If everyone should have to sacrifice...?

[kentuck]

Should the Bush taxcuts be allowed to expire for everyone?

Since that would be about 5% of the average workers pay, that would be about 2 hrs pay per paycheck? Should these working poor be asked to pay taxes also?

Or should they be exempted from the "sacrifice"?

[jaxx]

1. Funny you should bring that up.

Those tax cuts were extended for 2 years for that very reason, so that the average worker wouldn't get a tax raise. It was a "cave" then, are you saying it was good policy now?

Inquiring people want to know if we have a flip-flop here.

[kentuck]

3. I didn't support extending the taxcuts then...

and I don't now. I think the entire Bush taxcuts should be allowed to expire.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Hear hear. Had they expired then

this most recent fight would never have happened.

The repugs COUNT on using this as an issue, and they will fight to extend them again, holding UE or a jobs bill hostage in exchange for extending them again.

You KNOW that.

[Uben]

2. My friend.....

.....I would hope our leaders are sage enough to realize the only way to shrink the gap in income equality is to restore our tax tables to the point to where it worked the best. The republicans don't want this. They spent many years and dollars to get us into this financial mess, and they'll be damned if they'll give it up without a fight. You can't fix stupid!

[TomClash]

4. The unemployment line is sacrifice enough

And 2 hours per paycheck means a lot more to mailroom guy making $10 per hour than the CEO making $1,000 per hour.

[kentuck]

5. So everyone should not be asked to sacrifice?

And going back to the Clinton rates would be a sacrifice? How much of the deficit is created from this taxcut to the working poor? Do we really want to cut the deficit? Should everyone pay income taxes?

[TomClash]

6. Why do we want to tax poor people more?

You are asking for a proportionally larger sacrifice from the least of our brothers and sisters.

And you are asking for a further decline in aggregate demand. That's bad economics to boot.

[kentuck]

7. How did they ever live before the Bush taxcut?

They could do it again. If the country is going under, everyone needs to sacrifice. That is not asking too much. No pain, no gain.

[TomClash]

8. Could is not the same as should

Deficit reduction is exactly the wrong medicine "if the country is going under."

"No pain, no gain" is wrong for both athletes and budgets.

[kentuck]

9. It is more about revenues than it is about deficit reduction.

Those same folks will suffer even more if they lose their jobs and their are no foodstamps or unemployment insurance or Medicare? So, the issue is revenues, not deficit reduction.

[TomClash]

10. How do you get more revenue by raising taxes on working people?

They will then be forced to spend less, which decreases consumption and leads to fewer jobs and more layoffs and cuts. With near zero growth rates how does that make sense?

[kentuck]

11. By letting the Bush taxcuts expire in their entirety...

would increase revenues about a trillion dollars over ten years, even more than the taxcuts on the wealthy.

[kentuck]

12. You're assuming they will not get a raise or work overtime...

to make up the difference?

[TomClash]

13. Yeah, they won't

Where's the overtime and raises with an economy at near zero growth? Nowhere.

[kentuck]

14. Employers have their workers work overtime...

before they hire any new workers. It's less costly for them.

[TomClash]

15. Yes, I get that

But they won't work overtime if there are fewer goods being consumed and fewer services being demanded.

Cut the deficit and that is the short run effect. Just wait and see.