Bush tax cuts for the wealthy set to expire. Now THAT is good news, right?

United States
January 29, 2010 12:35pm CST
Ah, yes, the wealthy will finally pay their fair share again and their taxes will help put at least a dent in the soaring deficit. Won't life as we know it in the US be soooo much better when these tax cuts expire at the end of the year? What could possibly go wrong? Your turn...
2 people like this
7 responses
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
29 Jan 10
It's good and bad, in my opinion. The "rich" get lumped together like nobody's business! I'm tellin' ya, if you wanna hate on someone for something, a person's wealth is always a safe bet. Skin color, weight, sexuality, height, etc, are all HUGE PC no-nos. But if someone has money, oh my goodness, they're fair game. Of course, let's not feel bad for the fat-cats who have exploited the system in order to make LOOOOAADDDSS of money. But hey, wait a second. Not all "rich" people are that. Wealth, by and large, is a label that someone else gives you or denies you. What happens when 100k becomes "wealthy"? What about 60k? It will happen if it goes on long enough. Everyone with money will be considered "rich." So what's it now? 250k? Not very far off. The trouble with setting a limit and taxing everyone over that limit is that the cruel, vicious and evil rich, while in that category, share this label with some regular business owners and the REAL job creators in America. Let's be honest here. Even if something like government stimulus does create some jobs, we're all friggin' paying for it! And if not us, our kids will. The government spends a lot more to create one job than that one job pays. After every self-important schmuck has their palms greased and after every corrupt official gets their taste, the money ends up a few drops in a bucket from an enormous Noah-like flood. But it's the "rich" we need to get! Yeah! Those muddersuckers are all evil! I don't know what someone's "fair share" of taxes is. I remember reading that the top 5% in New York pay 80% of the taxes. How much more do they have to pay? I'm certainly not sticking up for the "rich" here. But if we get into that mentality where we're taxing everyone that can afford to pay, we'll eventually be on that list.
@poingly (606)
• United States
30 Jan 10
If the top 5% pay 80% of taxes, but control 90% of the wealth, it would seem to me that they should be paying another 10%....at least!
• United States
30 Jan 10
"Control"?
@MJay101 (711)
29 Jan 10
I think the rich are particularly adept at wriggling out of paying taxes, or at least at paying other people to do the wriggling for them... The rich should pay far more in tax than they do, even after the expiry of the tax cuts. I am hopeful that in the wake of the financial crisis, people will finally acknowledge this and elect politicians who are committed to taxing the rich (individuals and corporations). However, politicians are themselves "wealthy", and most of them are sell-outs, so I don't think it's particularly likely. Revolution, comrades! It is the only solution.
• United States
29 Jan 10
Yes, obviously you are astute. We can see that taking from the rich and giving to the poor works so well now that we are able to see behind the "Iron Curtain" and take a real peak at how successful they were. I, for one am all for it. In fact, how about this, why don't we just send them half of what we make and they can send back what they don't need, oh, wait WE ARE ALREADY DOING THAT! Just because it sucks that they take more of my money than I believe reasonable doesn't mean that I want them to tax everyone else into oblivion. With that attitude the only money left will be the government's and we will all work for them, that way they can just keep it and give us room and board. SOUNDS GREAT!
@MJay101 (711)
29 Jan 10
Hey, man - nobody was rich behind the iron curtain! Seriously, though - the vast majority of people had food, and a job, and a home. Which is more than can be said now, under the oligarchs. Hence, a majority of Russians think life was better under the Communists. Besides which, as you well know, there is a difference between being "taxed to oblivion" and hardly being taxed at all, as is currently the case. For what it's worth, I favour the Scandinavian model of social democracy.
@anniepa (27104)
• United States
31 Jan 10
Well, I guess ONE way to look at it would be how much better life in the US WAS before the tax cuts, right? They would only go back to the rates they were when Bill Clinton was President and we all know how much "worse" it was then than under Bush, right...lol? Annie
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
31 Jan 10
Why does anyone think things will be better for our country or the poor just because the rich are being taxed more? The rich, business owners, will only pass the cost on to the consumer and/or reduce the number of employees they have. The fewer people working, the less money coming in to the system. No matter how much they tax the wealthy, it won't be enough to solve our countries financial problems.
• United States
30 Jan 10
The only way taxes will ever be "fair" here in this country is when the "Fair Tax" is implemented. That way everyone is forced to pay into the tax system, even visitors who make any type of purchase here and deadbeats who are able to work, but don't work and instead have been living off of welfare throughout their lives. But to answer your direct questions, no, the expiration of Bush's tax cuts will not be better for us. I believe it will cause many small businesses and just business in general, to have to close or downsize because they can't pay the increase in taxes plus their employees salaries, so more people will be out of work and less will eventually be paid into the system. If I remember correctly, when Bush's tax cut went into effect, the revenue from taxes was greater. That's because more companies were hiring. More people being hired equals more people paying into the system. That term, "tax cuts for the rich" is a lie. The tax cut benefited everyone. Where would we be without rich companies and company owners to give us jobs? It's the rich who are taking the biggest risk by investing their money not knowing whether or not the company they've started will be a success, or whether or not they'll have reliable employees who will do a day's work for a day's pay. Actually, everyone on either side have to do their part to make it work in a way that's fair to everyone.
• United States
29 Jan 10
NOBODY giving ANY more money to an institution as corrupt and incompetent as the Federal Government will ever be a good thing. They will just use it fund their next attack on the civil liberties of their citizens. And it really doesn't seem to matter which side of "aisle" they sit on. I believe their "differences" are just posturing, smoke and mirrors to keep us in the dark as to their real agenda. They believe they know what is best for me and my family and they are h**l bent on making it happen, no matter who they have to crush to get there. I, BTW, am poor and have been all my life and I still wish they would mind their own business and stick to keeping us safe and free.
• United States
29 Jan 10
Well I see it two ways....yes because we our government is broke and needs to money. And no....because the rich hire people and create jobs. If they pay higher taxes they will create fewer jobs.