Page 2 of 109 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 1085

Thread: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

  1. #11
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by naturalrights View Post
    But you see that's what I don't understand. First off, how would increased income taxes for the wealthy create uncertainty? Isn't business going to continue as usual?
    You don't understand, because you think that, "tax increases on the wealthy", are just tax increases on the wealthy. In reality, when taxes go up, taxes go up for everyone that pays taxes, including small businesses. When there are threats of tax increases, along with Obamacare, it causes uncertainty, which forces people to stop spending and start ratholing money, because they don't know what the cost of business is going to be this time next year.



    When I am taxed more heavily, I just find new ways to make more money. In order to do this, I am going to have to preform better and as a result my company is going to have to grow .. last time I checked this means good things for stock holders .. am I missing something?
    You gotta spend money to make money. When there is this much uncertainty in the private sector, no one is going to spend money.

    But, don't sweat it...soon as Obama's ass is voted out, thing will get better.

  2. #12
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    07-16-13 @ 09:11 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    34

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You don't understand, because you think that, "tax increases on the wealthy", are just tax increases on the wealthy. In reality, when taxes go up, taxes go up for everyone that pays taxes, including small businesses.
    Why would small businesses be a target .. that is counter-intuitive. Taxing them would only and do little for tax revenue. If any businesses were to be targeted it would make most sense for it to be the extremely large businesses/companies and corporations as there is more revenue to be acquired that way. I would suggest caution with taxing even the larger companies, as I can see how that would effect investors' decisions. However, it would effect their decisions much more on the smaller companies, so if companies had to be taxed, clearly it should be the larger less vulnerable ones. Somehow find it hard to believe that anyone with any knowledge of how the market works could not figure those concepts out .. therefore I am not sure how much merit your claim that all are taxed including companies and even small businesses.

    The Democrats seem to be standing for the rights of the people, which generally means the majority of the people who are mostly employees and small business owners. This makes sense intuitively as they are standing up for the greater amount of people rather than those very few who own all of our countries wealth and need no more protection .. money is power and they have plenty of it. So again, I still don't understand why you think they would want to increase taxes on small businesses?
    ~ "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" ~

  3. #13
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,876

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    I like how the term "uncertainty" gets batted around from time to time (always with a Dem in the WH). I do not recall any period during my lifetime when anyone was 'certain' about the future. Stashing away money that was about to become worthless didn't work too well in the late 1920s.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    And people think that this redistribution has higher moral authenticity because it lives of to some ancient ideal of the Founding Fathers, but in fact the values and ambitions which inform the pro-Wall Street bunch have almost no resemblance to any thought or vision of the Founding Fathers, let alone the modern understanding of what a well administrated republic should be like.
    During the days of the "founding fathers" we had the poor, the serfs, and slaves, along with a small middle class and the wealthy.
    And there was little in the way of taxes.
    Is this what the tea baggers want us to return to ??

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by naturalrights View Post
    Why would small businesses be a target .. that is counter-intuitive. Taxing them would only and do little for tax revenue. If any businesses were to be targeted it would make most sense for it to be the extremely large businesses/companies and corporations as there is more revenue to be acquired that way. I would suggest caution with taxing even the larger companies, as I can see how that would effect investors' decisions. However, it would effect their decisions much more on the smaller companies, so if companies had to be taxed, clearly it should be the larger less vulnerable ones. Somehow find it hard to believe that anyone with any knowledge of how the market works could not figure those concepts out .. therefore I am not sure how much merit your claim that all are taxed including companies and even small businesses.

    The Democrats seem to be standing for the rights of the people, which generally means the majority of the people who are mostly employees and small business owners. This makes sense intuitively as they are standing up for the greater amount of people rather than those very few who own all of our countries wealth and need no more protection .. money is power and they have plenty of it. So again, I still don't understand why you think they would want to increase taxes on small businesses?
    This is the result of the right-wing spin of the truth.
    The proposed increases are for incomes over and above $250,000.
    The problem is the extremeists, on both sides.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    There was never a tax cut just for the wealthy. They are now trying to increase taxes for the wealthy, but Obama is lying. Raising taxes just on the ones earning more than 250K will bring very little revenue. It could also hurt the economy, because the rich may move.

