The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 619

scaeagles · 08-04-2011, 06:26 AM

I would agree with GD on the included expiration date in the original passage as a deciding factor. In AZ we passed a temporary 2% tax on food which is to last for three years. The expiration is built into the law. When it expires, I will not consider it a tax reduction.

Without a specific expiration date, there is no such thing as temporary taxes or tax breaks.

I would regard an elimination of the mortgage interest deduction changing the rules midgame. Unlike ISM, I do not think it will ever end. The back lobby (as previously mentioned by Strangler) and real estate lobby and a whole bunch of other lobbies would make it very difficult to do so. The only fair way to do it would be to grandfather those who purchased with the understanding that they can have that deduction, however I know that won't fly.

Alex · 08-04-2011, 06:53 AM

Do you disagree with the general Republican/Tea Party claim that allowing the 2001 tax cuts to expire would be a tax increase?

JWBear · 08-04-2011, 08:04 AM

No, it would be an increase... And a much needed one, at that.

scaeagles · 08-04-2011, 10:04 AM

Hmmm....tricky question, Alex.

I suppose it would be a tax increase because the actual tax rates would go up, and while I oppose it, I wouldn't suggest that it is the fault of anyone except the House and Senate from when it passed and also Bush for signing it.

Such is compromise, i suppose. I don't think they should have been temporary with an expiration, but that was the only way to get it passed.

So tax increase yes. Hanging that tax increase politically on the current congress or President, no. That of course changes if the House and Senate vote to continue them and the Predient vetoes.

Not a great answer, I admit. But the best I got.

innerSpaceman · 08-04-2011, 11:13 AM

Ok, I'm confused. The tax decrease had an expiration date. One which Congress decided to change, but it still had an expiration date when it was passed. Are you now saying, scaeagles, that it's an exception to your 3-posts-earlier statement that an expiration date included with the initial tax change was the deciding factor for you?

Huh?

Ghoulish Delight · 08-04-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Ok, I'm confused. The tax decrease had an expiration date. One which Congress decided to change, but it still had an expiration date when it was passed. Are you now saying, scaeagles, that it's an exception to your 3-posts-earlier statement that an expiration date included with the initial tax change was the deciding factor for you?

Huh?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but obviously Leo and I are arguing similar things (hell, frozen)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...if there's a built in expiration date and it's a matter of renewing it or not, then no, I would not necessarily label it a tax raise.

Sweet, left myself an out!

This one's borderline for me and does get into the area where duration and expectation of permanence (or structural permanence, in the case where letting them expire is politically undoable and thus any expiration date's approach is purely perfunctory, waiting for the inevitable extension) begin to matter. Since we're talking semantics and splitting of verbal hairs, there's bound to be some gray hairs.

Really, the only way it even matters whether it's called a "tax increase" or not is in the fantasy world the Republicans like to try to create where "tax increase" is automatically a bad thing. So I couldn't really care less whether it's technically a tax increase or not.

scaeagles · 08-05-2011, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Ok, I'm confused. The tax decrease had an expiration date. One which Congress decided to change, but it still had an expiration date when it was passed. Are you now saying, scaeagles, that it's an exception to your 3-posts-earlier statement that an expiration date included with the initial tax change was the deciding factor for you?

Huh?

I think it is a semantic issue.

The only reason I would regard it as a tax increase is because it is an actual increase in the tax rate. In my attempt to answer what Alex asked, I tried to explain that while yes, it is a tax increase, I wouldn't regard it the same as a new tax. It would, and does, have a different....feel?...to it because it is the elimination of a temporary reduction. I can't blame the existing congress or Obama should it expire - I can only blame those that originally passed and signed it to be temporary.

It is completely different than , say, creating a VAT or increasing the gas tax or raising rates beyond what they were in 2001.

Hope that clears up my reasoning a bit.

CoasterMatt · 08-07-2011, 11:20 AM

So if jobs create revenue (about 8% payroll tax per dollar paid), would that explain why there's no REAL jobs debate going on? Pledge to NO tax increases, right?

scaeagles · 08-07-2011, 03:46 PM

IK'm not really sure what you are getting at Matt, but the jobs issue is not really that complex, if you ask me.

Regulation of business has been increasing almost exponentially. This article has numbers on the new regulations being put onto businesses. A couple snippets -

Quote:

Last year, however, the number and cost of new regulations imposed by federal agencies reached unprecedented levels. Based upon reports from the Government Accountability Office, in fiscal year 2010 alone some 43 major new rules increasing regulatory burdens were issued by federal agencies.

Quote:

Overall, the latest Unified Agenda released by OMB shows that regulatory agencies have 183 more regulations in the pipeline now than they did last year, 40 of which are “economically significant”—an increase of 20 percent.

This runs directly into the second point, which is that businesses are hoarding cash and not investing or expanding their buisiness because of fear of more costly regulation.

I know there will be those on here who think I am against all regulation. This is not what I'm saying. I am saying that regulation is increasing at alarming rates, and this scares businesses. Is it the only issue? Certainly not. But it s a huge one.

innerSpaceman · 08-08-2011, 09:53 AM

Fear of costly regulation? You can say that with a straight face? You say fear of regulation is causing people to not hire other people without regurgitation?

How about because companies figured out how to make the same amount of profit with less employees?

How about because nearly every company operating in the U.S. that doesn't absolutely need employees to be in the U.S. (and even some that do) can now hire people outside the U.S. at a fraction of the expense?

How about because in a vicious cycle where no one has a job, there's no customers or consumer economy to support businesses who might hire new workers?

How about because whereas once "job creators" like Ford figured out his workers should be able to purchase their company's own products if that company were going to sell enough product, today's corporate overlords feel a U.S. consumer economy is unnecessary to their profitability?

Oh yeah, fear of cumbersome regulation. That's way up there on the reason there's no jobs.

08-04-2011, 06:26 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I would agree with GD on the included expiration date in the original passage as a deciding factor. In AZ we passed a temporary 2% tax on food which is to last for three years. The expiration is built into the law. When it expires, I will not consider it a tax reduction. Without a specific expiration date, there is no such thing as temporary taxes or tax breaks. I would regard an elimination of the mortgage interest deduction changing the rules midgame. Unlike ISM, I do not think it will ever end. The back lobby (as previously mentioned by Strangler) and real estate lobby and a whole bunch of other lobbies would make it very difficult to do so. The only fair way to do it would be to grandfather those who purchased with the understanding that they can have that deduction, however I know that won't fly.
	Submit to Quotes

08-04-2011, 06:53 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Do you disagree with the general Republican/Tea Party claim that allowing the 2001 tax cuts to expire would be a tax increase?
	Submit to Quotes

08-04-2011, 08:04 AM	#3
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	No, it would be an increase... And a much needed one, at that. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

08-04-2011, 10:04 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Hmmm....tricky question, Alex. I suppose it would be a tax increase because the actual tax rates would go up, and while I oppose it, I wouldn't suggest that it is the fault of anyone except the House and Senate from when it passed and also Bush for signing it. Such is compromise, i suppose. I don't think they should have been temporary with an expiration, but that was the only way to get it passed. So tax increase yes. Hanging that tax increase politically on the current congress or President, no. That of course changes if the House and Senate vote to continue them and the Predient vetoes. Not a great answer, I admit. But the best I got.
	Submit to Quotes

08-04-2011, 11:13 AM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Ok, I'm confused. The tax decrease had an expiration date. One which Congress decided to change, but it still had an expiration date when it was passed. Are you now saying, scaeagles, that it's an exception to your 3-posts-earlier statement that an expiration date included with the initial tax change was the deciding factor for you? Huh?
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2011, 11:20 AM	#8
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	So if jobs create revenue (about 8% payroll tax per dollar paid), would that explain why there's no REAL jobs debate going on? Pledge to NO tax increases, right? __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2011, 09:53 AM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Fear of costly regulation? You can say that with a straight face? You say fear of regulation is causing people to not hire other people without regurgitation? How about because companies figured out how to make the same amount of profit with less employees? How about because nearly every company operating in the U.S. that doesn't absolutely need employees to be in the U.S. (and even some that do) can now hire people outside the U.S. at a fraction of the expense? How about because in a vicious cycle where no one has a job, there's no customers or consumer economy to support businesses who might hire new workers? How about because whereas once "job creators" like Ford figured out his workers should be able to purchase their company's own products if that company were going to sell enough product, today's corporate overlords feel a U.S. consumer economy is unnecessary to their profitability? Oh yeah, fear of cumbersome regulation. That's way up there on the reason there's no jobs.
	Submit to Quotes