• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doesn't a middle class tax cut also benefit the the Rich?

Doesn't a middle class tax cut also benefit the rich?


  • Total voters
    16
Yes, it does. Since the poor and middle-class are much more likely to spend their money than the wealthy are, cutting their taxes will do more to stimulate the economy...which will result in more capital gains for the wealthy.

Who here can define "marginal propensity to spend?"

I'm betting it's not a partisan!
 
Doesn't a middle class tax cut (AGI up to $250K) also benefit the the Rich?

Technically, any tax cut for those with high MPS will benefit the rich. As the rich hold something like 87% of all securities, the increase in spending by high MPS consumers will benefit the rich via gains and increased cash flows by their securities.

For the same reason that corporate welfare benefits the rich as it artificially boosts income and dividends. Any increase to corporate profits benefits the rich.
 
scrape away the thin facade of supposed "what is best for America" from a liberal and what will you find-a boil of envy and spite

Scrape away the thin facade of supposed "what is best for America" from an arrogant Gordon Gekko wannabe and what will you find - a boil of Marie Antoinette elitism. :roll:

All you've done in this thread is claim that the country would be worse off if the middle class paid lower taxes because they might vote for policies that don't benefit you personally. What you really mean is that you think YOU would be worse off...and you don't even have any evidence for THAT claim.
 
Last edited:
Scrape away the thin facade of supposed "what is best for America" from an arrogant Gordon Gekko wannabe and what will you find - a boil of Marie Antoinette elitism. :roll:

All you've done in this thread is claim that the country would be worse off if the middle class paid lower taxes because they might vote for policies that don't benefit you personally. What you really mean is that you think YOU would be worse off...and you don't even have any evidence for THAT claim.

the parasite class and those who pander to them always want to claim that those who oppose them do so for individualistic selfish reasons while the parasites think only of the common good.
 
The middle class has shown us that they spend their money recklessly. Why not give them more to spend recklessly. It beats the s*** out of giving it to the rich who are more likely to save of the money or just dodge the tax all together.
 
The middle class has shown us that they spend their money recklessly. Why not give them more to spend recklessly. It beats the s*** out of giving it to the rich who are more likely to save of the money or just dodge the tax all together.

you think tax cuts involves GIVING to the rich

now I understand the source of your confusion
 
the parasite class and those who pander to them always want to claim that those who oppose them do so for individualistic selfish reasons while the parasites think only of the common good.

I'm sure that there are some who just want free goodies, but there are plenty of others who legitimately believe that "the common good" is something other than what YOU believe it is. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge this possibility just exposes you as a demagogue who lacks the intelligence to truly understand any other political ideas.

As for opposing them for individualistic, selfish reasons...that doesn't apply to all conservatives either. I know that some legitimately believe that the common good is something other than what I think it is. With that said, the "individualistic, selfish reasons" certainly applies to YOU, as evidenced by your incessant bragging about your wealth and referring to everyone else as "the parasite class."
 
you think tax cuts involves GIVING to the rich

now I understand the source of your confusion

That silly talking point might actually make some degree of sense, if you actually towed the standard conservative/libertarian line and favored tax cuts for everyone. But when you only want the rich to pay less and you want to finance it by making the middle-class pay more, it absolutely DOES involve giving to the rich no matter how you slice it.
 
I'm sure that there are some who just want free goodies, but there are plenty of others who legitimately believe that "the common good" is something other than what YOU believe it is. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge this possibility just exposes you as a demagogue who lacks the intelligence to truly understand any other political ideas.

As for opposing them for individualistic, selfish reasons...that doesn't apply to all conservatives either. I know that some legitimately believe that the common good is something other than what I think it is. With that said, the "individualistic, selfish reasons" certainly applies to YOU, as evidenced by your incessant bragging about your wealth and referring to everyone else as "the parasite class."

well here is the deal

I fully believe you know what is best for you. That is consistent with my political philosophy and it makes sense that you are in the best position to know your own needs and wants. I know what is best for me. ANd I tire of libs pretending that they want tax hikes for the greater good and then claim that we who oppose them only worry about ourselves


and envy and spite permeate your posts given the fact that you and a few others constantly want to attack me personally
 
That silly talking point might actually make some degree of sense, if you actually towed the standard conservative/libertarian line and favored tax cuts for everyone. But when you only want the rich to pay less and you want to finance it by making the middle-class pay more, it absolutely DOES involve giving to the rich no matter how you slice it.

wrong-I want there to be NO income taxes but I said if there has to be tax hikes they should be on those who don't pay their fair share of the taxes. and the top 1% already pay far more than their fair share

I want the government to spend about a half of what it does now--I am not the one howling for more and more social spending as you do
 
I fully believe you know what is best for you.

No you don't. If you did, you would evaluate political policies (e.g. tax cuts for the middle class) on their merits, rather than on how they would play out politically. Your desire to punish the middle-class with higher taxes, simply because they favor policies that you don't agree with, is petty and childish. This is exactly how politics should NOT work.

TurtleDude said:
That is consistent with my political philosophy and it makes sense that you are in the best position to know your own needs and wants. I know what is best for me.

A nice boilerplate talking point, but in your case it is certainly not true.

TurtleDude said:
ANd I tire of libs pretending that they want tax hikes for the greater good and then claim that we who oppose them only worry about ourselves

I would never claim that all conservatives are only concerned about themselves. Just you.

TurtleDude said:
and envy and spite permeate your posts given the fact that you and a few others constantly want to attack me personally

That isn't because of your political views or your socioeconomic status. It's because you're annoying. And who is attacking whom again? You called me "dishonest and silly" in Post #14 after I simply requested that you support your speculation with some evidence, without even disputing your claim.
 
Last edited:
No you don't. If you did, you would evaluate political policies (e.g. tax cuts for the middle class) on their merits, rather than on how they would play out politically. Your desire to punish the middle-class with higher taxes, simply because they favor policies that you don't agree with, is petty and childish. This is exactly how politics should NOT work.



A nice boilerplate talking point, but in your case it is certainly not true.



I would never claim that all conservatives are only concerned about themselves. Just you.



That isn't because of your political views or your socioeconomic status. It's because you're annoying. And who is attacking whom again? You called me "dishonest and silly" in Post #14 after I simply requested that you support your speculation with some evidence, without even disputing your claim.

yeah more of the sanctimonious bs that your crap don't stink nonsense.

SO how can you prove that I don't believe that you know what is best for you?

since you are so into proof

now go back to whining about the rich and boohooing about the poor
 
Doesn't a middle class tax cut (AGI up to $250K) also benefit the the Rich?

Options:

Yes
No
I don't know.

simply answer

yes absolutely, thats just economics 101 and common sense

now if you want to debate how much, long term and what we actually need vs what the economy will respond to faster longer etc then fine, do that

but the answer is yer
 
SO how can you prove that I don't believe that you know what is best for you?

I'm too lazy to even try to untangle that grammatical mess of a question.

TurtleDude said:
since you are so into proof

Actually I was asking if you had any evidence to support your speculation that the middle-class are less likely to support big government when their tax burden is proportionally higher, as I have never seen any such indication. Clearly you have no such evidence. Not that it would matter much even if you did; it wouldn't change the fact that assessing policies on how they will play out politically is a piss-poor way to think about policy. I mean, it's not like I oppose Cuban immigration just because it might result in more Republican voters.

TurtleDude said:
now go back to whining about the rich and boohooing about the poor

I've never whined about the rich, as I'm hardly strapped for cash myself. And yeah, it's ridiculous to claim that you aren't motivated by pure selfishness just before you use the phrase "boohooing about the poor" and just after you call everyone who isn't rich "the parasite class." At least you could embrace your inner Gekko, instead of trying to pretend that he isn't there and that you're just concerned with what's best for the country.
 
Last edited:
I'm too lazy to even try to untangle that grammatical mess of a question.



Actually I was asking if you had any evidence to support your speculation that the middle-class are less likely to support big government when their tax burden is proportionally higher, as I have never seen any such indication. Clearly you have no such evidence.



I've never whined about the rich, as I'm hardly strapped for cash myself. And yeah, it's ridiculous to claim that you aren't motivated by pure selfishness just before you use the phrase "boohooing about the poor" and just after you call everyone who isn't rich "the parasite class." At least you could embrace your inner Gekko, instead of trying to pretend that he isn't there and that you're just concerned with what's best for the country.

I will try to make this as simple as possible for you

I) scenario one-the vast majority of people don't suffer tax hikes even when government spending increases

2) scenario two-the vast majority of people suffer tax hikes when the government spending increases

what scenario is more likely to produce a strong demand that government spending be curtailed?
 
It is not that tough a question
 
I will try to make this as simple as possible for you

I) scenario one-the vast majority of people don't suffer tax hikes even when government spending increases

2) scenario two-the vast majority of people suffer tax hikes when the government spending increases

what scenario is more likely to produce a strong demand that government spending be curtailed?

That's just your speculation though. I could just as easily make a plausible argument for exactly the opposite conclusion:
Scenario 1 - The middle-class is more strapped for cash due to higher taxes, and therefore is more likely to support government programs to ease their economic burdens.
Scenario 2 - The middle-class keeps more of their own money due to lower taxes, and therefore is less likely to care about government programs to ease their economic burdens.

I'm not saying that that is what would happen, as it's all speculation. Nevertheless your situation doesn't seem any more inherently plausible than mine unless you have some empirical evidence to support it.

But regardless, even if your speculation was 100% accurate and the middle-class was less likely to support big government when they were taxed more, it doesn't change the fact that it's childish to evaluate policies based on whether or not they'll bring about more voters who favor your specific agenda, rather than whether or not they are good policies. And it's just plain mean and spiteful to raise their taxes not because you actually think it's good economic policy, but merely to punish them for voting contrary to your wishes.
 
Last edited:
so you think its a good policy to spend more and more and more and only think the rich should pay more tax?
 
so you think its a good policy to spend more and more and more

To a point, yes. I have no problem at all with government paying for public goods, or to correct market failures, or to pay for necessities which people can't afford on their own, or to stimulate the economy during recessions, etc.

TurtleDude said:
and only think the rich should pay more tax?

Yes. It makes more sense to milk the cow than to milk the bull. And it makes more sense to tax the people who actually have money than those who don't. That's not out of "envy and spite," but a pragmatic view: If Group A would be disproportionately harmed by increased taxes while contributing relatively little revenue, whereas Group B would be relatively unaffected by increased taxes while contributing a lot of revenue, it makes more economic sense to tax Group B. Taxing Group A merely because they don't vote the way you want them to vote, however, *is* motivated by spite.
 
Last edited:
people get tired of being milked and get nothing back in return. those targeted for tax hikes by obama will get no additional benefits for that soaking. you miss the point that the politically expedient act of soaking the rich only causes more and more spending as those who want the spending have no reason to reign it in since they aren't paying for it

if people are expected to carry most of the load in paying for government services they damn well ought to get additional goverment benefits which certainly is not the case now
 
Taxes 101

Our tax system uses a progressive tax model. Income is evaluated in brackets. As your income increases you enter higher tax brackets and higher % of your income in that bracket. To be clear, everyone pays the same % on the first $8,375. Its 10% so everyone pays up to the max of $837.50 if you make over $8375.00. Rich and poor. If your income is greater than $8,375 you move into the next bracket and pay 15% on everything you earn within that tax bracket.

So if your taxable income is $100,000 you would pay the following
( $ 8,375 minus 0 ) x .10 : $837.50
( 34,000 minus 8,375 ) x .15 : $3,843
( 82,400 minus 34,000 ) x .25 : $12,100
( 100,000 minus 82,400 ) x .28 : $4,928
Total: $ 21708.5


Based upon your question then yes. If the bottom brackets stay the same or go down then both rich and poor benefit. BUT, to the poor and middle class the actual % increase in disposible income is a significantly higher than what the rich would get. In fact that few thousand dollars is nothing to someone who makes $250k or more.

I am not saying I like the tax system we have or what it is spent on. This is just the facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom