SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46844)11/8/2010 2:50:51 PM
From: TimF2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
1 - I didn't say allowing a temporary tax cut to expire was an affirmative move to raise taxes. It is a tax increase, but its a tax increase without such an affirmative move.

2 - Many tax cuts increase taxes on some people. That doesn't make them a tax increase. If specific short term tax breaks are allowed to expire as part of or in the context of a broader tax cut then there was a tax cut, not an increase. If they are allowed to expire in the context of not allowing other larger (and longer term) tax cuts to expire than the combination is ambiguous in terms of being a tax increase, it could be read either way.



To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46844)11/9/2010 9:27:57 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Consistency needs to apply.

Good, then we will consistently say that a tax increase is a tax increase. By adjourning without addressing a pending tax increase democrats supported a tax increase.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News