It’s obvious to me all the Bush tax cuts need to expire if we’re going to get a handle on our deficit. When they were put in place, the country was operating with a tax surplus. There was a sunset on the cuts for a reason; they were unsustainable!
It won’t be a tax increase; it will be an end to a temporary policy. How the Democrats let the Republicans get control of this message, I’ll never understand. I’m really disappointed in them.
There seems to be some misunderstanding of how much letting the cuts expire will affect the middle class.
Here’s the break down based on 2011 income. This is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. (As you can see, if you were to pay an extra $100.00 a week, your income would be between $200,000 and $500,000--- I think you could afford it.)
Income: Less than $10,000
Number of filers: 28,681,000
Average increase: $70
-
Income: $10,000 to $20,000
Number of filers: 24,383,000
Average increase: $410
-
Income: $20,000 to $30,000
Number of filers: 18,523,000
Average increase: $756
-
Income: $30,000 to $40,000
Number of filers: 15,679,000
Average increase: $893
-
Income: $40,000 to $50,000
Number of filers: 13,001,000
Average increase: $923
-
Income: $50,000 to $75,000
Number of filers: 23,972,000
Average increase: $1,126
-
Income: $75,000 to $100,000
Number of filers: 15,245,000
Average increase: $1,837
-
Income: $100,000 to $200,000
Number of filers: 16,885,000
Average increase: $3,672
-
Income: $200,000 to $500,000
Number of filers: 3,757,000
Average increase: $7,187
-
Income: $500,000 to $1 million
Number of filers: 608,000
Average increase: $18,092
-
Income: $1 million and over
Number of filers: 315,000
Average increase: $101,587
-
Bush’s cuts were responsible for 25% of our deficit. If we let them expire for only the rich, we’ll only generate 700 billion dollars, if they all expire, it would mean 3.7 trillion dollars.
This is all a distraction, of course. The deficit isn’t why our economy is in shambles. It’s high unemployment. No one will pay taxes if they don’t generate an income.
Banks have to lend to small businesses!!! They’re making plenty of money trading in foreign currency, so they don’t have to. (I can’t wait to find out what WikiLeaks dug up on the banks). I have mixed feelings about WikiLeaks that I’ll post about next week. --- I digress---
For now, short term deficit spending is a necessity.
It’s been proven that Bush’s tax cuts and the tax cuts that made up a third of the stimulus (Obama’s compromise with the Republicans that only diluted the effect of the stimulus), do not stimulate our economy.
Right now extending unemployment would be much more bang for the buck.
Republicans are convinced that extended benefits will only motivate the unemployed to stay that way. It doesn’t matter that there are 5 people for every job posted.
3 comments:
So, I'm not at $100 per week, more like $70. I'm glad you think I can afford it. It's always easier to spend other people's money. I guess what I'm really opposed to is our entire tax system where the rate you pay goes up as you earn more. I really don't understand why everyone above the poverty level isn't taxed at the same rate.
Jamie
I expected your response. $100 means more to a person that makes $200.00 a week than it does to someone who makes $800. If we don't pay taxes they'll target Social Security and Medicare. You know they won't touch Defense. Hits to these programs will mean a lot to middle class families.
PpI'm not suggesting both of these people pay the and amount, just the same rate. At 15%, that would be $30 for the guy who makes $200 and $120 for the guy who makes $800. The guy who earns more, pays more. That seems fair. What isn't fair is taxing high earners as a higher rate. Why should the highest earners experience deminishing returns for their effort? As for government spending, all spending, defense, roads, education, social programs, NASA, everything should be open for discussion. We can't fix this mess without a plan that adddresses both revenue and spending.
Jamie
Post a Comment