By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aielyn said:
Kantor said:
And the partial expiry of the Bush tax cuts isn't what I was referring to. To quote directly from the BBC article:

However, the deal did also allow some tax rises to go ahead, namely:

  • the expiry of a payroll tax holiday, expected to raise $95bn in additional annual revenue
  • allowing the Bush-era income tax cuts for individuals earning over $400,000 to come to an end, with the top rate increasing from 35% to 40%
  • higher taxes on dividend income, capital gains and inheritance for these same top earners
  • phasing out certain income tax deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000

The first is certainly a tax increase on everyone.

And yes, they'll have to get around to cutting spending eventually, but they postponed it for a year and a half back in 2010, and now they're doing it for another two months. How long can they keep kicking this can down the road? Will they still be passing bills to delay spending cuts by six months at a time ten years from now?

Again, allowing an expiry that was already set into the law to occur is not a tax increase, it's the end of a temporary tax cut, and what's more, it was a temporary tax cut put in place by Obama (or rather, with Obama's blessing, two years ago, when extending the bush tax cuts). So are you really complaining that he (and congress) allowed a tax to "increase" back to where it was before he took office?

As for the "kicking down the road" stuff, I'll say to you what I've been emphasising to others in America over the last few weeks on this forum - if the government isn't doing its job, vote them out. If both the Democrats and Republicans are pfaffing around and failing to do their jobs, vote in a third party. Stop acting as though you have no control over government.

It's a tax increase, whether or not the cut was intended to be temporary, just like the partial-expiry of the bush tax cuts is a tax increase.

It's worth adding at this point that I don't actually live in America. It's just that American politics are far more interesting and less depressing than British. But when you consider that 89 senators (comprising the majority of both parties) and a significant number of politicians from both parties in the House (a majority od Democrats) voted in favour of this bill, it's hard to see exactly who else you can vote in. That's the trouble with the two party system. America doesn't have a third party.

Hell, Britain has four major parties now and you still don't have much of a choice.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective