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 for content on the database 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, really?? 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)
 * Answer: The Obama-Bush tax cuts. There aren't Obama tax 'cuts', really, just an Obama payroll tax holiday but I suppose you can call it a tax cut, or tax relief or tax remission or whatever insomuch as its at least temporary reduction of tax obligations on a class of payers.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Closing discussion, as original moves were performed by a sock of a banned editor. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * It's more complicated. There's also Obama's one year payroll tax holiday and lots of add-on deductions which technically don't touch rates but effectively add billions to the deficit by reducing what people actually pay. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that "tax rates" is a more neutral term that actually avoids the complications. Kelly  hi! 02:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This page needs to return to the title of "Bush tax cuts" that is the term sources use, it is most recognizable, and is more applicable since there were two tax cut bills under Bush. Obama is simply extending the Bush tax rates, enacting a payroll tax holiday, extending credits, etc. His stated objective was never to cut taxes, in fact he ran his campaign on letting them expire. On the other hand, Bush did run a campaign on tax cuts, he fought for them in Congress, and eventually got them. The only thing that can be pinned to Obama is the 1 year payroll tax holiday and the estate tax provisions. In any case I do feel that "tax rate" is more neutral than "tax cut" but the term "Bush tax cut" is still the most notable and recognizable term. --FrankieG123 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obama does now support the continuation of the Bush-era income tax rates, and apparently fought for them in Congress also, based on sources given in the article. Kelly  hi! 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obama wanted to continue the Bush era rates for middle incomes and let them expire for high incomes. He couldn't get that past the Republicans, so as part of this big compromise package he agreed to let them all continue for two years.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - I see what you're saying. Maybe Bush-Obama tax policy? (Note: This was a response to a now-deleted comment by User:Thoroughgoodness.) Kelly  hi! 02:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I also favor returning this article to "Bush tax cuts". They were in place for 9 and 7 years respectively, and a tremendous amount of economic analysis and political debate was done over them, which this article only barely touches upon. "Bush tax cuts" was the term almost universally used by both those for and against them, so it's a neutral name in that sense. Moreover, the hyphenated form usually refers to legislation developed jointly, such as McCain-Feingold Act or Kemp-Roth Tax Cut or Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act.  This is not the case here and to call anything the "Bush-Obama tax cuts" or "Bush-Obama anything" is pretty misleading as to what has taken place.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly, the effects and history of the bill that just passed belongs on the page specifically for that act. The reason we have a separate page for the Bush tax cuts is because the original two acts were closely interrelated. This way we can consolidate discussions on the political and economic effects without having to maintain two separate articles, plus "Bush tax cuts" is well known, accepted terminology. For Obama's tax act, there is a page ripe for explanations and descriptions of effects as the information becomes available.--FrankieG123 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose; Obama merely extended the Bush tax cuts. Powers T 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose For the era 2001-2012 & possibly even further extending these are cuts from the tax rates applying in the immediately prior era. For that reason the title as is is most apt and correct, I oppose the move proposal, and also find that that the article title you propose would be something that describes what the rates actually are .. something not yet (at least here) already gone into much detail on and maybe even a separate topic than what's been given the main treatment here already (ie. how the policy came into being and its predicted, proposed and actual effects)Thoroughgoodness (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * These are really two different things people, politically and policywise. The Bush tax cuts end 31 December, what exists after that are the Obama tax cuts. But the Obama tax cuts also include the additional tax cuts in the first stimulus package of 09, and this new package adds new cuts on top of that, which brings taxes overall to the lowest point they've ever been at since before the Great Depression. The rates may be only somewhat lower than the past decades, but no mistake here that the new cuts and their consequences for the economy and the deficit are owned by Obama. So don't lump them up. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - interesting quandary. Perhaps Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 should be merged into Bush tax cuts, with Obama tax cuts being redirected to Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010? Kelly  hi! 04:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Bush tax cuts could be made into a disambiguation page pointing to the 2001 and 2003 acts? Kelly  hi! 04:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the way it used to be until recently, but the analysis of the 2001 and 2003 cuts was awkwardly split between those two articles and a lot of articles referencing the Bush tax cuts were forced to choose between one or the other (due to links to disambig pages being frowned upon). And merging the articles seems like a bad idea, because we generally have one article per law and because each of those articles has a lot of detail on that particular law.  There's no easy solution here, but calling this the "Bush-Obama tax cuts" seems like the worse choice to me.  