    If Obama really cared about the deficit, he would increase taxes on everyone.

  7. #17
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    10-25-11 @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    116

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    I think it served no purpose other than making the rich richer. They didn't need the tax cut, and there was no reason to give it to them in the first place. Not a single positive thing was accomplished by cutting taxes for the wealthy. That doesn't mean the wealthy couldn't cause some very negative things to happen if their free costly unneeded gift were suddenly taken away. Also, I think more tax reform is needed beyond a simple return to old tax rates. The whole system seems to be broken. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world yet some corporations (like GE apparently) end up paying no taxes, or get tax breaks for things like outsourcing jobs. So the richest companies can afford the tax lawyers and lobbyists to minimize their taxes while less fortunate companies end up paying out the ass.

  8. #18
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Another thread filled with rants about the rich based on class envy apparently. One party jacked up taxes on the rich (and most everyone else). The other party, as part of its platform promised to cut taxes as a campaign promise. That party won and they cut taxes. The rich would be even richer if there were no income taxes or if the rich paid their share of income taxes proportionate to their share of the income (ie 22% for the top one percent). THe purpose of the tax code should only be to efficiently collect revenue, not salve the butt hurt aching of those who are not successful or who whine that life is not fair



  9. #19
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    Why the Bush tax cut for the wealthy must go

    "From a strictly economic standpoint – as if economics had anything to do with this – it makes sense to preserve the Bush tax cuts at least through 2011 for the middle class. There’s no way consumers -- who comprise 70 percent of the economy -- will start buying again if their federal income taxes rise while they’re still struggling to repay their debts, they can’t borrow more, can no longer use their homes as ATMs, and they’re worried about keeping their jobs.

    But the same logic doesn’t apply to people at the top, earning over $250K, who represent roughly 2 percent of tax filers. Restoring their marginal tax rates to what they were during the Clinton administration (36 and 39 percent) won’t inhibit their spending. That’s because they already save a large portion of what they earn, and already spend what they want to spend. (During the Clinton years the economy created 22 million net new jobs and unemployment dropped to 4 percent.)

    But restoring those top marginal tax rates will help bring down the long-term debt, pulling in almost a trillion dollars of revenues over next ten years. That’s not nearly enough to make a major dent in the nation’s projected deficits, but it’s not chicken feed either. It would at least signal to financial markets we’re serious about cutting that long-term deficit -- and the rest of us will chip in when the economy strengthens.

    So-called supply-side economists don’t like raising taxes on anyone, of course, and argue that raising them on the well-off will slow economic growth. They say people at the top will have less incentive to work hard, invest, and invent.

    Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America’s top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation’s average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower – ranging between 35 and 39 percent – the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year. Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan’s 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan’s 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; it came in the wake of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.

    A final reason for allowing the Bush tax cut to expire for people at the top is the most basic of all. Although Wall Street’s excesses were the proximate cause of the Great Recession, its fundamental cause lay in the nation’s widening inequality. For many years, most of the gains of economic growth in America have been going to the top – leaving the nation’s vast middle class with a shrinking portion of total income. (In the 1970s, the top 1 percent received 8 to 9 percent of total income, but thereafter income concentrated so rapidly that by 2007 the top received 23.5 percent of the total.) The only way most Americans could continue to buy most of what they produced was by borrowing. But now that the debt bubble has burst – as it inevitably would – the underlying problem has reemerged."
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #20
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

    yeah lets make the richest one percent pay more of the federal tax burden than the 95% who already pay less than the top 5%. You libs constantly whine that the tax system should not be based on efficient income collection but rather avenging your hatred of the rich and your failure to be rich.

    what drives massive government is not the rich getting "tax cuts" (in reality the rest of society is paying less of the tax burden now than at any time in the last 70 years and in eurosocialist nations, the rich do not pay a higher share of the tax burden than their share of the income) but rather the fact too many people DO NOT PAY FOR GOVERNMENT AND THUS DEMAND MORE AND MORE OF IT



Page 2 of 109 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... 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
  •