Page 7 of 87 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 862

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

  1. #61
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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
    So logic would then say if income tax revenue went up AFTER the tax cuts that the tax cuts that grow govt revenue cannot cause deficits. I am so confused. I hope someone explains that to me. I really don't believe the AMT generates that much revenue but if it does, great, the govt needs the money much, much more than we do.

    Revenue by year by category, notice income tax revenue especially after the July 2003 tax rate cuts

    Line 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
    1 Current receipts 3,132.4 3,118.2 2,967.9 3,043.4 3,265.7 3,659.3 3,995.2 4,197.0 4,074.0

    2 Current tax receipts 2,202.8 2,163.7 2,002.1 2,047.9 2,213.2 2,546.8 2,807.4 2,951.2 2,780.3

    3 Personal current taxes 1,232.3 1,234.8 1,050.4 1,000.3 1,047.8 1,208.6 1,352.4 1,488.7 1,438.2

    4 Taxes on production and imports 708.6 727.7 762.8 806.8 863.4 930.2 986.8 1,027.2 1,045.1

    5 Taxes on corporate income 254.7 193.5 181.3 231.8 292.0 395.9 454.2 420.6 280.2


    Look, I live in TX so know that GW Bush wasn't very smart. Amazing how he got the entire world to believe Saddam Hussein had WMD, and then got the Democrat Congress to agree with tax rate cuts, and then all by himself totally baffled the Democrat Congress to allow him to lead the country into recession. How that "cowboy" did that is beyond me.

  2. #62
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    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, I really am waiting for that propaganda with no economic support from you so that I can learn from my mistakes.

  3. #63
    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
    Hmmm, they hoard it? Any idea what the banks that pay that interest does with the money the rich are hoarding?
    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_690596.html

    They've got money, but they're not hiring. By your philosophy, they should automatically be hiring, right? Because they have money? Lots of it, even. So, why aren't they hiring?

    They aren't hiring because the only thing that will get them hiring is if there is high enough demand for their products that they are required to hire more workers to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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.
    Yes, there were tax cuts for all levels - but the benefit was most largely laid at the feet of the wealthiest.

    It didn't produce results for basically anyone else:
    Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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.
    See here (amongst meaning places):
    CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    CBO and CBPP both agree with me. The Bush tax cuts drove up the deficit. In fact, even one of your own admits that tax cuts expand the deficit.

    Cantor Appears To Concede That Bush Tax Cuts Will Add To Deficits | TPMDC

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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.
    No, and your partisanship is showing here by mischaracterizing everything I'm trying to say instead of trying to debate points. I like my money and my family is making more than we ever have and both recently got raises. I hope to be one of the top 20% of earners one day as I further and further advance in my career.

    The point about the various levels of income-earners is this: I'm referring to tax cuts as short-term stimulus. It has to go to people who will spend it. Saving it doesn't do anything for the economy. Period.

    I would return tax rates to Clinton level rates (let the Bush cuts expire) for the top two income levels. I would lower the rate slightly on the bottom earning levels. For the top tiers (more likely to be business owners), I would give a tax-break for each new-hire (full-time with benefits only) all the way to the point where they can have an effective rate of 0% - as long as they hire people and purchase equipment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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.
    Again, I'm not talking about tax rate: if at the end of the fiscal year, they show that they increased their full-time payroll, then they earn tax benefits - and for me - I would be willing to let that go all the way to no tax, as long as they hire people.



    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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

    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.
    I actually read your column before (it's an opinion piece, not an article) you linked it here and I disagree.

    The rich do spend. The top 1% spend a lot. The problem is, they don't need stimulus to do it. The effect of a tax cut has little to do with them, because their earnings are so high. They are already capable of spending as much as they want.

    As far as the infrastructure: do you deny that Wal-Mart uses American infrastructure more than your insurance agent does? Does a business man who takes meetings on both coasts use the infrastructure more than the clerk at your local Hardees?

    It's not crazy. It's crazy obvious that large corporations and wealthy financiers frequently use a much larger share of infrastructure than the average work-a-day individual. I don't touch an interstate to get to my three-person office + one intern office.

    Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).

    (Sorry that took so long, a friend stopped by).

    And please, let's stick to facts and not make assumptions. In no way do I think income belongs to the government. It is earned by individuals for their work, product, or services provided. But taxes are a necessary evil for our government to run. When you say things like that, you're relying on stereotypes. I would prefer to have a debate about numbers, philosophies, and facts. Not assumptions based on stereotypes given us by talking heads. These things can be open to interpretation and there are differing ideas. That's what our country is about.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

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

    FilmFestGuy;1058920081]http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_690596.html

    They've got money, but they're not hiring. By your philosophy, they should automatically be hiring, right? Because they have money? Lots of it, even. So, why aren't they hiring?

    They aren't hiring because the only thing that will get them hiring is if there is high enough demand for their products that they are required to hire more workers to keep up.
    I wonder who "they" are and I wonder if I was in their position not knowing what my taxes were going to be would hire either. then there is the healthcare costs that will kick in. I believe that 80% of the businesses in this country are small businesses and not those evil corporations. They seem to be the ones not hiring either. I think you are on to something however if we could only find a way to increase demand for products. Wonder what kind of program would put more money into spenders's hands?


    Yes, there were tax cuts for all levels - but the benefit was most largely laid at the feet of the wealthiest.

    It didn't produce results for basically anyone else:
    Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    So then the bureau of economic analysis isn't a credible source? I wish someone would give me credible sources for economic data.

    Interesting article you gave me but wonder why it took data from 1979 to 2006 sand stopped at 2006. I always get confused when I hear about income gap and blame that on taxes. Aren't taxes something paid after income in earned? How would takes have anything to do with income gaps? Call me confused. I wonder if maybe lower taxes would help put money into the hands of people to create demand? I still think BEA must have it wrong because they show economic growth of over 4.5 trilloin dollars in the Bush 8 years which is the highest in U.S. history. how can that be?



    See here (amongst meaning places):
    CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    CBO and CBPP both agree with me. The Bush tax cuts drove up the deficit. In fact, even one of your own admits that tax cuts expand the deficit.
    Well then the U.S. Treasury which is the checkbook of the country got it wrong as they show tax revenue going up AFTER the tax rate cuts. I don't know how that can be. I always trusted CBO too until I read somewhere that their projections are seldom right as evidenced by their projections with the Obama stimulus. Oh, well, they probably only got it wrong with Obama and not Bush. I just don't understand it though so help me. According to official numbers, unless you have a better source and I am waiting for OC to give me a better source, the Treasury Dept. shows revenue going up after the tax cuts so call me confused but how could anything that grows revenue cause deficits?

    Now I have a different take on Cantor's comments but could be wrong and of course you be right, but the fact is we have 16 million unemployed Americans today. I was surprised that is up over 3 million since Obama signed his stimulus plan and those unemployed people aren't getting any tax cuts but also aren't paying any taxes. Without those tax payers and all that spending it would seem to me that tax revenue will indeed drop and create larger deficits. Now I wonder what is going to happen when they raise taxes and how we get those 16 million unemployed back to work paying taxes. Any ideas? Seems McConnell however agrees with the U.S. Treasury that tax revenue didn't drop with the tax cuts, maybe because we had more people paying taxes?


    No, and your partisanship is showing here by mischaracterizing everything I'm trying to say instead of trying to debate points. I like my money and my family is making more than we ever have and both recently got raises. I hope to be one of the top 20% of earners one day as I further and further advance in my career.
    My partisanship? You mean my screenname gives me away? Good for you, making more money than you ever made? How about those poor less fortunate? Are you sending more money to the govt. to help solve the problem? What exactly do you do with all that money you are making? Maybe you can give some hints to the rich because obviously as has been stated by others they don't spend their money. Good luck on being in that top 20% so you can contribute more money to the govt. I hope you make it as I will be looking for you to help me help solve the poverty problem.

