Originally Posted by waynet

is it Marxist to roll back the tax rates to the pre Bush times?

That would depend on whether the windfall revenue was redistributed to a "victim" entitlement class identified and selected by the government because they know best and are so efficient in matters that involve the doling out of taxpayer dollars without political bias. Sarcasm emphasized.

Originally Posted by waynet

is it Marxist to roll back the tax rates to the pre Bush times?

Isn't that going to happen anyway? Am I wrong in thinking that the Bush tax cuts "sunset" sometime in 2012? They were supposed to sunset earlier this year, but Obama horse-traded for something else and agreed to extend them for two years.

If that's the case, the House will vote to extend them and the Senate will block the House bill. If by chance it passes both houses of Congress, the POTUS will veto the bill and the Senate won't have the necessary votes to override the veto. That's assuming that the Senate doesn't become GOP majority and the POTUS is still Obama, both of which seem reasonable chances at the moment.

If this is the case, why all the sturm and drang right now about increasing the taxes on the rich? It's going to happen anyway. In fact, the taxes on lots more than the rich will go up.

I don't think Obama will let the middle class parts of the Bush tax cuts expire.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Isn't that going to happen anyway? Am I wrong in thinking that the Bush tax cuts "sunset" sometime in 2012? They were supposed to sunset earlier this year, but Obama horse-traded for something else and agreed to extend them for two years.

If this is the case, why all the sturm and drang right now about increasing the taxes on the rich? It's going to happen anyway. In fact, the taxes on lots more than the rich will go up.

While your analysis and assessment is accurate and probable, it does not speak to the missing component. That component is the "redistribution of wealth to a "victim" class identified by the government. Why are revenues needed and who receives the dole? Who will the victims be?.... Unions?....the homeless?..... mortgage holders who are underwater?.... the unemployed?..... college students who don't want to pay off their loans? illegal immigrants who need medical coverage and free college tuition?.....oh yeah, there's that whole under funded Obamacare thing and let's not forget corporate welfare and bank bailouts for all those generous election donors. How about those billions for green companies like Solyndra. Who will be rewarded with the revenue windfall and who will not. What is the formula for who receives and who does not. Therein sir lies the rub.

I tacitly acknowledge that the government has the right to levy taxes. They are obligated to keep us safe through a strong military, they are obligated to preserve our liberty from those ideologies that would take them away. My liberal side will even concede that government should maintain infrastructure. My "sturm and drang" comes from those who want to change our way of life, diminish our liberty and disrupt our pursuit of happiness and freedom by perpetuating Marxist ideology, pure socialism and redistribution of wealth by big government run by pompous, self serving elites.

Whether taxes go up or down is a straw man argument and diversion from the real point. That point precisely is.... what will revenues be used for? That sir.....is the component your assessment dismisses and does not speak to.

and when the Bush tax cuts were extended last time it was exactly for the fact congress did not want the middle class taxes to go up and to avoid another stalemate back then and fight about just doping it for the middle class and not the "rich"...the extended it in total....which they will do AGAIN next year.

btk

Originally Posted by cabo35

That would depend on whether the windfall revenue was redistributed to a "victim" entitlement class identified and selected by the government because they know best and are so efficient in matters that involve the doling out of taxpayer dollars without political bias. Sarcasm emphasized.

I've read your posts with great interest. I hope that you post more often. Your intellect is obvious. The efficiency of the market place is as close to perfect as you can get. Capitalism must have rules that are followed however, and Capitalism must adequately reward those who follow its rules. Governments that give overwhelming advantages to established oligarchies cannot be tolerated. Those advantages are in conflict with the concept of Democracy.

Socialism and it's ugly brother communism are grossly inefficient.

Capitalism with a good set of rules that are enforced. That's the answer. Corporations become too powerful when they can sue innovators out of existence. One example is a woman who invented a way to transmit electricity through the air by converting the electricity to sound above our hearing range and crystals that reconvert the sound back into electricity. She patented the process but refused to license the process out to major companies. The companies threatened to bury her in litigation. They shouldn't be able to do that because it stifles innovation.

Removing the cap on Social Security withholding, negotiating with drug companies for better prices and letting only the tax cuts for the wealthy expire next year will go a long way in helping lower the deficit. And for God's sake lets not fall victim to another scam war like Iraq.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Isn't that going to happen anyway? Am I wrong in thinking that the Bush tax cuts "sunset" sometime in 2012? They were supposed to sunset earlier this year, but Obama horse-traded for something else and agreed to extend them for two years.