I agree that Obama tax cuts should redirect to Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which is what it currently does.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is tough. Is most of the debate/analysis on the effects of the tax policy? Brainstorming here, but maybe there could be a subarticle like Effect of Bush administration tax policy that the 2001 and 2003 act articles could link to, and each could contain a summary. This is a hard one. Kelly  hi! 04:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or Obama tax cuts could go to that and to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which had about a quarter billion in tax cuts, all of which and then some are continued in the new package. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like "effect of Bush administration tax policy" so long as "Bush tax cuts" redirects there. Obama tax cut could redirect to the specific act signed yesterday.--FrankieG123 (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there already is a Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration, which has a big section on the Bush tax cuts and their effect. Maybe "Bush tax cuts" should just redirect to that section?  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, thanks for reminding me of the constant need to differentiate between the different Bush administrations. :) - Kelly  hi! 04:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, ARRA did have a big tax cut component to it (which many people don't realize). Hmm. Unless people start lumping the ARRA cut with the 2010 compromise package cut together in the same economic analyses and political debate, it won't matter much. It's really a question of what people will mean by the phrase "Obama tax cuts" in the future. Hard to know for sure right now. Currently Google has 4.2 million hits for "Bush tax cuts", 1.6 million for "Obama tax cuts", but only 10,000 for "Bush-Obama tax cuts". The more I think about it, you (DeistCosmos) were on the right track above: I think we should move this article back to "Bush tax cuts" and just end it at 2010, when the cuts expire. Any discussion of what happens from 2011 on should go into either Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 or a new Obama tax cuts article, if we feel that a separate article covering that, ARRA, and anything else down the road, is justified. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The ARRA contained tax credits, no actual rates were changed. If we consider tax credits we would need to add more coverage to this article in order to include the ethanol tax credits of 2005 and 2006, as well as the education tax credits from 2008(?). I still believe this page should revert to "Bush tax cuts" then move any developments after December 31 to the new page for Obama's tax bill. --FrankieG123 (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentThe current confirmed name of the article is also clearly superior to what's proposed when you consider the number and breadth of useful articles on the wiki-database that already link to it. It's a term of demonstrably diverse and widespread common use which is in obvious distinction to that of ?Bush-Obama tax 'rates'? etc which just for starters hasn't even ever been the title of a wiki-article of bluelinked as such amongst article already in existence.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoroughgoodness, there are only a lot of links to that name because you, and you alone, have been going around to a bunch of articles and adding that link. Including to the Barack Obama template, which causes many entries to be listed under the "What links here".  Looking at this discussion, no one else besides you supports this name, and as the Google hits counts I showed above illustrate, no one else is using this name either.    Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal. Based upon the consensus that seems to be emerging from the above discussion, how about this:
 * Restore this article to the name Bush tax cuts. Have it only deal with the effects of the 2001 and 2003 laws through the end of 2010, when they expire and are over.  Any discussion of further effects beyond that will belong to the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 law and article.
 * Move the "Continuation past 2010" section of this article to a new "Background" section of Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. This is actually somewhat apt, because the HR 4853 law that is underneath that Act began early in 2010, and included at one time the proposal that the cuts just be extended for middle incomes.
 * Move any detail in the "Extension of the cuts" section of this article to Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 if it isn't already there. Replace the material in this article with a brief summary of how the sunset provision was always a focal point of debate and how the cuts were eventually extended.  Give a link to the other article.
 * Leave Obama tax cuts as a redirect to Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. If, in the future, there is a lot of economic analysis or political debate about the "Obama tax cuts" in the broader sense than just this one Act, then create a real article to cover that.
 * Have Bush-Obama tax cuts redirect to this article. Remove references to it from all the articles that it's been put into.  The phrase is not in common use compared to the others (Google has 4.2 million hits for "Bush tax cuts", 1.6 million for "Obama tax cuts", but only 10,000 for "Bush-Obama tax cuts").  If it ever does become in common use, we can deal with it then.
