How should Paul have voted on the Obama-Congressional Tax Compromise?

[cswake]

Posting this since I'm a little torn about how Paul should vote. The overwhelming consensus amongst conservative analysts is that the bill is mixed to good:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-tax-deal/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254622/thoughts-tax-deal-chris-edwards
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/08/tax-deal-help-economy-analysts-say/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6097736/obama_and_republicans_reach_tax_bill.html
http://www.atr.org/full-business-expensingbr-killer-app-tax-a5698

Reasons to Vote AGAINST

Extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months.
No spending cuts
Compromises on a 35% estate tax, which is higher than the current 0%

Reasons to Vote FOR

2% Social Security tax cut
Income tax cuts across the board
20% estate tax cut (35% instead of 55%)
lower taxes on capital gains and dividends
end of Make Work Pay credit (behaves more like a spending subsidy rather than a tax credit)
one year of full business expensing in 2011
No chance of passing a "clean" bill that only reduces taxes

Reasons to abstain from voting

no ideal answer either way

*No idea when the actual vote happens... I think sometime today?

[wormyguy]

For.

Sometimes even the best of lawmakers have to participate in a little sausage-making in adverse circumstances.

[Vessol]

Less money in the hands of the government, the better.

[tremendoustie]

Less money in the hands of the government, the better.

But that estate tax is huge.

Edit: At least it only kicks in over 5M.

I don't know, maybe I'd vote for it after all. Really, we're screwed either way.

[akforme]

I vote against because we are going to pay for this one way or another. If we cut taxes and increase spending we all know what the result is.

This is typical government tho and why they suck. Basically, the options are how do we want to get screwed

[cswake]

FYI, he currently stands for since the tax hike is a primary concern, despite the against parts. Did say that any additional compromises will most likely lose his support...

YouTube - Ron Paul on Tax Bill Smackdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzIraZFDptg)

Rand is leaning against...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ng-against-it/

[cswake]

Bump.

[Aratus]

in two years, i feel any sincere vote "FOR" might come home to roost, even so...
perhaps its better to pass the compromise. a true purist should vote "AGAINST" and
an indecisive person would clearly sit this one out totally because its a loaded question!

[cswake]

Seems Paul fell on the right side of this:

http://www.atr.org/business-extenders-tax-dealbr-arent-earmarks-a5701


The whole point of this tax deal is to prevent taxes from going up on anybody. It would be wrong to leave American employers with a tax increase at a time of nearly 10 percent unemployment. Congress should avert this tax hike on employers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/12/09/tax-proposal-wins-norquist-seal-of-approval/


And the judgment is, the deal does not raise taxes.

“We’ve been supportive of it,” said Ryan Ellis, head of tax policy for Americans for Tax Reform.

No idea how the changes they are going to make will impact the "right" position...

[Jordan]

I say it's a mixed bag.

This tax deal is going to cost $855b over the next two years, that's a lot of coin. It would also mean $1.5T deficits in 2011 and $1.2T in 2012. Ouch. Actually, nevermind, I'd vote against it. If I were in the House/Senate I'd vote for new tax cuts only if they were the result of a new flat tax system. All these short term cuts, credits, revisions, and extensions just add more uncertainty to the economy.

I wish people in Congress realized how much you could grow the economy by simplifying the tax code. NTU study says "Counting time and money for individual taxpayers, the compliance burden would total an incredible $103 billion for individual taxpayers alone." Then you have 1.2 "Accountants and Auditors," plus all the people who work at the fly-by-nights. Wasted resources.

[RonPaulCult]

I believe Rand said on CNN the other day that he would vote No on this bill.

[specsaregood]

I agree with Ron and he should ALWAYS vote for any taxcuts. Less money to the govt == better. It ain't like the tax level has any real effect on their spending anyways.

[amy31416]

Tell me what I'm missing with this 0% estate tax...my brother and I have almost closed an estate, and we've paid about $20k in taxes.

[cswake]

Estate tax is the "death" tax - government gets an additional share before heirs do.

[Jordan]

Tell me what I'm missing with this 0% estate tax...my brother and I have almost closed an estate, and we've paid about $20k in taxes.

First and foremost, did the death happen in 2010?

If so, I bet you paid capital gains taxes.

[amy31416]

First and foremost, did the death happen in 2010?

Yes.

[Jordan]

Sorry, just revised.

You paid capital gains taxes. The estate tax is zero'd, but everyone pays capital gains.

[ChaosControl]

Against, it is a bad bill.

[amy31416]

Sorry, just revised.

You paid capital gains taxes. The estate tax is zero'd, but everyone pays capital gains.

That's insane. It's not like the estate was a mansion or anything, but if we didn't have the cash in liquid form, we would have lost the property. I'm sure that happens a lot.

My brother's the executor, so I don't have the paperwork to state exactly what each tax is called, but we've paid through the nose--I can't imagine it being even higher. That's all the more reason for a person who wants to leave their kids a decent inheritance to have a lot of it in undeclared valuable items, like precious metals, cash, etc.

The first thing I was asked in regards to the estate was whether or not there were any firearms, then high-ticket valuable items like gold/silver/art, etc. I'm quite sure that's against some law to not declare it, but....

[Acala]

I would vote for it. Yes, it ads to the debt because it reduces revenue and increases spending. But the debt is never going to be paid off anyway - except perhaps with highly infalted dollars, and the system is doomed anyway. But if you cut taxes, that money stays in the hands of the people.

[2young2vote]

They plan these bills so that no matter what way you vote you are going against one or more of your principals and values. You just have to weigh which ones are more important than the others.

[Jordan]

That's insane. It's not like the estate was a mansion or anything, but if we didn't have the cash in liquid form, we would have lost the property. I'm sure that happens a lot.


Aha. If it wasn't a bunch of stuff/cash/whatever (like..more than a million) you didn't get touched Federally. I bet your state just has some awful inheritance tax or capital gains tax. Some use gift tax guidelines, etc.

But yeah, I agree, death should not be a taxable event. A lot of "middle class" people become exceptionally wealthy at death from life insurance policies, annuities with death benefit riders, etc. To take a cut of that when it transfers to the next generation is bonkers.

Hide that stuff. :P

[sailingaway]

I didn't answer. He should vote his conscience. Unlike in the Senate, they have no clout in the House and the GOP there were just posturing. Ron will vote for the tax cuts unless they load so much stuff on he thinks it is no longer in the tax payer's best interest. As he puts it, he wants perfection, but votes to make things better. No one is going to give him the tax vote he wants -- to repeal the 16th amendment.

On this one, I'm not going to try to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, so to speak.

Personally, I'd prefer if they just bumped it to January and let the new congress deal with it, it would be a better bill. However, Ron can't write the bill, and I trust he will vote the right way on it.

[Chieppa1]

The Judge is against it. Stossel was to. For what that's worth.

[MichelleHeart]

Other reasons to vote AGAINST

$5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol
An extended protective tariff against ethanol imports
Grants to developers of renewable energy

[nobody's_hero]

They plan these bills so that no matter what way you vote you are going against one or more of your principals and values. You just have to weigh which ones are more important than the others.

This.

No matter what happens, it's going to be a redistribution of wealth. I don't expect ANYTHING to change after this bill passes (with the exception of a few new regulations or some such nonsense).

[cswake]

Other reasons to vote AGAINST

$5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol
An extended protective tariff against ethanol imports
Grants to developers of renewable energy



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B74PU20101211

Michelle, they are starting to make additional "compromises" to get more votes on-board, so we'll have to see how many they lose. (Including RPs) The poll will have to be redone once we have the final bill components. The basic way I see it is:

FOR: keep taxes about the same and increase spending by some unknown amount
AGAINST: raise taxes and keep spending relatively the same

*edit* Seems there is a print version circulating and the modifications are ... interesting: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/12/10/the-tax-compromise-must-now-die/

But the deal must now die. It must now be opposed by Republicans. Released now in print, the legislation is loaded up with budget busting pork of ridiculously absurd levels. The attachments to the compromise represent everything wrong with Washington. Many of them mirror the same porkulus spending in TARP.