– Bush’s ten-year tax cut was designed to end this year, so it’s not a tax increase.
Correction - Bush's ten-year tax cut was designed to end this year, which is irrelevant to the question of whether its a tax increase. The tax rate will rise, so it is a tax increase.
– Ending it for the rich simply returns them to the Clinton tax rate, which was hardly confiscatory (reminder: the Clinton years were damn good for business).
With a lot of positive factors going on at the time (restraint in government spending, a tech stock boom, etc.) Now with a recession, and probably worse conditions even after the recession ends, we are not in as good of shape in terms of overcoming the harmful effects of a tax increase.
Small businesses would barely be affected.
False.
Only 3 percent of small business owners earn over $250,000.
And those 3 percent earn the majority of small business profits and wealth creation, and hire the majority of small business employees.
And for those below that level, the possibility of reaching that level is a motivator, so the more you pile on to the $250K+ level business the more you disincentivize people from starting businesses or expanding them, even if they don't yet make $250K.
And because it’s a “marginal” tax, the Clinton rate would apply only to the portion of their incomes over $250,000.
The reduced amount they can keep from each additional dollar earned is what reduces the incentive to work hard and take risks to make that additional dollar.
Yet extending the Bush tax cut to the richest Americans would give them a $36 billion bonus next year.
1 - No, it would let them keep $36 bil more of the money they earned. It isn't giving them anything.
2 - Only $36bil - So you support raising taxes and discouraging wealth creation during a recession, for an amount that is less than one percent of what the government will spend under Obama's latest budget proposal.
And it wouldn’t even stimulate demand and jobs, because the very rich save (rather than spend) more of their disposable income than the rest of us.
They invest in productive activities that help the economy. They save, which allows the money to be used for investment or consumption by others. They also spend a lot. To the extent your considering the effect on spending, consider that the rich are more capable of reducing their spending without significantly impacting their lifestyle. I can't cut my monthly spending in half without defaulting on my mortgage. Someone with a lot of wealth and a high income has more flexibility than I do.
ending the Bush tax cut for the top is fair.
Its very unfair, since your taking someone else's money by force, and since the rich (esp the rich near the levels where this extra tax kicks in, the mega-rich tend to be able to work around taxes better than those with $250K to $500K income a year) already pay a lot more in taxes than the non-rich. Combining other forms of federal taxation, and state and local taxes in various forms, and some of these people will be paying over half their marginal dollar to the government. That's highly unfair and unreasonable. |