 * Comments?  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally I support this proposal, and I definitely oppose any of the "Bush-Obama" article titles. I also liked the idea of moving this article to Bush administration tax policy and creating a separate article for the Obama administration's tax policy.  I think there would already be enough sources for an article. I also think there should be some mention of a extension under this article. Generally though, I support what you have suggested.--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This proposal can't be sustained. For starters, look at the proposal we are dealing with: it's whether to change the name of THIS article to 'Bush-Obama tax rates'. That's it. Nothing more than that and I believe we haven't seen the support for making that change given however it hasn't yet been formally closed off. Once we've dealt with the present proposal there can be another proposal for Obama tax cuts or Bush tax cuts or Bush-Obama tax policy or whatever, not before then. The problem with 'Obama tax cuts' is there is no such thing, taxes were cut in '01 and '03 for which he has CONTINUED THE RATES (ie. no reduction) for the practical entirity of his term (until after the next election for Prez and less than 3 weeks before he will be compelled to hand over to the elected successor unless it's himself re-elected). So he's going to the election with the record of his four years in office being the (almost) exact same tax policy as his predecessor .. the policy of the period 2001-2012 and possibly beyond, which is that of the Bush-Obama tax cuts. He did not (as he could have) lift a finger to vary that on Day 1, nor on Day 101 and nor will he have on Day 1401. That fact alone speaks of appropriateness of dealing with the tax policy of Bush-Obama over the combined period of the tenures of their administration. Do we treat World War 2 in America as two wars because Truman took over from FDR before the end (in '45)? Of course we don't. One took up and carried the torch of the other and we derive benefit by applying our treatment and analysis to a cogent whole rather than by arbitrary truncations around tenure of personnel. The economic articles about the policy and the Obama administration are in consistent accord with use of that combined/co-crediting term UNLESS the reference context is the restricted only to within the period 2001-2008 and then 'Bush tax cuts', now just a historical and redundant term, would be an identifier to be used. In short we are best served to treat the policy together with the -entire- era to which it applies as a whole. A minor aspect is that there were variations from Bush to Obama only in a holiday WITHOUT CUTTING THE RATE temporarily of payroll tax and an INCREASE of estate tax upon certain payers. So there's no 'Obama tax cut', the closest thing being a temporary collection remission on one of the less prominent streams of revenue. I strongly urge not to create an article about something so lacking reality and to acknowledge the reality of the common policy carried forward and embraced as law by both successive administration with the appropriate titling, by no means eschewed elsewhere, which the article currently sustains.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. This talk page is for discussing proposed edits to the article ONLY, not for arguing your personal views regarding the subject of the article.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That very obviously discloses that you either failed to read what I've actually written above or to understand the explanation of it. It is not an opinion about the quality or usefulness of the subject matter. Read it again. It is an opinion about the proper titling of the article, and more particularly the proposal to change the word 'cuts' to 'rates'. Any rename proposal from 'Bush-Obama' to just 'Bush' (for what Obama presides over and has signed up to perpetuate for his (near)entire term of office, ferfuxsake) has not been formally put and therefore all the participants in this discussion section have not gone as far as to hazard to express their views on it. They deserve that first before any conclusions and actions. I bet if you guessed whether I even had an opinion on the subject matter tax policy, and whether that view was pro- or con-, you'd get at least one guess wrong, probably both.
 * I'm not blaming Obama for not authoring an actual tax rate reduction, and I don't even hold the stake of being a taxpayer or recipient in the system, so it's for no political gain of mine that I merely point out that to speak of 'Obama tax cuts' is to depart from reality just as another departure is to refer to HIS confirmed continuation of a low/reduced taxes policy that he came into stewardship of as '??BUSH?? tax cuts'. With the fact of so little being varied by the 2010 law, what more do you need to acknowledge the co-authorship, co-crediting, and co-responsibility/stewardship of the tax policy of the last 10 years and the next 2 or more .. a Bush-Obama treaty ceremony or a joint press conference?? One of those guys is in his retirement.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This proposal is the only name consistent with Wikipedia's rules. WP:COMMONNAME says that "[a]rticles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources."  No one ever calls these the "Bush-Obama tax cuts," as Wasted Time R's googling shows.  Our own opinions are irrelevant: the world calls them Bush tax cuts, and so must Wiki.  Coemgenus 22:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is no longer about the Bush tax cuts. That was something you could refer to before 2009. It's about the low/reduced tax regime of 2001-2012 and perhaps continuing. That's why the "common name" you assert is that of a distinct, actually exclusively historical, subject matter.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose the original undiscussed unilateral move, support the move of the article back to Bush tax cuts where it belongs, support Wasted Time R's broader formulation about how to treat the subject, and dismiss as irrelevant the stated choice between two wrong titles ("Bush-Obama tax cuts" versus "Bush-Obama tax rates"). JamesMLane t c 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - move back to Bush tax cuts, where they belong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Move the article back to Bush tax cuts. I have heard the phrase "Bush tax cuts". I have not, however, heard of "Bush-Obama tax cuts". And who said that Obama is not going to pass some law in the remaining year or two of his presidency that will seperate him from the Bush tax cuts (if he is not already seperate)? [&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;] 04:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please do not move this page again without consensus.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Thoroughgoodness was confirmed as the sock of a banned user. Page moved to original location. If there's still a question of the article name, the discussion should be started from scratch.

One editor has unilaterally moved this page three times. There is absolutely no consensus for that move and it violates several Wikipedia policies. Please, do not move it again without consensus. Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The votes as they were cast were:
 * Nominator (Kelly)  Bush-Obama tax rates
 * Me -               Bush-Obama tax cuts
 * Lt Powers -        Bush-Obama tax cuts
 * Wasted time -      Bush-Obama tax rates, (or alternatively) Obama-McConnell tax cuts
 * Coemgenus -        Bush tax cuts
 * Bkwillwm -(move to) Bush administration tax policy
 * Loonymonkey -      no explicit statement
 * FrankieG123 -      Bush tax cuts
 * Deist cosmos -     distinct treatment of Bush tax cuts and Obama tax cuts required

So from 9 people weighing in you do not have a majority of 5 coming for either no change or the move-nominator's proposal, and I know enough about how WP works that if you don't have that consensus, then the proposed change doesn't go ahead Apathy counts against change. From that answers we had it's clear there's more support to acknowledge Obama than to acknowledge only Bush and that the article's about tax CUTS, not tax RATES. Re consensus you should have taken your own advice for which it falls to me to rectify.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * These are generally known in the media as the Bush tax cuts. Bush supported all of them; Obama opposed major parts and accepted them only in the context of a broader compromise. So I think "Bush tax cuts" is the appropriate title.  I also think that it was the prior (long-standing) title and shouldn't be changed without consensus, so I'll move it back . JamesMLane t c 03:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)  On edit: I guess it's been move-protected.  Anyway, count me in opposition to the original move. JamesMLane t c 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Non-US view. For any reader outside of the US, I would opine, an article entitled "Bush Tax Cuts" would be expected to include details of all tax cuts instituted under the Bush administration, including minor ones not necessarily covered in this article. The reader may also, rightfully, wonder which Bush administration is being referred to. "Bush-Obama" tax cuts presents less of a problem in this regard, but the reader might still expect to see details regarding any tax that had been reduced or abolished in the US since 2000. I would suggest that a more specific title, indicating that a specific set of laws is being covered might be appropriate, although I have no proposal as to what that might be.
 * If the tax changes detailed in the article are in fact the only ones passed since 2000, then please forgive my ignorance. Otherwise, though, please consider naming the article in a way so that that it is not addressed purely at a US audience. --FormerIP (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there were only two tax cuts, and both are discussed here in the article. There were other less significant tax credits (not cuts) that came about later, but they are irrelevant in this context because no other acts changed the actual tax rates. When someone mentions the term "Bush tax cuts" they are referring to the 2001 and 2003 acts exclusively. Perhaps Kelly was onto something with creating a page along the lines of "Tax policy of the George W. Bush administration" or some such thing, with "Bush tax cuts" redirecting to that page.--FrankieG123 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum re procedure: What I glean from the article and talk-page history is that you, Thoroughgoodness, moved the page unilaterally, without one iota of discussion and without the expressed concurrence of any other editor. Now, all of a sudden, you're trumpeting the importance of consensus, and arguing that your unilateral action can't be undone without consensus.  This seems to mean that your personal opinion counts more than everyone else's combined unless everyone else is unanimous or virtually so.  With all due respect, who died and made you Wikipedia Editor-in-Chief?


