Hello, Bush tax cuts EXPIRE in 2010, why isn't anyone telling us about how that can pay for HC!?

[Lorax7844]

Since I'm not getting any comments on my other thread I am going to spam, don't worry mods just these two threads. But seriously, Bush Tax Cuts stole over 2 trillion from the treasury, healthcare will cost a trillion. 2 trillion - 1 trillion = 1 trillion added to the treasury.

Why the hell is no one in congress talking about this? Why the hell are we not talking about this? We know why the media isn't talking about this but still, I found a new drum and I'm beating it.

[Hannah Bell]

1. and that 1 trillion will come from the top 1% alone. win-win.

[FLDCVADem]

7. I think you need to look at those numbers again

Even if the President sticks with his promise to only raise the top two marginal brackets, those brackets are not just the top 1%.

[Hannah Bell]

8. per ctj, 1/2 the benefit of the bush tax cuts was to the top 1%. It's the Bush tax

cuts we're talking about.

When the top 1% takes 25% of national income & received about 50% of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts, there's no reason to raise taxes on the top 2 brackets to pay for health care.

[FLDCVADem]

9. As I said

you need to do a more research.

The Bush tax cuts were across all tax brackets, including the creation of a 10% bracket for the lowest earners (previous low was 15%).

The trillion dollar figure comes from allowing the cuts on the top two brackets to expire. Those top two brackets take in more than just the top 1% of earners.

[Hannah Bell]

10. And as I said, per Citizens for Tax Justice, 50% of the benefit of the cuts went to the top 1%,

average income $1.5 million,

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2008.pdf

So perhaps you should do more research yourself.

[FLDCVADem]

13. Perhaps you need to follow your own advice

"In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally
phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will
go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers."

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf

Note that it says top 5%, not top 1%.

[Hannah Bell]

16. Top 1% = 38%, or 944 billion dollars = approx. the same as the estimated 1 trillion cost

of 10 years of the health care plan.

The bottom 80% of taxpayers got 25% of bush's tax cuts: 621 billion.

The bottom 60% got 13%: 315 billion.

So it would be more cost-effective to tax ONLY the top 1% & pay for health care than to tax the ENTIRE bottom 80% of the population.

CTJ's 2008 estimate was 53% of cuts through 2010 to the top 1%. The difference 2008/2009 is due to the recession. See p. 2:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2008.pdf


So, you were saying?

[TheKentuckian]

2. I will say that the same borrowed money seems to get earmarked for everything

I 100,000% agree that we need to allocate those resources but we can't say that the money can pay for health care, green conversion, educational recommitment, and everything else ever and it would be cool to reassess spending so that trillion can be raised without being borrowed.

Still, no doubt that stupid tax cuts and two wars are very expensive and we have pressing needs that can't even be discussed with so much on the front burners. If we are going to keep increasing our debt then it should be invested into the country and the people.

[JeanGrey]

3. Didn't Obama tell us during the primary that was how he

was going to pay for healthcare? The money from rescinding the Bush tax cuts?

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. I seem too remember him saying that. Instead of rescinding them, he allowed them to just expire.

:shrug:

[JeanGrey]

12. So then, what's the problem?

Could it be that it was just a lie?

[Indi Guy]

4. Thanks for this thread...

Obama has not emphasized this point strongly enough.

He's not proposing raising taxes on the wealthy -- he's saying that their taxes will naturally return to pre-Bush levels.

Bush failed (as hard as he tried) to make the tax cuts permanent.

Elections have consequences.

[zbdent]

5. Surely, the Blue Chihuahua Dems will make sure

that the cuts are re-instated ...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. Unlikely. n/t

[librechik]

14. healthcare is already offset except for about 350B. The trillion figure is totally bogus

but well worn.

and do you really think they will allow those to sunset?
I really really doubt it, though of course that would be an easy solution. Too bad there's no easy solution that doesn't require our corporate masters to take a big hit in their bottom line. They don't ever seem to let that happen anymore, and they have all the help in Congress that they need.

[Thothmes]

15. I suspect that a lot of the Representatives and Senators

have spending projects in the works to spend that money once it becomes available.