Would you sacrifice your Bush middle class tax cut for the sake of the filthy rich losing theirs?

[mtnsnake]

IOW, would you rather simply let ALL of Bush's tax cuts expire for EVERYONE if it meant the quickest way to get the country on the road to recovery?

Like would you be willing to settle for a 42" flat screen TV instead of a 46" TV if it meant that rich people would have to settle for buying a 100' yacht instead of a 125' yacht?

Would you be willing to do this if it meant that the country would get the revenue that it so desperately needs right now?

[closeupready]

1. Absolutely. We can't afford to give ANYONE a tax cut, IMO.

n/t

[rfranklin]

6. That's not so...we have one of the lowest tax burdens among OECD nations...

The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries
Sonya Hoo, Eric Toder

The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000.1 Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent. Within the OECD, Mexico raised the least tax revenues at 19 percent and Sweden the most at 50.6 percent. (The recovery of corporate profits and the stock market since 2003 subsequently boosted U.S. tax revenues to 26.8 percent of GDP in the first three quarters of calendar year 2005.)

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000976

The fact that we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on wars and military toys is why we feel poor. Combine that with insanely low taxes of the wealthiest members of society and no wage protection for the low end workers and you end up with the mess that we have in this country.

[ieoeja]

17. I think you got twisted up here.

You just used the fact that we have the lowest tax burden to argue that we can afford to lower it more. Your last sentence is a valid argument in favor of tax cuts, but your initial statement does not jibe.

[rfranklin]

19. You inferred something that is not there...

We have taxes that are too low. We undertax the wealthy. We spend too much on the military. We have social programs that are among the stingiest among developed countries. We have not significantly raised the minimum wage for thirty years--in fact, it has gone down when adjusted for inflation. Reverse all of those things and you will have a happier and wealthier--on average--populace.

[closeupready]

20. You're not making sense. I said we can't afford to give anyone a tax cut.

You then said, "not true because we have one of the lowest tax rates on earth, and we spend tons."

The claims you make in support of your "not true" clearly support my statement that we can't afford to give anyone a tax cut.

[niceypoo]

31. Tax cuts dont stimulate

Why are Democrats suddenly embracing the GOP failures of the BUsh era?

[closeupready]

32. Stockholm Syndrome? Brainwashing?

Who knows. :shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

2. Pity you cant poll the country, I suspect you'd get a different answer.

;)

[ClassWarrior]

3. Wrong.

That poll's already been done and it's been widely reported that the vast majority of people line up with option 1.

:D

NGU.

[Clio the Leo]

8. linkage? nt

[ClassWarrior]

12. My bad. From what I can find, that question hasn't been asked. But perhaps...

...someone more savvy in statistics than I can give a better answer.

Incidentally, all the polls I saw call 'em "tax cuts for the middle class" and "tax cuts for the wealthy," which is wrong. They're tax cuts for all citizens, and bonus tax cuts for the wealthy.

NGU.

[Clio the Leo]

14. It's Keith's fault...

.... he's was doing some pretty good spin on that last night. ;)

As you said, the poll (or at least the one/s I saw) asked if folks supported NOT extending tax cuts for the rich .... of course, we all do .... all of us except for the Rs in Congress and the rich folks. But is it WORTH giving up your OWN tax cut to achieve that ideal?

It isn't for me and I suspect that's the case for the overwhelming majority of the middle class.

I think one fact in why that poll is showing such a high number is the fact that the President has been campaigning on that for the past few months.

[ClassWarrior]

18. It's also in how the question is asked. You could ask, as this poll does...

..."Would you sacrifice your tax cut in order to end the tax cuts for the wealthy?" Or you could ask, "Do you favor reducing the deficits by letting all Bush tax cuts expire?" And I'm sure you'd get very different results. So it really does no good for us to speculate on that here.

And I didn't watch Keith last night.

NGU.

[mtnsnake]

16. I won't argue with you on that, Clio

Heck, half the country could probably be confinced into sacrificing their middle class tax cuts for the sake of the filthy rich keeping theirs....as in the same middle class Americans who voted for Bush not once, but twice!

[stray cat]

4. No - I would sacrifice it for having to cut jobs in science with budget cuts

[yourout]

5. The unemployment extension is the only thing that somewhat evens the trade.

Even at that I would vote no.

[NoPasaran]

7. I'm not voting in this poll

I'm not voting in this poll because "Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary" is not an option.

[dionysus]

21. how 2008

:rofl:

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I'd be especially happy to give up my tax cut if I knew

the money was going to be used for socially positive purposes, particularly if it were to go to help disabled, homeless, elderly and unemployed people.

[mtnsnake]

11. Well said

That's a nice sentiment which I'm sure few people here would disagree with.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. The real point is that I hate to see us wasting our resources

pissing them away on unwinnable wars that serve only to prop up our Oil Empire and the dark forces that serve it.

[msongs]

10. false choices lol nt

[cadmium]

13. I would not give up the deal on Unemployment so I voted other.

I would rather give up payroll tax holiday that undo extending wealthy tax cut.

[mtnsnake]

15. I tried to include that sentiment in Choice #2 where it says "because of personal needs"

but "Other" is a fine way of expressing that as well.

[stopbush]

22. I'm unwilling to let the cuts expire for the people on the lowest rung of the ladder.

Those currently paying a 10% rate will see their rate go to 15% if the bush level is abandoned and we go back to what was in place when Clinton left office.

For example, a person making $20k a year could have a fed tax burden of $2,000 at the 10% rate. That would go to $3,000 if the bush cuts expire. That extra $1000 a year is a lot of $ to a person making only $20k.

Look at it this way: a person making $20k a year grosses only $384 a week. An extra $1000 in taxes represents two-and-half weeks of gross wages to that person.

In other words, they're giving another half-month's worth of gross wages to the government. How does one make ends meet under such a scenario?

I'm OK with my tax rate going back to Clinton-era rates, but I won't be impacted as much as people on the bottom.

[mtnsnake]

23. You are wrong. A person making 20K per year would not see their taxes increase a penny

if all of Bush's tax cuts were allowed to expire.

Single people making between $8500 and $34,550 would not see their taxes increased at all. Their rate would remain at 15%, same as in 2010. Singles making between $34,550 and $83,700 would only see an increase of 3%.

Married couples making between $17,000 and $57,700 would not see their taxes increased either. Married couples making between $57,700 and $139,500 would only see their taxes increased by 3%.

The only people who would see their tax rate go from 10% to 15% if Bush's tax cuts were all to expire would be singles making less than $8,501 and married couples making less than $17,001.

[stopbush]

24. No, I'm right, and you're missing the point.

I didn't say that the rate for a person making $20k was 10%, I said "a person making $20k a year could have a fed tax burden of $2,000 at the 10% rate."

I said "could," not "has." I was using a round number to make my point because I didn't have the actual tax rates on hand.

Sorry if that was being inexact.

But let's work with the numbers you provided:

A single making $8500 currently pays $850 in taxes. That would go to $1275, which leaves them with $7225 after fed taxes. For the married couple you cite, that tax burden would go from $1700 to $2550.

Paying another $425 to $850 a year in taxes may not be much to us, but it's a lot to the people in your example.

[mtnsnake]

26. You said anyone making 20K would go from paying 2K in taxes to 3K. That is flat out wrong.

Anyone making $20,000 in 2010 would not pay a penny more in taxes in 2011, should all of Bush's tax cuts expire. They were paying 15% in 2010 and they'd be paying 15% in 2011 should the Bush's tax cuts expire. They were not paying 10% previously.

Read the proof for yourself:

http://www.smartonmoney.com/bush-tax-cuts-set-to-expire-in-2011-will-you-be-paying-more/

[MurrayDelph]

25. I am currently unemployed

prospects are not good, and my six months will run out the end of this month.

If Mr. Obama hadn't sold out the single-payer option, I would just call it retirement. Since he didn't, I will keep working at finding work that pays.

The solution to that is put in place options that will actually create jobs, not just stuff more debt into the closet.

[budkin]

27. Without a doubt!

[bvar22]

28. Yes..YES...YES!!!

It is insane to BORROW MONEY that Our Children will have to pay back so that a handful of Millionaires can buy another Summer Home in Aspen.

REALITY:
We have NO MONEY for ANY "Tax Cuts".
They will have to be paid for with "Borrowed Money".

[ZombieHorde]

29. 93% of DU is middle class? What is the definition of middle class? nt

Edit: the numbers are going to change, so my math will mostly likely be a little off in a short while.