Letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire is Not a Tax Increase

[InTheLight]

Out From Under the Anti-Tax Pledge

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer, and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

In other words, according to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...i-tax-pledge/2011/07/20/gIQAoudbQI_print.html
------------

This appears to give Republicans wiggle room to compromise on the budget deal/debt ceiling.

(Oh, and for the record, letting the Bush tax cuts 'expire' IS a tax increase in my view. They have been law for 10 years now, so changing them would be an increase, IMO.)

 

[webdog]

I get sooooo tired of hearing how these cuts "cost" us x amount of dollars. They cost NOTHING as it is money not collected, yet the gov't assumes this uncollected money should be theirs to begin with. It's OURS :BangHead:

 

[carpro]

Letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire is Not a Tax Increase

Of course it is. Word games don't change the fact someone's taxes will go up. That's a "tax increase" any way you look at it

But I'm on record calling for all Bush tax cuts to be rolled back or let expire. No halfway, class warfare, selective cuts. All of them.

 

[InTheLight]

The point is that Grover Norquist, the anti-tax zealot, he who requires congressmen to sign a "no new taxes" pledge, has decreed that it wouldn't be a tax increase. This gives congressmen political cover to vote to let the Bush tax cuts expire and not get reamed out by Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform lobbying group.

 

[carpro]

The point is that Grover Norquist, the anti-tax zealot, he who requires congressmen to sign a "no new taxes" pledge, has decreed that it wouldn't be a tax increase. This gives congressmen political cover to vote to let the Bush tax cuts expire and not get reamed out by Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform lobbying group.

Instead , they'll get reamed by voters, who won't fall for the "political cover" of technicalities.

If it smells like a tax increase and it feels like a tax increase, it's a tax increase.

 

[Don]

It's not a tax increase if you view it from the point of "no new or additional taxes."

It's only a tax increase if you think of it as having to pay taxes you weren't previously paying.

Oh, wait. Guess most people view it as a tax increase, then. :tongue3:

 

[billwald]

How many on this list will pay them? Don't think I will.

 

[Skandelon]

As if we don't pay the government enough of what we earn already. Let's see, we pay...


Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Expense (tax on the money)
Inventory Tax I
RS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Taxes Toll
Tunnel Taxes
Trailer Registration
Tax Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers’ Compensation Tax

 

[carpro]

How many on this list will pay them? Don't think I will.

Only if you stop eating, breathing and using energy will you escape Obama's taxes.

Maybe not even then.

 

[rbell]

So...if you pay more than previously, it's not an increase?

How many on this list will pay them? Don't think I will.

Your point being.....? (Graciously assuming that there is one, which is often times a big leap)

Just because you don't pay it doesn't mean it's not a terrible idea:

1. Tax increases during bad economies are counter-productive, and toxic to economic recoveries. Most people whose background doesn't include hero worship of Marx and Engels would know that (obviously that excludes much of the Obama crew).
2. The folks who are likely to sign your paychecks will suffer. That gets passed down. If Obama had ever run a business, he would know that.
3. I have little respect for a felonious tax cheat (Tim Geithner) telling anyone they should pay more. He didn't! He should be "writing tax policy" from a 8x8 jail cell with a metal toilet. Then we could help him understand we need more of his 50 cents per hour...after all, "Shared Sacrifice," huh?

 

[Don]

So...if you pay more than previously, it's not an increase?

As carpro put it: it's word play. They're allowing a previously approved tax, which was later "cut," to start up again. In their minds, it's "resuming," not being added. Thus, a tax that you weren't previously paying is not an increase in taxes for you. Even if it is.

 

[rbell]

As carpro put it: it's word play. They're allowing a previously approved tax, which was later "cut," to start up again. In their minds, it's "resuming," not being added. Thus, a tax that you weren't previously paying is not an increase in taxes for you. Even if it is.

And there you have a key component of dishonesty--a constant desire to redefine terms to sound better.

 

[HankD]

Out From Under the Anti-Tax Pledge

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer, and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

doublethink :

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time without noticing the contradiction. It also refers to the mind trick to accept the changes to history made by the Party, and in accepting them, forgetting that the mind trick was ever performed, and then forgetting the forgetting, etc.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doublethink

HankD

 

[Skandelon]

People think this is just about taxes on the rich, but you have to ask yourself this question:

Would you rather rich people spend their own money; or would you rather rich government officials spend someone else's money?

It is really that simple.

 

[InTheLight]

2. The folks who are likely to sign your paychecks will suffer. That gets passed down. If Obama had ever run a business, he would know that.

Here we go again. Please explain how the effect of a tax increase on W-2 wages for the business owner will find its way down to employees.

I oppose allowing the Bush tax cuts to be allowed to expire. Or, to put it more succinctly, I oppose raising taxes on the wealthy, or anyone for that matter. But this idea that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause unemployment to rise or to otherwise harm the working man is (mostly) a fallacy.

 

[Skandelon]

Here we go again. Please explain how the effect of a tax increase on W-2 wages for the business owner will find its way down to employees.

No cost of living raises for current employees, no hiring new employees, potential firing of current employees.

For me, they give less to the church and our budget is cut.

I oppose allowing the Bush tax cuts to be allowed to expire. Or, to put it more succinctly, I oppose raising taxes on the wealthy, or anyone for that matter. But this idea that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause unemployment to rise or to otherwise harm the working man is (mostly) a fallacy.

Not true.

Less money for a business owner directly translates to how the employees are paid or if they are even hired. This is true in business and in personal life. If the government takes 4K in property taxes that is 4K less I can spend on a product or service which in turn helps to employee someone else.

