Skip to main content

63 replies

Majority favors end of tax cuts for richest

luvurnaborluvurnaborEverybody Knows My Name
The Republicans are making a mistake by standing up for tax cuts for millionaires, putting in jeopardy continued tax cuts for everyone else. Polls show most Americans do not favor giving full tax cuts to those making more than a quarter million a year.
See discussion at
http://factcheck.org/2010/11/t...ans-its-complicated/
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

JenniferJenniferOld Faithful
Voters Still Give the Edge to Extending Bush Tax Cuts for All Taxpayers



Bush Tax Cuts for All Taxpayers
Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Extending the so-called Bush tax cuts is front and center as the lame duck Congress returns this week, and voters still hold a slight preference for continuing those tax cuts for all Americans rather than continuing them for all but the wealthy.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters think the tax cuts, scheduled to end December 31, should be extended for all Americans. Forty-four percent (44%), however, believe they should be extended for everyone except the wealthy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ts_for_all_taxpayers


Maybe it depends on the survey.
luvurnaborluvurnaborEverybody Knows My Name
That's why I included the link to factcheck, which says while there are some polls which say there is a 50-50 split, three out of four polls indicate about one third favor the tax cuts for the rich.
As more people understand it and are aware how super rich the super rich are, they will lose their enthusiasm, also. Why would we want to mortgage our grandchildren's futures to give these tax cuts to these people?
F350F350Hall of Famer
When the bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income tax and the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the total federal income tax collected it's not so surprising to see the numbers for and against increased taxes for the rich hovering around 50%. It also makes that 50% number meaningless. Why are we even discussing tax increases instead of spending decreases?
Capt James TCapt James TPost Master
Heck, go to a flat tax and do away with the entire IRS. Imagine the spending we could cut with the end of the IRS.

Its insane to raise the taxes on the rich. Guess what folks, like it or not, they are who create jobs. Increase their taxes, decrease their ability to spend money. When the IRS takes more money from them, do you think they will just sit back and say hooray? No, they will attempt to make up the difference by cutting their workforce and looking for ways to increase productivity. In the end, you and I pay for it one way or another.

So, like F350 said, cut the spending and balance the budget.......

Captain
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by luvurnabor:
Why would we want to mortgage our grandchildren's futures to give these tax cuts to these people?


What tax cuts exactly are you talking about? And how is this "mortgage our grandchildren's future"?

No one...let me repeat...no one is talking about tax cuts. The debate is about keeping the tax rates the same as they have been for 7 or 8 years.

Question...how is letting all the tax rates stay the same, with the exception of the top rate...How is that going to help our economic situation? What jobs will that create?

News flash...our "grandchildren's future" is not being mortgaged by having a 35.3% tax rate instead of a 38.7% tax rate for the "rich"...it's being ruined by out of control spending and the Fed creating money out of thin air.
S SHELDIVRPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Capt James T:
Heck, go to a flat tax and do away with the entire IRS. Imagine the spending we could cut with the end of the IRS.

Its insane to raise the taxes on the rich. Guess what folks, like it or not, they are who create jobs. Increase their taxes, decrease their ability to spend money. When the IRS takes more money from them, do you think they will just sit back and say hooray? No, they will attempt to make up the difference by cutting their workforce and looking for ways to increase productivity. In the end, you and I pay for it one way or another.

So, like F350 said, cut the spending and balance the budget.......

Captain


Y E P...why single out people who have been productive and prosperous and punish them with a higher tax burden...???
rockyrockyPost Master
OK you've got the schizophrenic Cage and 2 of his buddys defending this, all of which are probably living off the government dime. HYPOCRITES is the only description of the majority of the right wing radical posters on this forum Cage/Jobe is double dipping from a retirement account from Uncle Sam and SS, as is elintfilter,
Capt James TCapt James TPost Master
Seriously, doesn't affect you? Tell that to the folks that are out of work and looking for a job.

Please tell me that you are not so dense as to believe that we are not all affected by what happens to that small percentage of the population?

Parrots? Really? Maybe we are just bright enough to understand that the economy does not grow by stifling the very people that drive the economy.

By the way, how many jobs did you create today? this week? this month?

Captain
Capt James TCapt James TPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
OK you've got the schizophrenic Cage and 2 of his buddys defending this, all of which are probably living off the government dime. HYPOCRITES is the only description of the majority of the right wing radical posters on this forum Cage/Jobe is double dipping from a retirement account from Uncle Sam and SS, as is elintfilter,


Nevermind, I understand now that some folks truly don't understand economics. If someone was living off the government dime, they would more than likely support raising income taxes on the rich, because it would bring more money into their entitlement program and not affect them negatively.

