Obama to call for one-year extension of some Bush-era tax rates

story from The Hill
07/09/12 05:50 AM ET

Obama to call for one-year extension of some Bush-era tax rates
The Prez will be announcing today that He wants those Bush tax cuts to stay in place for the most part.

He is against continuing the cuts for people who "make" over $250,000 a year however.

Republicans probably want the entire tax cuts to stay in force, and want to make the cuts more "permanent".

Many Democrats have offered support for a high limit threshold of $1 million as opposed to the $250,000.

Obama & Co. extended those cuts back in 2010, at which time Obama said "No More".

I wonder what would be today's economic situation if the cuts had been eliminated in 2010 ?

Better or Worse .... ?

President Obama will call for a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax rates for people who earn less than $250,000 per year.

Obama will make the announcement at an event in the East Room on Monday, the White House confirmed to The Hill.

The announcement will intensify the debate over the series of lower tax rates passed during the George W. Bush presidency. Obama extended the rates in 2010 in hopes they would help boost the struggling economy, but vowed to oppose further extensions. The current rates are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012...............(continue at source)

Would a tax "Increase" cause a “fiscal cliff” situation ?

reply to post by xuenchen


Basically, a repeat of 2010. I would have to ask though, some people always say that tax cuts to the rich creates jobs. Where are those jobs?

"In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans," Obama said in his speech. "But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again."

content.usatoday.com...-XVmw64



But don't forget, Obama is open for compromise.

Obama said he favored compromise over gridlock because the latter "would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family."

content.usatoday.com...

reply to post by jam321


Your thinking about this backwards. If those tax cuts fell off, how many more would be laid off? The way my thinking is, if you start taking more money out of the pockets of the guy that signs my paychecks I dont see anything good coming from that. The jobs are not coming back because we have a moron in the oval office and the companies that generate those jobs have no confidence that they will get their money back if they spend it right now so everything is stagnant. Get this guy out of office and you will see it start to come back. The guys that own businesses and have lots of money did not get rich from making poor investments and Barry is a poor investment.

reply to post by TheTardis

The guys that own businesses and have lots of money did not get rich from making poor investments and Barry is a poor investment.

once again, show me the jobs this tax break has created. Companies don't care whether you have a job or not. Their bottom line is profit. With tax break or no tax break, you can lose your job in a blink of an eye. But if you want to believe that these companies will keep you around because of a tax break, keep on dreaming.

Obama is doing a lot of things right at the moment. The hardcore Republicans are not going to admit it of course, but the partial amnesty to the young immigrants was the fair and right thing to do, and renewing only the lower end of these tax cuts is the right thing to do.

Obama was weak his first 2 years of his presidency, and he seemed to be yo-yoing around on the Democratic string, and eager to compromise at every opportunity, but this year he has been emboldened it seems. He doesn't seem the least bit intimidated by the Republicans, and I think he knows he will have a landslide victory in November.

If he keeps this stuff up, and becomes a true leader, he might even get my vote.

Supply side economics don't work, have never worked, and will never work.

Companies hire when there is demand. Tax breaks do not create demand for product. They only make life easier for those making big bucks.
Now if supply side economics had a clause where the ones receiving the break had to re-invest in America, then I'm all for it. Sadly this is not the case. All we have to do is look at Romney. The guy puts his money around the globe as to avoid taxes. He still outsourced thousands upon thousands of jobs.
If Reaganomics worked, we should be having a boom right now. We are not though. The scam is going to continue going though. Americans love their corporate masters because abortion is wrong I suppose.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

There aren't any jobs being created right now because A) uncertainty about the economy and B) uncertainty about Obamacare.

Until Obama is out of office there won't be much confidence in the economy. Unfortunately thanks to the Supreme Court fudging a ruling the worries about Obamacare will continue on indefinitely. Nobody knows that is actually in the plan and what it will actually affect. Tax breaks won't make much of a difference since it won't affect either of those.

I thought tax cuts were bad?



Shouldn't the middle class have to pay their ``fair share`` too?

I have a silly idea...

Why doesn't Congress leave the tax rates alone and live within their means by balancing the budget. Make a 10 year commitment to this and show the business world that the gov't will quit screwing around with things for awhile. This would lead to to the economic stability the businesses are looking for.

As it stands now, businesses don't want to invest in capital equipment (upgrading manufacturing plants, etc...) or personnel because they don't know what going to happen next. Will they be able to use the capital they have to help their business grow or have to send it off to the gov't?

Develop some stability and you will see the markets grow and when the markets are growing, they are hiring.

First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.)

Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated incometax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.)

Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transfering property after death and gift before death.)

Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)

Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)

Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.)

Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.)

Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)

Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.")

Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books.


notice the 2nd plank of communism.

you libs are a bunch of suckers for class warfare.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Obama is doing a lot of things right at the moment. The hardcore Republicans are not going to admit it of course, but the partial amnesty to the young immigrants was the fair and right thing to do, and renewing only the lower end of these tax cuts is the right thing to do.

Obama was weak his first 2 years of his presidency, and he seemed to be yo-yoing around on the Democratic string, and eager to compromise at every opportunity, but this year he has been emboldened it seems. He doesn't seem the least bit intimidated by the Republicans, and I think he knows he will have a landslide victory in November.

If he keeps this stuff up, and becomes a true leader, he might even get my vote.

This is lip service to me ... coming form someone with a Ron Paul banner in their sig...

My thoughts are that the tax cuts should stay in place.. Ive always wondered about the Number though .. $250,000?

I dont know anyone that makes that much .. much less more..

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
I thought tax cuts were bad?

Shouldn't the middle class have to pay their ``fair share`` too?

Considering that only half the population pays any taxes, I say why not

If everyone and not just the wealthy had to pay an increase, there'd be alot more scutiny over government spending.

Here's some tax stats from 2009:

2009 Tax Stats

Scroll down to Table 1 for starters. From this table, it seems that the taxes are already graduated with the higher income earners paying more. How much more should the gov't expect from them? I keep hearing the more you make, the more of "your fair share" you should pay.

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic here. What is the incentive to strive to improve your financial situation if all that means is that you are going to have more taken from you? And not just the dollar amount but as a percentage of your income. Would a flat tax be "more fair" for everybody? Everybody pays the same percentage of their income - all sources of income. I think it would make the tax code a lot less complicated...

P.S. - I am not one of the top earners in the country with both my wife's and my salaries combined being much less than 1/2 the $250,000 limit being proposed as the cut off.

Originally posted by LevelHeaded
I have a silly idea...

Why doesn't Congress leave the tax rates alone and live within their means by balancing the budget. Make a 10 year commitment to this and show the business world that the gov't will quit screwing around with things for awhile. This would lead to to the economic stability the businesses are looking for.

As it stands now, businesses don't want to invest in capital equipment (upgrading manufacturing plants, etc...) or personnel because they don't know what going to happen next. Will they be able to use the capital they have to help their business grow or have to send it off to the gov't?

Develop some stability and you will see the markets grow and when the markets are growing, they are hiring.

If you take a look back in history, you will discover that America's best economic days were accompanied by top marginal tax rates that were at least double, if not more, than those of today.

Even though the TP/GOP continually insist that what we have is a "spending problem" and NOT a revenue problem, nothing could be further from the truth. Tax cuts to the wealthiest of americans has fundamentally stripped our government of the resources needed to provide even the most basic of needs such as Social Security and/or Medicare, much less national defense, public education, infrastructure construction and maintenance, etc...

On top of that, the money that has been saved via these reduced rates has not been spent creating new jobs. Unless you count the jobs created by the wealthy elite when they decide that they do indeed need yet another vacation resort home built or another private yacht or jet manufactured.

Rich people don't run out and create jobs just because they have a little extra money in their pockets. If they did, according to their own rhetoric, we would all have jobs right now. Where the hell are those jobs? They're currently sitting on 2 trillion dollars yet we still have 8.2% unemployment.

There's only one thing that creates new jobs and that's "demand for products." A few rich people don't create demand, at least not on a scale large enough to create the number jobs needed, but millions of well paid workers do. So where exactly do I want to leave the money? In the hands of the middle class workers and companies that do not outsource their jobs overseas, that's where.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by TheTardis

 

The guys that own businesses and have lots of money did not get rich from making poor investments and Barry is a poor investment.

once again, show me the jobs this tax break has created. Companies don't care whether you have a job or not. Their bottom line is profit. With tax break or no tax break, you can lose your job in a blink of an eye. But if you want to believe that these companies will keep you around because of a tax break, keep on dreaming.

