US $350 Billion tax cut is likely $800 Billion

[chequita guevara]

The tax cut is a poison pill for the Democrats. The Republicans expect to lose control, and the Democrats will be stuck with a large tax increase, which the Republicans believe will give them a latch on power for a decade or more.

Or maybe not.

[DanS]

The tax cut is not large enough to be a poison pill--it is pretty small, actually. Even at $850 billion. Bush is just whittling down the federal tax as percentage of our economy to 18%.

Now, hopefully we can have better fiscal discipline this year.

[CerberusIV]

It's not necessarily how big the figures are but how they are perceived. If the idea that this is an unsustainable tax cut gains momentum it won't do much for the US economy, regardless of whether it is actually true or not.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DanS
Now, hopefully we can have better fiscal discipline this year.

[DanS]

If the idea that this is an unsustainable tax cut gains momentum it won't do much for the US economy, regardless of whether it is actually true or not.

This dog won't hunt. It never has. The Dems kept up the drumbeat that the first Bush tax cut was unsustainable. The public agreed and then duly ignored them.

[MRT144]

while it may be political suicide, providing tax cuts for cyclical economic conditions is stupid stupid stupid. the fact that spending ISNT being kept in checked by washington makes it a whole lot worse.

bush has become cut taxes and spend. and thats not sustainable forever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
If the idea that this is an unsustainable tax cut gains momentum it won't do much for the US economy, regardless of whether it is actually true or not.

This dog won't hunt. It never has. The Dems kept up the drumbeat that the first Bush tax cut was unsustainable. The public agreed and then duly ignored them.

The first Bush tax cut didn't seem to improve the economy. The rebates gave us a little boost, but certainly nothing like Snow and Bush talk about.

Money magazine did a survey. Anyone got the numbers? I think I might go to the library and get them. They show that not many people believe that the tax cutswill improve the economy. And one number that I do remember is that only 13% of investors plan to spend the money the get from the cut.

Bush should have listened to the people who know. I like the transfer to the states, but the dividend cut is really stupid and will do nothing.

[PLATO]

My feeling is that The Federal Government should control spending by providing the minimum level of services required in order to meet its obligations. There should be a control that new spending cannot be added unless the budget is balanced or in surplus.

The problem is:

Democrat philosophy: Tax and spend.

Republican philosophy: Cut taxes and spend.

The problem is in the will to spend. Without fiscal control in congress than wheather or not taxes are cut is irrelevant.

[MRT144]

the republicans plan would work if they cut taxes proportional to economic growth and growth of the government. of course that might mean taxes get cut .5% every year

[Kidlicious]

Plato,

How would you sell a tax increase when the budget is balanced? Or maybe you are saying that all spending increases should include tax increases.

The way it tends to work is that the economy creates a surplus and then spending is increased. But then there is a recession and taxes are increased.

edit: well atleast it worked like that until Reagan. Now it's just a battle between the reps and the dems.

[MRT144]

the thing about the republican outlook on tax cuts though, that they will spur out of control econoomic prosperity to cover the tax cut is ridiculous.

especially considering that in times of prosperity they want to cut taxes to "give back to the people" and in times of recession they want to cut taxes "to spur economic growth" if republicans had their way we would abolished taxes in 1983.

the planet would also be a cross between planet of the apes and thunderdome.

[DanS]

especially considering that in times of prosperity they want to cut taxes to "give back to the people" and in times of recession they want to cut taxes "to spur economic growth" if republicans had their way we would abolished taxes in 1983.

That's funny.

Even in the the most bitter battles, of which this isn't one by a long shot, everybody's arguing about maybe spending/taxing of 2% of the economy. This latest tax cut is a real snoozer. It's more symbolic than anything--Bush is claiming the economy as his own rather than Clinton's.

[MRT144]

it may be funny to you but youre saying it isnt true? when bush was elected what was his reason for the tax cut? it was to give back to the working people what is it now? to boost the economy

and both will achieve neither.

[Kidlicious]

Why should the size matter? If it's bad it's bad.

[DanS]

The later Clinton years were good times, but there was a lot of bracket creep and the like. Taxes were being raised during these good times. But the bottom fell out of the economy in 2001. So a tax cut made sense for both reasons (giving people some money back and stimulating the economy).