Some folks just like to throw around insults when they cant logically defend their opinion any longer.....

Captain
gbrkgbrkOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
How many of you right wing radicals who are defending the Bush tax cuts are in the top 2%????? NONE! You are indoctrinated and being used by the propoganda machine that IS Fox News to repeat like parrots a line that doesn't even affect you.


Indoctrination? Is't that the pot calling the preverbal kettle black?

Actually I encourage you, Rocky, and everyone else that has an interest to research out how we came about our current income tax. Not just on the rich but how we Americans came about having to pay income taxes, even the poorest.

I think what you will find is it stemmed from an attempt to soak the rich, of that day. The politicians of that day were trying to pass an income tax on the people who wanted nothing of it. In order to make it palatable (acceptable to the masses) to enough that would then encourage it passing it was sold as a TAX against the super wealthy, a tax against the RICH.

Well not many, of that time, were rich so yeah they thought lets soak these fat cats who are rich and deserve to pay more. The politicians were successful in selling an income tax that was only applied (at first) to the super rich and everyone felt justified and happy about it, except those who were directed to pay it. As time went on though they found ways to shelter their wealth and to avoid paying the taxes that were levied upon them and all of a sudden the politicians found that they were not getting the money they anticipated from the tax on the rich.

Flash forward in time and once it(taxation) was implemented, on the rich, it was there and established and therefore taxation was then applied to everyone but no longer was it necessary to vote on the tax because it was already approved. The politicians were successful in stirring up a divide due to social status and wealth but because of people's desire to soak "the Rich" EVERYONE eventually became subject to paying the tax. It was no longer necessary to get the approval and vote of the masses to be taxed for they already gave their approval when they approved the setting up of the tax system when they allowed it to be set up on "the wealthy".

Because the rich were smart enough and could shield their wealth and keep from paying taxes upon it the bulk of the taxes fell upon those who never thought they would pay the first dime due to their social status and financial condition. Now those who never thought they would pay the first dime in taxes were paying taxes that they didn't want in the first place. They opened the door though, to taxation, when they allowed the politicians to tax, only the rich.

A poor man never created a job and by increasing taxes the government and the Democrats will be successful in stifling business and incentives to expand business and therefore hire more. I certainly don't fall into the category of wealthy, by any means, but I also realize that in order for prosperity to return to everyone it has to start with those that are usually responsible for bringing it to the middle class.

Those that have, and are rich, will continue to have and to be rich and will continue to find ways around paying whatever taxes are levied up to and including moving away. The super rich can live anywhere and are mobile so can avoid taxation. So what next? The loss in tax revenue is seen and more and more people have to make up the shortage. Now it's not only the rich that get soaked but everyone has to pay more taxes. In the long run. These people will take their money out of circulation and away from the taxing government but in the process also keep from investing in and making investments in growing the economy. Their incentives to make money has decreased because they don't want to just make money in order to give it to the government. They will continue to make money and grow their wealth but due to higher taxes they just won't do it here. They will do it where they have tax breaks and can keep more of their money themselves. That shouldn't be hard to understand. The end result though is that money and funds that could be creating jobs here and stimulating our economy will be stimulating Europe's and Asia's. The only thing the ordinary American, Rocky .. you included, will see is higher taxes eventually in order to make up for the taxes that never really were collected from the rich that we wanted to soak in the first place.

Failure to understand and learn from history (appreciate it) deems us to have to have to repeat it.

So feel good if the RICH are soaked come January and have to pay a greater amount of their money in taxes. Rejoice in sticking it to "the man". Then later on when everyone's taxes goes up remember we (you) did it to your (our) own selves.
Last edited by gbrk
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
How many of you right wing radicals who are defending the Bush tax cuts are in the top 2%????? NONE! You are indoctrinated and being used by the propoganda machine that IS Fox News to repeat like parrots a line that doesn't even affect you.


Once again...Question what exactly is the advantage, the difference, the economic increase of raising the top rate from 35% to 39%?

What good is that going to do? What jobs is that going to create?

What is that going to do but let Rocky say, "Hey we're sticking to those bad ol' rich people"....

We quabble of 2 or 3 percentage points for the top rate and we're $14 trillion in debt...

