Tax cuts for the rich....a reality

What bothers me most about this bill is that we are not giving anyone "their" money back. We are borrowing the money from China, Saudi Arabia, and yes, even Iran to pay for this massive giveaway because our politician do not have the guts to make tough choices. Guess who will pay for their lack of courage? Our children and their children that's who.

 

And still, no one can tell me, if tax breaks for the rich work so well in stimulating job growth, why are we not swimming in jobs after 10 years of these very same tax breaks? We had 8 years of relatively good times and 2 years of recession in which these tax breaks failed to create any significant number of jobs. Why would extending them for 2 years, 4 years, forever, have a different outcome? NOBODY SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE ME AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

 

This couldn't be more true....

The extension of the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year is madness in the face of a crumbling economy and an outsourced-to-death job market (remember factories and union jobs anyone?). I'm mad as hell to see my country become a dysfunctional 3rd world banana republic because of corrupt politicians like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and beaten down corporate hybrid democrats like Obama, Summers and Geitner. So let's let's send them a gift of thanks from the people who will really benefit from these tax cuts: The Chinese Government.

Below are the addresses of Boehner, McConell and the White House. Send them Chinese food or soy sauce or any Chinese gift with a note:

"Thanks for borrowing more money from us to pay for your tax cuts for the rich. And thank you for always placing China first over your own American people. With love, China."

For me personally, I'm sending the food to McConnell and Boehner. As disappointing as Obama has turned out to be I think he still knows that $110 billion more added to the deficit in the next two years is a bad idea. I just think he's in a corrupt hell hole (aka: Washington DC) and doesn't have the fight in him to call it out. But hey, if you're a Republican or a really, really pissed off progressive or just a sane American who cares about the future of our country by all means send the President some oyster sauce and hot mustard.

The addresses:

Office of John Boehner
H-204 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Senator Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
361A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1702

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

 

A couple of things....first of all, if, as the libs love to proclaim, these Obama Tax Cuts cater to the top 2%, do the other 98% not benefit? Isn't it worth giving a little to 2% of the population to benefit the other 98%? Especially if there is evidence that something that benefits the top 2% also pays additional benefits to the other 98%? Think about it- 98% of us won't have our taxes raised + we benefit from whatever the top 2% can produce from not having their taxes raised. Using Jacks's example....he benefits from not having his taxes increased, additionally he benefits because his employer is thriving, meaning his job is more secure & he is more likely to receive a raise. Seems logical to me.
Now Dr moen wants to see where all the new jobs were created after the Bush Tax cuts were implemented. Well, we mainatined near maximum employment during that time. What more could you ask for? Using Obama-logic, wonder how many jobs would have been eliminated earlier in this decade had those tax cuts not been passed?
I know this is something that has been mentioned several times but is dismissed because it's difficult but out problem is not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem! What would you do in your household if you had a budgetary problem? You would stop spending, wouldn't you?

 

It used to be our Grandchildren would pay for it. Then our Children. It is pretty safe to say, that, unless you already have 1 foot in the grave, it is going to be all of us that pays for it.

 

A lot of talk about unemployment rates. So, I had to go look up and see for myself what the data might be behind the words (it's a character flaw I have )

Unemployment Rates I could find...

1993 - 6.9 - Clinton Tax Increase
1994 - 6.1
1995 - 5.6
1996 - 5.4
1997 - 4.9
1998 - 4.5
1999 - 4.2
2000 - 4.0
2001 - 4.7 - Bush Tax Cuts
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6.0
2004 - 5.5
2005 - 5.1
2006 - 4.6
2007 - 4.6
2008 - 5.8
2009 - ~10
2010 - ~10

Are these numbers wrong?

