never, ever is their a Democrat that opposes any tax increase,

Helllooo. If the cuts expire, those who have them them now will lose them. They will then pay more taxes. To those earning less than $250k that translates to $300 billion. You can't twist reality around with words.

Could you kindly direct me to the information in this lengthy report which supports your point about pending health care dampening future business expectations? I found several clear polls within the article which said the opposite and supported my position.

And by the way, in your reference, notice that twice as many of the small business owners expressed frustration with the inability to to get credit from January 2009 to the present than before that date. That's all about those greedy banks that have sat on excess funds instead of lending even to solid businesses. The new banking and credit regulations are not only necessary to save us from depression, but the government must do even more to compel banks to do their part. For hose who were bailed out by our money, their conduct is obscene.

I'm sorry, I was reading through the website and I had several items opened from the organization. I copied and pasted the wrong report. If you don't want to read the entire report, you can read the executive summary which I believe starts on page 11.


http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/Al...form3.2009.pdf

I only implied this in my first post, but don't you think it's tragic, (not to mention irresponsible), that a whole party would continue to march to stubborn close minded positions, just because they have a specific party label, just because they don't want the opposing party to get credit for doing what needs to get done, and regardless of the outcome?
Don't you think it's wrong that if a congressman does break ranks these days, they risk ostracism and forfeit the millions they need for reelection?

And hey, you can apply what I just said to EITHER party!

So, Bucco, we come back to the question. Can you give me some solid reasons why the expiring tax cuts should be extended to those making more than $250k per year? (Tell you what. I'm even willing to adjust this figure upwards a teeny bit if we can get the thing done.)

If the Brookings study is correct, I'll take the 68 billion per year in added tax revenues. As I said, it represents a partial deficit reduction. I think that's better than nothing.

I would still like to hear any solid reasons you have for extending the credits to those earning more than $250k per year.

Your info about who pays taxes might be accurate, but those who pay the most don't seem to complain, nor are they desperate to escape to England or Cuba or some other place. Just ask folks like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates about what's fair payment for sustaining this great country.

I've been a Democrat at times and adamantly opposed some tax increases. At present though Sparky, I think we should admit we have a collective financial problem. The sooner we all contribute, (including through taxes), the sooner we may get out of this mess.

I scanned this and cannot find anything which supports RLion's statement that health reform expectations are dampening business and employment prospects. I will cite the graphs on page 18 of your original report as some evidence of the exact opposite. Can you direct me to a page of the second, even longer report which is relevant to this issue?

I would still like to hear at least one solid reason why the expiring tax cut should be extended to those earning more than $250k annually

The problem is spending, not revenues. There is no shortage of revenue. There has been a huge surge in entitlement spending. Spending has increased dramatically under Obama and his administration. Raising taxes to support this spending does not put the country on the right course for economic recovery or a substainable future.

We need a strong economy to increase revenues to support the federal coffers to cover downsized government spending at sustainable levels. Keeping the current tax policy is not a tax cut.

Raising taxes will provide a very, very modest boost to revenue and do nothing to offset the spending and entitlement problems the remaining working taxpayers are facing.

Raising taxes will slow the economy. Raising taxes on work and investment will mean less work and investment. True small businesses will be negatively impacted with the proposal to increase their taxes. That is something we can't afford in this country with the unemployment rate looming at near 10 percent.

The trillion dollar stimulus Obama passed didn't stimulate the economy like he promised and now he is playing cover-up and a blame game instead of admitting he was wrong. I can't see how increasing taxes on hard working Americans and entrepreneurs will help Americans get back to work or help the economy recover.

I don't know if you represent a majority with your opinion "...The sooner we all contribute, (including through taxes), the sooner we may get out of this mess."

But let's assume that 50 percent of Americans agree with you and think it may be necessary to pay higher taxes. That would be about 115 million voting age Americans who agree with you.

If you would all give an average of just $181 a month per person, you would be giving the government $1 trillion in just four short years. You can start out the voluntary tax increase.

Now that would be patriotic and honorable and appreciated by me and the other 50 percent.

I cannot any more than Obama can point to specific jobs created at a reasonable cost. He can point, however, to the fact that his stimulus plan has failed to stimulate the economy. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Let's try something that has a proven success record - lowering taxes and getting government out of the workplace. Stimulus has failed.

Why is it there is never much discussion of the large
 

corporations both domestic and foreign who pay no taxes or have provisions for significantly reduced payment.

The subject comes up, very quietly from time to time and goes away just as quietly.

The incentives or loop holes that have been the justification should be reviewed and changed to fit the current economic environment. There would definitely be a contribution to revenues. There would be horrific howling and knashing of teeth by the lobbyists and corporate special interest groups.

Just another area to shine the light of looking for money that seems to be all but ignored.

What ever the amount that could be gained would not off set the spending.
Why is taxation always front and center and spending is not only not discussed, it continues (by both parties) without a single solitary thought on the part of the politicians.
And of course condoned by we the people's un-informed or mis-informed position on spending.

When trying to maintain a household or to recover profitability in any sized business when increased revenues are not a solution they respond by going after spending. We all do it. Why? Because we have no other choice.

Politicians just "charge it" to their unlimited funds/who cares cards or print more money. Now why is that allowed/tolerated? The results from reduced spending are instantaneous. Yet is never pursued. Like stepping over the dollar to pick up a dime.

btk

An outdated report that makes the point (nothing has changed since)
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

btk

Ok, I have to chime in here with something that seems to have been ignored..

One of the arguments against letting the taxes increase 'for the rich' (and, for the record, I hate that term) is that it will hurt "mom and pop businesses".

This is framed in such a wrong manner it's ridiculous.

We're talking about a tax rate increase from 34% to 37%, if I read my number right. On top of that, it would be ON THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS.

That mean that the "mom and pop" business has to be CLEARING over $250,000. Those are NOT "struggling" businesses.

In addition, the extra 3% tax is on the AMOUNT OVER $250K. So if "mom and pop" are clearing JUST $250K, they see no tax increase. If they clear $500K, they see an increase in their taxes of $7,500 (going from $85,000 in taxes on that extra $250K up to $92,500) - the 3% of the extra $250K.

If "mom and pop" are clearing NOTHING - and remember that expenses include PAYING THEMSELVES SALARIES then the business isn't paying taxes on any profit and "mom and pop" are just paying taxes on their salaries.

Now, personally, I'm more in favor of fairer, flatter taxes but can we at least use more facts in the debate?

Even though you are not making any attempt to answer my question, I will respond to your enormous generalizations about the stimulus program.

They are completely wrong.

There is ample evidence that the stimulus was essential to prevent what likely would have been the worst depression in history, the failure of hundreds of blue-chip businesses, the resultant market crash that would have made 1929 look puny and unemployment triple or more than what it was last year. No, not everyone is back to work magically in 18 months. That would be impossible. But you would be denying reality if you did not recognize the gains made in the face of our worst crisis in history. All this is due largely to the stimulus plan (and new financial regulations). No, it's not the ideal situation to have the current deficit, but the actions taken were ESSENTIAL!!