Timothy Geithner: Allow Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy To Expire

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said that allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire would be "the responsible thing to do."

This is the last year for the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. Republicans have generally favored extending all of them. While Democrats are divided on the issue, President Barack Obama has favored allowing the expiration of cuts he says have applied to the wealthiest people.

"It's responsible to let the tax cuts expire that just go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest earning Americans," Geithner told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Doing so would show the world that the U.S. is "willing as a country now to start to make some progress" reducing long-term budget deficits, he said. Geithner said he does not believe that higher taxes for those high earners will hurt economic growth.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/25/timothy-geithner-bush-tax-cuts-expiration_n_658495.html

[jah the baptist]

1. now im against it

:sarcasm:

[MadMaddie]

2. Timmeh is actually doing the right thing?

What's in it for him?

[SoapBox]

3. Interesting stat in the LA Times today...

There is a column today (Sunday) talking about Meg (NutMeg) Whitman's tax plans for California.

Regarding Capital Gains Taxes (which she squawks about getting rid of, like all the GOBPers) that in,

"2008, according to tax figures from the Franchise Tax Board, more than 82% of the *** $56 BILLION ***
in capital gains earned by California residents, were reported by the TOP 1% of income earners (those
touching about $500,000 or more) in 2008."

SO...I just don't have too much sympathy for these folks. The LAST thing that I would support
is an elimination of the Capital Gains Taxes...Most stunning to me is that 1% number...

ONE...BLOODY...PERCENT!

[aquart]

4. I want to return to the progressive capital gains tax.

Which discouraged volatile markets.

[w4rma]

5. Maybe we should stop worrying about increasing the top income rates and just cut to the chase and

increase capital gains by ALOT. Or just phase capital gains into the income tax system.

[louis-t]

6. B-b-b-b-u-t the rpigs keep sayin' they'll make the

hard decisions!1!1!!!11.

[Po_d Mainiac]

7. Wow...I agree with the little tax evading turd. n/t

[Anakin Skywalker]

8. Damn Straight, Timmy! :-)

[nourishingtheplanet]

9. Putting Tax Dollars to Better Use

Take a look at this blog post at http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/putting-tax-dollars-to-better-use/">NourishingthePlanet.org

A study released in July by Cornell University researchers estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend about $140 million a year on food aid to Africa, and roughly the same amount just to ship food aid around the world on U.S. vessels, according to an article on IRIN.



The aid is distributed under a little-known policy called the Agricultural Cargo Preference (ACP), which requires that 75 percent of U.S. food aid be shipped on privately owned, U.S.-.registered vessels, regardless of shipping rates. Unfortunately, the nation’s taxpayers end up paying a high price for inefficient shipping practices.

The cost of this preferential practice to U.S. taxpayers in 2006 was $140 million, which represents “the amount paid above the regular cost of ocean freight on the competitive market,” according to Christopher Barrett, a Cornell University professor and leading food aid expert.

The Cornell study supports a longstanding call for reform of policies that subsidize the U.S. shipping industry to the benefit of the “iron triangle,” comprising agribusiness, the shipping sector, and some NGOs. These subsidies can cost taxpayers as much as $2 to deliver $1 worth of food, according to a book that Barrett co-wrote with Daniel Maxwell, Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting Its Role.

At a time when funding is tight, this money could be spent more effectively on additional food aid for urgent, short-term needs or, better yet, invested in innovative agricultural development that will empower farmers to be more self-sufficient over the long term and enable them to feed themselves and their communities.