 

Will the Obama-GOP Tax Deal Really Create 3.1 Million Jobs?
By PETER COHAN Posted 12:09 PM 12/08/10

The new tax cut compromise between the Obama administration and congressional Republicans, which will add $593 billion to the $1 trillion federal deficit, is now also being touted as a back-door stimulus plan. Some economists have estimated that when you add up the deal's different provisions, it will create 3.1 million new jobs. Unfortunately, the model on which those forecasts are based makes some flawed assumptions that lead to an overestimation of the positive effects.

The $954 billion deal can be thought of in two pieces, according to the Center for American Progress. The first is a $133 billion tax cut for the rich -- payback for the donors to Republican campaigns. That portion includes $120 billion in lower taxes for the top 2% of U.S. households, plus $13 billion in estate tax savings. The remaining $821 billion consists of government cash for unemployment benefits, tax cuts for the middle class and small-business job-creation incentives.

The center estimates that over the next two years, the deal will "save or create" 3.1 million jobs, based on the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that each 1% of GDP growth adds a million new jobs, and using calculations from the CBO and economist Mark Zandi about how much of each type of stimulus spending will boost overall GDP.

The 3.1 million jobs estimate from the center breaks down this way, ranked in order by the number of jobs saved or created:
• Extending the broad-based Bush tax cuts (for the bottom 98%): $360 billion cost, 940,000 new jobs
• Payroll tax cuts (2 percentage-point reduction): $120 billion cost, 700,000 new jobs
• Unemployment insurance extension: $56 billion cost, 520,000 new jobs
• Bonus tax cuts for top 2%: $120 billion cost, 290,000 new jobs
• 100% expensing/bonus depreciation: $180 billion cost, 260,000 new jobs
• Refundable low-income tax credits: $38 billion cost, 220,000 new jobs
• Business extenders such as R&D tax credit: $80 billion cost, 160,000 new jobs
Not Enough Job-Creation Bang For the Deficit-Boosting Buck

What's striking is how much greater the job-creation impact is per dollar spent for some of these programs than for others. For example, extending unemployment insurance creates one job for every $107,692 spent, while it takes nearly four times more -- $413,794 in tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans -- to create a single job. So much for trickle-down economics.


But the big problem with this economic model is that it grossly exaggerates the number of new jobs created. For example, the same formulas were used when the Obama administration claimed that the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would save or create 3.5 million jobs at a cost of $224,857 per job. The CBO's follow-up report last month estimates that the law saved or created between 1.4 million and 3.6 million jobs. This range is so wide that it doesn't provide much reassurance about the actual results -- but it provides political cover for all sides.

Meanwhile, if the Recovery Act did save or create jobs, why is the unemployment rate back up to 9.8%? The simple answer is that government doesn't create private-sector jobs -- business does. And with profits expected to hit a record $1.66 trillion in 2010 and corporate cash balances at $1.84 trillion, businesses are doing just fine by not creating jobs. Unfortunately, there's nothing in either the older stimulus package or the new tax compromise to change that.

What's really needed to create job growth is transformative innovation -- a development like the Internet in the 1990s that created entirely new industries and contributed 22 million new jobs to the economy. I interviewed 17 CEOs of promising tech startups in October, and I heard repeatedly that tax incentives aren't going to factor into whether they hire or not. What will matter for them is their ability to innovate and compete, something this tax cut compromise won't help with.


See full article from DailyFinance: Will Obama Tax Cut Deal Really Create 3.1 Million Jobs? - DailyFinance

 

Just curious Jack. How many people, departments, positions will your new machine help to eliminate? Two new employees now for how many layoffs later? If they're spending all this money simply due to the tax status, then why spend it in the first place if it isn't going to make the profiteers richer? Maybe they're just installing that machine out of the goodness of their hearts and not the cash it will help make them huh?

