not if you were paying $150 before they were temporarily pulled back. it would be a raise if you were now having to pay $160 in taxes now versus the $150 before temporary tax relief.

I do not understand why your frustration is not with the president and congress' that placed a sunset date on the relief and failed to make them permanent in the fist place.

::Snip::
not if you were paying $150 before they were temporarily pulled back. it would be a raise if you were now having to pay $160 in taxes now versus the $150 before temporary tax relief.
::snip::

This is like Clinton saying "I did not have sex with..."


Back to why the tax cuts were not permanent...
It was one of those compromises that Bush gave into the dems on (you know, reaching across the aisle and giving a concession to get the vote, something the dems know little about, or need to consider, using today). He did not have a super majority, so he had to add something to get the votes he needed. Otherwise they would have been permanent.

I am trying to recall, did Bush or the Republican controlled congress introduce legistation during the 109th Congress, when they had their largest majorities during Bush's tenure, to make the relief permanent?

Honestly do not recall, and asking the question.

They attempted to, and were stonewalled by a Democratic filibuster.

Do you have the bill info?

No, but I am sure Yoss will find it.

Sure do, it was $19.99, and if we had acted then, you would have received a FREE set of Ginsu knives.

go figure...

A simple no, I cannot support my statements once again, would have sufficed.

don't get me wrong, i'm not frustrated - just wanted clarification on why you thought this would not be a new tax...don't forget, there are people who didn't get the break cause they were making less but now will be paying it...these type of minor wording issues are what Washingtonians are famous for

Nearly all of the Bush cuts—individual rates, capital gains, dividends, estate tax—are set to expire after 2010. Sixty votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to pass permanent tax cuts. There were just 55 GOP senators, and they faced a politically far-left Democratic opposition.

Tax cutting has been made more difficult because Bush has been the most profligate president in decades. In his first five years, 2001 to 2006, federal spending increased 45 percent and deficits have soared. It’s tougher to convince the few centrist Democrats in the Senate to go along with making tax cuts permanent when federal red ink was gushing non-stop.

I really don't disagree with either one of you on your statements above. While I may not be in favor of the temporary tax relief expiring, I do not see this as a tax increase since we are going back to old levels. Now whether that ends up capturing a some new taxpayers who who have come into that level of income during this time, heck that happens all the time at all levels of taxation.

I simply see this as tax relief expiring versus and a new increase. Just semantics I guess.

Thats all.

Interesting, is it simply because of the sunset provision that you view it this way. Because you could say the same thing about taxes after 1982. Before 82, tax rates were higher than after 82 tax cuts. Would any subsequent changes not be an increase because the changes were simply returning us to what we were paying pre-82? Or is that these cuts sunset?

In 2001, our congress and president enacted legislation to provide temporary tax relief to expire in 2011 and return to the 2000 level.

Show me where there is pending legistation to raise taxes beyond this. It was never a true 'tax cut' in the first place.

It was a true tax cut. The fact that a minority of Senators prevented the cut from being enacted in the tax code beyond 2011 does not mean that the weren't a tax cut. You can argue about whether enacting the tax cuts through the budget process was a good move or not, but it's beyond disingenuous to say it wasn't a tax cut.

I guess you mean your opinion is tied into the fact that these cuts have a sunshine provision. You could just say that thanks.

If you get a pay raise, and your net income goes up, but then your medical insurance goes up and your net income goes down, did you get a pay reduction?

I did, in several of my prior posts. I didn't how to make it much clearer.

We simply agree to disagree. Moving on.

Sorry if I missed that was your main point.

This then is not a tax increase even though you may be paying more taxes.

Limiting spending growth to 1 or 2 percent is really a spending cut too I presume.

Oh, so it's ok to let tax relief expire instead of decreasing spending, I get it.

I would have to disagree with that statement as well.

I never said it was ok... if you would read all the posts, I did mention that I was not in support of it expiring... I too feel it should have been made permanent.

And spending needs to be decreased as well. I have not said to the contrary.

btw, have you found the bill yet that you claim was filibustered by the dems that would have made the cuts permanent? I haven't been able to find it either...

ha! semantics!

Sort of like the words racism and racism.

it's all about the "context"

can that be supported by research?