 * I also note that the discussion of the question of the title was started about a day ago. You can't stop the tabulation at an arbitrary point that happens to suit you.


 * Finally, I note that your summary of the votes is Dieboldesque in its inaccuracy (except that Diebold/ES&S isn't fool enough to misstate votes that are verifiable). Some people responded to a proposed page move by assuming that proper procedure was being followed, i.e., that consensus was being sought before any move occurred.  They therefore cast !votes on the "proposal" to move the article from Bush tax cuts to Bush-Obama tax cuts.  That of course is the proposal that should have been put up for discussion, but since you didn't think it necessary to obtain anyone else's opinion, the actual proposal is different.  I think this group includes Powers, who wrote, "Oppose; Obama merely extended the Bush tax cuts."  Given the text of Powers's comment, this clearly represents opposition to the "Bush-Obama" language; Powers didn't comment on the comparatively trivial issue of "cuts" versus "rates".  Yet, in your tabulation, this becomes "Lt Powers - Bush-Obama tax cuts".


 * Another fine example, from looking at the actual comments: Wasted Time R said, "I also favor returning this article to 'Bush tax cuts'. ... [T]o call anything the 'Bush-Obama tax cuts' or 'Bush-Obama anything' is pretty misleading...." From that, your summary of Wasted's !vote is "Wasted time - Bush-Obama tax rates, (or alternatively) Obama-McConnell tax cuts".


 * What was his initial comment in actually -voting- on the move proposal? He Opposed moving from Bush-Obama tax cuts to 'Bush-Obama tax rates' and suggested the name 'Obama-McConnell tax cuts. It's not something that was made up, though you gloss to skip over it.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you reading?? My first comment in actually !voting on the move proposal was "Oppose. I also favor returning this article to "Bush tax cuts". [...] to call anything the "Bush-Obama tax cuts" or "Bush-Obama anything" is pretty misleading as to what has taken place."  My mention of "Obama-McConnell" was made further up, before there was any move proposal in place, when I was objecting to the name "Obama tax cuts" for an overview article.  Even in that statement, I said "Clearly we need 'Bush tax cuts' because that is the common term to discuss the effects of the 2001 and 2003 laws together."  At no time have I ever supported "Bush-Obama tax rates", as you claim in your summary above.  It's becoming really hard to assume good faith with you.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My count therefore differs somewhat from yours. On the key point of changing the longstanding "Bush" to your preferred "Bush-Obama" (regardless of whether it's "cuts", "rates", or "policy"), those clearly opposed to the move you unilaterally made include FrankieG123, Wasted Time R, Powers, Bkwillwm, Coemgenus, JamesMLane, and SarekOfVulcan.  The comment "don't lump them up" from DeistCosmos seems to be in that direction as well.  On the other side, the only editor clearly supportive of your position is yourself, although Kelly appears to be supportive to some extent.  I'm not sure how to characterize FormerIP's view.  Accordingly, the count thus far does not show a consensus for your position, and your position needs consensus because it represents a move from the long-established name.  Restoring the prior name doesn't need consensus but, on this tally so far, quite arguably has it anyway. JamesMLane t c 04:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting lying there, and pot calling the kettle black, to effect that the proposal being voted from was anything other than clearly headlined in this edit. Those who recorded an 'Oppose' were a vote in favour of Bush-Obama and tax cuts, and against moving to other names. The guy who summed it up as 'Oppose. Obama merely extended Bush's tax cuts' got it absolutely right and I couldn't agree with him more. He didn't do something new that can be termed his own tax cuts. He's entitled to merely a secondary credit alongside the real originator. Taking awareness of Wasted Time having a dime every way there is I can't really make out what the real preference is when he opposes the move and advocated for BOTH Bush tax cuts and Obama-McConnell tax cuts. Which is it? Bush's tax cuts weren't co-named with a congressional sponsor. When I look at WP:MOVE, there isn't a requirement to get levels of clearance to get an article name changed when the name has become inaccurate. So I have I have done the right and bold thing by making the move backed up by immediately also the right thing in initiating the discussion about whether we recreate a bush tax cuts sister article. There still isn't the consensus, there aren't the numbers, to change this subject matter to something that denies the contribution of the current President in promulgating. It is not a historical article about what formerly were known as the Bush tax cuts. A part of it is, yes. But the whole of it is an article about past, predicted and ongoing effects about an ongoing economic policy that bears the stamp of the two administrations serially. We've had the vote and no, it wasn't me who called an end to it, it was another editor who tried to pretend that he spoke for a preponderance of the nine participants and I caught him out on it. In fact of those who were clear enough to express a clear preference where was a MAJORITY who recorded at least some preference (Obama tax cuts, Obama-McConnell, Bush-Obama) for having an article with reference to the name Obama in it.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thoroughgoodness, you are confusing an earlier, somewhat off-topic discussion about who "owns" the new Act politically with what I think the articles involved should be called. What I think is clearly stated in the "Proposal" I wrote above.  This article should be "Bush tax cuts", nothing should be "Bush-Obama anything", and all your references to "Bush Obama tax cuts" that you've stuck in a bunch of high-profile articles should be removed.  Wasted Time R (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually have no opinion on "Bush" vs "Bush-Obama" (which is what this page was at when I first found it). If it is Bush-Obama, then it should be "rates" instead of "cuts" since technically I don't think Obama cut tax rates. Kelly  hi! 05:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kelly, I appreciate the clarification. I also note Retro00064's weighing in on the side of Bush tax cuts.  The move made by Thoroughgoodness is not supported by anyone else and is opposed by eight editors. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, TG, you might want to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We do not count votes here. Votes are not consensus. Plus - I think we all need to read WP:SPIDER --Manway (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

First reference article
The first footnote refers to an item described as a Wall Street Journal article. The item, however, is an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not fact checked or verified by the news staff. They are often speculative, innaccurate, or outright propaganda. Also, due to the fact that WSJ articles can only be read in their entirety by subscribers, they do not serve well in this venue. Ricthree (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxmageddon - new section
The Extension of tax cuts section has no new information after 2010, despite the news coverage and current ongoing debate surrounding "Taxmageddon", as the impending expiration is popularly known. It would be helpful for readers to see this topic included in the article, so I've written up a draft subsection that could be added. I would add this to the article myself, but I've quoted a source from The Heritage Foundation, where I work and prefer to be cautious about putting this into the article without getting some additional input. If there's agreement for its inclusion, I may go ahead and move it myself.

Here's what I'd like to add:


 * ==="Taxmageddon"===
 * In February 2012, the term "Taxmageddon" was coined by congressional aides to refer to the expected and implementation of government spending reductions and the expiry of the a large number of tax cuts, many of which are the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush, on December 31, 2012. Political and news commentators have predicted that these policy changes will negatively impact the economy, potentially leading to a "double dip" recession.  The increase in taxes that is due to occur has been described by Republicans including House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell as the largest in U.S. history. According to the Associated Press, the  increase would be the second largest after the tax increase of 1942, if population growth, increased pay and the size of the economy are taken into account.


 * Based on figures from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation, federal taxes would increase by a total of $423 billion in 2013, if the tax cuts are allowed to expire. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has estimated that for 83% of households in the U.S. there would be an average tax increase of $3,701 and The Heritage Foundation stated that those impacted by the tax cut expiry are primarily in the middle- and low-income groups, with its research finding that families would experience an average tax increase of $4,138.


 * However, a report from the CBO found that extending the tax cuts and spending policies would lead to federal debt increasing to over 90% of U.S. gross domestic product by 2022, but would the debt would reduce to 61% of gross domestic product by 2022 if the tax cuts expire. In order to prevent a future economic crisis, the CBO has advised that any policy that is agreed must provide the same level of funding that the spending cuts and tax increases would have provided.


 * The expiration of the tax cuts is opposed by Republicans including those on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is producing a bill to propose a one-year extension that would ensure that federal tax rates for all income levels, capital gains, dividends and death taxes would remain the same. The bill would also retain tax credits including the child tax credit but would propose ending the current payroll-tax cut. The Democrat-majority Senate is in favor of extending only those tax cuts that affect middle class taxpayers.

