How About Some "Certainty"?

[Guest]

Will the extension of the Bush tax cuts as is really help the economy? If the top 1-2% are taxed more while 98-99% of taxpayers get a cut, how will that effect things? I think everyone agrees that a broad tax increase that would result from the sunsetting of the Bush cuts would be bad at this state of the economy.

Almost all the experts say that "certainty" in the tax code and regulatory environment is what's needed to spur economic growth. How many politicians, particularly Republicans, have you heard making soundbites about the lack of certainty slowing economic growth? Growth sure isn't being limited by a lack of capital--American corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash. In fact, one might wonder if further cutting the taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations paying too little in taxes (one-third of the Fortune 500 pay no federal income taxes!), how letting them accumulate even more cash will entice them to invest it? Good question, huh? If they're investing anywhere these days, it's overseas.

But all Congress is arguing about is a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. Let's see, those tax rates have been "temporary" for what, 11-12 years now? And Congress wants to extend them once again to give them time to consider permanent legislation? Gee-suz, that's longer than it took us to put a man on the moon after John Kennedy said that we would!

So who's saying anything about certainty? About a broad look at tax reform? About a broad look at reglatory reform? When the first Congressional joint committee or commission is appointed to do anything but extend the patchwork, Rube Goldberg set of economic legislation, maybe just maybe I'll have some hope. Listen carefully...anyone heard a member of Congress talking of such things?

No, I didn't think so.

[Guest]

Will the extension of the Bush tax cuts as is really help the economy? If the top 1-2% are taxed more while 98-99% of taxpayers get a cut, how will that effect things? I think everyone agrees that a broad tax increase that would result from the sunsetting of the Bush cuts would be bad at this state of the economy.

Almost all the experts say that "certainty" in the tax code and regulatory environment is what's needed to spur economic growth. How many politicians, particularly Republicans, have you heard making soundbites about the lack of certainty slowing economic growth? Growth sure isn't being limited by a lack of capital--American corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash. In fact, one might wonder if further cutting the taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations paying too little in taxes (one-third of the Fortune 500 pay no federal income taxes!), how letting them accumulate even more cash will entice them to invest it? Good question, huh? If they're investing anywhere these days, it's overseas.

But all Congress is arguing about is a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. Let's see, those tax rates have been "temporary" for what, 11-12 years now? And Congress wants to extend them once again to give them time to consider permanent legislation? Gee-suz, that's longer than it took us to put a man on the moon after John Kennedy said that we would!

So who's saying anything about certainty? About a broad look at tax reform? About a broad look at reglatory reform? When the first Congressional joint committee or commission is appointed to do anything but extend the patchwork, Rube Goldberg set of economic legislation, maybe just maybe I'll have some hope. Listen carefully...anyone heard a member of Congress talking of such things?

No, I didn't think so.

In reference to those "particularly Republicans" you seem to always have this problem in finding this stuff...now, on the other side you will have a problem however...

"Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)According to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), that question misses the point.

In a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors legislative conference in Washington on Tuesday, Portman said that the debate ought to be focused on comprehensive tax reform rather than on the Bush-era tax cuts.

The speech came as President Obama, speaking at a campaign event in Iowa, renewed his call for Congress to extend the tax cuts on income of $250,000 and less.

“Look, I think we ought to reform the whole tax code,” Portman said, according to a transcript of the speech. “We shouldn’t be debating whether to deal with the current code by allowing it to be extended or not. We should have a president who shows leadership and comes to Congress and says: ‘You know what? We need to reform this whole tax code.’ ”

Rob Portman: Comprehensive tax reform, not Bush-era tax cuts, should be focus of debate - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rob-portman-comprehensive-tax-reform-not-bush-era-tax-cuts-should-be-focus-of-debate/2012/07/10/gJQA2ImUbW_blog.html)

I would also maybe ask you to review the RYAN PLAN, which is not perfect but actually calls for what you say the Republicans do not discuss. It, with a lot of other things DEAD IN THE SENATE !

[Guest]

In reference to those "particularly Republicans" you seem to always have this problem in finding this stuff...now, on the other side you will have a problem however...

"Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)According to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), that question misses the point.

In a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors legislative conference in Washington on Tuesday, Portman said that the debate ought to be focused on comprehensive tax reform rather than on the Bush-era tax cuts.

The speech came as President Obama, speaking at a campaign event in Iowa, renewed his call for Congress to extend the tax cuts on income of $250,000 and less.

