Economy, Business & Jobs · Politics & Government

Poll: Should we extend the Bush-era tax cuts?

Stephanie Curtis July 30, 2012, 8:28 AM Jul 30, 2012

Today on the show, we’ll be discussing the Bush-era tax cuts and the high-stakes political debate on the issue. What’s your take?

–Stephanie Curtis, social media host

About the blogger

Stephanie Curtis

scurtis@mpr.org • @stephcurtis

Stephanie Curtis has produced events, daily news shows, documentaries, conferences and call-ins for MPR News. She also was among the pioneering producers who launched The Current. You can hear her discuss movies every Thursday on The Cube Critics.

Gary Shallcross

The Bush era tax cuts were limited to ten years because it was recognized, even by conservatives, that the retirement of the baby boomers would eliminate the surplus revenue that was being collected by Social Security taxes. They were an excessive and cynical gamble that tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, particularly investors (the 2003 cuts), would stimulate growth and maintain enough revenues to prevent deficits. The growth didn’t really occur and the tilt toward the wealthy eventually produced aggressive and counterproductive behavior in the financial markets that led to the speculative bubbles in housing and financial instruments and eventually the meltdown. Instead of extending these poorly designed cuts a year at a time, the “leaders” in Washington should put forward competing visions of a sustainable, efficient, and fair tax and spending structure to deal with the demands of the next generation. Enough with incrementalism and cowardly exploitation of this issue for political gain! Get real already!

Jay Hutchison

Sunset the Bush tax cuts for everyone. I did not notice it when I received it and I really won’t notice it when it ends. Go back to the Clinton tax rates. Everyone needs to contribute to get us out of this hole.

Then, change the tax codes. Lower rates and no deductions. None! Everyone pays something.

Mr Thomas David Spainhour

Where is your conservative guest’s EVIDENCE that HE ‘knows’ what the President is thinking? That he ‘knows’ WHY the President has done this or not done that?

Brian Dorau

How is a small company that can afford to pay the owner 250,000 plus on the edge of going out of business? Also if you pay yourself 250k that money is no longer part of the small business.

Cary

I realize that allowing the middle income taxes to expire could have a negative effect on the economy, but I’ve come to the decision that ending the cuts for everyone would be the easiest thing to get done politically. We can then come back and make longer term changes to the tax code to make it fairer.

Would the Tea Party zealots become Obama supporters once he took a bold step to address the deficit? I doubt it…

Harold

In politics too many topics are black & white.

I like cleaning up the tax code which will take time. In the meantime, how about cutting back the Bush tax cuts for everyone by 25% each year for 4 years?

Harold

Hiram Cochran

The problem with the arguments being presented are either/or options, where in reality there are probably other options available. The small business owner who is barely making it and is faced with a tax increase does not necessarilly have to shut down. There are probably solutions available for the business to stay in operation.

Don’t let the “experts”obfuscate this as two outcomes as the only options available. Keep in mind they are presenting their opinions, not necessarily what is real.

Mr Thomas David Spainhour

If tax cuts ALWAYS stimulate economic growth, explain the collapse of the economy during George W. Bush’s 2nd term.

Greg Hruby

the guest referring to the “company barely making it” closing due to a tax increase – is using a false argument. The company barely making it – is suffereing from a wider series of problems – from bad money management, wider market failure, poor decisions, lack of quality in business. To lay the blame on the last “cut” to stumbling business (in this case a change in taxes) is ludicrous. the business was likely going down regardless. Business failure occurs in hot-growing markets – clearly taxes are not the sole reason.

Terry

Relevant to the current debate is that during the prosperous 1950s the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

Nathan

Reagan raised taxes 11 times. http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record
Ashish Jasani

Let’s attack this problem from the other side, rather than increasing the amount top tax bracket pays, let’s increase the number of Upper-Middle Class and Lower-Upper Class patrons generate funding that way.

The easiest way to do this is via the reenactment of Glass-Steagal. Why plug a small hole with tax law, when fix a gaping hole.
Leslie Hittner

I find the assertion that the small businessman who was “just making it” would be forced out of business by higher taxes. Really? If the businessman’s net income is in excess of $250,000, I would assert that he/she is not “just making it.”

Common, guys. Think about it!
David fried

The discussion is taking us away from the real question.

The corporate tax rate is too low the personal rate is over 95 % of all taxes collected . The concept of supply and demand is backwards its demand and supply. The economy is stuck until the middle class starts buying. Without money the middle class can’t buy and biz don’t build in anticipation they build to feed demand.