It would be great if someone could look at this for me and make sure it sounds neutral. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, "political and news commentators have predicted" -- that's not reliable. Economic experts would be reliable. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan, I think I understand what you're saying here: that predictions from political and news commentators are not as strong (and potentially unbiased) as those from economists. I've changed the draft to remove that sentence and replace it with the CBO's prediction of the effect on the economy:


 * ==="Taxmageddon"===
 * In February 2012, the term "Taxmageddon" was coined by Congressional aides to refer to December 31, 2012, the date of the expected implementation of government spending reductions and expiration of a large number of tax cuts, many of which are the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush. In a report released in May 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that these policy changes could lead to reduced economic growth, significant enough to be considered a recession. The increase in taxes that is due to occur has been described by Republicans including House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell as the largest in U.S. history. According to the Associated Press, the  increase would be the second largest after the tax increase of 1942, if population growth, increased pay and the size of the economy are taken into account.


 * Based on figures from the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation, federal taxes would increase by a total of $423 billion in 2013, if the tax cuts are allowed to expire. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has estimated that for 83% of households in the U.S. there would be an average tax increase of $3,701 and The Heritage Foundation stated that those impacted by the tax cut expiry are primarily in the middle- and low-income groups, with its research finding that families would experience an average tax increase of $4,138.


 * However, a report from the CBO found that extending the tax cuts and spending policies would lead to federal debt increasing to over 90% of U.S. gross domestic product by 2022, but the debt would reduce to 61% of gross domestic product by 2022 if the tax cuts expire. In order to prevent a future economic crisis, the CBO has advised that any policy that is agreed must provide the same level of funding that the spending cuts and tax increases would have provided.


 * The expiration of the tax cuts is opposed by Republicans including those on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is producing a bill to propose a one-year extension that would ensure that federal tax rates for all income levels, capital gains, dividends and death taxes would remain the same. The bill would also retain tax credits including the child tax credit but would propose ending the current payroll-tax cut. The Democrat-majority Senate is in favor of extending only those tax cuts that affect middle class taxpayers.


 * Any other thoughts on the draft? Thurmant (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Unless anyone objects go ahead and add it (allowed per WP:COI#Non-controversial edits). – Lionel (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reviewing it. Since there hasn't been any further discussion, I'll go ahead and move it into the article now. Of course, I am always open to discussing changes later. Thanks Thurmant (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Show the actual rate table please
What rates at what income levels. Basic facts, but so hard to come by. This should be the place for that. Encyclopedant (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A bit of bias in the Debate Section
This sentence in particular, "Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. Critics have further claimed that cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality" represents a whack of WP:OR based on the cited sources. There's no dispute that the top 1% get the greatest share of savings per capital, but the same sources indicate their share of taxes increased. This is particularly true when you consider the earned income tax credit for the bottom 20% of earners. I'll look for comments, but I think this needs to be toned down a bit, or at least expanded to provide more context.Mattnad (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Graph removal
, et al. There are different locations where these graphs are being discussed & disputed. It didn't make sense to have a debate on each article. Sorry I wasn't able to include all the links in the summary. File:US_high-income_effective_tax_rates.png is discussed here Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States. Such a highly criticized, redacted, non-peer reviewed and partisan graph (created by an Obama campaign donor in the hight of election) should be considered with weight and NPOV balance. I don't see this as any reflection on Guest2625 when he edited the graph as I've seen him upload many great graphs, this one just happens to be an issue. It made sense to remove such a graph until consensus is achieved for actually adding it or a new graph found. Sorry if my edit caused disruption - I was just trying to work through the listed articles. Feel free to discuss here or at the Taxation in the United States article as appropriate for the scope of this article. Morphh  (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't participated in the debate, but I was surprised by the representations made there given recent WP:RS news coverage on tax rates. Here's a different view of the tax burden by income class that might be useful from the right wing, cheerleader for the 1%, bastion, the New York Times. .  The related article indicates that tax rates for high earners have come back to pre Regan (1979) levels.Mattnad (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)