Page 6 of 87 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 862

Thread: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

  1. #51
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What exactly am I pushing! You seem to be an expert on everything so tell me what I am pushing?
    Honestly, propaganda with no economic support. Hence why it's not worth talking to you about anything.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #52
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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?
    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.

    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.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    Ok, should have gone back, didn't know your post was there. Interesting that I would have to convince someone as brilliant as you that tax cuts put more money into your pocket so you can spend it the way you see fit including investing or savings. Amazing that some people have a problem with that concept and buy the liberal position that the govt. needs the money more than the individual. I really don't know why I waste my time because tax cuts even benefit liberals like OC but apparently liberals are so brainwashed they don't understand it.

    Now OC wants to compare the U.S. to Australia and because there is a claim that Australia failed cutting taxes here is going to fail. I wonder what it is that OC and those who claim that any failure is due to tax cuts. Do you know the make up of the Australia economy? Do you know the income of the people in Australia? How about the budget of the Govt. and its obligations? I would have thought that someone as brilliant and calculating as you would have done the research before agreeing that Australia has failed. I must have missed that news report and if it happened it was the results of tax cuts.

    OC, I know you have trouble keeping more of your money and apparently so do a large group of your "friends." If it is too stressful for you then there is a line on your tax form that allows you to send more of your money to the Federal Govt. Then you can tell your employer that if they ever decide to give you a raise that the stress is too great so you would like that money sent to the govt. as well. Keep believing that raising taxes is a good thing for the American consumer whose activities make up over 60% of our GDP. Keep telling yourself that raising taxes will create jobs for the 16 million unemployed Americans? Keep telling yourself that raising taxes won't change human behavior and those evil rich people will just role over and take it.

    Now I know nothing is ever going to change your mind because you are absolutely brilliant and thus all knowing but I would love for you to provide us all your expertise in how to get 16 million Americans back to work and create govt. revenue to pay down the massive debt Obama has created in just two years takingour debt to over 13.2 trillion dollars. I am convinced that taxing the rich will be part of your solution.

    Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.com

  4. #54
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    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.
    Hmmm, they hoard it? Any idea what the banks that pay that interest does with the money the rich are hoarding?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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).
    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


    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.
    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.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Honestly, propaganda with no economic support. Hence why it's not worth talking to you about anything.
    OC, don't blame you and I apologize for all the problems I have given you in the past. I simply want to learn where I have gone wrong. I made a serious mistake working hard all those years and didn't realize that when I got a raise and my take home pay went up that it hurt the country. I always thought that if I was successful that I wouldn't need people like you to take care of me and my family. Guess I was wrong.

    I realize that all that research I have done at non partisan sites isn't credible and would love to have you give me alternative sites so that I can become better educated and more like you. I sincerely hope you will show me the errors of my way by helping me understand how keeping more of my money hurts you and the country. Too bad you weren't around when I was growing us to tell me not to listen to my parents about personal responsibility and consequences for poor choices. All that hard work which obviously hurt a lot of people. Sorry I am not dependent on you but there still is time. Help me understand what was propaganda that I posted so I never do it again or can ask you for clarification of the data?

  6. #56
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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)


  7. #57
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    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.

  8. #58
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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)
    Ok, 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?

  9. #59
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    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.
    Well thank you very much for posting such interesting reading. I wonder where the U.S. Treasury Dept. got the information that tax revenue grew AFTER the rate cuts in 2003? Obviously your sources say they are wrong and why would I believe the Treasury Dept.?

    Now regarding median income, please help me understand how taxes affected median income or was it median income that affected taxes. I am so confused.

    Now regarding economic growth, I usually use the Bureau of Economic Analysis, bea.gov but apparently they got it wrong too as they showed economic growth growing from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion from 2000 to 2008. That looks like pretty good growth to me but guess I am wrong and looking at it incorrectly.

    As for those pesky unemployment numbers apparently the bureau of labor statistics got it wrong as well since they show job growth as well until the recession hit. That Damn Bush, he should have listened to the Democratic controlled Congress when they took over in January 2007. He must have vetoed a lot of their legislation to cause the recession all by himself.

    Unemployment numbers by month

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
    2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
    2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
    2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
    2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
    2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
    2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
    2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
    2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
    2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
    2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
    2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599

    Discouraged workers that dropped out of the labor market and are no longer counted

    2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
    2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
    2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185

    Unemployed + Discouraged
    2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
    2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
    2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784

    It would be helpful if you or your sources corrected BLS and BEA so they stop misleading the public. I cannot believe those sites were used during the Clinton years and accurate but all of a sudden with Bush and Obama they are wrong. Who would have thought that would happen.
    Last edited by Conservative; 08-14-10 at 08:19 PM. Reason: added content

  10. #60
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Ok, 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


Page 6 of 87 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •