Bush Tax Cuts: GOP lawmakers are pressing for an across-the-board extension of the tax cuts Bush enacted during his term of office. Democratic leaders have said they prefer President Obama’s plan to allow the tax cuts to expire for individuals earning $200,000 or more and families earning as much as $250,000. Both chambers are considering these measures.

Both the House and Senate are scheduled to work on tax measures this week. Let your voice be heard!

http://www.congress.org/  -- enter your zip, click the link and send an e-mail.

If the Libs extend them at all( which they will after this big charade to make them appear responsive to the American Public after threatening to end`the cuts), it's but a temporary ploy for the elections.

"...individuals earning $200,000 or more and families earning as much as $250,000..."

I still cannot figure out why the hell the federal government penalizes married folks. This is just one of many examples. Seriously, one of the things you may want to consider for tax and estate planning purposes is whether to actually get married or just live together.

I realize there are a lot of other reasons to get married (hey, I've been married for 15 years now), such as emotional, religious, etc. Still, the government has two different sets of standards when it comes to individuals...single people and married. This, to me, is one of the bigger sins of the tax code (and there are many--too many to list).

I'm not going to get into the debate here about Dems vs. GOP positioning here, as it's political, partisan, and people are going to get nasty and rude about it here. I'm just off on my own little tangent, still pissed off at Uncle Sam for penalizing people who get married. And this, from a governement that professes to value families, marriage, kids, etc.

Good points, pacman. Also, 1/3 of the taxpayers making over $200,000 are small businesses that file an individual return. The tax increase is going to hurt small business hiring and equipment purchasing. Just not a good time to be raising anyones taxes, period.

^But the gubment need the money to make your life better.

The tax cuts was never meant to be there forever, otherwise it wouldn't have an expiration date.

Let them expire. We need to start paying this massive debts.

You cant pay debts until you balance the budget!

National bankruptcy outrage.

EAT THE RICH OUTRAGE!!!

Pac - it is true that on the income tax side, the Marriage Penalty is alive and well (and about to get much worse if congress does nothing - which seems to be all they are really good at doing, other than spending money they/we don't have)

However, on the Estate Tax side, not being married makes planning much more difficult. And for those of us that live in Community Property States, the double step-up in tax basis for married couples is just down right wonderful.

John1000 -- I would much rather see Congress deal with the debt the way we all have to --- reduce spending. It would be nice if I could just get a raise simply because I charge a little (lot) too much to my credit card, but it does not work that way. The only way to pay down debt is to first stop increasing it, and second, start paying on it.

The Dem's want to increase taxes so they can keep spending -- there is no serious discussion that any increased tax revenue would be allocated to debt payment.

#4 Very true. As a small business owner I know this all too well. My business is an S Corp, so all business profit flows through directly to my personal return. To make this worse, there is no real connection between positive cash flow and taxable profit. There are a number of cash outflow items that are not considered an "expense" for tax purposes -- debt payments, equipment purchases, most building improvements or purchases ..... So not only does that profit artificially increase my personal income, it does so with money that has been paid to someone else.

Just a reminder to those that forgot. Republicans wanted these cuts to be permanent when they were passed in 2002 or whenever, but the only reason they put the sunset provision in was to get the requisite number of Democrat votes to get it passed. It was a strictly a compromise move, so we have the Democrats to thank for this potential looming tax hike.

^ why are you calling it tax increase? The tax cut was temporarily. The tax sale is over, the the rate is going back to it original rate.

I agree, revenue alone is not enough to tackle the debt problem. The must reduce spending as well. But, one method alone will not work. Our debt is massive. The spending must be reduced, and the revenue must be increase.

#11 for #9

#4 I am the sole shareholder of a small business. The state govt. jacked my unemployment taxes 70% this year, despite the fact that none of my former employees have collected unemployment (this, in Washington, affects your "experience rate"...basically, if you fire too many people who then collect unemployment, your rate also goes up). Then five months later, they jacked my excise tax up, which is taxed on gross, not net. Something like 75-80% of my gross goes to payroll, and other overhead narrows net profit even more.

Also, so far, we have qualified for approximately ZERO percent of any federal stimulus programs (I'm thinking I may have to borrow a boat and go start an oil well leak somewhere to get in on that...or just find a way to lose $712 billion dollars trading nonexistent assets).

#9 That might mean something to me if I had any serious amount of assets. As it stands, I think my cigar stash is my leading asset, and some assclown keeps setting fire to it in small portions each day.

#10 Using that sort of logic, you would also have to say that the Republicans are responsible for the current state of health care reform.

Blaming one side as being responsible for passage of a law when that side limited the scope of a law passed by the other side is absolutely insane. That sounds like some sort of Fox "News" ****, or maybe Beck, Rush L., etc.

All yall little people need to pay more taxes.......so that John Kerry doesn't have to pay any on his $7mm yacht.

It's really a simple concept........why can't you little people understand it????????

11. Author: JohnE1000 Date: 07/26/2010 02:17 PM Reply

^ why are you calling it tax increase?

well, lets see. my taxes will go up, so it just might be ............

wait for it ..................

wow, a tax increase.

^ really funny..:)

Stinkdyr: spreading misinformation again?

Since the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich as was claimed back in the day, the vast majority won't even notice the Federal tax withholding in their paycheck increase and the net pay decrease. (That of course assumes they got one of those Obama stimulus money jobs and are employed.)

14. I'm just telling you why the sunset provision is in there, the Democrats insisted on it. If you REALLY want to know who to blame, then blame the Democrats and Bill Clinton in the 1990s who raised taxes to the pre-Bush levels.

"I agree, revenue alone is not enough to tackle the debt problem. The must reduce spending as well. But, one method alone will not work. Our debt is massive. The spending must be reduced, and the revenue must be increase."

I actually agree with you on this point. However, until Congress shows they are able to address the spending issue, the last thing I want to do is give them more money to misuse. So far, they can't even balance the budget, let alone generate some sort of surplus to apply to debt. Until that happens, I will do every thing I can (within the bounds of the law) to prevent congress from getting a single dime from me.

As much as we try to blame the current economic situation of the financial markets (industry), the reality is that it was individual American's that created/caused the problem. We have spend the last 2 decades spending more money than we made, refinancing our homes and drawing equity (created by an over-inflated market) to buy more toys and live a life style beyond our means. The house of cards has fallen and now we want someone to blame (other than our own stupidity). I realize that the loan brokers and financial industry has plenty of blame, but the reality is they could not have done what they did if people did not take loans they could not afford. In talking with loan officers in our local market in the couple of years leading up to the crash, a larger percentage of the loans they were making were interest only 5 year loans with minimal down payments for large, expensive homes. (or interest only for a short term and then converting to ARM for fixed term.) They were betting that the market value would continue to go up so that before the 5 year term was up, the property value would increase by at least 20% so they would qualify for conventional financing and have 20% equity without ever having to put any real money into the property.

it was stupid (and maybe even wrong) for the banks to do, but it was also stupid for people to believe that values would continue to rise at 10+% per year. These people knew (or should have known) that if anything went wrong, there was no way they could make the payments under the existing loan. They only way it could work was the creation of sufficient artificial equity before the short term ended. The banks really had limited risk (other than complete market failure) because they were selling the notes as fast as the could.

(sorry for the rant)