The horse trading that you mentioned, weren't the Republicans holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to the passage of the tax cut for the wealthy?

Originally Posted by tonyafd

I've read your posts with great interest. I hope that you post more often. Your intellect is obvious. The efficiency of the market place is as close to perfect as you can get. Capitalism must have rules that are followed however, and Capitalism must adequately reward those who follow its rules. Governments that give overwhelming advantages to established oligarchies cannot be tolerated. Those advantages are in conflict with the concept of Democracy.

Socialism and it's ugly brother communism are grossly inefficient.

Capitalism with a good set of rules that are enforced. That's the answer. Corporations become too powerful when they can sue innovators out of existence. One example is a woman who invented a way to transmit electricity through the air by converting the electricity to sound above our hearing range and crystals that reconvert the sound back into electricity. She patented the process but refused to license the process out to major companies. The companies threatened to bury her in litigation. They shouldn't be able to do that because it stifles innovation.

Removing the cap on Social Security withholding, negotiating with drug companies for better prices and letting only the tax cuts for the wealthy expire next year will go a long way in helping lower the deficit. And for God's sake lets not fall victim to another scam war like Iraq.

I agree with the concept of limited regulation in cases such as the example you cite. The problem occurs with the calculated and oppressive regulation that is a component of a political ideology. You know it well. It resides in the White House today. I respectfully submit that it is that type of government regulation that truly "stifles innovation" as you suggest. Domestic energy development comes to mind as a current example. The Gibson Guitar case is but one of many oppressive regulatory lynchings that offend me. So much to explore......so little space and time.

Removing the cap on withholding, negotiating with drug companies and letting tax cuts on the wealthy expire would help lower the deficit as you suggest. Of course that presumes that the revenue was dedicated to that purpose. Unfortunately, in the real world, those in Washington who get their hands on the revenue windfall will creatively find other ways to "redistribute the wealth". Ways that are more consistent with their self interest and ideology. I have said this in many ways before. Our government has Americans debating the issue of raising or reducing taxes. As long as our eye is off the ball, the treasury will continue to be plundered by special interests. The question should be...WHERE ARE OUR TAX REVENUES GOING? The devil is in the details of this question.

Responding to your position on the Iraq war would require more keystrokes then this site can support and this poster, at the moment, has in him. In fairness, it would command a thorough explanation on the dynamics of the Mideast, the Arab Spring, Iran, Israel, Islam and our current foreign policy in that region. The spread of Islam in Europe has created considerable unrest as evident by the most cursory viewing of world news. Just last night, Sweden of all places, was the site of riots and civil unrest by components of the Muslim population. I should add that Sweden's problem has been growing for many years and involves a smaller, more extreme element of their increasing Muslim population. My goodness.... this Sweden thing could morph into its own thread. In briefer terms than are warranted, your statement on the Iraq War, strikes an emotional nerve at many levels. It doesn't reveal or consider the complexity of the threats to Israel, Western Europe and the United States that are in play. Now that would be interesting and informative.

You do provoke a lot of thought that most of us can learn from.

Originally Posted by cabo35

...Why are revenues needed and who receives the dole?....Whether taxes go up or down is a straw man argument and diversion from the real point. That point precisely is.... what will revenues be used for? That sir.....is the component your assessment dismisses and does not speak to.

Remember what I've proposed...that modification of tax policy including increased revenues, increased taxes, be a component of a broader program of fiscal reform. That program should include substantial cuts in government spending, entitlements, defense as well as increased taxes. I think that a balanced budget Constitutional amendment could also be a component, so long as it's phased in over a period of time to avoid doing more immediate harm that the long-term good of the idea.

I agree that simply increasing tax revenues will likely have no effect other than increased government spending. That is why increased taxes must only be a part of a broader re-direction of fiscal policy.

I do find it curious that most recognized financial experts have said that our fiscal problem cannot be solved with spending cuts alone, that almost everyone agrees that the wealthiest Americans aren't paying enough in taxes, and that there is a myriad of tax breaks, deductions and benefits that accrue to corporations that don't need them. The public, the wealthy themselves, and various large groups of corporations publicly agree that these changes should be made. But it's only idealogs who continue to refuse such considerations, refusing to even negotiate fiscal reform if it includes any form of revenue increase.

I can ask "why", but I think I know the reason. It's the thousands of lobbyists that keep the money flowing between K Street and the halls of Congress.