Raise taxes on biz and drop the rates on people across the board
Nancy Yang

I’m a college student, and while I haven’t studied economics extensively, I’m wondering about the comments that both the guests have made. They both seem to agree with the fact that small businesses that are specifically STRUGGLING need the tax cuts still, but not ALL businesses do. Just as another comment went, young businesses that are just starting out, that are not quite settled and don’t have a safety net for their losses in the recession, they probably need the tax cuts just to stay alive–not necessarily even to add jobs. So is it viable to make a system that will discriminate against businesses that actually need the cuts vs. those that don’t?
Michael

After listening to both of the contributors for 10 minutes I turned the radio off as I recognized that both were speaking from the same script, and no one knowledgable around to contradict their flow of misinformation. I thinks it’s time to cancel my sustaining membership.
Liz in Marine

We’ve had this tax cut for how long? How many jobs have been created as a result? Will extending the tax mean more jobs?

And if we look at 1986, hasn’t the economy changed incredibly, such that the former models of how things work, doesn’t apply
Tom

We have 2 problems (deficit & slow economy). If we raise takes it helps lower the deficit but hurts the economy. If we lower taxes it hurts the deficit & helps the economy. HOWEVER, raising taxes on the rich has less of an effect on hurting the economy. Sure, some jobs will be lost, but more jobs would be lost by cutting government services that are used by the poor & middle class. Example: if childcare subsidies are cut to avoid raising taxes on the rich, the NET affect would hurt the economy because the poor who benefit would need to pay more for childcare & therefore have less money to help stimulate the economy. The rich won’t feel the effect of a few more dollars of taxes.

If a “small business” has profit of 1/2 a million dollars then it is NOT a “small” business, its a LARGE business.

Businesses don’t create jobs, consumers do. When demand goes up (& it will when the poor have more money) then so will employment.
Dave

Wealth is created on the foundation of a first class infrastructure created by the government. After a certain point wealth is not “freedom”, excessive wealth is power. Political, legal and economic power. When the average fortune 500 CEO (14mil/yr.) makes more in 10 weeks than the average household (50k/yr.) makes in 50 years why are we defending tax cuts for the wealthy?
Betty

Money is money. End the different tax rates for different sources of the money. Capital gains and carried interest are just different ways of earning money. Tax it all the same.
Duke

Target the tax cuts to the rich people who actually create jobs. At the end of the year give a tax break to those who actually created full-time or full-time equivalent jobs. Cut off the trustafarians, the inherited rich, those sitting on their money and not doing anything with their money to benefit our disastrous job situation.
Mary Vrabel

The small business owner from McGregor said he would use the tax cut money to invest in his business and add jobs. The tax cuts have been in place for over a decade. Why hasn’t he made that investment/added these jobs already? Where are all the jobs these tax cuts were supposed to produce? Business aren’t adding jobs if they can avoid it and tax rates have nothing to do with it. Only government stimulus spending is going to save the economy at this point.
Dave

Tax cuts for the wealthy wind up in Super Pacs which in turn result in those nasty political campaign ads we all love so much. Job creators? Yeah right!
jim

the degree of disagreement in this discussion makes a strong case for overall tax reform.
Jon Thomas

Why do some in the middle class argue for the rich paying what they pay? Why not argue for them to pay less and get down to maybe what the rich pay? They are the ones paying for all this war and social and corporate welfare and not pulling from the benefits as much as the super rich and super poor and special interests. For example. A woman makes $100,000 a year and she ends up paying about $22,000 in federal, $15,400 in social security and medicare taxes, $8,000 in state taxes and then taxes on any investment income just like the rich. She doesn’t get food stamps, a corporate subsidy and then maybe her son goes to war to fight…
Maggie O

That first comment defines the issue for me. The third comment defines this interview. I’m frustrated enough with the whole back and forth that I’m venting here and my radio is now off. I expect that I’ll hear a quote from this show later in a commercial for the Daily Circuit during All Things Considered to demonstrate what a provocative show it was. I’m tired of shows for quotes – I listen when there is in depth reporting, interviewing or conversation.
P. Nielsen

The tax cuts should only be extended for wage-earners who earn less than $200,000 per year. These cuts should only be applied to actual income earned from those working a job, and not that coming from investments, etc. Lots of luck getting this miserable Congress to do anything like that, however. They are owned by the corporations and lobbying firms.
Jon Thomas

Thomas David –

The reason the economy collapsed under Bush was because Glass Steagall was ended under Clinton and the GOP congress in 1999. This and the Federa Reserve pumped up the housing market from 99 til 2007. Then it collapsed. If Glass Steagall hadn’t been ended by Clinton we wouldn’t have had such a boom in the market during Bush but certainly wouldn’t have had a crash. If he would have raised taxes on the rich whne we went to iraq we wouldn’t have had as big of a deficit either…