- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
What exactly am I pushing! You seem to be an expert on everything so tell me what I am pushing?
So you think taking more taxes from the rich will help the middle class? Please give me an example of anytime that higher taxes made someone in the middle class move up a class? Do you realize how foolish your statement is? Allowing people to keep more of what they earn regardless of the class is what creates class movement. I cannot believe I have to convince someone the value of keeping more of what they earn?
While that is true, what Conservative pushes is effectively what Argentina did. And any student of history knows, that didn't go well for them.
FilmFestGuy;1058919870]Here's why: the rich don't spend when given stimulus because they already make significantly more than they spend. Giving them more money doesn't make them spend more. They hoard it and gain the interest from it.
Further, tax cuts don't create jobs. Were it the case, then the Bush tax rates (which we currently have) would be putting people back to work. It's not happening. And it didn't really happen in the mid-2000s either. The "boom" of the Bush recovery was almost exclusively given to the top 10% of earners. The remaining 90% of wage-earners only collectively shared 12% of the mid-2000s growth. If your philosophy of giving tax cuts to the wealthy to assist the middle class were accurate, then the growth would have been more evenly spread throughout all levels of wage-earners instead of being so specifically clumped up at the top.
The opposite is true if you lower taxes for the bottom 60% of earners. They are much more likely to spend on home improvements, electronics, clothing, and other things that will drive up demand - and increase income for the top earners.
The 2000s are the prime example of how poorly structured tax cuts can hurt the economy. They were the exact equivalent of Hoover's foolish tax cuts right before the Great Depression.
again I am confused how does the govt. cut taxes up front since taxes are, correct me if I am wrong, paid on revenue thus after they are generated thus cannot be cut up front. I always thought it was the people's money or the business's money before it was the government's. Guess I was wrong according to you.As a result, new policies need to be developed that give true incentives ONLY for hiring. You cannot give the tax cut up front, it must only be collected after hiring.
The only thing that will grow jobs is increased demand for products. You don't increase demand for products by cutting taxes for the wealthy. You cut taxes for the working and middle classes - who will then spend the money, which will then make the rich, richer (through natural market forces - not through unnecessary tax cuts).
We can agree that spending must be reigned in. But tax cuts do not solve anything if they're not properly targeted
Additionally, who uses the nation's infrastructure more? The organic farmer or Wal-Mart? Who uses highways more? Who uses the electric grid more? Who requires more police and fire protection? Giant corporations and the wealthy use a much greater share of our government-provided infrastructure than do simple wage-earners and small businesses, and thus progressive rates are appropriate.
Honestly, propaganda with no economic support. Hence why it's not worth talking to you about anything.
No, they are not distortions or lies. Your analysis of them is, however. Read this very slowly: AGI stands for ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME. That means these figures are the income AFTER all dedutions are taken; AGI has absolutely no correlation to actual income. Well the AGI is always lower than Gross Income, however depending your income level you can have deductions that are not available to someone with lesser income.Then the charts posted are distortions if not downright lies. They showed the tax cuts by pay range and many of those that show tax cuts don't pay income taxes and that is what Bush cut.
No, they are not distortions or lies. Your analysis of them is, however. Read this very slowly: AGI stands for ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME. That means these figures are the income AFTER all dedutions are taken; AGI has absolutely no correlation to actual income. Well the AGI is always lower than Gross Income, however depending your income level you can have deductions that are not available to someone with lesser income.
400 Highest Income Americans See Income Soar, Tax Rates Fall in 2007 (pdf)
Here are some numbers to back up what I said:
Wonk Room » Boehner Falsely Claims The Bush Tax Cuts Led To Jobs And Growth, Not Deficits
Here's what the Republicans did for us working folks with their tax cuts in the 2000s:
Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers - washingtonpost.com
Median income rose as did poverty in 2007; 2000s have been extremely weak for living standards of most households
Stagnant incomes and the slowest rate of job growth since the 1940s.
Further, here's proof that the tax rate for the top 1% has absolutely no relation to income growth. In the five years following the Reagan tax cuts, average GDP growth was 2.6%. In the five years after Clinton raised the rate to 39%, average GDP growth was 2.7%. This occurs throughout any period of tax changes.
Economic growth « Consider the Evidence
So, those Bush tax cuts did what again? The answer? It helped create the greatest income disparity since right before the Great Depression:
Trends in American Income Inequality Prior to the Recession-Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog
Not to mention a 15% growth rate in the poverty rate between 2000 and 2006.
They always go up. Part of the increase in revenue was because the Bush tax cuts caught some taxpayers with the AMT. The U.S. Tax code is so complex it's amasing to me how you can come up with the conclusion that Bush's was the cause. TruthinessOk, and why is that a problem, did they take any of that from you? You do realize that the U.S. Treasury shows income tax revenue going up AFTER the tax cuts. I wonder how they came up with that data?
They always go up. Part of the increase in revenue was because the Bush tax cuts caught some taxpayers with the AMT. The U.S. Tax code is so complex it's amasing to me how you can come up with the conclusion that Bush's was the cause. Truthiness
Honestly, propaganda with no economic support. Hence why it's not worth talking to you about anything.
Hmmm, they hoard it? Any idea what the banks that pay that interest does with the money the rich are hoarding?
Interesting that throught various threads I have posted BLS.gov data that disagrees with you. Maybe you ought to write them and tell them that their numbers are wrong. Further it seems the IRS disagrees with you as well but again i am sure you are right and they are wrong. Interesting numbers you have there that all the Bush tax cut went to the rich. I guess the Congress got it wrong, the IRS got it wrong, and the Treasury Department got it wrong too because the Bush tax cuts of 2003 cut rates for ALL taxpayers not just the rich. I am amazed at how you got it right and all those agencies got it wrong. You obviously should be working for them to straighten them out. I also am amazed that the IRS reports taht 47% of the people in this country pay no income taxes leaving 53% to shoulder the entire burden.
And where do you get this gem? Bottom 60% of wage EARNERS? Is that part of the 53% that pay taxes or the 47% that don't? Think we ought to give income tax cuts to people who don't pay any income taxes?
I suppose you buy the rhetoric that tax cuts have to be paid for and are an expense to the govt. I have checked everyone on the Treasury site and cannot find an expense line item for tax cuts. I always wondered how personal income for an individual could be an expense to the govt. I would appreciate you explaining that to me.
How would you have structured the tax cuts since Bush cut them across the board and allowed all taxpayers to keep more of what they earned. I suppose you believe that individual earnings all belong to the govt and thus tax cuts should be targeted to those that don't pay any taxes? is that really a tax cut or is it a welfare payment, I am so confused.
again I am confused how does the govt. cut taxes up front since taxes are, correct me if I am wrong, paid on revenue thus after they are generated thus cannot be cut up front. I always thought it was the people's money or the business's money before it was the government's. Guess I was wrong according to you.
Now that is something I never thought of, the rich don't spend their money and buy things. You know I was totally shocked when I found that allowing the tax cuts to expire on the rich would increase revenue 40 billion dollars if the rich don't change their behavior. Now since we have a 3 trillion debt that 40 billion will wipe it out, right? I then did some research and found the following article. I would love to have you analize it for me and tell me where it is wrong. Please ignore the author and focus on the information in the article including IRS data. thanks
Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.com
I guess I am going to have to pay closer attention as to who uses the infrastructure but you are going to have to help me. When driving the interstate how do you tell a rich person from a poor person? Also don't we have use taxes to fund the highways and most of our infrastructure.
I do thank you for your comments though but I wish I would have gotten them about 40 some years ago as I wouldn't have bothered to go to college and work hard, take risk to become one of those evil rich people. I never dreamed that my being rich hurt you or anyone else. I didn't know that when I was earning my money I was taking it from someone else. Too all those liberals that read this please accept my apology for earning all my income and apparently taking it from some of you thus preventing you from being as successful as I have been. I promise you I will work on my grandkids to make sure they don't make the same mistakes as apparently I did.
FilmFestGuy;1058920081]http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_690596.html
They've got money, but they're not hiring. By your philosophy, they should automatically be hiring, right? Because they have money? Lots of it, even. So, why aren't they hiring?
They aren't hiring because the only thing that will get them hiring is if there is high enough demand for their products that they are required to hire more workers to keep up.
Yes, there were tax cuts for all levels - but the benefit was most largely laid at the feet of the wealthiest.
It didn't produce results for basically anyone else:
Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
See here (amongst meaning places):
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
CBO and CBPP both agree with me. The Bush tax cuts drove up the deficit. In fact, even one of your own admits that tax cuts expand the deficit.
No, and your partisanship is showing here by mischaracterizing everything I'm trying to say instead of trying to debate points. I like my money and my family is making more than we ever have and both recently got raises. I hope to be one of the top 20% of earners one day as I further and further advance in my career.
The point about the various levels of income-earners is this: I'm referring to tax cuts as short-term stimulus. It has to go to people who will spend it. Saving it doesn't do anything for the economy. Period.
I would return tax rates to Clinton level rates (let the Bush cuts expire) for the top two income levels. I would lower the rate slightly on the bottom earning levels. For the top tiers (more likely to be business owners), I would give a tax-break for each new-hire (full-time with benefits only) all the way to the point where they can have an effective rate of 0% - as long as they hire people and purchase equipment.
Again, I'm not talking about tax rate: if at the end of the fiscal year, they show that they increased their full-time payroll, then they earn tax benefits - and for me - I would be willing to let that go all the way to no tax, as long as they hire people.
I actually read your column before (it's an opinion piece, not an article) you linked it here and I disagree.
The rich do spend. The top 1% spend a lot. The problem is, they don't need stimulus to do it. The effect of a tax cut has little to do with them, because their earnings are so high. They are already capable of spending as much as they want.
As far as the infrastructure: do you deny that Wal-Mart uses American infrastructure more than your insurance agent does? Does a business man who takes meetings on both coasts use the infrastructure more than the clerk at your local Hardees?
It's not crazy. It's crazy obvious that large corporations and wealthy financiers frequently use a much larger share of infrastructure than the average work-a-day individual. I don't touch an interstate to get to my three-person office + one intern office.
Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).
[/QUOTE](Sorry that took so long, a friend stopped by).
And please, let's stick to facts and not make assumptions. In no way do I think income belongs to the government. It is earned by individuals for their work, product, or services provided. But taxes are a necessary evil for our government to run. When you say things like that, you're relying on stereotypes. I would prefer to have a debate about numbers, philosophies, and facts. Not assumptions based on stereotypes given us by talking heads. These things can be open to interpretation and there are differing ideas. That's what our country is about.
I haven't read the whole thread but here's my take.
Right now I get taxed at 18%. If this coming tax hike isn't stopped then I will be taxed at 25%. I'm poor. Taking that extra 7% will put me living with my folks...something none of us want.
I could really care less what rich folks get taxed. I only care about being able to live.
Excellent question, another one would be why the national debt doubled during the Bush presidency?Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).
Excellent question, another one would be why the national debt doubled during the Bush presidency?
OC, I really am waiting for that propaganda with no economic support from you so that I can learn from my mistakes.
That would require you to acknowledge and address honestly my posts. And you haven't done that. At all. Since the first day you joined. Come down to the basement if you want to really hear about what we think of you.
Lets here if for the (though belated) fiscal responsible Republican Party.:roll:
<A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday. >
washingtonpost.com
Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
The richest 1% earn 22.83% of all income and pay 40.42% of all taxes.
Not sure what you're getting at re: tax shelters and how you believe that affects those numbers.
So your saying what exactly with your graphs? Super rich are getting screwed?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?