Reply #56: The tax cuts for the middle class aren't that huge, but letting Republicans take the blame?

[LooseWilly]

If they obstruct?... how is that bad? the $500 per child under 17 difference in the child care credit... is that worth sacrificing all the revenue of the elimination of the 33% top marginal tax rate (potentially rising to 39%), not to mention the 15% cap on capital gains taxes( which would rise to the levels of ordinary income), for the wealthiest — which would've meant money that the feds could've used to help states with their recession related deficits so they could continue to pay for social programs like education (how many teachers, fire fighters, and even police, could be kept on the job with a careful allocation of those funds?).

Do you really think that the elimination of this tax break would break the economy? I don't. Do you really believe all the money the government would have, and the stimulus spending it could then make, wouldn't more than make up for it? I think it would much more than make up for the loss of half of the chid tax credit.

Do you really believe that the continued availability of the accelerated depreciation for business will create a new boom of business investment (one that won't just involve purchasing more equipment from China or what have you)? I don't. In fact, the availability of the §179 limits for depreciation write-offs (with a $250K limit) make the accelerated depreciation benefits of the Obama tax-cut extensions irrelevant for all but the companies who are looking to write-off more than ... $250K worth of capital investments.

And... the Earned Income Credit mentioned doesn't even affect the "middle class", because they don't qualify. Those who do qualify would be much better off if the feds had more money to allocate to states to cover their hemorrhaging deficits so they could continue to provide the social services (medicaid, education, HUD §8 housing subsidies, etc.), rather than with a little spending cash that won't amount to enough to cover these same expenses at Full Market Value once the subsidies are cut because the states don't have the money.

And the Social Security tax holiday is an awful precedent to set, which undermines the very viability of Social Security in the long run by creating the impression in the public's mind that even Democrats consider the fund to be negotiable... if a Republican had proposed this the board would be up in arms... why not just go ahead and reduce the marginal tax rate at all levels below that of the $106,800 Social Security tax cap? It has the same effect, but doesn't carry the same precedent. Of course, we all know why, unless we're in denial and pretending that this president's deal wasn't dictated to him by the Republicans who've long wanted to eliminate social security... or at least force it to be invested through Wall St. (as Bush wanted to do, and this board went apeshit about).

Unfortunately, the US population isn't as idiotic as the statisticians would have us believe. The statistics about the effects of a 2% tax cut are all based on previous performances, and I'm sure you realize this if you think about it. In the current state of the economy, however, those who have jobs are all too often worried about them being off-shored... and many are facing over-abundant credit card and other debts, not to mention probable underwater housing... they aren't going to use a meager 2% tax cut to "live it up" and spend to stimulate the economy, they're going to use it to try to stabilize the hemorrhaging of their personal financing situation (and good on them for all the good it will do them), but it will not stimulate fuck all.

And as for the unemployed... even the Republicans wouldn't've been likely to have the cajones to cut unemployment during the Christmas season... there are plenty of unemployed Republicans. If they did, then they could bear all the political brunt, while the increased revenues from increased taxes on the rich (or everyone in the "middle class" with kids) could be used to help states stabilize cuts to services (and jobs) which might be as useful... and the anger could be useful too... just as it will no doubt be useful in 13 months when it runs out (unless Obama negotiates a deal... though, shy of requiring that the unemployed fellate the rich to continue to receive their checks, I'm not sure what else there is to sell out).

If the majority of Americans wherever you live support extending the tax cuts for all just for some extra money for themselves for their children, then they really need a voice to explain to them how awful the extensions are policy-wise, though I gather you're not the one likely to tell them.

Too bad you're not likely to help more. <string of expletives deleted>