Your take: Bush tax cuts
Should we let all of the tax cuts sunset, or just part of them? Or should we keep them in place?
No matter what you think about President Obama, you have to appreciate the sheer amount of work he's managed to get Congress to do in the few years he's been in office. Whether or not they're the right things to do will remain to be seen. But one topic that is sure to take center stage within the next few months, if not weeks, is what we should be doing about the soon-to-be-expiring Bush-era tax cuts.
A little history for those of us who weren't paying taxes before 2001 (that includes myself, at least on any meaningful level): President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and made one of the largest tax cuts we've seen in quite some time. Among other things, the EGTRRA (quite an acronym) lowered every tax bracket, lowered capital gains tax, and effectively lowered the tax burden on every single American. If you remember, this was the boom years of the Internet dot-coms, and the economy was doing great. As a way to make the debt and deficit math look more palatable, the cuts were given a sunset provision of Dec. 31, 2010. Post continues after video.
There is no question that the "rich" benefited the most from these tax cuts. Lowering the 36% bracket to 33% does far more than lowering the 28% to 25%. It's just how the math of tax brackets works.
Dec. 31 is not too far away, and the debate is growing louder by the day as the November mid-term elections draw closer. Some Democrats and President Obama would like to continue the tax cuts for the lowest four brackets while letting the top two return to 2001 levels. Republicans would like to keep the cuts as they are.
I personally think that raising the top two and maintaining the bottom floor, as I tried to predict for 2011 tax brackets, makes the most sense. I think that if you earn $250,000 or more, you aren't significantly impacted by increasing your taxes a few percentage points.
Since I have an understanding of how taxes work for individually owned small businesses, I can assure you that this will not affect small business because the tax is on profits, not revenue (you deduct expenses from revenue to arrive at profit, or loss). All that talk about how this will kill small business is inaccurate.
The one thing that seems to be overlooked is the fact that keeping the cuts will cost us $3.8 trillion over 10 years, with $700 billion of that attributable to cuts for the top 2% of income earners. So 18.4% of the cost will benefit 2% of earners, the 2% who don't need it. I'm not a class warfare type of guy but let's take a page from Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the world.
Update: Here's a graphic comparing the two tax proposals.
I'm curious about what you think. Should we let it all sunset? Partially? Keep it as is? Dump it for a flat tax? Let's hear it!
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
A reader loves her job, but isn't making ends meet. Sound familiar? Read on.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'