Wow.. Ok.. You still did not understand. My point was the economy is crap right now. There are a lot of factors that go into that. But do you think raising taxes is going to fix that or make it even worse? Answer honestly. And remember this isnt just about businesses. These tax brakes are on everyone across the board effecting each household by about $3000. Yes the lower income part they are talking about leaving as is for one more year but are you ok with a $3000 decrease in pay a year from now? Or magnifying that, are you ok with the company you work for having a 50k decrease in revenue next year? Is a company making less money ever good for its employees? You cant honestly not see the point here. Are you seriously arguing with me that a company getting taxed harder during a recession is a good thing. Or is it more that your just jealous and want people that make a lot of money punished for making that money?

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by TheTardis

 

The guys that own businesses and have lots of money did not get rich from making poor investments and Barry is a poor investment.

once again, show me the jobs this tax break has created. Companies don't care whether you have a job or not. Their bottom line is profit. With tax break or no tax break, you can lose your job in a blink of an eye. But if you want to believe that these companies will keep you around because of a tax break, keep on dreaming.

It may not because of the tax cuts being in place, but unemployment has dropped recently.

Not much of course, but it does show some improvement since 2011 when the Republican House stopped some of the wild spending.


Annual average unemployment rates
(12-month average each year)

2008 - 5.8

2009 - 9.3

2010 - 9.6

2011 - 9.0

2012 - 8.2 (thru June)

Originally posted by LevelHeaded
Here's some tax stats from 2009:

2009 Tax Stats

Scroll down to Table 1 for starters. From this table, it seems that the taxes are already graduated with the higher income earners paying more. How much more should the gov't expect from them? I keep hearing the more you make, the more of "your fair share" you should pay.

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic here. What is the incentive to strive to improve your financial situation if all that means is that you are going to have more taken from you? And not just the dollar amount but as a percentage of your income. Would a flat tax be "more fair" for everybody? Everybody pays the same percentage of their income - all sources of income. I think it would make the tax code a lot less complicated...

P.S. - I am not one of the top earners in the country with both my wife's and my salaries combined being much less than 1/2 the $250,000 limit being proposed as the cut off.

This is what they dont want people to know. The Dems always try to make it sound like the rich get away scott free or that they dont pay much when in fact they pay the majority of the taxes that are paid. But its easy to sit and complain about tax cuts for the rich and make it sound like they are not paying. They pay a boat load. What would be better if we could get all of those people that pay no taxes at all to start paying. But unfortunately they all vote democrat so they can keep that free ride.

Originally posted by LevelHeaded
I have a silly idea...

Why doesn't Congress leave the tax rates alone and live within their means by balancing the budget. Make a 10 year commitment to this and show the business world that the gov't will quit screwing around with things for awhile. This would lead to to the economic stability the businesses are looking for.

As it stands now, businesses don't want to invest in capital equipment (upgrading manufacturing plants, etc...) or personnel because they don't know what going to happen next. Will they be able to use the capital they have to help their business grow or have to send it off to the gov't?

Develop some stability and you will see the markets grow and when the markets are growing, they are hiring.

I too have a silly idea...

Why don't we tell all the hungry people in America and around the world that what they are experiencing is not a food shortage, but rather over-consumption of the food they do have.

I mean really, once they just learn to eat less, all their problems will be solved.

This in just after a dismal jobs report 80,000 jobs created this month. And after ObamaTax was forced upon the entire nation! Furthermore, this proves that Obama knows nothing about how to get the economy back into shape, because, Tax cuts or tax increases alone are not going to solve the problem.

Could this be considered a flip flop? Or a DO-Nothing feel good political move?

reply to post by Flatfish


I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across. Businesses do not like turmoil. They want a stable market. If Congress could make a commitment to leaving things alone for some time and allow the economy to stabilize, then businesses would be more inclined to spend capital to improve the business.

How the budget gets balanced is a different aspect from the stability issue. We have both a revenue and spending problem. I am not against tax reform resulting in increased revenues for the gov't. I am also not opposed to cutting the spending. Both need to be done. I am sure there are multiple ways to accomplish both without resorting to the politics as usual and showing the world how dysfunctional our elected leaders can be.

Basically, quit playing politics with the economy. Fix the tax code to increase revenues without waiting until the last minute. Cut gov't spending to close the income to spending gap. Leave it alone for 10 years and let the economy stabilize.