What does the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts mean to you?

[maxiep]

That can't possibly be right. You and several others here have repeatedly said the stimulus had no effect. Therefore, how can the expiration of the stimulus possibly cause a decline in GDP?

I'll also note that the summary is quite misleading when it says "Peter Hooper at Deutsche believes that an end of the Bush tax cuts could remove a full 2.5% form U.S. GDP in 2011."
The quoted text shows that Deutsche said the tax cut expiration would cause a 1% decline.

barfo

You're missing the function of time. Short term, injecting massive amounts of money will have some positive effect. The problem is that money has to be repaid. People and businesses aren't completely stupid; they'll prepare for the day it has to be paid back. That's why businesses haven't expanded with the money pumped into the economy (which hasn't been as much as it should have been)

One of the real problems with the past two Administrations is that they've focused on consumer spending as the lynchpin of our economy. People are tapped out. We should focus more on exports; it's a much larger, much more stable market.

 

[maxiep]

So, anything other than the tax cut expiration is a scenario. Obama's proposal is such a scenario. However, what you said about people under $200K paying more is not true in that scenario.

So, my point is, don't believe everything you hear.

barfo

Aw, how cute; semantic games. I shouldn't have to explain it to you, but using "scenarios" I clearly meant run a single person at $100K, $180K, etc. and a married couple at $150K or $220K.

 

[Denny Crane]

More DennyMath. The stimulus package wasn't spent all in one year, so it doesn't make sense to compare it one year of GDP.

As for the 1%, that apparently is one guys opinion. I'm sure there are other guys with other opinions, too. No reason to take it as gospel.

barfo

Math, barfo. Spent over two years, only half as terrible, but still terrible results.

 

[barfo]

Aw, how cute; semantic games. I shouldn't have to explain it to you, but using "scenarios" I clearly meant run a single person at $100K, $180K, etc. and a married couple at $150K or $220K.

And I did that, and the results didn't agree with what you claimed. So I asked you what you were talking about, and it seems you weren't really talking about anything.

Edit: Unless you were trying to imply that the under-$250K-no-tax-increase talk applied to the current law (expiring Bush tax cuts) rather than Obama's proposal. But I don't think you'd do that, because that would just be dishonest, right?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm also in the camp where it hurts in scenario 1, but in the Obama situation I make out better than letting the cuts stay.

 

[maxiep]

And I did that, and the results didn't agree with what you claimed. So I asked you what you were talking about, and it seems you weren't really talking about anything.

Edit: Unless you were trying to imply that the under-$250K-no-tax-increase talk applied to the current law (expiring Bush tax cuts) rather than Obama's proposal. But I don't think you'd do that, because that would just be dishonest, right?

barfo

Seriously? You still don't get it? Of course I was referring to the expiring Bush tax cuts, because what Obama says he wants hasn't yet been passed and likely will not be passed in the form he wants.

 

[barfo]

Seriously? You still don't get it? Of course I was referring to the expiring Bush tax cuts, because what Obama says he wants hasn't yet been passed and likely will not be passed in the form he wants.

Well, nobody has ever suggested that the expiration of the tax cuts would result in no tax hike for those under $250K. Nobody. So your implication otherwise, with the warning to not believe everything you hear, was deliberately misleading (I say deliberately because I know you aren't stupid and you know perfectly well that Obama wasn't talking about the current law when he said that nobody under $250K would get a tax hike, he was talking about his proposal).

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[maxiep]

Well, nobody has ever suggested that the expiration of the tax cuts would result in no tax hike for those under $250K. Nobody. So your implication otherwise, with the warning to not believe everything you hear, was deliberately misleading (I say deliberately because I know you aren't stupid and you know perfectly well that Obama wasn't talking about the current law when he said that nobody under $250K would get a tax hike, he was talking about his proposal).

barfo

http://sportstwo.com/threads/166292...-mean-to-you?p=2397573&viewfull=1#post2397573

 

[blazerboy30]

That can't possibly be right. You and several others here have repeatedly said the stimulus had no effect. Therefore, how can the expiration of the stimulus possibly cause a decline in GDP?

I'll also note that the summary is quite misleading when it says "Peter Hooper at Deutsche believes that an end of the Bush tax cuts could remove a full 2.5% form U.S. GDP in 2011."
The quoted text shows that Deutsche said the tax cut expiration would cause a 1% decline.

barfo

Ouch. That is some faulty logic, even for you Barfo.

Are you really trying to assume that the stimulus money and Bush't Tax Cut expiration affect the same groups of people?

If anything, perhaps the article suggests what you would hate to believe: Stimulus money is more effective when going to rich people. The ones who better utilize it.

 

[agoo]

I'm either missing something or this site is horribly slanted and hopes that people don't actually read it thoroughly.

Here's what it says my income tax is on the left side after I calculate:
Income Tax if All Bush Tax Cuts Expire: $3,675
Income Tax if Bush Tax Cuts are Extended: $3,249
Income Tax under Obama's Tax Proposals: $2,849

And here's what it says on the right:
If Congress fails to act to extend the
Bush tax cuts, your income tax burden
will be $426 higher in 2011.

It appears that I'm actually paying less under Obama's tax plan, yet the site says I'm paying more. Am I missing something or is this a bad site?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

I'm either missing something or this site is horribly slanted and hopes that people don't actually read it thoroughly.

Here's what it says my income tax is on the left side after I calculate:
Income Tax if All Bush Tax Cuts Expire: $3,675
Income Tax if Bush Tax Cuts are Extended: $3,249
Income Tax under Obama's Tax Proposals: $2,849

And here's what it says on the right:
If Congress fails to act to extend the
Bush tax cuts, your income tax burden
will be $426 higher in 2011.

