I could support a raising of incomes with tax-breaks -- But not "temporary" extensions for all

[Armstead]

It looks like -- once again -- Democrats are going to cede the field to the GOP, rather than hold their ground -- this time it's on extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Since "compromise" with the non-compromising GOP is in the air on the extensions, here's my own take on what IMO Obama and the Dems should propose.

Offer to raise the income limit where the tax-breaks would be extended -- perhaps to $700,000 or so. But also push to end the Bush tax breaks for those above that level now, at the end of the year. Force it onto the floor now during the "lame duck" session and use all the levers of power to make it happen now rather thasn be sent for "reconsideration."

But don't offer a "temporary" extension of all cuts. With a GOP takeover of the House imminent, that would translate into a PERMANENT cut if the issue were left to fester for another year.

Raising the level somewhat -- but doing it now -- would be both a reasonable compromise, and would call the GOP's bluff. Their true allegiance would be more publicly visible if they try to jam up middle class tax breaks because it doesn't also apply to the super-rich.

Just my opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. and separate bills

one that extends the cuts for 250 and under. One that establishes a new rate at < 700. Make the repugnutcants vote against a tax break for everyone.

[Armstead]

2. However done, yes two bills would be good

Put middle class tax breaks on the floor seperatly, and force the GOP into an up or down vote on something that is popular.

Then handle the more controversial tax cuts for higher-income seperatly.

That way the GOP would have to put up or shut up on tax breaks for the majority of Americans who most need it.

[dkf]

3. Actually if all tax breaks are extended temporarily it will make it easier to end it all.

It would be a lot easier to get permanently politically stuck with the middle income tax extension because when we need to raise it eventually it will be portrayed as a specific tax increase on the middle class.

If the extension for the top end are still there we can just say it is unaffordable.

[Armstead]

4. In the longer view.....

Yes there may come a point in the future where taxes on the middle class will have to be raised.

But that's going to be politically messy regardless of whether the current tax breaks are extended or not. And no matter who or which party is in the unfortunate position of having to do it.

For right now, the economy is messed up enough that tax cuts for the middle class do make sense. But it doesn't make sense to add to the financial cushion of those in the upper levels who don't need it, and will not likely do much to stimulate the economy if they get to keep their existing Bush tax breaks.

[dkf]

5. If you sacrificed the $140 billion in two years and that made it easier to gain $3.2 trillion over

The next 8 years that is a pretty good trade off. I.E. Keep all cuts for two years and drop them all.

I just think if you only extend the middle tax cuts we will never be able to raise them again.

[Armstead]

6. I would agree with you if that were possible...However...

given the realities of increased GOP Congressional power, an upcoming presidential election and other factors, I don't envision it being possible to get a tax on the uber-wealthy if it is not done now. --- not raisding middle-class rates in the current or foreseeable economic environment.

[dkf]

7. You wouldnt have to get it done because a temporary extension needs no further action to raise rates

In the future. It would just terminate.

I just see all this argument on why the middle class deserves a tax break and those arguments won't go away ever. You see DUers saying they will sacrifice their taxes to see the rich pay more. What is the tradeoff when raising middle class taxes. There is None.

[briteleaf]

8. Tax breaks for the wealthy is insanity!

America's economy is in the toilet. Giving tax breaks to those americans who need it least is crazy. They already pay a smaller percentage of their income on taxes than their secretary does. Because we life in a plutocracy where the wealthy control congress, congress will, most likely, work out some sort of compromise and continue the tax cuts for the wealthy. Doesn't it make more sense to not cut anyone's taxes? Times are bad and our government needs the money to perpetuate the 2 longest wars in our history. Since we don't seem to have the common sense or the fortitude to END THE WARS, perhaps raising taxes on the wealthy would be much better for our economy. We could allocate those trillions of dollars to continue our unwarranted boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why do we hear talk about cutting medicare and raising the retirement age instead of stopping those 2 wars? Those 2 wars are the holes in the bucket of our economy. When your citizens are suffering from a serious economic depression, at what point do wise minds decide that we can't afford to be the global police force? Kind of makes you wonder how many bridge repairs and educational improvements we could make here if we didn't keep paying to maintain military presence. You don't donate to your neighbor kid's college fund when your own children need basic necessities.
Providing tax cuts for the wealthy is like donating condoms to the pregnant. Maybe the wealthy really need that money in their off-shore accounts or perhaps they need to increase the # of gold bars in their swiss accounts. I know, they need the tax breaks to create some more jobs in India.