Bush is a tax raiser!

[CTLawGuy]

by his logic, if you don't cut taxes, or reverse the cutting of taxes, you are RAISING taxes. If Bush does not give the entire federal budget away right now, he is a tax raiser.

Wouldn't opposing the lowering of taxes be RAISING THEM? Its functionally the same. If taxes are where you'd like them you oppose lowering. If they are moved below where you like them, your natural reaction would be to restore them to where they were before.

the only difference is the circumstances. In one case, the lowering hadnt taken place, the other is the lowering had been done already.

So if a wacky Congressman wanted to repeal the entire federal budget, and bush opposed it, then he would be a tax raiser.

A REAL tax raiser is someone who is not simply advocating canceling out a cut, but who advocates a brand new, higher level of taxation. Opposing tax cuts, and working to reverse them is NOT THE SAME as wanting to raise taxes.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. AMEN!!!!!

Why can't Americans understand this?!

[Buffler]

2. No

by his logic, if you don't cut taxes, or reverse the cutting of taxes, you are RAISING taxes.

Leaving tax rates unchanged is not raising taxes. But elminating a tax rate reduction, thus increasing tax rates is raising taxes. Period.

A REAL tax raiser is someone who is not simply advocating canceling out a cut, but who advocates a brand new, higher level of taxation. Opposing tax cuts, and working to reverse them is NOT THE SAME as wanting to raise taxes.

Opposing a tax rate reduction is not raising taxes. If one works to reverse a tax rate reduction and gets it done, thus instituting a higher tax rate then that is a tax increase.

[CTLawGuy]

3. what is the difference in position?

Whether you are opposing a tax reduction or fighting to repeal a tax cut, it is the same position, just the cirucumstances are different. So if a nutball in Congress could somehow give back the entire federal budget, and if president bush disagrees with that and reverses it, he's a tax-raiser, but if he only opposes the idea of lowering taxes, then he is not???? It acheives the same result.

[Buffler]

4. They are not.

Whether you are opposing a tax reduction or fighting to repeal a tax cut, it is the same position

Opposing the lowering of tax rates is not the same as raising taxes. If the opponent is successful, and tax rates are not reduced there is no increase in tax rates, thus no tax increase.

But RAISING tax rates (which repealing a tax rate reduction would do) is raising taxes.

Those who opposed Bush's tax cuts were not attempting to raise taxes. They were attempting to prevent the reduction in tax rates. That is not the same as raising taxes.

[fob]

6. Yes.

Leaving tax rates unchanged is not raising taxes. But elminating a tax rate reduction, thus increasing tax rates is raising taxes. Period.

If you haven't received the tax cut before it is rescinded how were you're taxes raised? If the 39% rate produces a certain tax liability for you and NEXT year that rate was to be 35% which all things being otherwise equal would produce a lower tax liability, but, and its a big BUT, before the tax rate reduction was in place it was rescinded, kept at 39%, how is that a tax raise? All things being otherwise equal your tax liability would be exactly the same!

If you were gonna pay $5000 at 39% rate, and $4500 at 35%, but instead never got the chance and ended up paying $5000 at 39%, how the hell is $5000 GREATER THAN $5000?

The fact that you counted your chickens before they hatched does not mean there was a tax increase.

Also, answer me this;
bush*s tax cuts are so huge and spread out so long they ran into the 10 year sunset limit, which means they will expire 12/31/2010 unless re-upped. bush*s "tax cut" plan is actually a $1.35 trillion dollar tax "RAISE" all in ONE YEAR! If you don't agree with that than you can't call any part of the plan that is rescinded(expired early) a tax raise either.

fob

[Buffler]

7. Because its already law

If you haven't received the tax cut before it is rescinded how were you're taxes raised? If the 39% rate produces a certain tax liability for you and NEXT year that rate was to be 35% which all things being otherwise equal would produce a lower tax liability, but, and its a big BUT, before the tax rate reduction was in place it was rescinded, kept at 39%, how is that a tax raise? All things being otherwise equal your tax liability would be exactly the same!


Because the lower rate is already law.

The fact that you counted your chickens before they hatched does not mean there was a tax increase.

Because the lower rate is already law.

bush*s tax cuts are so huge and spread out so long they ran into the 10 year sunset limit, which means they will expire 12/31/2010 unless re-upped. bush*s "tax cut" plan is actually a $1.35 trillion dollar tax "RAISE" all in ONE YEAR! If you don't agree with that than you can't call any part of the plan that is rescinded(expired early) a tax raise either.

Unfortunatly, under Senate rules any tax rate reduction that is passed must expire if not renewed in 10 years. This 10 year expiration is not part of the tax cut, but required by Senate rules. So, since we are talking technicalities, it is not Bush in this case that is causing that tax increase in 10 years, but the Senate.

[Indiana Democrat]

5. Huh??