It appears that I'm actually paying less under Obama's tax plan, yet the site says I'm paying more. Am I missing something or is this a bad site?

3675 - 3249 = 426

the site is right, but i dont know much about obamas plan, so i cant comment why it would be lower

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

blurb about the proposed obama plan

2. How is it possible that my taxes go down under Obama's plan?
Obama's plan extends a number of tax provisions originally enacted as part of the 2009 stimulus bill. Most notable among these is the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, equal to 6.2% of earned income up to a maxiumum of $400 for single filers, and $800 for married filers. Obama wants to extend this credit into 2011, but it is currently set to expire at the end of 2010. The stimulus bill also expands education credits, and Obama would extend this as well.

 

[barfo]

http://sportstwo.com/threads/166292...-mean-to-you?p=2397573&viewfull=1#post2397573

Ah. I apologize, maxiep. With that context, which I somehow failed to observe, your comment does make sense. Sorry for the needless and mistaken argument/hectoring.

barfo

 

[barfo]

It appears that I'm actually paying less under Obama's tax plan, yet the site says I'm paying more. Am I missing something or is this a bad site?

You are missing something. The line about if congress fails to act means if congress does nothing at all - so it is comparing the expire case with the extend case, and not considering the Obama case.

barfo

 

[agoo]

3675 - 3249 = 426

the site is right, but i dont know much about obamas plan, so i cant comment why it would be lower

The site is only right if its ignoring the fact that its telling me that Obama's plan is better for me. Obama is putting $400 in my pocket according to these calculations.

 

[barfo]

Ouch. That is some faulty logic, even for you Barfo.

Are you really trying to assume that the stimulus money and Bush't Tax Cut expiration affect the same groups of people?

What? No, I'm making no such assumption. What do "groups of people" have to do with this at all?

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

What? No, I'm making no such assumption. What do "groups of people" have to do with this at all?

barfo

You were trying to compare two different "stimulus" packages. They went to two different groups of people. It is silly to say that because one didn't work, the other doesn't work.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't care to decipher all the what if and what nots . . . I am convinced Obama will being dipping into my pockets much more than Bush ever did. For the month, I have taken on the attitude of the "gravytrain is over." Taxes were good with Bush in office, but all good things must come to an end, now back to normal.

It helps me accept what I anticpate will be some tough tax years coming up.

 

[barfo]

You were trying to compare two different "stimulus" packages. They went to two different groups of people. It is silly to say that because one didn't work, the other doesn't work.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. What two different stimulus packages was I comparing? What I said was this:

That can't possibly be right. You and several others here have repeatedly said the stimulus had no effect. Therefore, how can the expiration of the stimulus possibly cause a decline in GDP?

I'll also note that the summary is quite misleading when it says "Peter Hooper at Deutsche believes that an end of the Bush tax cuts could remove a full 2.5% form U.S. GDP in 2011."
The quoted text shows that Deutsche said the tax cut expiration would cause a 1% decline.

Which part of that are you saying is a comparison of two different stimulus packages?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Ah. I apologize, maxiep. With that context, which I somehow failed to observe, your comment does make sense. Sorry for the needless and mistaken argument/hectoring.

barfo

No worries. I was highly confused (more that usual) as to what the issue was. Credit yourself for making me question what I was talking about.

 

[blazerboy30]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. What two different stimulus packages was I comparing? What I said was this:



Which part of that are you saying is a comparison of two different stimulus packages?

barfo

Maybe I misunderstood. I was assuming you were considering Bush's Tax Cuts a "stimulus". And when you said "the stimulus had no effect", I thought you referring to the recent Obama Stimulus package that people (including myself) have been claiming didn't work. Were those not the two stimulus packages you were referring to?

 

[maxiep]

Regarding any "stimulus", I prefer that taxpayers are able to keep more of their money than it being sent to the Government and dispersed as it sees fit.

 

[barfo]

Maybe I misunderstood. I was assuming you were considering Bush's Tax Cuts a "stimulus". And when you said "the stimulus had no effect", I thought you referring to the recent Obama Stimulus package that people (including myself) have been claiming didn't work. Were those not the two stimulus packages you were referring to?

Actually, no, I don't think I referred to two stimulus packages, only the one (the 2009 stimulus package, aka ARRA). I did not call Bush's tax cuts a stimulus.
The first line was just a tease for those who thought ARRA was ineffectual, since now the end of ARRA is said to reduce the GDP. Those two positions aren't (if taken literally) compatible.
The rest of my post was more or less unrelated, and was pointing out that there were in fact 3 different factors in the 2.5% projected hit, and so it is wrong to assign the whole thing to the tax cuts. Part is tax cuts, part is ARRA, and part is AMT.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, no, I don't think I referred to two stimulus packages, only the one (the 2009 stimulus package, aka ARRA). I did not call Bush's tax cuts a stimulus.
The first line was just a tease for those who thought ARRA was ineffectual, since now the end of ARRA is said to reduce the GDP. Those two positions aren't (if taken literally) compatible.
The rest of my post was more or less unrelated, and was pointing out that there were in fact 3 different factors in the 2.5% projected hit, and so it is wrong to assign the whole thing to the tax cuts. Part is tax cuts, part is ARRA, and part is AMT.

barfo

The "emergency" $800B stimulus package was 6% of GDP and in no way shape or form did it even break even in terms of adding to GDP.

~10% unemployment in 2012 is not good news for Obama's reelection chances.

 

[jlprk]

A simple experiment of typing numbers into the wages box finds the breakeven point at $226,500.