Republicans Seek to Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent

OMB Watch ^ | November 12, 2002 | OMB Watch

[Eagle of Liberty]

While Republicans seem to have at least temporarily backed off efforts to pass new and costly tax cuts, including a reduction in the capital gains tax, there is renewed talk about making permanent the Bush tax cut, which is slated to expire at the end of 2010.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) issued a statement outlining his priorities as the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the position he will reclaim from Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) in January when Republicans will be the Senate's majority party. Grassley, quoted in BNA, said that he intends to work to make last year’s $1.35 trillion tax cut permanent because tax cuts “help taxpayers across the board with child care, rate cuts, education incentives, and retirement savings incentives [and they] help to create jobs.”

[Eagle of Liberty]

Thought this would be a good refresher for those SEMINAR CALLERS calling the talk shows claiming that the tax cuts were supposed to be some temporary thing. Republicans wanted them PERMANENT!!

[Deb]

Hell, Bush wanted them to be permanent. People forget the cuts were sunsetted because Tom Daschle threatened to filibuster. The Dems got caught in their own rope.

[prov1813man]

ahem...Tax cuts are not “costly”. They have consistently INCREASED tax revenue and stimulated economic growth.

[longtermmemmory]

costly = less government spending

pay for tax cuts = don’t cut mah pork

aka don’t tase me bro...

[Eagle of Liberty]

From the link:

So what do the election results mean for future tax cuts?

While Congress and the executive branch are now under Republican “control,” that is an overstatement. It will still be difficult to advance tax cuts, and they are far from a foregone conclusion. This is especially true in the Senate, where the power of the filibuster and the budget rule (recently extended until April 2003) requiring a 60-vote supermajority to pass tax cuts remain powerful protections. As one example, our analysis of the post-election prospects for estate tax repeal shows that the new Senate will still lack from one to three votes to pass permanent repeal of the estate tax. Moreover, Congress passed the Bush tax cuts when the federal government was running a budget surplus, the economy was strong, and we were at peace abroad. This situation, key to securing congressional support, has changed considerably:

The economy continues to struggle, with the unemployment rate up to 5.7 percent at last count. Both parties agree that we need economic stimulus. Granted, the right kind of stimulus is still in dispute, but there should be room for compromise. To do any real good, stimulus efforts need to be fast, putting money in the hands of people who will spend it. Tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy (who are less likely to spend) or permanent long-term tax cuts down the road won’t accomplish this goal. A mix of short-term measures to stimulate the economy, with some goodies for each side, could benefit the economy and the people who most need some help.

[Eagle of Liberty]

ahem...Tax cuts are not “costly”. They have consistently INCREASED tax revenue and stimulated economic growth.

This was written by a LIB watchdog site.

[marron]

These aren't the Bush Tax Cuts, these are the current tax rates. We're arguing about the Obama Tax Increases.

[AntiScumbag]

"the position he will reclaim from Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) in January when Republicans will be the Senate's majority party."

So, do you often quote totally idiotic gibberish with no relationship with reality?

"OMB Watch" is laughable. What's even funnier is that neither you nor anybody else has noticed.

[ldish]

with all the talk about making the Bush tax cuts permanent...does anyone know the status for the inheritance portion - oddly enough there seems to be no discussion on this in media or in congress of late - (zero taxes on those as it should be in 2010)...if anyone has a dollar to leave to their families or children best die before Dec 31 or the almighty govt parasites get a big portion from the “get go” under the fall back to 2000 rules

[Eagle of Liberty]

"OMB Watch" is laughable. What's even funnier is that neither you nor anybody else has noticed.

Actually, what's even more freaking funny is that YOU did not notice that this was an article from 2002.

[Eagle of Liberty]

These aren't the Bush Tax Cuts, these are the current tax rates. We're arguing about the Obama Tax Increases.

See Post 10.

[ladyjane]

Everybody who makes more than 200k a year should just not spend any money for a week. They should call off their landscaper, window washer and lawn mower for a week and not go out to dinner.

Let’s see how long congress decides to increase their taxes.

Also they should write to their congressman/woman and their senator and tell them there will be no more $$$$ donations as long as they vote for this increase. LOL

[ladyjane]

Just make sure there are no freepers in the ICU on December 31st. The vultures will be circling.

[Non-Sequitur]

ahem...Tax cuts are not “costly”. They have consistently INCREASED tax revenue and stimulated economic growth.

Not over the last two years apparently.

[marron]

what's even more freaking funny is that YOU did not notice that this was an article from 2002.

I did notice... after I posted. But then I thought, ah what the heck. Point is still the point. It was the Bush tax cut... in 2002. In 2011 its the Obama tax increase.

[AntiScumbag]

You’re right, I missed that.

But so did everyone else.

[Eagle of Liberty]

if anyone has a dollar to leave to their families or children best die before Dec 31 or the almighty govt parasites get a big portion from the “get go” under the fall back to 2000 rules

You mean like this?

Steinbrenner's death raises estate tax issue

I cannot find any clear update on where things stand on the estate tax.

[Eagle of Liberty]

In 2011 its the Obama tax increase.

Agreed. Let's just hope we don't have to deal with the increase.

[ldish]

thanks...need to register to read the reflected article...could you summarize it...ok if you don’t...thanks!

[Eagle of Liberty]

thanks...need to register to read the reflected article...could you summarize it...ok if you don’t...thanks!

Huh....weird. I didn't need to register when i posted the link but now I need to register to read it too! I'll find another link...

George Steinbrenner and estate tax insanity

George Steinbrenner's well-timed death -- though I suspect he may not have seen it that way -- points up the insanity of the current estate tax situation. As The Post and Katrina vanden Heuvel have noted, the billionaire Yankees owner could end up owing no federal estate tax -- because there is no federal estate tax this year.

Last year, Steinbrenner's heirs would have faced a tax rate of 45 percent on the bulk of his estate. Next year, the tax is set to spring back to a 55 percent rate. Congress is not going to let this happen -- but it is also unlikely to do away with the estate tax altogether.

Hence the good timing of Steinbrenner and three fellow billionaires who have died already this year. You know there is something very wrong with the tax code when you have estate planners saying things like "if you're super-wealthy, it's a good year to die," as BDO Seidman's Jack Nuckolls told the Associated Press. The AP put the Steinbrenner family's savings in the neighborhood of $500 million.

Congress set the estate tax to disappear in 2010 and be, pardon the phrase, brought back to life in 2011. No one expected this throw-Mama-from-the-train scenario to actually play out in 2010, but Congress has been unable to agree on a reasonable level for a new estate tax.