View Poll Results: Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    35 55.56%
  • No, because...

    24 38.10%
  • um... wait...

    4 6.35%
Page 4 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 321

Thread: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

  1. #31
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post

    Argument fail. Normally you're smarter than this.
    At least you said it was for the deficit, which megaprogman and now Vader did not. Still, the mentality that it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich, and never OK to raise taxes for the poor, is part of the reason why now 40% of people who file tax returns don't actually pay any taxes.

  2. #32
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    At least you said it was for the deficit, which megaprogman and now Vader did not. Still, the mentality that it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich, and never OK to raise taxes for the poor, is part of the reason why now 40% of people who file tax returns don't actually pay any taxes.
    I don't think it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich and never OK to raise taxes for the poor. I would say that given the current tax rates, the size of the deficit, and assuming the economy recovers...it will be OK to raise taxes on the rich a couple percentage points.

    I'm more inclined to agree that one shouldn't raise taxes on the poor except under RARE circumstances. Frankly I'm surprised so many conservatives disagree. If less government is always more efficient, then wouldn't low/no taxes for the poor be the best anti-poverty program of all?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #33
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    At least you said it was for the deficit, which megaprogman and now Vader did not. Still, the mentality that it's always OK to raise taxes for the rich, and never OK to raise taxes for the poor, is part of the reason why now 40% of people who file tax returns don't actually pay any taxes.
    Until we reduce income stratification to what it was in the 50s and 60s, those is the only appropriate taxation method, at least until there is no federal deficit. Seriously, once you have enough to live on, the rest isn't really that important.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    It just shows how little you know about the Bush tax cuts.
    Apparently including Obama, sinceh e continues to make such a big deal about wanting to extend them for people making under 250k and using that as evidence of how he wants to help out the middle class with taxes.



    So, is Obama an idiot that doesn't know anything about the Bush Tax Cuts or are you just over exaggerating your statement to make your hyper partisan talking point work?

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    It makes sense to me to take it from people who will not be hurt in a serious way. An extra 5% from someone making $250,000 may mean that they can't buy that extra boat they wanted. An extra 5% from the average family means they might not be able to pay their mortgage.
    This is a bit ridiculous. 5% more taken away from someone making $250,000 a year probably means they're not buying some kind of luxury item that is not essential, correct (By the way, who do you think are the early adopters to tehnology and other high dollar items that eventually come down in price?). He likely has to sacrifice that luxury item unless he's bought a lot more than he can afford, even on the $250k salary.

    At the same time, 5% month for the average family ALSO likely means they're passing on a luxury item that is not necessary and would be fine, unless they have bought a lot of stuff that is more expensive then they rightly can afford on their salary.

    That family has to eat in at dinner instead of go out a bit more oftne, or rent a movie instead of going to the theater, or not do happy hour every friday, or maybe give up that DVR or HD service for just standard cable.

    Because the "rich" person's luxury is bigger and more extravagent we love to demonize them for it, but yet act like those making less don't have any luxury purchases of their own.

    Cable is not essential.
    Multiple cell phones are not essential, hell one isn't even technically.
    Your Xbox and buying games isn't essential.
    Eating out isn't essential.
    Alcohol or cig's are not essential.

    Generally, everyones got SOME amount of luxury expenses they could cut back on if needed, and just becuase someones luxury expenses is bigger than someone elses doesn't relative to their earnings doesn't make one worse than the other. The only people who that would equate to not being able to pay their house payment would be those who stupidly bought into more house than they could afford and their mistake should not be subsidized by those making more money.

  6. #36
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    No, not with the budget deficit as high as it currently is.
    Then reduce spending.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #37
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,291

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Yes, and they need to be made permanent. The government needs to cut its spending if there's a deficit. Taking money away from citizens does nothing to help grow the economy.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  8. #38
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This is a bit ridiculous. 5% more taken away from someone making $250,000 a year probably means they're not buying some kind of luxury item that is not essential, correct (By the way, who do you think are the early adopters to tehnology and other high dollar items that eventually come down in price?). He likely has to sacrifice that luxury item unless he's bought a lot more than he can afford, even on the $250k salary.

    At the same time, 5% month for the average family ALSO likely means they're passing on a luxury item that is not necessary and would be fine, unless they have bought a lot of stuff that is more expensive then they rightly can afford on their salary.

    That family has to eat in at dinner instead of go out a bit more oftne, or rent a movie instead of going to the theater, or not do happy hour every friday, or maybe give up that DVR or HD service for just standard cable.

    Because the "rich" person's luxury is bigger and more extravagent we love to demonize them for it, but yet act like those making less don't have any luxury purchases of their own.

    Cable is not essential.
    Multiple cell phones are not essential, hell one isn't even technically.
    Your Xbox and buying games isn't essential.
    Eating out isn't essential.
    Alcohol or cig's are not essential.

    Generally, everyones got SOME amount of luxury expenses they could cut back on if needed, and just becuase someones luxury expenses is bigger than someone elses doesn't relative to their earnings doesn't make one worse than the other. The only people who that would equate to not being able to pay their house payment would be those who stupidly bought into more house than they could afford and their mistake should not be subsidized by those making more money.


    Luxury items create a lot of jobs. Think of boats, large houses, luxury cars, more than one house, and travel. Investment in company stocks, which provides capital to companies to expand and create more jobs.
    Last edited by American; 02-04-10 at 09:36 AM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #39
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Seriously, once you have enough to live on, the rest isn't really that important.
    "Pursuit of happiness" is part of the US Constitution.

    And how much is "enough to live on?" Enough to live on means different things to different people.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 02-04-10 at 10:08 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #40
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Per The Omaba's FY2011 budget proposal:


    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/receipts.pdf

    Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?
    Why or why not?
    I'm in favor of extending these tax cuts if we cut the budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by a like amount.

Page 4 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •