What's your opinion on the Bush tax cuts renewal.

Are you for or against them and why?

(I don't have enough room for more choices sorry for bunching people in the last option. If you pick it PLEASE post what you are below. tyvm)

If you don't know what the Bush tax cuts are click here.
(Democrat)

I make little enough that I'm not actually paying taxes, I'm not American, and I'm not a big supporter of either major party. But Bush's tax cuts have pretty comprehensively failed to keep the economy healthy and probably contributed to the 13 trillion dollar debt, so I am against em.

I think the only way you could be for them is if you're a naive elite with a stick up your ass. Or you're a corporate puppet. One or the other.
/blunt and rude

I'd much rather have the government spend less money then take more taxes.

I enjoy the fact that your link leads to a Google search for "bush tax cuts". It is the laziest citation I have ever witnessed on a forum board.

I don't live in the US nor have an income but I oppose the repeal. It's a regressive tax system. If you really want to evade taxes, either revoke your US citizenship or place your assets overseas. Go head-to-head with the IRS; they're underfunded and demotivated.

I'd much rather have the government spend less money then take more taxes.

I have marginally more faith in the government to work to my interests, compared to all the rich fucks who will be taxed anyway. I mean it'd be nice to think being rich meant you were generous, but it's quite the opposite - rich people are rich cause they're greedy.

I enjoy the fact that your link leads to a Google search for "bush tax cuts". It is the laziest citation I have ever witnessed on a forum board.

This isn't the angry dome or Funhouse. Either contribute something towards the debate or don't post.

If you don't like the link i provided post your own.

This isn't the angry dome or Funhouse. Either contribute something towards the debate or don't post.

If you don't like the link i provided post your own.

http://detnews.com/article/20100723/POLI...l-decision
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-...ax-renewal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Gr...ct_of_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Gr...ct_of_2001

Here's 4, that could help out a bit more towards the subject.

I used Google Scholar and the first hit that came up was this paper that pertains to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. The paper cites that the primary importance in implementing the tax cuts were to stimulate private spending in hopes of rejuvenating the economy. Even though many economic policies are dependent upon predicting the "taste" of a given consumer base, it is never ideal to fundamentally rely on inductive reasoning when major monetary concerns are placed into consideration. The paper gauged the results of the EGTRRAs intended purpose by employing the Auerbach-Kotlikoff model. The paper concluded that tax cuts are effective in employing the "wealth effect" and therefore stimulate consumption and reduce national saving. It is difficult though to trace the relationship between these three factors and how it allots to national savings and capital formation (i.e. production factories, industries, and other effective means of producing vital goods).

Discussing "tax cuts" under a given Executive administration is difficult to exactly discuss as it lends itself to vague generalizations. It would be more effective if you targeted a specific policy that was linked to the majority of the tax cuts so that there would be the potential for a more detailed conversation that exceeds the notion of political bias and generalization. Discussing topics should idealistically supersede bias of any kind, including political bias and should concern the individual on an informed level. It is important to therefore phrase the question in a detailed manner and rely on sources to guide the conversation in that direction in order to reduce confusion and side-conversation which would detract from the effectiveness of the discussion.

I have marginally more faith in the government to work to my interests, compared to all the rich fucks who will be taxed anyway. I mean it'd be nice to think being rich meant you were generous, but it's quite the opposite - rich people are rich cause they're greedy.

Except the more you tax the rich, the more they will try to get more money for themselves. Like, if they own a business, they will raise their prices if they could. This all just trickles down to the middle/lower classes, and just hurts us in the end.

Anyways, I'd much rather income tax was gotten rid of, and repalced with something like a consumption tax.

Even though there could potentially be a retro-"trickle-down" effect in terms of how tax spread is mitigated, I doubt that explicitly relying on consumption tax will be able to compensate for the loss of income taxes. I have to go, but hopefully I will have time to look into this topic a bit more and add more depth to this conversation.