- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 38
I can't seem to find an actual number of the size of the tax cuts for the higher-income taxpayers that the GOP reinstated in December. Does anyone have that information?
How large were the Dec. GOP tax cuts?
- Thread starter EmpoweredOKC
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
The rate for the highest income bracket remains at 35%, rather than returning to 39.6%, I believe.
Technically, nothing was reinstated. Simply the income tax rates of the past 8 or 9 years will not change for 2011 and 2012.
This includes maintaining the lowest rate of 10% which would have risen to 15% if Congress and the President had not passed the extension.
This includes maintaining the lowest rate of 10% which would have risen to 15% if Congress and the President had not passed the extension.
So people at the top would have seen a 13% increase in their tax rate, and the people at the bottom would have seen a 50% increase in theirs, but people wanted to get rid of it to stick it to the rich?????
I'm having a little problem with the math, apparently.
Last edited:
billythrilly7th
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,739
- Reaction score
- 848
Not the math, the facts.
Obama's proposal was to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the ~315,000 U.S. households who declare more that $1,000,000 in income. Anyone earning less than $1,000,000 would have been unaffected.
On Dec. 17, 2010 the house passed a bill (previously passed by the senate) extending the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy and impoverished alike. The "wealthy" portion of the tax cut renewal resulted in a net loss of ~$450,000,000,000 in tax revenue, and a concomitant increase in the national debt. I don't think it was the right policy decision.
Last edited:
megoblocks
Banned
billythrilly7th
Banned
megoblocks
Banned
Well the whole thing is loaded.P.S. The title of the thread is also ridiculous.
GOP tax cuts?
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/gop...steful-spending-congress-budget-cuts-12889171
Items to close to the G.O.P Heart to even be considered for cuts.. Of course they are backed by Lobbyists with loose purse strings, but those God Damn Liberal give a ways need to be cut, especially the pesky EPA that keeps holding business hostage to bullshit like clean air and water.
Items to close to the G.O.P Heart to even be considered for cuts.. Of course they are backed by Lobbyists with loose purse strings, but those God Damn Liberal give a ways need to be cut, especially the pesky EPA that keeps holding business hostage to bullshit like clean air and water.
megoblocks
Banned
I suppose the EPA is the model agency. It's benign, completely efficient, and all around a swell group of guys(gals) that's never grown past their original intent (and would never look to increase its own power).
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,739
- Reaction score
- 848
P.S. The title of the thread is also ridiculous.
GOP tax cuts?
How is that inaccurate?
In 2001, the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation act (a.k.a. EGGTRA 2001, a.k.a HR 1836) was passed into law along clear party lines:
Senate vote #165 (2001) took place on May 23, 2001:
Senate yes: 49 republican, 12 democrat
Senate no: 38 democrat, 0 republican
House vote #149 (2001) took place on May 26, 2001:
House yes: 211 republican, 0 democrat
House no: 153 democrat, 28 republican (10 republicans didn't vote)
It was signed into law on June 7, 2001 by George W. Bush.
In 2003 the Job Growth and Tax Reconciliation act was passed into law along clear party lines:
H.R. yes: 224 republican, 7 democrat
H.R. no: 198 democrat, 1 republican
senate yes: 48 republican, 3 democrat
senate no: 46 democrat, 2 republican
Also signed into law by George W. Bush. After 1.5 h of googling I don't care enough to dig up the actual date, but IIRC he was the only president in 2003.
Based on the above, characterizing the two laws as "GOP tax cuts" seems pretty fair to me.
Last edited:
megoblocks
Banned
It's all semantics at some point. Pick your side, choose your semantics and start arguing
For the life of me, I can't find where anybody has said that, or any rule of government that says lack of perfection of any agency nullifies its purpose, its actions, and its need for funding.
I Sooooo Agreee.... THe fact that One click on a search engine provides:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/success/
319 success stories where EPA involvement and regulations cleaned up severely chemically polluted lakes, rivers and run-offs proves conclusively that the EPA has no business in our government.. How many people lost jobs because companies were put out of business for some minor infraction that MIGHT and I mean Might make a few people sick, or cause a little cancer.
Actually without the EPA we could put lead back in paint, and start producing DDT again which would wipe out those pesky Bedbugs.
I hate those meslothemoloma commercials, don't you... ASBESTAs is not bad for you... Fucking EPA.....
billythrilly7th
Banned
The December "GOP TAX CUTS" were "passed" and signed by a democratic congress and democrat President. In December. 2010.
But once again there were no tax cuts. The thread title is ridiculous in it's entirety.
The GOP portion and the tax cut portion.
megoblocks
Banned
Mr Don Allen seems to making the EPA out to be a sacred cow that can't be trimmed is all, especially in light of his following post.
I'm just pointing out that if its from the Fed (and it is) it's likely bloated, moved beyond its scope, and isn't the most efficiently run thing in the world (hence, cutting some budget from it won't be the end of the world)
megoblocks
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,739
- Reaction score
- 848
Urm...
Well, you have a point about the "Dec" part of the thread title which, in all fairness, I overlooked. Proceeding from that, you also have a point about the democratic congress and president. And the fact that it wasn't a tax cut.
Nonetheless, you are deeply wrong in many important ways. I leave it to the reading public to choose a favorite.
As evidence, just look at my post--I have many more links than you do. Therefore, I win.
Thank you.
Hysterics! Ha!!!
I'm amused,,,,, Do you really think the country would be better off without?
Even if it's running a grade B or C performance, it's still doing more good than harm. To cut its funding just for the sake of business profits is wrong. Particularly when it's done by people who has received contributions from the companies that would profit from it.
billythrilly7th
Banned
Are we talking about the tax "cuts" or Congress?
http://www.theonion.com/video/nation-elects-first-openly-drunk-senator,19146/
megoblocks
Banned
You cut funding and insist it runs better. That's the point. There's a world of grey between "cut altogether" and "throw money down the pit"
The business world tightens its belt to be more productive & less wasteful all the time. There's no reason (other than power and greed) that the govt shouldn't be able to trim down either.