As documented above, history shows those of us interested in looking at it, that the effective tax rates for the wealthy were higher than anything being proposed today.
Trickle down economics was a failed experiment and the people have rejected it.
"As countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have moved to reform their tax systems and lower rates to encourage economic growth, America's inaction puts American worldwide companies at a competitive disadvantage and threatens our economic recovery," said Bruce Josten, an official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
How many dodges is that for you in this thread? Your propaganda is filled with more holes than swiss cheese.
JFK (A Democrat)
What is your projected % of GDP Growth once we raise taxes on small businesses and evil rich people. Give me a number if you're so smart.
Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts.
Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.
And the strawman that the majority of Americans want tax increases has been officially debunked. 41% of people who voted for Obama actually want spending cuts. What % of people who voted for Romney wanted tax increases? Want to take a guess?
Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View
:2wave:
That number would have been about right if he woulda let the bush tax-cuts expire the last time.
So you define a dodge as when someone refutes your opinion with facts. That's good to know.
I am happy to go back to the effective tax rates under Kennedy!
No one is proposing to raise taxes on 98% of small businesses. And I have not heard anyone say the rich are evil. There is no reason we cannot return to the debt to GDP ration we were at under Clinton.
Do you understand the fundamental difference between "taxable income" and what people actually earn?
Among Cliff-Avoidance Options, Most Favor Targeting the Wealthy
"With the fiscal cliff drawing closer, raising taxes on wealthy Americans remains a popular option. And while the public divides closely on reducing federal income tax deductions, two-thirds oppose another possibility, raising the age for Medicare eligibility.
Sixty percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll support raising taxes on incomes more than $250,000 a year, long a popular option overall, but also a divisive one: While 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor, far fewer Republicans, 39 percent, agree.
See PDF with full results and charts here."
Among Cliff-Avoidance Options, Most Favor Targeting the Wealthy - ABC News
Notably, “strong” support for raising taxes on the well-off is nearly double strong opposition, 42 vs. 23 percent. That’s because 57 percent of Democrats are strongly in favor, as are 42 percent of independents, vs. just 22 percent of Republicans.
While well short of a majority, support for a tax increase among four in 10 Republicans may provide some wiggle room to Republican leaders seeking compromise. Some, notably, have indicated a willingness to back off from the no-tax pledge many have taken.
Yes, I do, that is why the study I referenced compared "effective tax rates".
From your own link. Did you even read it?
Elaborate
You're dodging .... hahaha
Explain how it works smart guy
Yes, the poll results showed majority support for increasing taxes for the wealthy - "73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor, far fewer Republicans, 39 percent, agree."
Yet 41 percent who supported the Democratic incumbent want to get control of the deficit mostly by cutting spending, with only some tax increases, while another 41 percent want to solve it mostly with tax increases and only some spending cuts.
Just 5 percent of Obama supporters favor tax increases alone to solve the deficit, half the number who back an approach that relies entirely on spending cuts.
So when you said this:Senate Republican plans are meaningless, as are articles in the National Review. I want to see what Orange tan and the rest of his party are willing to offer up.
Then let's hear something from Orange tan. Let's hear a Republican proposal. Not the Mittens kind, which has nothing specific in it but a real proposal, with real cuts.
... ANY other that has been 1)written and 2)scored by EITHER Democrats OR Republicans...
Trickle down economics was a failed experiment and the people have rejected it.
As documented above, history shows those of us interested in looking at it, that the effective tax rates for the wealthy were higher than anything being proposed today.
Trickle down economics was a failed experiment and the people have rejected it.
But not the democrats that have only talked about tax increases for the rich and by all accounts and purposes have been completely uninterested in the process? I never did understand the American people but it seems as time goes on they are making less sense.
Look man how old are you? Seriously?
Do I need to cite the Politico poll again that refutes your strawman. ONLY raising taxes on the wealthy has only 5% support among Obama voters. The majority of Independents and Republicans do not favor taxing the wealthy either and certainly not as the only solution. On the contrary, the majority want spending cuts.
Poll: President Obama voters split on deficit - POLITICO.com Print View
Oh and the majority of Independents and Americans do not like Obamacare, which is the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in history
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/CNN_HealthCare_1126.pdf
So you would be in favor of repealing Obamacare right since the majority want it repealed? That's your emotional argument in regards to tax hikes. Does the same rationality apply to Obamacare?
Effective tax rates are what is payed after deductions and loopholes.
You are funny! LOL! Talk about strawman! No one is proposing only increasing revenue.
In not understanding the American people, you have much in common with the Republican party. They stupidly thought they could give Obama the same 'plan' they gave him before the election, in spite of the fact that - wait for it - we actually had an election! And 60% of the American people agree with the President regarding tax breaks for the super rich.
So when you said this:
You didn’t really mean ‘Let's hear a Republican proposal'…Since Corker IS a Republican how does he not qualify? And since one of the links was DIRECTLY to Corker’s website that didn’t justify your purview or comment…somehow I believe that WHATEVER was furnished would not satisfy as all you want to do is 'and whine a lot'.
I guess I should not expect:
And now YOU...'How about showing some guts?'
Thanks for your participation…:lamo
Liberals are perhaps the most fun people on the planet. I mention something and in response they change the topic. How often does this happen in these debates I wonder?
Wow how embarrassing. You fail spectacularly. As I stated in a previous post, much of the compensation that was earned during those years you keep championing was not considered taxable income.
You are funny! LOL! Talk about strawman! No one is proposing only increasing revenue.
Sorry. You had merely pointed out that you didn't understand the American people (although to be fair, one only has to read your posts to realize that). I simply noted that this was a failing you shared with the Republican party.
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?