Forget the Bush Tax Cuts; Reform The Tax Code

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I don'y get it? everyone knows the current taxe code is a disaster, since republicans and democrats both agree on the clear as day need to change it, what is the hold up? There are only a few options, what so hard about it? There is fair tax, flat tax, the current payroll tax or a combination of of them no secrets, why can't they vote on a few proposals? I like the fair tax, it's makes the most sense for being fair to all, and with out a doubt spur the economy, but if not something. If our government won't act on the most obvious bipartisian issue, man they need to be fired! I just don't get what the hold up is?

Mitch of IN 11:50PM December 09, 2011

I have posted the link where CBO said Bush tax cuts to rich increased their tax burden, increasing revenue by 4.06 %. Have done same thing for John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan tax cuts.
States have tried to soak the rich with BAD RESULTS.
Why doesn’t anybody show where raising taxes on rich increase revenue for government ??? There are many JFK quotes affirming this. Why Democrats don’t quote J. Kennedy economics.
“Millionaires Go Missing”
“Maryland's fleeced taxpayers fight back”
“Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
“One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
No doubt”
http://www.taxcutsincreaserevenue.com/Go-To-9823-0314-8302/Tax%20Increases%20Cut%20Revenue.htm
“The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22”
“Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%. President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We’ve also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.”
“During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period. (See the nearby chart)”.
Was Newt not Clinton. Contract with America...
http://cliftonchadwick.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/the-soak-the-rich-catch-22/

Bill Hedges of MO 11:31AM December 06, 2010

A large portion of our population argues and votes against both their own principles of fair and equal treatment and their personal self-interest because our leadership has obscured the nature of our existing policies. Reform of the code is indeed critical. But the current crop of insiders guiding the debate appear committed to perpetuating the structural preferences provided to the investment class.
If the rich paid taxes at the same rate the middle class now does, we would have a balanced budget today. The challenge is, how to normalize rates between investment income and labor without stifling growth. That will requires us to re-think our structural tax policies toward wealth and investment income. Until and unless we acknowledge and confront that challenge we will not achieve meaningsul and equitable change, but instead will continue to have a government that steals from Peter to give to Paul. For further see Myth of Progressive Tax Rates at http://www.2pctsolution.com/?p=467
The Bush Tax Cuts are indeed just a sideshow which obscurs the bigger problem.

Douglas Hopkins of NJ 9:11AM December 06, 2010

Rich pay the taxes now, let the poor have less government benefit and pay SOME TAXES.
LET THEM finally " make sacrifices"...

Bill Hedges of MO 8:03PM December 05, 2010

any mention of a fair tax .
Otherwise , Bill and R.L. , people are either so brain dead or brainwashed about what it would really take to get this country going again it's almost beyond the point of scary .
Nuke plants , build them , use our best and brightest to develope the best in the world , (we will need them for all the electric cars ) , instead of 700 billion to OPEC for oil , spend it here , put our people to work . Develope the safest and cleanest way in the world to mine and use coal . Why employ Canadians to supply us oil from oil shale when we have more than they do ? Talk about putting people to work IN THIS COUNTRY . Keeping our money here .

Hunter of WI 7:39PM December 05, 2010

This is a link in lieu of reprint to Calvin H. Johnson, The Fiscal Commission Has Forgotten Its Role, 129 Tax Notes 921 (Nov. 22, 2010) [http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/fiscal-commission.pdf]
Abstract
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was given the role of reducing the deficit to avoid an impending budget catastrophe. Instead it is proposing lower corporate tax revenue and a wasteful research and development program at a time when we need more revenue. We also need some new ideas to make the tax system fairer, more efficient, and more comprehensive. The commission’s final report would also benefit from the discipline of a distributional table, because its proposals appear to shift the tax burden downward. In the coming crisis, it is the wealthy who will need to make sacrifices.

Calvin Johnson of TX 3:35PM December 05, 2010

Problem with that barry waved existing regulation for BP, whose # 1 candidate for receiving their contributions was barry's Presidential election campaign. No waver may have caused no leak of oil.
Loss of east coast oil exploration is not a big loss. Gulf is a different matter. We have network of underwater oil pipeline there. Meaning new productive rigs would quickly produce oil for our Nation's gas pumps.
Although has been mentioned new wells could have tankers accept the oil until pipelines could reach the oil rig.
Alaska's pipeline has been going at less than 100% for some time. Someday without further oil explorations it will stop. Gulf barrel capacity is going down.
barry needs his mind changed back to drilling. Never to change again. Unless sending our oil $$$’s overseas make you smile, and we don’t want the big dollar oil jobs here at home...

Bill Hedges of MO 12:07AM December 05, 2010

Price of oil shot upward - Gee, that's gonna be great for jobs, industry and the cost of living..."Going Green" strikes again.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 1:48PM December 04, 2010

Bush has served his 8 years. Obama only 2...
“President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:”
“President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Bill Hedges of MO 10:10PM December 03, 2010

The bottom line is the National Debt and if it goes up or down!!!! The rest is BS!!!
Look at this and then look into it if you must. Bush had the House and Senate for almost 6 years so you can't blame it on any one else, and don't forget the veto power he had!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA&feature=player_embedded#!

GJN of WI 5:29PM December 03, 2010