George W. Bush has won on taxes?

Well a while ago George W. Bush gave a speech about economic growth at a conference sponsored by the Bush Institute.

You can see footage of the speech here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/bush-i-dont-miss-the-presidency/1

One of the things he mentioned is that 70% of new jobs are created by small businesses and that small businesses often pay their taxes as individuals (i.e. the owner is taxed on the business's income), and that raising taxes on these guys would hurt job creation. It makes sense right, if a business has to pay an additional $5,000 in taxes that's less money that it could have used to hire new workers or expand the business.

Well I saw an interesting article claiming that on the fight over Bush's tax-cuts, Bush has won and that (while neither party admits it), Democrats are more similar to Bush on taxes than they are to Clinton: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-on-taxes-george-w-bush-has-won/2012/04/11/gIQARXXCAT_blog.html

According to the article most of the Bush tax cuts will stay in place for the foreseeable future:

"Most of his tax cuts are, at this point, an almost foregone conclusion. No one is talking about taking the 10% bracket and raising it back to 15%. No one is talking about raising the 25% bracket back to 28%, or the 28% bracket back to 31%, or the 33% bracket back to 36%. And not only do both parties support the expanded child tax credit, but Democrats have expanded it further. The bulk of the Bush tax cuts are now a bipartisan affair.

To put it differently, Democrats have, for the most part, admitted that Bush was right, and the Clinton-era tax rates were too high on most Americans. For all that Democrats talk about returning to the Clinton-era tax rates, they only ever mean for the top two percent of taxpayers -- the folks who are now in the 35% bracket, but whom they would like to see in a 39.6% bracket."

So when it comes down to all the tax cuts, the argument is really over whether the wealthiest Americans should pay 35% or 39.6%? Now I do think 40% of one's income is a lot to pay in federal taxes, especially considering that the person also has local and state taxes to pay (and between all three levels of government is probably paying more than half of their income). I thing the washington post author, Ezra Klein, makes a good point, not many politicians are gonna try to make the people who pay 10% go back to paying 15% (my guess is that people in this tax bracket are probably above poverty level but fairly low income, they are probably the most vulnerable to becoming poor in this troubled economy).

Also I should point out that Bush and the Democrats are not the only ones supporting the child-tax credit, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is neutral on the overall tax-cuts, is in favor of the Child-tax credit and the Earned income tax credit (low income people earn tax credits for making more income, rewarding them for working more). The Earned Income tax credit was a big part of Connecticut Democrat Governor Dannel Malloy's budget plan passed in 2011, show it shows that that part of Bush's tax cuts has some support from Democrats.

rich uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh people should pay 80% of their incomeJandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]rich uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh people should pay 80% of their incomewhipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]rich uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh people should pay 80% of their incomeJandurin

One thing is dislike about charities is when, instead of doing the work themselves, they give money to other charities (for example Susan G. Komen for the Cure giving money to Planned Parenthood). I always figured if people want to give money to one charity they would give to that charity, and that they donate to charities expecting the charity to use that money, not to give it to another group (unless they donate to a foundation which is basically a charity that exists to donate to other charities, which I imagine is probably less efficient than a direct donation).

"won"? NOBODY FVCKING WINS!

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] that doesn't seem fair to me. If they pay 80% in taxes I think it would make them less willing to contribute to charity.

whipassmt

One thing is dislike about charities is when, instead of doing the work themselves, they give money to other charities (for example Susan G. Komen for the Cure giving money to Planned Parenthood). I always figured if people want to give money to one charity they would give to that charity, and that they donate to charities expecting the charity to use that money, not to give it to another group (unless they donate to a foundation which is basically a charity that exists to donate to other charities, which I imagine is probably less efficient than a direct donation).

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] good from what i understand, a lot of charities spend as much paying administrative costs as they do spreading the donationsGazaAli

One thing is dislike about charities is when, instead of doing the work themselves, they give money to other charities (for example Susan G. Komen for the Cure giving money to Planned Parenthood). I always figured if people want to give money to one charity they would give to that charity, and that they donate to charities expecting the charity to use that money, not to give it to another group (unless they donate to a foundation which is basically a charity that exists to donate to other charities, which I imagine is probably less efficient than a direct donation).

No one would be paying 40% of their income on federal income taxes if the tax cuts were repealed for the top bracket.

I don't see a reason to raise taxes on the "rich". All it is going to do is give the government more money to waste.

I don't see a reason to raise taxes on the "rich". All it is going to do is give the government more money to waste.

hoola

[QUOTE="hoola"]

I don't see a reason to raise taxes on the "rich". All it is going to do is give the government more money to waste.

-Sun_Tzu-

"won"? NOBODY FVCKING WINS!

Necrifer

[QUOTE="hoola"]

I don't see a reason to raise taxes on the "rich". All it is going to do is give the government more money to waste.

