Propose this and then stand aside and watch the rich enthusiasts squeal like stuck pigs.

Quote from Hurricane : That's bullshit. If you say it enough times and here it on MSNBC enough times, I guess one starts to believe it. I remember when the tax cuts went into effect. As a grad student making ~$15000 a year, I saved a little over $600 in taxes (which was huge to me since I was living paycheck to paycheck). Also, Bush tax cuts would be paltry to half the population not paying federal taxes. 5% reduction in someone paying zero federal taxes is still 0%!!! To those who actually pay taxes, everyone benefited. Also, to that liberal propaganda that the Bush tax cuts didn't help, what a bunch of uneducated dumbasses when data proves them completely incorrect. ...

There are very few people who pay zero federal taxes.

I love ironies.

Quote from Hurricane : The spending has been the difference! Revenue was highest under Bush following his tax cuts.

Well, there's that.... and that little financial crisis, which dramatically cut revenue.

At first revenue went up, and then it went way down, due to a little thing called instability.

Unsustainable boom leading to big bust. Funny how you guys like to ignore the big picture.

Quote from TRNT : I am confidant 9.99% of Americans pay taxes.

My reply reads wrong.

I am not going to get into the difference between payroll taxes (which are for insurance and retirement plans) and other taxes with pay for other gov services. Yes, all americans end up paying some taxes, I dont deny this. but in an era where we are adding trillions to the debt, everyone needs to feel it (IMHO). I think every person with any form of income (above the poverty level) should pay some "income" tax BEYOND the SS/medicare tax.