If the "rich guy" can't buy the boat because taxes are raised, then the manufacture of boats, the builders, mechanics, marinas and even those who clean boats are all affected.

 

[InTheLight]

No cost of living raises for current employees, no hiring new employees, potential firing of current employees.

If the company is structured as a sole-proprietorship or limited liability partnership, this COULD happen. It's most likely with a sole-proprietorship, but then sole-proprietorships don't have many employees. It could happen with limited liability partnerships (LLC's or S-corps), but less than 5% of these businesses have owners making more than $250,000 a year.

The fact is that for most businesses with multiple employees there is no direct relationship between the assets of the company and the W-2 wages of the owners.

Unless you think the bank account of the business is linked to the personal bank account of the business owner.

Less money for a business owner directly translates to how the employees are paid or if they are even hired. This is true in business and in personal life.

Again, if you think the bank account of the business is linked to the personal bank account of the business owner this could be true (as in a sole-proprietorship.) Is the bank account of your church the same thing as the pastor's checking account?

If the "rich guy" can't buy the boat because taxes are raised, then the manufacture of boats, the builders, mechanics, marinas and even those who clean boats are all affected.

The rich guy can buy the boat if he wants to. It's called dipping into savings or taking out a loan. Do you think a person making say, $500,000 is going to forego buying a $300,000 yacht because their taxes are going up $20,000?

 

[Skandelon]

If the company is structured as a sole-proprietorship or limited liability partnership, this COULD happen. It's most likely with a sole-proprietorship, but then sole-proprietorships don't have many employees. It could happen with limited liability partnerships (LLC's or S-corps), but less than 5% of these businesses have owners making more than $250,000 a year.

The fact is that for most businesses with multiple employees there is no direct relationship between the assets of the company and the W-2 wages of the owners.

Unless you think the bank account of the business is linked to the personal bank account of the business owner.

He is paid by the business he owns, is he not? My brother is a small business owner and he invested his own personal money to keep his business going, so yes they are directly connected. He has INVESTED his life and personal income to keep it going. You take money out of his pocket you will directly affect his business and ability to invest and keep it going during tough times. One year he may make $500,000, and you think, well it won't hurt him to pay more in taxes, but the IRS doesn't take into consideration that in invested a million the year before and that his income this year is merely a partial return on his investment, much of which the government is taking. And in the future years things may or may not be as good so he needs the money to keep going.

Only non-business owners would think that raising taxes doesn't affect small businesses. Those who own them KNOW better, though I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule.

Is the bank account of your church the same thing as the pastor's checking account?

Of course not, but if the annual budget of the church goes from $100,000 to $85,000 you don't think that might affect the church's decision to hire other ministers, give raises, or even have to address cutting salaries or jobs all together?

The rich guy can buy the boat if he wants to. It's called dipping into savings or taking out a loan. Do you think a person making say, $500,000 is going to forego buying a $300,000 yacht because their taxes are going up $20,000?

There is a direct correlation between what people make and what they spend. If the Gov takes more of their money they will spend less, period. The boat example was just an analogy showing that when the wealthy spend less it affects everyone. It is very simple logic.

 

[InTheLight]

He is paid by the business he owns, is he not? My brother is a small business owner and he invested his own personal money to keep his business going, so yes they are directly connected. He has INVESTED his life and personal income to keep it going. You take money out of his pocket you will directly affect his business and ability to invest and keep it going during tough times. One year he may make $500,000, and you think, well it won't hurt him to pay more in taxes, but the IRS doesn't take into consideration that in invested a million the year before and that his income this year is merely a partial return on his investment, much of which the government is taking. And in the future years things may or may not be as good so he needs the money to keep going.

When you say invest, do you mean he bought shares of stock in his company? Or did he make a loan to his business? In other words, how did the money get from his personal banking accounts into the business banking accounts? I'm pretty sure your brother doesn't deposit his personal money into his business without an asset or liability entry to the balance sheet.

What type of business does he own? Corporation? Partnership? Sole Proprietor? This is the crucial point to understanding the relationship between tax increases to personal W-2 wages and business capital.

Only non-business owners would think that raising taxes doesn't affect small businesses. Those who own them KNOW better, though I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule.

Yes, well I've been a business owner for 22 years (C-Corp) and I own part of another business (S-Corp) so I know the ramifications of tax policies on business owners.

There is a direct correlation between what people make and what they spend. If the Gov takes more of their money they will spend less, period. The boat example was just an analogy showing that when the wealthy spend less it affects everyone. It is very simple logic.

And I agree with it, mostly. A better example of the relationship between what people make and what they spend would be if taxes were to rise on the middle class. Unlike your analogy, the middle class analogy would affect daily spending habits. People would cut back on dining out, cut back on recreational activities, not take a vacation, put off buying new appliances, put off buying new clothes, keep that used car going instead of buying a new car, invest less for retirement, etc. In this case the effect would be more profound and widespread.

Raising taxes on the wealthy might cause them to cut back on buying luxury items (yachts, jewelry, art, vacations, fur coats) but really, the numbers involved and the industries involved are not going to affect those employees that much.

 

[targus]

Here we go again. Please explain how the effect of a tax increase on W-2 wages for the business owner will find its way down to employees.

I oppose allowing the Bush tax cuts to be allowed to expire. Or, to put it more succinctly, I oppose raising taxes on the wealthy, or anyone for that matter. But this idea that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause unemployment to rise or to otherwise harm the working man is (mostly) a fallacy.

It's very simple.

The business owner looks at his net paycheck amount and sees that it is smaller due to the tax increase on his W2 wages.

He makes up for it by giving himself a raise.

The company is not a money tree - there are limited funds - so he decides to let someone go or decides not to hire anyone new.