-Sun_Tzu-

Even if the took every cent from every billionaire and millionaire they wouldn't get close to paying off the debt. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="hoola"]

I don't see a reason to raise taxes on the "rich". All it is going to do is give the government more money to waste.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Even if the took every cent from every billionaire and millionaire they wouldn't get close to paying off the debt. -Sun_Tzu-

Just pointing out taxing rich people doesn't solve anything. Government spending in the problem.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Even if the took every cent from every billionaire and millionaire they wouldn't get close to paying off the debt. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Even if the took every cent from every billionaire and millionaire they wouldn't get close to paying off the debt. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] When did I say this was the case? -Sun_Tzu-

"Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html

No one would be paying 40% of their income on federal income taxes if the tax cuts were repealed for the top bracket.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] When did I say this was the case? DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Just pointing out taxing rich people doesn't solve anything. Government spending in the problem.KC_Hokie

Also, I never hinted towards unemployment in my post and I would like to know where and by how much Obama increased spending?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Which is facilitated by more and more people qualifying for government programs due to a poor economy.DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Just pointing out taxing rich people doesn't solve anything. Government spending in the problem.KC_Hokie

"Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%."

that covers well over half of our deficit right there

Tax system needs to be redone.. Loop holes ended, overall taxes lowered but capital gains tax increased.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Which is facilitated by more and more people qualifying for government programs due to a poor economy.KC_Hokie

In most ways it was. If there was dissent, people would be split on which was worse.

Also, how did Obama increase spending?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Increasing taxes on rich people solves quite a lot actually in terms of shrinking the deficit. But talking to you is like talking to a brick wall so I'm not going to continue this conversation. -Sun_Tzu-

"Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%."

that covers well over half of our deficit right there

Taxation isn't the problem...spending is.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] "The top 1% of taxpayers-those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000-paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record."

"Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%."

KC_Hokie

that covers well over half of our deficit right there

Taxation isn't the problem...spending is.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Which is why economists say this is the worst economy since the great depression and not since the 80s?DroidPhysX

In most ways it was. If there was dissent, people would be split on which was worse.

Also, how did Obama increase spending?

I love the way when Obama was spending all that money liberals were like "oh yea!...stimulus". Now that most people don't think his spending worked liberals are like "prove Obama increased spending!"...lol.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] "merely" $938 billion lol

that covers well over half of our deficit right there

-Sun_Tzu-

Taxation isn't the problem...spending is.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Tax system needs to be redone.. Loop holes ended, overall taxes lowered but capital gains tax increased.. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]In some ways it was. In some ways the recession of the early 80s was worse.

KC_Hokie

In most ways it was. If there was dissent, people would be split on which was worse.

Also, how did Obama increase spending?

I love the way when Obama was spending all that money liberals were like "oh yea!...stimulus". Now that most people don't think his spending worked liberals are like "prove Obama increased spending!"...lol.

So in other words you can't provide the ways he exploded government spending since government spending was largley because more and more people qualified for government benefits via Medicaid, medicare, CHIP, food stamps, unemployment benefits, federal housing assistance, etc.

I didn't read, but George Bush was a great president.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]In some ways it was. In some ways the recession of the early 80s was worse.

KC_Hokie

In most ways it was. If there was dissent, people would be split on which was worse.

Also, how did Obama increase spending?

I love the way when Obama was spending all that money liberals were like "oh yea!...stimulus". Now that most people don't think his spending worked liberals are like "prove Obama increased spending!"...lol.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

In most ways it was. If there was dissent, people would be split on which was worse.

Also, how did Obama increase spending?

sSubZerOo

I love the way when Obama was spending all that money liberals were like "oh yea!...stimulus". Now that most people don't think his spending worked liberals are like "prove Obama increased spending!"...lol.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

In most ways it was. If there was dissent, people would be split on which was worse.

Also, how did Obama increase spending?

DroidPhysX

I love the way when Obama was spending all that money liberals were like "oh yea!...stimulus". Now that most people don't think his spending worked liberals are like "prove Obama increased spending!"...lol.

So in other words you can't provide the ways he exploded government spending since government spending was largley because more and more people qualified for government benefits via Medicaid, medicare, CHIP, food stamps, unemployment benefits, federal housing assistance, etc.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

In most ways it was. If there was dissent, people would be split on which was worse.

Also, how did Obama increase spending?

sSubZerOo

I love the way when Obama was spending all that money liberals were like "oh yea!...stimulus". Now that most people don't think his spending worked liberals are like "prove Obama increased spending!"...lol.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Non-defense spending under Obama has grown exponentially. The size of government also grew significantly.

I love the way when Obama was spending all that money liberals were like "oh yea!...stimulus". Now that most people don't think his spending worked liberals are like "prove Obama increased spending!"...lol.

-Sun_Tzu-

So in other words you can't provide the ways he exploded government spending since government spending was largley because more and more people qualified for government benefits via Medicaid, medicare, CHIP, food stamps, unemployment benefits, federal housing assistance, etc.

rich uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh people should pay 80% of their incomeJandurin

So they are not entitled to not even half their work....

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Tax system needs to be redone.. Loop holes ended, overall taxes lowered but capital gains tax increased.. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]rich uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh people should pay 80% of their incomedercoo

So they are not entitled to not even half their work....

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Tax system needs to be redone.. Loop holes ended, overall taxes lowered but capital gains tax increased.. comp_atkins

That's why capital gains taxes are low. And why even Bill Clinton lowered them (which worked by the way).

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] >Under Obama

So in other words you can't provide the ways he exploded government spending since government spending was largley because more and more people qualified for government benefits via Medicaid, medicare, CHIP, food stamps, unemployment benefits, federal housing assistance, etc.

KC_Hokie