Gimme a break.
luvurnaborluvurnaborEverybody Knows My Name
quote:
We quabble of 2 or 3 percentage points for the top rate

Many of the contributors to this forum don't seem to know how rich these rich people are. This tax break amounts to $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. the average tax cut for the richest 120,000 is more than three million per year for each one. That's not income, that the tax reduction.
If the top 5% have the same wealth as the bottom 80%, is not the fair share of these super rich pretty high?
Capt James TCapt James TPost Master
Even if these numbers are correct, who do you think is going to spend that $680 Billion better, the 'super rich' (who got there by making sound business decisions) or the government (who like to spend other peoples money).

Go ahead and increase the taxes, give the alcoholic another drink. The politicians like spending other peoples money and are very good at it.

OR......

You could demand a little accountability from the government, make them balance their budgets like we do ours by reducing spending when money is tight. Tell me this, when money is tight at your house, do you run to work and steal a little money from your jobs petty cash box, or do you adjust your spending accordingly?

When they get their act together, then they can come to the taxpayer for assistance. That's the issue here, not how much the super rich make.....

Captain
Capt James TCapt James TPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/Pa...me=about_basics_main

Fair Tax. The rich pay more, the middle pay less and the poor get subsidies. Isn't that what we want?


I like the idea of that program. Could it use tweaking? Im sure it could. But it sure is better than the current IRS and would do away with the IRS. Just imagine, it'll be harder for those tax evaders to evade it when they buy the new Porsche.

In addition, if you make 100K a year, but are saving for your childrens education, you only pay taxes on WHAT YOU SPEND, giving you more to save and lowering your overall tax bracket. Same for saving for retirement. Make 100K but want to save a bunch of it for retirement? Then put half away in savings and only pay taxes as if you were making 50K.

But like most things that make sense, this will never become reality. Too many people have their hands in the till, this takes the till out of the equation......

Captain
rockyrockyPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Capt James T:
Even if these numbers are correct, who do you think is going to spend that $680 Billion better, the 'super rich' (who got there by making sound business decisions) or the government (who like to spend other peoples money).

Go ahead and increase the taxes, give the alcoholic another drink. The politicians like spending other peoples money and are very good at it.

OR......

You could demand a little accountability from the government, make them balance their budgets like we do ours by reducing spending when money is tight. Tell me this, when money is tight at your house, do you run to work and steal a little money from your jobs petty cash box, or do you adjust your spending accordingly?

When they get their act together, then they can come to the taxpayer for assistance. That's the issue here, not how much the super rich make.....

Captain



Well, Captain you are wrong. You have evidently been propogandized.
Please consider the points made in the editorial below:

Working-Class Perspectives
Commentary from the Center for Working-Class Studies

→Who Creates Jobs? Taxes, Spending, and Class War
Posted on August 16, 2010

Republicans oppose spending for unemployment compensation and for plugging holes in states’ Medicaid and education funding, but they fight to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of income-earners—those making over $200,000. This, according to the Wall Street Journal, is not “class war,” but President Obama’s proposal for increasing taxes on that top 2% is.

The Journal opposes the President’s proposal because it “means raising [taxes] on the Americans most likely to take the risks that spur economic growth.” The Journal pointedly asks: “Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi think they can play their usual class war card to justify raising taxes on the rich, but that’s risky political business with unemployment at 9.5%. Who do they think will create new jobs—people making less than $200,000 a year?”

Rich people create jobs by investing in companies (little ones they own themselves or big ones they own stock in), and it’s these companies who actually hire workers and pay them a wage. This is true. But it’s like saying that the light coming from the ceiling of my office is caused by the light switch on the wall. Without turning the switch on, there will be no light, but the ultimate creator of that light tracks back to a power station and a national electric grid that hooks into the wiring behind the walls of my building. In an economy, consumer demand is the power station, the grid, and most of the wiring. If there is not enough consumer demand, businesses have no reason to hire new workers—just as there is no reason to switch the light on if nobody is using the room.

The reason companies aren’t hiring more now isn’t that they don’t have the money. It’s the lack of consumer demand. Businesses are currently sitting on huge piles of cash. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the 3,000 largest publicly traded U.S. companies “have $2.9 trillion in cash and short-term investments” they don’t know what to do with. Workers and consumers (and most state governments), on the other hand, are struggling to pay last month’s bills and to provide for basic necessities. The latter is the primary cause of the former. That is, not enough money in the hands of workers and consumers means a lack of profitable investment opportunities for business and rich folk.

