Last week, President Obama decided that he would extend the Bush era tax-cuts for the wealthy. If the Bush-era tax-cuts expire, the tax-rates for people earning over $250,000 will increase back to the rates they were in 2001, before the Bush tax cuts were passed. This goes completely against one of Obama's 2008 campaign promises, in which he stated that he would end tax cuts for the wealthy, but his top political advisor, David Axelrod says that they just don't have the votes right now to let the taxes expire like they promised; for now they will extend the tax cuts. People who are in favor of extension of tax cuts assert that if the taxes increase, people will have less money in their pockets to invest in businesses, and this will be disastrous for the economy. People against the extentions, however, assert that the federal government needs money, and if we keep extending the tax cuts, this country's deficit will only worsen, instead of improving.In my opinion, I think that Obama should have made more of an effort to bring an end to the tax cuts. The people who earn over $250,000 are able to afford a few extra dollars in taxes, and raising taxes is necessary if we ever want to fix our deficit problem. Although it may not be a politically popular move, it is necessary; we elected our leaders to make the best decisions for the country, not to focus on the best political moves. Also, according to a CNNMoney.com article, "ironically, if the Bush tax cuts do expire for top earners, some might actually find themselves with a somewhat smaller tax bill next year." What do you think? Is he right in extending the Bush tax cuts, or should he have let them expire?
9 comments:
Let them expire, the government need that extra tax money to lower the deficit and pay for all the services that are being given out. People like to take services and not put in money to pay for them. The Republicans in this issue seem to flip-flop a lot. They want tax cuts but also to lower the Deficit; pick one because you cant have both at the same time. Unless you cut Medicare or Social Security or the Military which I believe is more improbable then finding peace in the middle east.
As the leader of the country I think that Obama should have followed through with his 2008 campaign promise of ending the tax cuts. He represents the country and if he can't keep this promise, then a lot of other promises he made may also never be completed. Although an extension for the tax cuts can benefit the the wealthy, I agree with you that more effort should be made to end the tax cuts. In order for us to save our economy from plunging, since our economy right now isn't that great, the tax cuts should end so that our deficit problem can be fixed.
The tax cuts on the wealthy benefiting the stimulation of the growth economy was definitely a recent lesson in class. And this whole issue is basically like this: the economy is growing negatively no matter what (even if the tax cut is kept) and not extending the tax cut would basically mean adding more to the fire. So either way, it seems like the economy won't really get better. Speaking in Obama's position, I would follow with my plan of ending the Bush Tax Cuts simply because of my 2008 campaign promise as michele said. It looks bad on a political leader to not follow with what he or she has promised to the people prior to being elected. It ruins the track record and it loses the trust of the people.
Let's remember for a second that President Obama has no reason to be kept on promises made during an election held 2 years ago. Not only does he have a mandate to rule as he sees fit (within certain limits, of course), the times of then are not the times of now. Remember that this is the real world, and that President Obama MUST do what he needs to do to be reelected, for it is only through this that the Democratic party can continue to exert their influence in the executive branch.
Also, not only is letting the tax cuts expire unnecessary, it would also not be the best decision for our country. Let us remember that those who earn over $250,000 are probably not like the normal, middle class people it appears you are seeing them as. They, most likely, are business owners or people in highly competitive jobs which allow for great gains with great work and risk, which comes along with increased bill payments and the like. To say that they are able to afford a few extra tax dollars is being condescending, in a way, towards their position.
Finally, I would like to say that raising taxes on those earning over $250,000 is not a way to fix a deficit problem. To fix a deficit problem, we need to stimulate the economy, and to stimulate the economy, we need money to be in the hands of those who are most likely going to spend, namely those with a safe padding of money. To let these tax cuts expire would, like Immanuel said, fail to do such.
To follow up on Daniel's point, let me reiterate that this is the REAL WORLD. These tax cuts, as Daniel has touched upon, are only one aspect of our federal deficit. There almost certainly is something under the surface that we're not seeing. If the Obama administration believes that letting the tax-cuts expire wouldn't be a good move, then there must be some factor that is contributing to this position. If I read correctly, Axelrod has actually stated that they don't have enough votes to Congress to make it happen. This doesn't mean that the administration hasn't put forth reasonable effort into making it happen, it just means that they believe it's NOT POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW. He may not even have great control over the situation. Obama's decision was necessary and valid.
I do not believe that Obama should be held accountable for every single promise he made on the campaign trail because situations change. However, I think that he should have let the tax cuts expire. Honestly, the rich probably can afford to pay the taxes that were previously cut. Anyways, this should not hurt the economy because all it does is change who does more spending. Personally, I have more faith in government stimulus than asking the wealthy to invest, rather than save during this down economy. If you had the money, would you feel comfortable investing in a stock market with these record dips?
I agree that we should let the tax cuts expire. Even though keeping them would allow the wealthy to spend less on taxes, they are not all going to necessarily spend it in the economy; they might choose to store the money in banks at a time when the market is still weak. While taxes can be hard to swallow for any American, they are needed in order to fund all the services that this country provides for us. In a time when core government funded programs face budget shortfalls, I think we should be willing to take in some increases in taxes, all classes of society.
To follow on what Mr. FU and Mr. YU were talking about... to say that taxing the rich will bring money to the government may seem like a logical thing to do.. however it's going to take a good majority of people that make that kind of money to add to the drops in the bucket of debt. According to the census the median income for households is about 50k a year. Thinking statistically, there are just not enough people making 250k a year to bring in the big dollars that we are expecting.
I'm up for taxing the rich and setting up programs to help the less fortunate... but that's just my mindset. It has a robin hood type of feel to it, but as stated earlier... there needs to a be a reality check. since when was the last time we've heard of a modern day robin hood? not rob hood from curtains.. i mean somebody who can really get an idea like that into action and keep it sustained....
the mentality during the 2008 elections was that obama was such a figure, and he came pretty close to doing so, but it's hard to keep it such plans like that sustained when those who approve now have the power to keep the big ideas from moving (congress)
it's all about politics now. republicans want to do it one way, democrats want to do it the other way, so they're going to do there best to stop each other. I only care that only one succeeds. if both succeed, we might be in trouble. if democrats and republican parties in congress stop each other's plans.. nothing gets done and were in gridlock.... again.
-Raymond Lim
To follow on what Mr. FU and Mr. YU were talking about... to say that taxing the rich will bring money to the government may seem like a logical thing to do.. however it's going to take a good majority of people that make that kind of money to add to the drops in the bucket of debt. According to the census the median income for households is about 50k a year. Thinking statistically, there are just not enough people making 250k a year to bring in the big dollars that we are expecting.
I'm up for taxing the rich and setting up programs to help the less fortunate... but that's just my mindset. It has a robin hood type of feel to it, but as stated earlier... there needs to a be a reality check. since when was the last time we've heard of a modern day robin hood? not rob hood from curtains.. i mean somebody who can really get an idea like that into action and keep it sustained....
the mentality during the 2008 elections was that obama was such a figure, and he came pretty close to doing so, but it's hard to keep it such plans like that sustained when those who approve now have the power to keep the big ideas from moving (congress)
it's all about politics now. republicans want to do it one way, democrats want to do it the other way, so they're going to do there best to stop each other. I only care that only one succeeds. if both succeed, we might be in trouble. if democrats and republican parties in congress stop each other's plans.. nothing gets done and were in gridlock.... again.
-Raymond Lim
Post a Comment