• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

MusicAdventurer said:
if you are middle class and make under $250,000 per year, than you likely do pay too much taxes ... however, if you make more than that .. how can you complain?
Click to expand...

Uh because those in the top bracket pay more for the same government services. Indeed they pay many times more than most taxpayers and of course half the public do not pay any income taxes essentially
 
TurtleDude said:
Uh because those in the top bracket pay more for the same government services. Indeed they pay many times more than most taxpayers and of course half the public do not pay any income taxes essentially
Click to expand...

Actually we've established that the top brackets pay for more services ... also it has been established that via tax loopholes the top brackets often pay a less percentage of their income than others .. again ... if you make above $250,000 what do you have to complain about again?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Actually we've established that the top brackets pay for more services ... also it has been established that via tax loopholes the top brackets often pay a less percentage of their income than others .. again ... if you make above $250,000 what do you have to complain about again?
Click to expand...

actually you are wrong again

the rich pay the highest rates of taxes on the various types of income. They pay more actual dollars too. You whine that the uber rich pay less of a total federal tax rate because most of their income comes from capital gains. Yet that is the uber rich-maybe the top 400 to a couple thousand. the majority of "the rich" those making between 350K to 5 million pay the highest effective rate of income tax

And anyone paying top rates has a right to complain--indeed if you pay a higher rate than another group you have a right to complain because you are paying more for citizenship benefits than many others and you GET ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR PAYING MORE
 
Catawba said:
One would think, that like a clock, you would at least be right twice a day. You continually prove that axiom wrong:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."
Click to expand...

In your haste to be cute, you failed to read my posting or you just did not understand it. First, let's look at a definition:

Aggregate: taking all units as a whole.

In other words, when I said, "...we know that the tax cut for the rich, when considered in aggregate, went heavily to the non-wealthy," I was talking about the total of all the dollars allocated from the Bush tax cuts for those under $250,000 and those above $250,000. I originally learned this fact from CNN, but cannot locate the link tonight. Here is just one source from which I got my information:

"An August report by the Congressional Budget Office actually shows a higher figure of $3.9 trillion as the 10-year cost of extending the cuts and patching the AMT. The U.S. Department of Treasury in February estimated the cost a little higher than $3.7 trillion.

In case you’re curious, extending tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 a year accounts for about $679 billion for the 10 years while patching the AMT accounts for about $672 billion, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center."

PolitiFact Virginia | Bobby Scott said the budget will be "close to" balanced in four years if the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule

By the way, CNN had reported that the figures were total of $3.7 trillion divided thusly: Under $250,000 income - $3 trillion; over $250,000 income - $700 billion.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
He spent more than every president before him combined and he tripled the deficit.
Click to expand...

So when the Dems agreed to cut expenses in exchange for tax increases, but failed to live up to their end of the bargain, Reagan gets blamed for that too. Wow! How generous can one be?
 
LesGovt said:
So when the Dems agreed to cut expenses in exchange for tax increases, but failed to live up to their end of the bargain, Reagan gets blamed for that too. Wow! How generous can one be?
Click to expand...

No one is blaming Reagan for anything we are just pointing out a logical fact...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No one is blaming Reagan for anything we are just pointing out a logical fact...
Click to expand...

And, with regard to the debt, you just happened to leave out an important part of the story. Cute.
 
LesGovt said:
And, with regard to the debt, you just happened to leave out an important part of the story. Cute.
Click to expand...

Which is???? What Obama added to it to? Sure yea... Every president has after Reagan....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Which is???? What Obama added to it to? Sure yea... Every president has after Reagan....
Click to expand...
You're wasting your time. The belief that Saint Ronnie decreased the size of the government is an article of faith for them. You'll no more convince them that they are wrong than you'll convince a fanatical Christian to deny that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Both are fanatics and I'm not sure which religion, Christianity or Libertarianism, is more dangerous.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
You're wasting your time. The belief that Saint Ronnie decreased the size of the government is an article of faith for them. You'll no more convince them that they are wrong than you'll convince a fanatical Christian to deny that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Both are fanatics and I'm not sure which religion, Christianity or Libertarianism, is more dangerous.
Click to expand...

All three of our great presidents FDR, RR and BHO INCREASED goverment spending to get the economy going again- the stand out difference is that FDR and RR had the support of the people at least in the beginning BHO has had to fight almost every step of the way with the republicans
 
EarlzP said:
All three of our great presidents FDR, RR and BHO INCREASED goverment spending to get the economy going again- the stand out difference is that FDR and RR had the support of the people at least in the beginning BHO has had to fight almost every step of the way with the republicans
Click to expand...

BHO is incompetent and is going to really screw up this country even worse than it is now
 
TurtleDude said:
BHO is incompetent and is going to really screw up this country even worse than it is now
Click to expand...

President Obama is not doing any thing different then President Reagan did, President Reagan had the advantage of being able to cut high tax rates for the wealthy and they put that money to use in manufacturing weapons. The only thing screwing this country up is a party more intent on bringing President Obama down then they are on stopping our economical down slide
 
EarlzP said:
President Obama is not doing any thing different then President Reagan did, President Reagan had the advantage of being able to cut high tax rates for the wealthy and they put that money to use in manufacturing weapons. The only thing screwing this country up is a party more intent on bringing President Obama down then they are on stopping our economical down slide
Click to expand...

There is a conspiracy theory thread that this thought of yours would be better deposited.
 
TurtleDude said:
There is a conspiracy theory thread that this thought of yours would be better deposited.
Click to expand...

I never thought that President Reagan was involved in a conspiracy
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
You're wasting your time. The belief that Saint Ronnie decreased the size of the government is an article of faith for them. You'll no more convince them that they are wrong than you'll convince a fanatical Christian to deny that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Both are fanatics and I'm not sure which religion, Christianity or Libertarianism, is more dangerous.
Click to expand...

This is a falsehood. I don't believe that Reagan decreased the size of government. As for the rest of your gibberish, I will leave it as just gibberish. The fact still remains that the deficits and the debt growth during Reagan's Administration would not have been as great if the Democrats had not lied about what they would do with regards to spending cuts. They double-downed on that with the George H.W. Bush when they lied about cutting $3 for every $1 in tax increases. They only did 27 cents.

That is part of the reason why the GOP will not go for tax increases this time, because they know that they can trust a Democrat to be a Democrat.... and just lie.
 
TurtleDude said:
BHO is incompetent and is going to really screw up this country even worse than it is now
Click to expand...

He's probably slightly more competent than Bush, even though he does most of the same things. I don't think just Obama is going to make this country worse. He's gonna get a good dose of help from Congress, including the Republicans.
 
EarlzP said:
How fast I forget, try to remember I am on SS
Click to expand...

Was the Savings and Loan scandal on his watch or the first Bush? It was around that time.
 
Ikari said:
Was the Savings and Loan scandal on his watch or the first Bush? It was around that time.
Click to expand...

It was the Bush 41 and it also involved members of the Bush family.

Silverado Savings and Loan.
 
It serves the wealthy. A part of class warfare.
 
Anybody remember Cunningham, or Foley ,how about libbly?

If not does this phrase sound familar "I AM NOT A CROOK", or this one "TAPES WHAT TAPES"?
 
Ikari said:
Was the Savings and Loan scandal on his watch or the first Bush? It was around that time.
Click to expand...
Bush One-four dems, one republican. (Dems-Cranston, DeConcini, GLenns and Riegle) McCain-R
 
ufimych said:
It serves the wealthy. A part of class warfare.
Click to expand...

so unless the rich are taxed more and more and more it is class warfare? Class warfare is when one class is taxed too much. that is currently the rich-with or without tax cuts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom