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

[cswake]

How should Paul vote on the Obama-Congressional Tax Compromise?

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

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]

For

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.