Are you trying to be clever?If I pay into an arrangement with another party and fulfill all of my legal and financial obligations to them, is it my right to insist that they other party fulfills all of their legal and financial obligations to me when the time has arrived to do so per the agreement?
The tax cuts applied to all Americans that pay income tax. We gave to all classes of tax payers, you want to treat classes different.
Spaghetti logic at its finest. congrats
Tax cuts do not and can not, by defninition, redustribute wealth.
:shock:
"Redistrobution" is where the givernment takes money from someone and gives it to someone else.That's exactly the fake rationale that the GOP tries to sell the American public. The statement doesn't even make logical sense...despite your efforts to shuffle your way around it.
"Redistrobution" is where the givernment takes money from someone and gives it to someone else.
Tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they have.
So...
-Tax cuts do not take money from anyone
-Tax cuts do not give money to someone else
THUS
-Tax cuts do not redistribute wealth.
:shrug:
Not just really, but OBVIOUSLY.Really Goob?
Not just really, but OBVIOUSLY.
You may, at your leisure, show how I am wrong.
Your red herring? I think not.Why don't you start by answering the last post?
Oh please......Before Reagan the top % tax bracket was much higher. Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy in half and doubled taxes on the middle class. GWB took it a step further and cut taxes even more for the wealthy. Since the days of Reagan, wealth in this country has disproportionately been "redistributed" to the top 2% of the population. This is why the middle class continues to shrink in this country.
Obama should stand firm on his proposal. It would show the American people where the true loyalty of the GOP is. Republicans are against cutting taxes for working class Americans, unless the wealthy get to pad their pockets even more.
The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.
That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.
In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.
As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.
"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.
Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.
Sounds to me like liberals today should be worshiping Reagan.There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
Sounds to me like liberals today should be worshiping Reagan.
Your red herring? I think not.
I laid out an argument as to how tax cuts, by their nature, are not redistributive.
If you disagree with that, then show how the argument is wrong.
Reagan has nothing to do with this debate on extending these tax cuts.
When you can actually sddress what I said. let me know.Reagan and Bush both disproved your theory...
Of course not. But if you read the post in context you would understand the relevance to the debate.
When you can actually sddress what I said. let me know.
That you have yet to do so indicates that you know you cannot.
In today's political climate, Reagan would be called a RINO.
Yet he's still worshipped. Twists the mind a bit, doesn't it?
Anyone that reads this thread will see that you had an argument put to you that negates your claim. and that you subsequently refused to address said argument. Nothing you do or say from that point will change that, except for you to actually address the argument.Once again....ladies and gentlemen....the Goobie Shuffle.
There is a fact of life that some on the right had better accept - if not learn to love. The American people are in no mood to hear CATO Institute propaganda about why the government can renege on Social Security payments or any such ideological excuses. The American people have paid into Social Security for all their adult lives. No matter what you may think of it after reading right wing propaganda, everyone I know considers that they have a sacred contract with the government regarding Social Security. I can think of no other one program that would go as far as to destroy the confidence that average working people have in America that to allow the destruction of Social Security.
We do not consider it an entitlement. We consider it a sacred contract that we have done our part on and now the other party must honor their part. And please folks, save the crap about its not a contract. Because you are totally then missing the point.
Of course, if that is the intent, its a plan worth of Machiavelli himself.
Anyone that reads this thread will see that you had an argument put to you that negates your claim. and that you subsequently refused to address said argument. Nothing you do or say from that point will change that, except for you to actually address the argument.
:shrug:
No, you did not, and anyone with even the most limited mastery of the language will agree.I addressed your argument and pointed out how the facts themselves dispel your myth under both Reagan and Bush.
No, you did not, and anyone with even the most limited mastery of the language will agree.
Your example isnt at all illustrative of the subject under discussion - in fact, it was nothing but a feeble attempt to distract the conversation away from an argument that you know you cannot counter.
Allow me to put this at a 1st grade level -- maybe (just maybe) it will help you better understand.
Redistribution:
-I earn $1000. I pay $250 in taxes. $50 goes to other poeple thru welfare.
Tax cut:
-I earn $1000. I pay $250 in taxes. My taxes are cut to $200; I get to keep $50 more of what I earned.
In these terms, show how a tax cut is redistributuion.
(BTW....I won't hold my breath waiting for an actual response)
Hmm. Perhaps I used too complicated an example, with terms beyond your reach.The only thing you are "proving" Goob is your inability to answer the question.
Hmm. Perhaps I used too complicated an example, with terms beyond your reach.
I'll try again in in terms you should be very familiar with.
Redsitribution:
-You have 10 cookies.
-Mommy says since you have so many, she's taking 3.
-1 goes to the poor kids next door.
Tax cut:
-You have 10 cookies.
-Mommy normally takes 3, but this time she takes only 2.
-You get to keep one extra!
In these terms, show how a tax cut is redistributuion.
(BTW....I won't hold my breath waiting for an actual response)
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?