Here's what I keep coming back to in trying to make a decision on the Tax Deal

[bluestateguy]

(I'm like Hamlet at DU, trying to make up my mind about the tax deal)

Can we get a better deal by just waiting until next year?

We already tried with the decoupling approach (let the taxcuts lapse for the rich), and that failed. That is the approach that I philosophically favor. More taxcuts for the rich makes me sick and it will be no easier to get rid of them in 2012.

So say we let the taxcuts for all lapse on New Year's Day. What will the public reaction be? Who will be blamed? I think the answer to that latter question is risky. And regardless of what you think of the Obama/McConnell tax deal, letting everything lapse on January will result in big tax increases for working people, sucking a lot of money out of the demand pipeline when we can least afford it.

Then we will have John Bayner's House and a shaved majority in the Senate. Could we really get a better deal out of that arrangement?

[notadmblnd]

1. I think the reaction to letting the cuts lapse for everyone will be a non-reaction

People aren't gonna get their panties in a wad over $5.00 less in their paychecks. those likely to be up in arms, is the rich.

[pnwmom]

3. You are way off. The tax cuts meant the people at the low end

owed nothing at all. They're certainly going to notice if they suddenly have to file again. And people going from 10 to 15% are having a 50% hike, and they'll notice that, too.

[notadmblnd]

5. And it still will.

[dkf]

8. They won't notice til they do their tax returns.

Some may have to pay instead of getting a nice check from the Govt. Will they have the money?

[notadmblnd]

11. as taxes go up, withholdings will go up too

that's why they will have $5 less in their paychecks. I mean really, after the last tax cut, how much more do you recall seeing in you paycheck? Did it enable you to go out and make large purchases or maybe just a cup of coffee a week? Unless you were makings thousands per pay, you only saw a 5-20 difference. People bringing home 250-500 a week are not going to see hundreds of dollars more being withheld or at the end of the year. in the form of a bill, it's just not going to happen. And when it comes time to file, if they have dependents, they will still see a refund.

[dkf]

16. They will be getting more of a cut in paychecks from rising health care costs.

But $500 less for each child will be pretty significant at tax time. That credit doesn't get factored in the withholding tables as far as I know.

[pnwmom]

2. Obama has the highest profile so he will get the popular blame.

The Rethugs will scream that THEY were willing to keep lower taxes for everybody, and Obama wouldn't go along with this. This is the message that will sink in.

[stopbush]

4. You're right. AND, the Rs will be able to say that they made a compromise with Obama

but that Ds weren't interested in compromises.

The RW meme then becomes "we need an R Senate to work with president Obama, because the Ds don't want to compromise at all, even though the voters have sent the message that they expect us to work together.'

[TheKentuckian]

6. The cuts should have never been promised to continue, made in the first place, or actually continued

It is fucking snake oil that tricks the population to trade the commons and their own economic potential for a token bribe, just like Bush did.

[pnwmom]

9. Bush got those cuts through using a legislative maneuver

that the Democrats couldn't prevent. He attached it to a budget bill that couldn't be filibustered, and was able to make the "numbers work" because the cuts would expire down the road.

He was comfortable with the expiration feature because he knew that after years of lower taxes, the Democrats would have a huge battle to increase the taxes again in 2010.

[Poboy]

12. Correct!

[Xicano]

7. n/t

[kentuck]

10. I don't see why we cannot...

let all the taxcuts expire on January 1 but let the middle-class taxcuts expire incrementally over a three-year period while the taxcuts for the wealthiest expire immediately.

But then, the hard work begins.

With the bully pulpit and the ability to jawbone, the Democrats could highly recommend that employers and businesses do their part to sacrifice for the country also, and to give back the taxcuts to the employees in the form of pay increases? Why? Because the employees have created record productivity and got little of the reward. Businesses kept most of the profits for their own benefit. Maybe it's time to pay a little back?

If they did not wish to do that, we would make the middle-class taxcut the number one issue in the next Congressional season. The middle-class will not lose to these hostage-takers. Can you believe that they do not want to help the unemployed workers of this country? Can you believe that?

That would be the Progressive Option.

[rucky]

13. Only if the prez is willing to use veto. n/t

[mmonk]

14. No but you gave away the leverage. It can only get worse from here

unless you accept their premise that tax cuts and cuts in domestic social spending and social security is good economics.

[reformist2]

15. If Dems held out long enough, Repugs would take whatever tax cut they could get.

Everybody would be blamed, but who cares. When the Republicans cave in, and they would cave, we'll get what we want.