Talk:Bush tax cuts

Article should reflect cumulative effect and sunset discussion

This should really be an article that discusses the cumulative effect of the two tax cuts. Both cuts are largely intended to "sunset" at 2010 year end which has incited substantial discussion and public interest. Wikipedia is largely silent on the tax cuts that are sunsetting. 129.10.245.157 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. I have begun turning this into a real article that deals with the two tax cuts as a whole and their economic and political impact. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bush tax cuts - distinct article or redirect?

What were formerly only referred to as 'Bush tax cuts' now are continued and signed into law as the co-opted product of the subsequent administration, hence change of reference & titling of this article. As it stands, 'Bush tax cuts' redirects here. If it was opened as a new article, it would require see-also linking to both this and Obama tax cuts, the article on variations to this Bush-Obama fiscal policy. I favour redirect ahead of raising up as an article because such article may merely amount to a dictionary item on the historical redundant term, and 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that's wiktionary' it is somewhere written in scripture. Opine and discuss with a view to approaching consensus on the last below.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we now have specific articles on the three distinct laws:

• Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
• Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
• Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

The question is, what should the overview articles be. Clearly we need Bush tax cuts because that is the common term to discuss the effects of the 2001 and 2003 laws together. It's too early to know what the extended cuts will be known as over the next two years. Calling them after Obama seems at least a partial mistake, because unlike the Bush case, Obama only got part of what he wanted here. Calling them the Obama-McConnell cuts might be more accurate, since McConnell was the prime mover on the Republican side of the compromise. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive of the part of the third law that varied the combination of the former two, it is a Bush-Obama combined and continued policy. The only tax Obama 'cut' or varied are overall minor, in the scheme of things, exceptions to the policies of Bush, for which of course we have Obama tax cuts. This is an article to discuss the combined effect of the three laws, that is an article to discuss the relatively lesser issue of actual changes that the third puts upon the combination of the former two. It works we to embrace awareness of Obama's affirmation of the Bush legacy. You hoped for hope, you voted for change, you got Barack W Obama, but deep down and this far out what were did you really expect to see, Dorothy? Thoroughgoodness (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The title should have remained "Bush tax cuts" because that is the term referred to in the sources. The only Obama "tax cut" was the temporary cut in the payroll tax, the other income tax rates will remain unchanged for the next 2 years. More importantly, "Bush tax cuts" refers to two separate bills, there is only one so far for Obama that modifies the rates. If down the road Obama produces a tax cut bill of his own, then we can call the collective acts the "Obama tax cuts." Until then, these rates are still the Bush tax cuts, and this page should reflect that fact.--FrankieG123 (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's then incumbent to excise out of 'Obama tax cuts' all reference to 'Bush tax cuts' and to focus that article exclusively on the payroll tax cut you refer to, as I'll proceed to do.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a step back. Normally, there's just one article for something like this, that discusses the law, its history, and its effects. Such as Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There's no separate Obamacare or Obama health care plan article, they are just redirects to the Act article. What was different about the Bush tax cuts is that there were two big laws, passed two years apart, that were often discussed and debated together, and that they sunsetted, meaning there would be further action about them. It was impossible to discuss all this within the framework of either Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 or Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, thus the need for a separate Bush tax cuts article.

As FrankieG123 said, so far there's just one Obama related act in this area, the thing signed today. Its effects can be discussed in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Thus I see no reason for a separate Obama tax cuts article; that should simply redirect to the 2010 Act. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand how apologists for Obama want to distance him from the budget-busting consequences of his signature on the bill he's been pushing for the past three weeks. But these aren't the Bush tax cuts any more. Obama made them his own, and added on even more cuts. The Bush tax cuts expire on midnight of December 31, and the Obama tax cuts take effect then, and people aren't calling them, and won't be calling them, by some congressional bill's name. They're already known as the Obama tax cuts, two weeks before they even kick in, and you'll surely hear them called that and only that for the future years. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Republican Congressional leadership also owns them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As was so with the Bush tax cuts. But you hear no one calling those the Bush-Republican Congressional leadership tax cuts. The President wields the veto pen and has the bully pulpit to push things in the direction he wishes them. And this one can hardly be put on the Repubs anyway as it required (and realised) many Dem votes while drawing votes of opposition from the truly conservative Repubs. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That case was different, because the 2001 and 2003 laws weren't a big compromise between different parties. This was a kind of unique situation because the sunset provisions put everybody under the gun. I'm not saying Repubs in general own this (many of the presidential wannabees ran away from it), but the Repub congressional leadership definitely co-owns it. If things turn out badly, you'll see Repubs who voted for this getting primaried in 2012. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And what will they be calling it as they run from it? That's why the conservatives are already pinning it on Obama. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Bush-Obama tax cuts → Bush-Obama tax rates — I wonder if the article should be renamed as "Bush-Obama tax rates" as the 2010 bill wasn't really a "cut" - it actually maintained income taxes at current rates while increasing estate taxes, so it's arguably an increase. Kelly ^hi! 02:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)