    The point about the various levels of income-earners is this: I'm referring to tax cuts as short-term stimulus. It has to go to people who will spend it. Saving it doesn't do anything for the economy. Period.
    Now I hadn't thought about that, savings doesn't help the economy at all? I thought that savings went to banks who lent that money to people to buy homes, make home repairs, build businesses. I wonder where the banks get that money if it doesn't come from savings? You are probably right however about the short term benefits of tax cuts. My bet is that when you get more of your own money in each pay check that it probably gets boring and you stop spending after a while as you probably don't outgrow things and don't need anything after you purchased everything you want. The of course there is that little savings thing that you don't like. Remember SS will be there for you so no need to put money aside for retirement.


    I would return tax rates to Clinton level rates (let the Bush cuts expire) for the top two income levels. I would lower the rate slightly on the bottom earning levels. For the top tiers (more likely to be business owners), I would give a tax-break for each new-hire (full-time with benefits only) all the way to the point where they can have an effective rate of 0% - as long as they hire people and purchase equipment.
    Why just the Clinton levels, the govt. needs the money badly? Let's raise them back to the Carter levels. Sounds a little complicated having different levels of taxes for different levels of income especially when businesses don't know from year to year how much they will be making. Then there is that little issue of healthcare taxes that are going to hit. Wonder if your incentive to hire will offset that expense? Then there is that little equipment issue and depreciation expense. Businesses really don't need to write off depreciation. I wish Businesses would be more patriotic and give more to the govt. to really help give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes.


    Again, I'm not talking about tax rate: if at the end of the fiscal year, they show that they increased their full-time payroll, then they earn tax benefits - and for me - I would be willing to let that go all the way to no tax, as long as they hire people.
    Sounds like a great idea, just think of the govt. employees we could hire and have the taxpayers pay for to monitor business hiring. I sure hope that tax credit offsets the rising costs of business including I am sure you would want a liveable wage for those employees plus their healthcare benefits. How about retirement, 401K, dental, and eye glasses?

    I actually read your column before (it's an opinion piece, not an article) you linked it here and I disagree.
    You are probably right, the rich will just sit back and do their patriotic duty and pay those higher taxes. I know that NY just passed a millionaires tax to raise revenue. Wonder how that is working out for the state? I was surprised to see the IRS reporting lower revenue from the rich when tax rates were raised. Wonder why?

    The rich do spend. The top 1% spend a lot. The problem is, they don't need stimulus to do it. The effect of a tax cut has little to do with them, because their earnings are so high. They are already capable of spending as much as they want.
    I know but since it is there money, think it is right to take it from them? Probably so as they have a duty to pay for those who can work but choose not to as well as to keep up their charitable giving like they do when they had more spendable income. I was amazed at home much money I had to give to charity when my spendable income was higher. Oh, well, I can send it to someone in D.C. and let them divy it out to some other state and not my local community. We are all Americans right?

    As far as the infrastructure: do you deny that Wal-Mart uses American infrastructure more than your insurance agent does? Does a business man who takes meetings on both coasts use the infrastructure more than the clerk at your local Hardees?
    Absolutely, they have all those polluting trucks on the road stopping in those truck stops buying that high priced diesel fuel and paying use taxes on every gallon. I thought that excise taxes on gasoline and diesel was supposed to pay for infrastructure expenses but I could be wrong. How about finding out for me?

    It's not crazy. It's crazy obvious that large corporations and wealthy financiers frequently use a much larger share of infrastructure than the average work-a-day individual. I don't touch an interstate to get to my three-person office + one intern office.
    You are probably right large corporations and wealthy financeirs deserve to pay more because they obviously take more from the poor people and offer nothing of value to the community or their employees. I always wondered about those corporate taxes though because I don't recall ever seeing a corporation in the grocery store? I wonder where that money goes?

    Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).
    I wish I could answer that question but don't know where you got that data. Sure seems unlikely to me that people with more spendable income made less money. I don't believe Bush was in office in 2000 when we went into recession but could be wrong. He may have been creating policy from the state house in TX. Zero income growth, huh? Let me know where I can find that information. NOw I know some blog or site can provide that for us. Let me know when you get the answer.

    (Sorry that took so long, a friend stopped by).

    And please, let's stick to facts and not make assumptions. In no way do I think income belongs to the government. It is earned by individuals for their work, product, or services provided. But taxes are a necessary evil for our government to run. When you say things like that, you're relying on stereotypes. I would prefer to have a debate about numbers, philosophies, and facts. Not assumptions based on stereotypes given us by talking heads. These things can be open to interpretation and there are differing ideas. That's what our country is about.
    [/QUOTE]

    No problem, friends are more important that educating me. Are you sure about that, you had me convinced that the govt. needs the money more than the individuals. Taxes aren't evil at all and it seems to make sense that we send all our money to the govt. and let them give us back what they think we need. That way everyone would be in the same boat.

    I don't know I think those talking heads on MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS are much smarter than me and I particularly like the way they destroyed President Bush because Bush deserved it and how they are doing their best to help Obama because the country is in worse shape due to Bush. I was just shocked at how everyone told me how stupid Bush was that he was able to do so much damage especially with a Democrat Congress. He fooled them all and I am just sick about it.

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I haven't read the whole thread but here's my take.

    Right now I get taxed at 18%. If this coming tax hike isn't stopped then I will be taxed at 25%. I'm poor. Taking that extra 7% will put me living with my folks...something none of us want.

    I could really care less what rich folks get taxed. I only care about being able to live.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #66
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I haven't read the whole thread but here's my take.

    Right now I get taxed at 18%. If this coming tax hike isn't stopped then I will be taxed at 25%. I'm poor. Taking that extra 7% will put me living with my folks...something none of us want.

    I could really care less what rich folks get taxed. I only care about being able to live.
    Now that's the spirit, don't care about what the rich pay. My bet is those that don't pay any income taxes could care less what others pay as well. Isn't it easy supporting something that doesn't affect you?

  7. #67
    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 FilmFestGuy View Post
    Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).
    Excellent question, another one would be why the national debt doubled during the Bush presidency?


  8. #68
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Excellent question, another one would be why the national debt doubled during the Bush presidency?
    pbrauer, I am still waiting for a better source than the U.S. Treasury Dept that shows the tax cuts caused the deficits because that site shows tax revenue growing AFTER the rate cuts in July 2003. Interesting that something that grew revenue would cause a deficit.

    Then Film told me about income not growing and maybe the site that shows income would be a good one to use to show that revenue actually dropped after the tax cuts too. I anxiously await better sites because quite frankly I am sick and tired of those non partisan sites like bea.gov, bls.gov, and U.S. Treasury lying to me.

  9. #69
    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
    OC, I really am waiting for that propaganda with no economic support from you so that I can learn from my mistakes.
    That would require you to acknowledge and address honestly my posts. And you haven't done that. At all. Since the first day you joined. Come down to the basement if you want to really hear about what we think of you.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #70
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That would require you to acknowledge and address honestly my posts. And you haven't done that. At all. Since the first day you joined. Come down to the basement if you want to really hear about what we think of you.
    Wow, I cannot tell you how hurt I am that you think so little of me. What a blow to my ego! No problem, I accept your claim that I provide propaganda with no economic support and I am sure someone else here will give me better sites than bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury so that I don't continue to provide propaganda from those non partisan sites. Maybe I can get better information from MSNBC, MediaMatters, MoveOn, Americans for Progress as I am sure those sites offer objective information and no propaganda and seem to be used a lot here. Maybe using those sites would be helpful in getting me accepted here although it just won't mean much if I am not accepted by you.

    Thanks for the civil message however and again I apologize for your belief that I don't honestly answer your posts in a manner that suits you. I can only hope that someone here helps me become at least worthy of discussing issues with you using data you deem credible.

Page 7 of 87 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... 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
  •