- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 707
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Awful post.
It deals with a nonissue. If we, as a country, are going to grant everyone a tax break then I don't know how many people would argue with the idea of the wealthy getting the largest nominal breaks is fair. I'm sure there are nutjobs out there who would rail against it, but that's not a major complaint of any sensible individual. The real issue is over how much the total bill is. We're not in a position to cut taxes, so that's a moot point.
If your argument is that we're scaring off the people buying a lot of the beer by asking them to pay the same rate they did in the 90s, then you're going to need more evidence than a Libertarian's rewriting of Cheers.
I don't know how many people would argue with the idea of the wealthy getting the largest nominal breaks is fair. I'm sure there are nutjobs out there who would rail against it, but that's not a major complaint of any sensible individual.
The argument comes from the fallacy of comparing nominal dollar amounts when dealing with changes in tax rates. The analogy uses progressive rate cuts and shows the foolishness of claiming the cuts are regressive simply because the nominal dollar amount is higher for the wealthy. It's simply mathematically impossible to cut taxes across the board without the wealthy getting the largest nominal break. I'm sure you would remain ideologically consistent when discussing tax increases so there is no sense in presenting that comparison.
Were you paying the slightest bit of attention at the time of the Bush tax cuts? I guess you think guys like Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer, etc., etc. are "nutjobs"?
I guess you missed Daschle's little stunt where he presented a Lexus as the tax cut the "wealthy" get, while a muffler to go on a "used car" was the tax cut the "poor" get.
Now if there ever comes a point when cutting taxes is appropriate, I would support this argument. But we're not living in this situation so I think a thread dedicated to it is a distraction from real problems.
Awful post.
It deals with a nonissue. If we, as a country, are going to grant everyone a tax break then I don't know how many people would argue with the idea of the wealthy getting the largest nominal breaks is fair. I'm sure there are nutjobs out there who would rail against it, but that's not a major complaint of any sensible individual. The real issue is over how much the total bill is. We're not in a position to cut taxes, so that's a moot point.
If your argument is that we're scaring off the people buying a lot of the beer by asking them to pay the same rate they did in the 90s, then you're going to need more evidence than a Libertarian's rewriting of Cheers.
I hear it all the time. I heard it as a criticism of the Reagan tax cuts. I heard it in 2000 when candidate GWB was running for president. I heard it in 2001 when the tax cuts went into effect, and I hear it now when people criticize the Bush tax cuts.I've never herd this supposed "liberal" argument made in the story before.
I agree that we're not in a position to cut taxes across the board, but seeing as companies have been outsourcing jobs and manufacturing even with relatively friendly rates (save for the corporate rate), do you really think that a rate hike in this economic climate would encourage companies and/or individuals to invest here and not elsewhere? I'd say it's more along the lines of an educated guess, not a baseless assertion.Awful post.
It deals with a nonissue. If we, as a country, are going to grant everyone a tax break then I don't know how many people would argue with the idea of the wealthy getting the largest nominal breaks is fair. I'm sure there are nutjobs out there who would rail against it, but that's not a major complaint of any sensible individual. The real issue is over how much the total bill is. We're not in a position to cut taxes, so that's a moot point.
If your argument is that we're scaring off the people buying a lot of the beer by asking them to pay the same rate they did in the 90s, then you're going to need more evidence than a Libertarian's rewriting of Cheers.
Awful post.
It deals with a nonissue. If we, as a country, are going to grant everyone a tax break then I don't know how many people would argue with the idea of the wealthy getting the largest nominal breaks is fair. I'm sure there are nutjobs out there who would rail against it, but that's not a major complaint of any sensible individual. The real issue is over how much the total bill is. We're not in a position to cut taxes, so that's a moot point.
If your argument is that we're scaring off the people buying a lot of the beer by asking them to pay the same rate they did in the 90s, then you're going to need more evidence than a Libertarian's rewriting of Cheers.
I hear it all the time. I heard it as a criticism of the Reagan tax cuts. I heard it in 2000 when candidate GWB was running for president. I heard it in 2001 when the tax cuts went into effect, and I hear it now when people criticize the Bush tax cuts.
No the argument over the bush tax cuts us that "we can't afford to give it to everyone anymore"
The logical missteps here (and in much of conservative talk about taxation) are (1) the assumption that the wealth of all men are mutually independent, (2) the assumption that both poor and rich mean make equal use of public resources, (3) the assumption that by paying low taxes the poor men are the only one getting a good deal. None of this, of course, is true.
1. The rich men have become rich in part because they have talent, but also because they had access to the poor men’s labor and the middle class’ purchasing power. Likewise the poor men and middle class are poorer than the rich men because the latter tightly control their market value with economic and political means, as a mean to increase profits on their activities.
2. The rich men, by definition, make more use of public resources. Their activities require more land, more energy, more natural resources, more public infrastructure. They monopolize more government workers, require more military resources, and generate more environmental damages and so forth.
3. The poor men don’t pay taxes because they are dirt poor. All of their disposable income go towards getting a roof and feeding their family an dealing with the stress of being poor. Were they to pay more paxes they would become a burden for society which would be good for no one.
The taxation system that you are ranting against is used widely throughout the world and is built to mitigate the negative effect of factors 1, 2 and 3 on society. It has been the source of political and economic stability for decades, and has allowed the poor to survive, the middle class to thrive, and the rich to get richer.
So my point is be really careful about what you wish for because you might get it.
...but you still drink your free beer though.....amirite?Yes, the poor rich, I feel so bad for them. I have to beat them away everyday from trying to barge into my house, and trade places with me. Very very sad.
liberals dubbed them as "tax cuts for the rich" because the majority of cuts went to the wealthy, just as outlined in this parable.
sure, some, such as me pointed out the ridiculousness of claiming the Clinton surplus even existed in the first place, but since the media didn't call out the liberals for claiming a bogus surplus, they couldn't all of a sudden realize the surplus was a fraud when Bush got elected offering to return it to the people.
In other words you dont want the gov to pay off its debt
The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business
nice dodge.
the parable is a good representation of the left calling tax cuts for everyone that pays income taxes, "tax cuts for the rich", as recently happened.
Thought I would add a, what I think, decent rebuttle: (Comment from this website)
The Obama Tax System Explained In Beer | Fortune Watch
(First Comment)
So what in that first comment applies to the college grad that pays his/her way through school, graduates top of his/her class Harvard pediatrics and is now bringing in 300k while being taxes close to 50% while still paying off school loans? What crazy resources or poor people did they use to get to their goal. Same goes for the Phd CIS or one of any number of degrees. What have they done to owe so many so much with so much hate thrown at them for being RICH.
nice dodge.
the parable is a good representation of the left calling tax cuts for everyone that pays income taxes, "tax cuts for the rich", as recently happened.
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?