That’s why extending unemployment compensation, among many other things, will create more jobs than any tax cut. Using the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of the job-generating capacity of different policy options, here’s the proposed cost and predicted job growth for the three policies currently in dispute:


POLICY
Amount passed or proposed Number of jobs likely created in 2010-2011
Increased aid to the unemployed $34 billion 300,000 to 600,000
Increased aid to states $26 billion 80,000 to 180,000
Tax cuts for top 2% $70 billion 70,000 to 210,000

Thus, given that the tax cut desired by the Journal is twice as big, extending unemployment compensation creates from 6 to 8 times the number of jobs as the tax cut would. Aid to states creates about 3 times as many jobs.

You can turn this around and say that a $70 billion tax increase on the top 2% could lead to the loss of as many as 210,000 jobs, and that would be true (given the CBO estimates). But if the government used that $70 billion in new revenues for increased aid to the unemployed, it would create more than 1.2 million jobs–or a net gain of about a million. Why wouldn’t we as a nation want to do that?

On the other hand, you might note that the Obama 2010 “stimulus” package, totaling $60 billion, is predicted to produce a maximum of 780,000 jobs. That’s helpful for some of the 14.6 million who are currently unemployed (as officially calculated), but it’s not enough. Democrats are doing the right things to stimulate the economy, but not nearly at the magnitude necessary to get it growing strongly enough to reduce unemployment anytime soon.

As I pointed out in March, the Obama White House was dismissive of a much stronger 2nd stimulus plan proposed by a coalition of unions, the National Urban League, and the Center for Community Change. That one would have spent $400 billion (on the same kind of things the administration is spending it on) and would have created 4 million jobs. The White House dismissed it on political, not economic, grounds. Something of that magnitude would never pass Congress, they said.

The problem with strictly political calculations is that it’s often politically stupid to propose and pass something that is not substantively adequate to the size of the problem. After bitter fights with Republicans, the President added more accomplishments to his resume this summer by passing one more temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a state bail-out package that will leave states still woefully under water. After his impressive string of legislative “victories,” however, he now owns the current state of the economy, which the majority of Americans see as “on the wrong track.”

The President should take advantage of recent bad economic data on GDP growth and unemployment to admit his mistake. That by itself is always refreshing in a president. And if he’s going to be accused of “class war” for merely restoring Clinton-era tax rates on the top 2%, why not do enough taxing and spending to deserve that charge?

As the Institute for Policy Studies and others have shown, the top 5% are good for at least $500 billion in various tax increases that could be put to productive uses in a wide variety of ways. As the CBO estimates show, taxing the rich kills some jobs, but not nearly as many jobs as are created by bailing out the unemployed, state governments, construction workers, autoworkers, transit workers, homeowners, and many others. With that kind of increase in consumer demand, the businesses currently sitting on trillions of dollars would start hiring to produce all the things they could profitably sell. In other words, ironically, a more robust class war would be very good for business.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
It does seem strange to me that the same people who complain about the debt and deficit are some of the same ones who want to add $700 Billion to the debt (mostly borrowed from China) in order to give the richest among us (who don't forget have made money hand over fist while the rest of us languished in a recession (depression) more tax relief.
Rocky is correct of course in that consumer demand will have to rise before businesses start producing again. TINKLE DOWN ECONOMICS IS A LIE.!!!!!!!!!! Only an excuse for big corporations to pizz down on everyone else.
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by luvurnabor:
quote:
We quabble of 2 or 3 percentage points for the top rate

Many of the contributors to this forum don't seem to know how rich these rich people are. This tax break amounts to $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.


It's not a matter of rich or poor, fair or not...

It doesn't matter if a person makes 10K a year or $1 million a year, if it's honestly earned...It is theirs...not mine...not yours...and certainly not the governments.

You can try to justify it any way you want but that estimated $680 billion doesn't belong to anyone but the people who earned it.
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
It does seem strange to me that the same people who complain about the debt and deficit are some of the same ones who want to add $700 Billion to the debt (mostly borrowed from China) in order to give the richest among us (who don't forget have made money hand over fist while the rest of us languished in a recession (depression) more tax relief.


"tax relief"...ignorance or mischaracterization?

Again, I have not heard anyone talk about cutting taxes...the debate is to keep the current tax rates in place, let them expire, or let them expire for just some.

I won't speak for "the same people who complain about the debt and deficit"...but it's not tax cuts, revenue, etc...that cause debt...it's the spending.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
It does seem strange to me that the same people who complain about the debt and deficit are some of the same ones who want to add $700 Billion to the debt (mostly borrowed from China) in order to give the richest among us (who don't forget have made money hand over fist while the rest of us languished in a recession (depression) more tax relief.


"tax relief"...ignorance or mischaracterization?

Again, I have not heard anyone talk about cutting taxes...the debate is to keep the current tax rates in place, let them expire, or let them expire for just some.

I won't speak for "the same people who complain about the debt and deficit"...but it's not tax cuts, revenue, etc...that cause debt...it's the spending.


Well, ok, but look at it another way for a minute-
When the Bush tax cuts were put in by a Republican congress with virtually no Democratic support, they were set to expire in 10 years because even then the lawmakers knew this was going to blow a hole in the debt.
Now, that time has come, and in fact the debt problem has in fact happened. Bush tax cuts did NOT expand the economy .
So , there are 3 options as I see it.
> Do nothing, the Republican tax hikes will take place and the tax code will go back to what it was in the Clinton years (when we were actually running a surplus)
> Continue the tax cuts as they are, including the huge tax cuts on the richest 2% of the people (many of which have publically said they don't need or want them).
> Keep the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000) (or some number, maybe even a million) and let the taxes go back up on those making over that amount.

If we continue the tax cuts on the wealthiest it will continue to blow a hole in the national debt. CBO estimates about $750,000,000,000 over 10 years. That money has to come from somewhere and during the Bush years it came from borrowing from China.
What I am saying is that the same bunch of people who are crying about the national debt (rightfully so) are the same ones wanting to increase it to give more billions to the super rich. That is logically inconsistent- they want their cake and eat it too.
The idea is basically tinkle-down economics. Give all the money to the super rich and the'll tinkle on the rest of us.
J JobeHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
The idea is basically tinkle-down economics. Give all the money to the super rich and the'll tinkle on the rest of us.


Much better than the government confiscating what belongs to an individual and having it “tinkle” down on everybody the government deems worthy of a check. You want trickle down by the government, the worst way to do it. It’s far better for people to keep more of what they earned to spent than the government. Government taking less out of the taxpayers pockets has worked every time.
Capt James TCapt James TPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:

Well, Captain you are wrong. You have evidently been propogandized.


Nope, I believe that this issue does not revolve around the current economic situation, or the situation that led to the tax cuts 10 years ago. I do not believe this is a democrat or republican issue, although I do believe that the republicans tend to be a little more responsible (not much, but a little) with money that is entrusted to them.

For too long, we (the taxpayer) have allowed the government to spend money they do not have. Then, when the debt becomes outrageous, they either borrow it from others (aka China) or they take it from us. Period. We do not hold them accountable. Thats because we (the general public) do not understand true economics. We live our lives as they do. We spend what we dont have, borrow from Peter to pay Paul, then file bankruptcy when it all falls apart. The only difference, it would be political suicide to discuss the truth to this process. Instead, they want to talk about where they can take the money from to make the numbers look good for the next 4-8 years.

You can sit here and say 'take it from the rich' all day long, you are still living their lie. Hope you sleep well at night.

I say leave the rich alone and fix the economic mess. Dont spend what you dont have. Period. Don't take my hard earned money because you have a pet project in nowheresville, USA, that you need to fund.

You think 'tinkle down' economics doesn't work? Trinkle Down Taxes does. In other words, the price of the gizmos the millionaires company makes goes up by a few cents each to make up for the increase in taxes. And you and I pay for it. See how that works against us anyway?

You are brainwashed and are allowing the politicians to play the shell game with you. "Look here, at this shell. This is the shell you need to look at. Dont worry about whats going on behind you, that doesn't concern you anyway......"

Captain
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Capt James T:
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:

Well, Captain you are wrong. You have evidently been propogandized.




You think 'tinkle down' economics doesn't work? Trinkle Down Taxes does. In other words, the price of the gizmos the millionaires company makes goes up by a few cents each to make up for the increase in taxes. And you and I pay for it. See how that works against us anyway?

Nope, if that were correct the price of gasoline would be a lot less. Do you have ANY idea how much Exxon/Mobil paid in income taxes last year ???___ I'll tell you. They paid $0.00 and got back over a billion. I sure would like to have that deal.
The price of commodities will always rise until they become cost-prohibitive, taxes of no.

