Fighting For The Rich: GOP Tax Cuts For Wealthy Increases Deficit By $36B

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:15:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

WaPo:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

If you think the deficit is the major issue facing the country, you should oppose this idea.

If you think the federal government needs to spend money to stimulate the economy, this tax cut for millionaires is a very bad idea. Sending the money to state governments so they don't fire policeman, firemen and teachers is the most effective stimulus.

The only reason to support this tax cut for millionaires is if you are in the business of fighting for millionaires - in other words, if you are a Republican.

Speaking for me only

< How Democrats Lost The 2010 Election | Blagojevich Jury: Uninimous on Two Counts, Divided on Rest >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Fighting For The Rich: GOP Tax Cuts For Wealthy Increases Deficit By $36B | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

FYI, that $36 billion could finance a complete (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by steviez314 on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:14:24 AM EST

exemption on payroll taxes for 6 million new hires each year (estimating 15% of $40K salary=$6,000 per new worker to be financed).

That really would be a lot of bang for the buck (as long as companies don't do the fire to hire game).

I'm in (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:19:48 AM EST

Would that be to the employee or the employer? (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:33:22 PM EST

If it is to the employer I gotta tell you giving an employer $6000 to hire someone is meaningless. People don't hire people to save money. They hire them because they are needed to make money!

If it is to the employee, why should all the other workers give someone else a $6000 bonus?


So you are against any payroll tax relief? (none / 0) (#15)
by PatHat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:48:09 PM EST

Just asking.


I'll bet you $1 he's for lowering the minimum wage (none / 0) (#16)
by steviez314 on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:04:59 PM EST

so businesses can "save money" on all their hires.


How you got to that question I can't figure out. (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:35:04 PM EST

I am for extending the Bush tax cuts if that will help you.


Your opinion (none / 0) (#18)
by PatHat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 05:46:39 PM EST

was that neither option for payroll tax relief made sense. I may agree with you. I also agree that now is not the time to worry about the deficit. However, extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is not helpful, since it's been pretty much proven that the rich folks are not stimulating the economy. So I think we should let the tax cuts expire for people making more than I am. :)


Appears to me that (none / 0) (#19)
by efm on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:09:05 PM EST

none of the tax brackets are really stimulating the economy, should we let all of the tax cuts expire then?
I like how the money everyone works hard for is pretty much considered to be the governments money and how it costs the government money to not take more of it from us.


Nothing is stimulating anything (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 09:13:29 PM EST

But you can play Hoover and raise taxes during a deep recession if you like.


: exactly (none / 0) (#21)
by efm on Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 01:55:40 AM EST

A lot those evil rich people are also saying that one of the reasons that they are not stimulating the economy is because they believe that costs are about to go way up for just about everything (Taxes, energy costs, health care costs) Whats the point of hiring more workers and expanding a business if they are not going to make any money or lose money because of it.

but, but, but, PRODUCTIVITY! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:38:52 PM EST

DEATH TAX!!!

LAFFER CURVE!!!

FAIRNESS!!!

Does that cover all of 'em? Oh, left out the great hiring of new workers going on right now with that cash. Oh, wait...

That $36B is only the delta regarding the (none / 0) (#1)
by BTAL on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:33:23 AM EST

deficit/debt.

From the linked article, maintaining the current rates for below $250k/$200k individuals costs $202B in 2011. The $36B is the portion if all rates are maintained.

No (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:39:37 AM EST

The 36B s the cost of the GOP insistence on cutting taxes for the rich.

Dems have proposed cutting taxes for everyone earning less than 200k per year.

The GOP wants to cuts to taxes for the rich - to wit, 31B of the 36B of the tax cuts would go to persons earning over 1 million per year.


Directly from the article (none / 0) (#3)
by BTAL on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:44:14 AM EST

The analysis, requested by Democrats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, comes as debate heats up over tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Republicans want to extend all the cuts, which would cost the Treasury Department $238 billion in 2011, according to the taxation committee. President Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to extend the cuts only for families making less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000 -- 98 percent of American taxpayers -- in a plan that would add about $202 billion to next year's deficit.

(My emphasis)

$202B + $36B = $238B


I dont care about the deficit right now (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by PatHat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:05:09 AM EST

It is silly to worry about the deficit during such a large economic downturn. However, since the GOP is all about the deficit right now, I will reluctantly agree to allow the tax cuts for millionaires to expire. It's only fair to the ones who really think it's necessary.


But (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:10:38 AM EST

you want to cut taxes for those who will actually spend the money you 'give' them toward economic stimulus.

The rich will not do that, because they have more than enough disposable income already.

So, if we shouldn't worry about deficits now, then redirect the $36B toward middle income tax cuts.


: I'm good with that, Teresa (none / 0) (#11)
by PatHat on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:35:43 AM EST

The more stimulus, the better in my opinion. I just wouldn't mind poking the deficit hawks in the eye a little.

pretty sure you guys (none / 0) (#5)
by CST on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:49:14 AM EST

are saying the same thing. That $36B is coming from taxes to the rich.

And yes, of course cutting taxes for everyone else costs money too.


How many millionaire voters are there? (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:47:06 AM EST

: But they buy great brainwashing commercials (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:05:47 AM EST

: Per WaPo article (none / 0) (#12)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:35:50 AM EST

315,000 millionaires would be effected. Whether or not they all vote, wasn't addressed.