As last year, I’ll be turning over the reins at taxgirl.com to my readers for the last week in August. This year, I’m offering you the chance to speak your mind about the proposed Bush tax cuts.
As you know, unless Congress acts before the end of the year, there’s a lot set to happen. Tax brackets will inch up (the 10% bracket is set to disappear completely). The child tax credit will be split in half. The federal estate tax returns at the 2001 levels. Favorable tax rates for capital gains and dividends will be eliminated. Phase-outs for personal exemptions and itemized deductions will be restored. The so-called “marriage penalty” kicks back in.
It’s a lot to consider. Is it fair? Is it necessary? Should the Republicans have extended the cuts when they had the chance? Should the Democrats extend them now?
Starting today, I’ll take guest post submissions for publication the week of August 29. You can take any position that you want but the post must focus on the Bush tax cuts in some way. Your post can include throwing them out, keeping them all, keeping them only for the middle class, federal estate tax repeal, marriage penalty provisions, etc., but anything that’s clearly meant to be an “issue piece” about something other than taxes (i.e. abortion, gun control, same-sex marriages) will be disregarded.
Here are a few more guidelines:
- Posts need to be submitted in plain text format. The best way to do that is just cut and paste your piece in the body of an email. To cut down on the chances you’ll get caught in my spam filter, I ask that you do not send attachments.
- Posts should be submitted to guest@taxgirl.com by Thursday, August 27, at 11:59 pm EST.
- While I’m hopeful that most pieces are around the 200-400 word mark, you can write up to 1500 words. And then I draw the line. Pieces longer than 1500 words won’t be posted. Pieces shorter than 200 words may be posted so long as they include something substantive – you know, other than “Taxes stink.”
- No swearing, no personal attacks, no bad behavior.
- If you submit something, you’re agreeing that the work is your own.
- One post per person.
And here’s the catch: there’s no contest. As long as you follow the rules, you’ll get posted. So, no stress, no muss, no fuss. I want to hear what you have to say.
And lest you think that no one is listening, I can promise you that Congress and other political officials are paying attention. I get the emails, I know that they’re reading.
So what are you waiting for? Warm up those laptops, glance around at work and make sure no one is paying attention… and write!
The title of your post is misleading…….
“CNN Poll Says Most Americans Don’t Want to Extend Bush Tax Cuts – 1 day ago”
The text of your article goes on to explain that 51% of those polled chose option 2, which was retaining the tax cuts for taxpayers earning less than $250,000 which is what, something like 98% of taxpayers. According to the poll 82% favored extending the tax cuts for either all taxpayers, or for those making less than $250,000. Only 18% favored not extending any of the tax cuts.
Based on those percentages, it would appear that the apppropriate title for your article would be, “CNN Poll Says Most Americans DO Want to Extend Bush Tax Cuts – 1 day ago”
Don, Thanks for your comment. The “Bush Tax Cuts” are actually the 2001 and 2003 cuts and most Americans do not wish to extend them “as is.” In that regard, the title is correct. Choice 2 – which a majority of Americans supported in the poll – would technically be considered not extending the cuts and then voting in new cuts. As written, the cuts are kind of confusing because of the shifting rates, etc. Congress wouldn’t be able to just draw a line at $250,000 and call it a day.
All of that said, the title was purposeful beyond the technical points. I was trying to make the point, as at the end of the piece, that you can take away from a poll almost anything you want. Those stats, if you look at them long enough, can be interpreted a bunch of different ways. The title was meant to make you think about whether or not that was *actually* true. I guess it worked. 😉
Hi Tax Girl,
I found your site for the first time today and I’m really enjoying it. I was wondering why you agreed to post _all_ of the submissions rather than choosing those that you deem the most worthwhile? One of the things I like most about the blogs I follow is that they have a distinct voice and personality, and that means that when the lead person chooses guest writers, they do so because those guest writers have some of the same characteristics or values as the lead writer.
Thanks again for a good blog. I look forward to reading more.
Thanks for your comment, Heather. On the guest blog issue, I dedicate one week a year to accepting guest posts on a single topic. I don’t want to edit or be the judge of whether I think they’re the “best” or such. I just want to hear from my readers. I think the spectre of not making the cut (so to speak) would dissuade some folks who have points that should be heard – and I don’t want that kind of pressure on my guest writers.
Along those lines, one of the cool things about a blog – as opposed to a static site – is that a blog is a dialogue. Even though this is *my* blog, I don’t want it to be all about me or my values. I want to hear what other folks have to say. As my husband will attest, I change my mind about a million things a day. This isn’t because I don’t have a specific point of view, it’s just that sometimes additional information gives you much needed perspective.
Thanks for reading!
Two comments:
1. I think the original married couple deduction is from a time when only one spouse, likely the husband, was sole breadwinner for the family. The income for that person was adjusted for his dependent, his wife. I don’t have data, but I wouldn’t be shocked if there were more working women “back in the day” (whenever that might be) then what most of assume. I think the spouse-as-dependent might have always been an idealized version of what a sole breadwinner should be and that is in our tax code.
2. On the flip side, I also find the current non-marriage-penalty to still be unfair. I know quite a few of head-of-household families (most in the form of single parent raising out-of-wedlock child or children). This type of family is very common and I believe increasing in number (perhaps even outranking or soon-to-be outranking married, two-parent families). Let’s say you are a single mother sharing a household with your sister, another single mother (or any other type of household where those earning income is greater than one). Even with the marriage penalty in place, marriage is still idealized and rewarded over other joint income systems.
I could say our tax system embeds morals in it, but the more I think of it, I think it embeds ideology more than morality (similar, but subtle differences). With that said, I’d love for the tax system to stay the same and not experience the marriage-penalty. At times, I’ll feel justified as not being penalized for getting married, and at other times, I’ll probably feel a bit guilty about being a privileged person that was able to get married. I like to think as taxation governed by numbers, logic, and reason, but it truly is a human endeavor.
By the way, love the blog Tax Girl!!!