Captain
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
When the Bush tax cuts were put in by a Republican congress with virtually no Democratic support, they were set to expire in 10 years because even then the lawmakers knew this was going to blow a hole in the debt.


I'll say it again...it's real simple...tax cuts don't cause debt...SPENDING does...

And yes the big culprit for several years was the Bush administration.

But the simple fact is...rich or poor...tax on income gained honestly is nothing more than state sponsored theft...that's why the founders were so against tax on income.

Of course progressives of the early 20th century were in love with "state sponsored theft" and sold it to farmers and regular Joe's as soaking the rich...But the regular Joe's didn't realize what a politician considers rich.

Some one had a very informative post on that fact earlier in the thread.
JuanHuntJuanHuntHall of Famer
The architect of the Reagan admin economic policy says:

quote:
– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”

– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”

– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”


--"the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts."


Who knows more about actual economic policy, instead of just regurgitating tired Rep rhetoric???
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
quote:
Originally posted by Capt James T:
Even if these numbers are correct, who do you think is going to spend that $680 Billion better, the 'super rich' (who got there by making sound business decisions) or the government (who like to spend other peoples money).

Go ahead and increase the taxes, give the alcoholic another drink. The politicians like spending other peoples money and are very good at it.

OR......

You could demand a little accountability from the government, make them balance their budgets like we do ours by reducing spending when money is tight. Tell me this, when money is tight at your house, do you run to work and steal a little money from your jobs petty cash box, or do you adjust your spending accordingly?

When they get their act together, then they can come to the taxpayer for assistance. That's the issue here, not how much the super rich make.....

Captain



Well, Captain you are wrong. You have evidently been propogandized.
Please consider the points made in the editorial below:

Working-Class Perspectives
Commentary from the Center for Working-Class Studies

→Who Creates Jobs? Taxes, Spending, and Class War
Posted on August 16, 2010

Republicans oppose spending for unemployment compensation and for plugging holes in states’ Medicaid and education funding, but they fight to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of income-earners—those making over $200,000. This, according to the Wall Street Journal, is not “class war,” but President Obama’s proposal for increasing taxes on that top 2% is.

The Journal opposes the President’s proposal because it “means raising [taxes] on the Americans most likely to take the risks that spur economic growth.” The Journal pointedly asks: “Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi think they can play their usual class war card to justify raising taxes on the rich, but that’s risky political business with unemployment at 9.5%. Who do they think will create new jobs—people making less than $200,000 a year?”

Rich people create jobs by investing in companies (little ones they own themselves or big ones they own stock in), and it’s these companies who actually hire workers and pay them a wage. This is true. But it’s like saying that the light coming from the ceiling of my office is caused by the light switch on the wall. Without turning the switch on, there will be no light, but the ultimate creator of that light tracks back to a power station and a national electric grid that hooks into the wiring behind the walls of my building. In an economy, consumer demand is the power station, the grid, and most of the wiring. If there is not enough consumer demand, businesses have no reason to hire new workers—just as there is no reason to switch the light on if nobody is using the room.

The reason companies aren’t hiring more now isn’t that they don’t have the money. It’s the lack of consumer demand. Businesses are currently sitting on huge piles of cash. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the 3,000 largest publicly traded U.S. companies “have $2.9 trillion in cash and short-term investments” they don’t know what to do with. Workers and consumers (and most state governments), on the other hand, are struggling to pay last month’s bills and to provide for basic necessities. The latter is the primary cause of the former. That is, not enough money in the hands of workers and consumers means a lack of profitable investment opportunities for business and rich folk.

That’s why extending unemployment compensation, among many other things, will create more jobs than any tax cut. Using the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of the job-generating capacity of different policy options, here’s the proposed cost and predicted job growth for the three policies currently in dispute:


POLICY
Amount passed or proposed Number of jobs likely created in 2010-2011
Increased aid to the unemployed $34 billion 300,000 to 600,000
Increased aid to states $26 billion 80,000 to 180,000
Tax cuts for top 2% $70 billion 70,000 to 210,000

Thus, given that the tax cut desired by the Journal is twice as big, extending unemployment compensation creates from 6 to 8 times the number of jobs as the tax cut would. Aid to states creates about 3 times as many jobs.