“Look, I think we ought to reform the whole tax code,” Portman said, according to a transcript of the speech. “We shouldn’t be debating whether to deal with the current code by allowing it to be extended or not. We should have a president who shows leadership and comes to Congress and says: ‘You know what? We need to reform this whole tax code.’ ”

Rob Portman: Comprehensive tax reform, not Bush-era tax cuts, should be focus of debate - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rob-portman-comprehensive-tax-reform-not-bush-era-tax-cuts-should-be-focus-of-debate/2012/07/10/gJQA2ImUbW_blog.html)

I would also maybe ask you to review the RYAN PLAN, which is not perfect but actually calls for what you say the Republicans do not discuss. It, with a lot of other things DEAD IN THE SENATE !Bucco, I mentioned the Republicans as the ones who continually speak of the need for certainty. Can you think of a Democrat railing on the uncertainty of the tax code or the regulatory environment--I can't. If I could, I'd have mentioned that neither Democrats or Republicans are doing anything to make things more certain for business owners.

As far as the Democrats being able to block things in the Senate, does that excuse the GOP-controlled House from doing their job, creating and passing legislation, and sending to to the Senate? Until they do, there's nothing to discuss in joint committee. Heck, Harry Reid doesn't even have to try hard to block legislation coming from the House--there isn't any!

[Guest]

The tax thing is obvious just take one peek at the WH agenda. The Republicans are using what they have to stem the tide given their political limitations. It is certain that "uncertainty" plays a huge role in how a corporation plans. Anyone who has had a part of budgeting in a corporation learns that quickly. As to the singular issue of uncertainty not only do Republicans have to deal with a Democratic Senate both the Republicans and Democras have to deal with a guy who manages by fiat....talk about unpredictability. I firmly believe that in future presidential generations that czars be outlawed because they are going over the top of our elected officials and thus with the potential of not acting in the best interests of we the people. My nephew company is sitting on a huge amount of cash and doesn't even want any more investors. I asked him what was up and he said what amounted to "uncertainty" so we are in a hold pattern. This is a very sound econmic reality

[Guest]

Bucco, I mentioned the Republicans as the ones who continually speak of the need for certainty. Can you think of a Democrat railing on the uncertainty of the tax code or the regulatory environment--I can't. If I could, I'd have mentioned that neither Democrats or Republicans are doing anything to make things more certain for business owners.

As far as the Democrats being able to block things in the Senate, does that excuse the GOP-controlled House from doing their job, creating and passing legislation, and sending to to the Senate? Until they do, there's nothing to discuss in joint committee. Heck, Harry Reid doesn't even have to try hard to block legislation coming from the House--there isn't any!

Last time I looked I think there was close to or in excess of 30 bill passed by the house sitting gathering dust in the senate because Reid will allow no discussion of or vote on.

I also believe that most of them, in some degree, could create jobs.

I apologize...I misread your first sentence, and actually that is what spurred me as Democrats seem happy with it except for adding some more taxes.

[Guest]

What about the New York Times article yesterday criticizing and amplifying on the argument that any new tax on the top 2%, those earning more than $250,000 a year, would impair "job creation"? Yes, I know the NYT leans left editorially, but how about responding to their argument?

The NYT argues that the definition of "job creators" being used by the Republicans is overly broad and misleading. They assert that really only 2-1/2% of small business owners who actually employ people would be effected by the tax increase.

The Times points out that the employers being counted among "business owners" by the GOP critics includes anyone who reported any "business income", even though they might be sole proprietors or if such income was not their primary source of income. That would include doctors, lawyers, accountants, those with any S corporation income, directors of corporations, etc.--all "business owners" as defined by the Republicans who would be very unlikely to hire new employees, whether or not their income taxes were increased to pre-Bush levels.

[Guest]

As for certainty.......death and taxes.

[Guest]

What about the New York Times article yesterday criticizing and amplifying on the argument that any new tax on the top 2%, those earning more than $250,000 a year, would impair "job creation"? Yes, I know the NYT leans left editorially, but how about responding to their argument?

The NYT argues that the definition of "job creators" being used by the Republicans is overly broad and misleading. They assert that really only 2-1/2% of small business owners who actually employ people would be effected by the tax increase.

The Times points out that the employers being counted among "business owners" by the GOP critics includes anyone who reported any "business income", even though they might be sole proprietors or if such income was not their primary source of income. That would include doctors, lawyers, accountants, those with any S corporation income, directors of corporations, etc.--all "business owners" as defined by the Republicans who would be very unlikely to hire new employees, whether or not their income taxes were increased to pre-Bush levels.

As you know, I am financial detail handicapped, thus I cant speak to what they say.

All I know, and it is not much, the Democratic party wanted it to be 1 million...Obama, in my opinion, went with 250 only for political reasons and nothing else.

Now the Dems have been warned to shut up, but there are quotes from Pelosi and such that they want 1 million, which reminds me, anyone have any details or links on what I heard this morning about the Dems "schooling" those folks in congress on what to say in the program to destroy Romney PERSONALLY ?

[Guest]

Bills that just DIE in Reids senate....

This is a list from Eric Cantor of bill stuck that the house has passed, but Senate does nothing...

Eric Cantor || Majority Leader || Jobs Legislation Tracker (http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/)

It is a shame but the house passes them on and the.......they die !!!

Both parties play this game but I am really wondering why NOBODY ever criticizes this senate ???