 

Tom,
We have never had a layoff. I have worked for the same employer for going on 20 years, and at 3 different companies. This new machine just ups our capabilitys and will increase profits. Thats good, because when profits go up, so does our pay rate, Christmas bonus's, and he usually just puts it back into the business.
We have no retirement plan or 401K, I would like to see that added one day tho. He does pay 100% of my medical insurance, but I pay for the wife.
I have a feeling, he is building a nest egg and a legacy for his kids, all 3 of whom work at the company as " boss's in training "

 

Seems like I've heard this one before. Oh yeah. The original stimulus bill was going to save or create millions of jobs and we ended up with a net loss. Here we go again.

 

So you would attribute the buying of this machine directly to the passing of tax cuts for the rich? Possibility they write off most of the cost now perhaps? Point is they're going to do what makes them richer regardless, doesn't have anything to do with the decision to allow rich people keep more of their riches. Greed drives decisions like that and it has ZERO to do with contributing to the betterment of humanity and or creating jobs. Profit plain and simple, regardless of anything else. The fact that two more jobs might have been added as a result is inconsequential and probably negated financially somewhere else, and at the cost of others not yet realized. Most companies do nothing for anyone except themselves in today's corporate market. I think you're over hyping this whole thing a bit.

 

Did y'all miss this part of the article?

"And with profits expected to hit a record $1.66 trillion in 2010 and corporate cash balances at $1.84 trillion, businesses are doing just fine by not creating jobs."

By every indicator, giving the wealthy another tax break is unnecessary.

 

That is typically the problem with our usual shotgun approach. I will go on record as saying that I believe the House resistance to the deal is a purely political move and the compromise will be passed pretty much 'as is'.

 

I could understand the 2001 tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy. There was surplus and I think the money should be handed back to the people or at least spent wisely. However, today we don't have a surplus and giving back money to those doing just fine and having to borrow the money from other countries seems just a bit insane. We are not only giving them money but we are paying interest on the money we give them. If we had a surplus, I'd certainly understand this money grab a little better but it just comes off as the greedy grabbing for even more than they already have.

The very first thing Bush did when he got into office was pass his tax cuts. The very first thing the Republican congress does is threaten a stoppage of any legislation until the wealthy get more tax breaks. Clearly, priority one for Republicans is always to drain the bank first and worry about everything else later.

 

Since when do we have to " borrow" the money? They have had the same revenue stream for 7-8 years now. And NOW your concerned with deficits? after Bo quadrupled the W deficit?

C'mon, are you against deficits or for them ? Or do you change depending on the letter D or R after the guys name? I heard not a peep from the left as BO burried us in debt for the last 20 months. Now that the Repos get something, you are al screaming about deficits. Same with the Patriot Act. Is was bad when W and congess installed it, but not a peep when BO made it stonger and PERMANANT.

Flip flop ethics or values? Give me a freakin break.

My boss got a tax cut and hired a cpl dudes, spin it as you wish.

 

There are two things that I've learned about you since you and I have been around this place. The first thing is that you are susceptible to Right wing propaganda and two, you are willing to listen to an alternative perspective. Consider this:


The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty

So much for the quadrupling talking point.

 

Ok Moen, I will read it later, I'm crashin...have a great night
I may be gone for a week or so on business, Chicago travel does not thrill me, I hear it is frigid there . If I go out tommorow, see ya in a week, if not I'll read it with my morning coffee...I will know by 6 am.....

 

The 2009 budget deficit, when the budget passed in 2008, was predicted to be 400 billion. Of course, that did not include the 400-500 billion additional spending later in the budget year (Obama). And revenue ended up being about 500 - 600 billion less than projected (Recession). That is how we got to 1.4 trillion. And, I agree, it was not really Obama's 1.4 trillion. It really ends up being shared by Bush, Obama and the Recession.

 

It is lovely here in Chicago. I don't know what you're talking about. Today for instance, it's going to start out raining then turn to ice pellets, then sleet, then all snow over night with about 6" total followed by 25 mile an hour winds and wind chills to about 10 below zero. Hell, we put good weather news like that in our travel brochures. You got your entire flight to "climatize", I don't know what you're worried about?