You can turn this around and say that a $70 billion tax increase on the top 2% could lead to the loss of as many as 210,000 jobs, and that would be true (given the CBO estimates). But if the government used that $70 billion in new revenues for increased aid to the unemployed, it would create more than 1.2 million jobs–or a net gain of about a million. Why wouldn’t we as a nation want to do that?

On the other hand, you might note that the Obama 2010 “stimulus” package, totaling $60 billion, is predicted to produce a maximum of 780,000 jobs. That’s helpful for some of the 14.6 million who are currently unemployed (as officially calculated), but it’s not enough. Democrats are doing the right things to stimulate the economy, but not nearly at the magnitude necessary to get it growing strongly enough to reduce unemployment anytime soon.

As I pointed out in March, the Obama White House was dismissive of a much stronger 2nd stimulus plan proposed by a coalition of unions, the National Urban League, and the Center for Community Change. That one would have spent $400 billion (on the same kind of things the administration is spending it on) and would have created 4 million jobs. The White House dismissed it on political, not economic, grounds. Something of that magnitude would never pass Congress, they said.

The problem with strictly political calculations is that it’s often politically stupid to propose and pass something that is not substantively adequate to the size of the problem. After bitter fights with Republicans, the President added more accomplishments to his resume this summer by passing one more temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a state bail-out package that will leave states still woefully under water. After his impressive string of legislative “victories,” however, he now owns the current state of the economy, which the majority of Americans see as “on the wrong track.”

The President should take advantage of recent bad economic data on GDP growth and unemployment to admit his mistake. That by itself is always refreshing in a president. And if he’s going to be accused of “class war” for merely restoring Clinton-era tax rates on the top 2%, why not do enough taxing and spending to deserve that charge?

As the Institute for Policy Studies and others have shown, the top 5% are good for at least $500 billion in various tax increases that could be put to productive uses in a wide variety of ways. As the CBO estimates show, taxing the rich kills some jobs, but not nearly as many jobs as are created by bailing out the unemployed, state governments, construction workers, autoworkers, transit workers, homeowners, and many others. With that kind of increase in consumer demand, the businesses currently sitting on trillions of dollars would start hiring to produce all the things they could profitably sell. In other words, ironically, a more robust class war would be very good for business.


As usual, rocky plagiarized his little screed. This time from: http://workingclassstudies.wor...-spending-class-war/

As is, the so-called logic contained in the article is no better than that he espouses. So, call it even.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
When the Bush tax cuts were put in by a Republican congress with virtually no Democratic support, they were set to expire in 10 years because even then the lawmakers knew this was going to blow a hole in the debt.


I'll say it again...it's real simple...tax cuts don't cause debt...SPENDING does...

And yes the big culprit for several years was the Bush administration.

But the simple fact is...rich or poor...tax on income gained honestly is nothing more than state sponsored theft...that's why the founders were so against tax on income.

Of course progressives of the early 20th century were in love with "state sponsored theft" and sold it to farmers and regular Joe's as soaking the rich...But the regular Joe's didn't realize what a politician considers rich.

Some one had a very informative post on that fact earlier in the thread.

You are just plain wrong !
Spending more than your income causes debt.
How exactly do you propose to pay for a military that spends more each year than the rest of the world combined ? How exactly do you propose to pay for infastructure in our country - highways,schools, etc.
You can either pay for what you spend by increasing the income,(taxes) or cutting what you are spending.
A while ago I asked you and a lot of others what would you cut. Only 1 or 2 even offered a single program, mostly centered on Dep of Education.
Well , ok, that's a $billion, but that and everything else offered is just fly doo-doo in pepper.
Nobody mentioned the biggest job program and money pit we have and that's defense.
(SS/Medicare are in a different compartment)
We are not going to get this under control until we stop making billion dollar submarines and airplanes that the Pentagon dosn't need or want, or extra jet engines for every airplane (wanted or not) we build (just because they are made in John Bohner's district).
Since Congress dosen't have the stones to tackle the real wasted money in the system, we need to pay for that waste somehow. That somehow has to be taxes.
Like it or lump it, that's just how it is, and the Democrats are almost as bad on that issue as the Republicans, but not quite.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
It does seem strange to me that the same people who complain about the debt and deficit are some of the same ones who want to add $700 Billion to the debt (mostly borrowed from China) in order to give the richest among us (who don't forget have made money hand over fist while the rest of us languished in a recession (depression) more tax relief.


"tax relief"...ignorance or mischaracterization?

Again, I have not heard anyone talk about cutting taxes...the debate is to keep the current tax rates in place, let them expire, or let them expire for just some.

I won't speak for "the same people who complain about the debt and deficit"...but it's not tax cuts, revenue, etc...that cause debt...it's the spending.


Well, ok, but look at it another way for a minute-
When the Bush tax cuts were put in by a Republican congress with virtually no Democratic support, they were set to expire in 10 years because even then the lawmakers knew this was going to blow a hole in the debt.
Now, that time has come, and in fact the debt problem has in fact happened. Bush tax cuts did NOT expand the economy .
So , there are 3 options as I see it.
> Do nothing, the Republican tax hikes will take place and the tax code will go back to what it was in the Clinton years (when we were actually running a surplus)
> Continue the tax cuts as they are, including the huge tax cuts on the richest 2% of the people (many of which have publically said they don't need or want them).
> Keep the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000) (or some number, maybe even a million) and let the taxes go back up on those making over that amount.

If we continue the tax cuts on the wealthiest it will continue to blow a hole in the national debt. CBO estimates about $750,000,000,000 over 10 years. That money has to come from somewhere and during the Bush years it came from borrowing from China.
What I am saying is that the same bunch of people who are crying about the national debt (rightfully so) are the same ones wanting to increase it to give more billions to the super rich. That is logically inconsistent- they want their cake and eat it too.
The idea is basically tinkle-down economics. Give all the money to the super rich and the'll tinkle on the rest of us.



What the left continues to ignore is that there is a level of taxation that when reached, results in lowered revenues, even as the rate increases. The folk tale about killing the golden goose was written especially for them. The Laffer curve works -- tax at zero or at 100 percent, and the results are zero taxes collected.

As for the history of tax cuts resulting in increasing revenue, that's easily proven:

"The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988."

http://www.heritage.org/resear...s-of-lower-tax-rates

The phenomena continued under the Bush tax cuts:

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • us_tax_revenue
Renegade NationRenegade NationHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
You are just plain wrong !
Spending more than your income causes debt.


Uhmmm...OK...that's sounds familiar...

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
I'll say it again...it's real simple...tax cuts don't cause debt...SPENDING does...


So you are arguing with me by agreeing? OK.



quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
You can either pay for what you spend by increasing the income,(taxes) or cutting what you are spending.


Why, yes...

quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
A while ago I asked you and a lot of others what would you cut. Only 1 or 2 even offered a single program, mostly centered on Dep of Education.


Well you, liberals and conservatives won't like my answer...like a holiday furniture sale...Everything must go!

Look I know this is unlikely to happen voluntarily...I do believe at some point it will happen.

Hoping for the return to Constitutional order in our government is as likely as a socialist utopia...but veering away from Constitutional order for the past 150 years is the very root cause to 99.8% of our problems...economic, foreign policy, etc...And simply, returning Constitutonal order is the cure

Simple to say...but will never happen until we have our cataclysmic economic meltdown...then all bets are off.

And when I say return to Constitutional order, I'm not saying SS or medicare has to go (all though personally I do believe most of these things could be handle in the private realm much more efficiently), I'm saying the Feds have no authority in any of these things.

If states were responsible for the citizens in their borders (Constitutional order), the true cost of programs couldn't be hidden the way it is now...hard decisions could be made in Alabama that don't affect Montana, etc.

But all this of course is pie in the sky...

quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Nobody mentioned the biggest job program and money pit we have and that's defense.
(SS/Medicare are in a different compartment)


Well unfortunately for you and the neo-cons...No serious cuts in spending can me made if all 3 of those things aren't on the table.

Here's a good place to start, without all the wishful hoping for a return of Constitutional government, or having to cut benefits...You know when DC is hit with a huge snowstorm and officials tell all non-essential personnel stay home?

How about we tell them to stay home permanently?
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
...to echo Renegade's point.

The left and right both have a wishlist of government spending cuts. Both sides believe that there are wasteful government programs and both are fairly certain they've correctly identified the programs we can cut and/or do away with. The left should realize that the government's power to tax and spend on "wasteful government programs" has incrementally grown in the name of taxing and spending on the "good government programs." The right should also realize that the government's power to tax and spend on "wasteful government programs" has incrementally grown in the name of taxing and spending on the "good government programs." They can argue all day long about which programs are wasteful and which programs are beneficial, but until they both collectively realize that the power to be wasteful is a by-product of the power to tax and spend "for the public good" then no progress will be made in getting government under control.
Next

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×