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 5 of 33 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 321

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

  1. #41
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I was about to call your signature fascist, but I won't. I will just infer that.
    Just looking at Darwinism thru utilitarian eyes.

    You make it seem like that if someone doesn't work then they have no value. They are human, I don't understand the whole "weakening humanity" in that context.
    Simple -- resources that could be better used are used instead on supporting those that only weaken the gene pool. In the state of nature, those predisposed to sickness, slowness, stupidity and weakness would be weeded out over time, and the species would be stronger for it.

    Getting a "stronger humanity" compared with a weaker one only has value in how it helps people.
    On the contrary -- it has its greatest value in the survival of the species.

    You can say that wealth distribution reduces the standard of living of people in the future, but thats really it.
    No... by allowing those predisposed to sickness, slowness, stupidity and weakness to continue to contribute to the gene pool, the species as a whole is weaker, and therefore less likely to survive.

  2. #42
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    In the long term, we really can't afford to make them permanent.
    Sure we can -- just spend less.

  3. #43
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    From the government's perspective, there's just not much revenue to be raised from those people anyway. And from the taxpayer's perspective, that may be money that they genuinely need. It seems like extending those tax cuts would provide a lot of benefit for relatively little cost.
    Wht then do you suppose these tax cuts were characterized as doing nothing for the middle class?

  4. #44
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Wht then do you suppose these tax cuts were characterized as doing nothing for the middle class?
    Probably because the lion's share of them were geared toward the wealthy. That doesn't mean other people didn't get more money back though.

    But regardless, I'm not interested in how they were characterized. That's just a thinly veiled attempt to get me to play your partisan blame game. I'm more interested in policy than petty partisanship.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #45
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Probably because the lion's share of them were geared toward the wealthy. That doesn't mean other people didn't get more money back though.
    The specific criticism was that the tax cuts were for the rich, and the middle class got nothing. Thus -must- have been a lie.

  6. #46
    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
    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?
    There's a couple of things though:

    1. Many of the people in the top income bracket aren't actually rich, and many people who don't pay taxes aren't actually poor. 40% of Americans are not poor, and a married couple making $400K annually isn't necessarily upper class. Incidentally, it's kinda odd that people making $400K and people making $10 million are taxed at the same rate.

    2. Don't you think it's dangerous to government fiscal responsibility when 47% of tax returns don't involve any actual taxes being payed? When such a large portion of the population has no stake in the money which their government spends, there's a lot less incentive to spend less, and a lot more to spend more.

  7. #47
    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 Goobieman View Post
    The specific criticism was that the tax cuts were for the rich, and the middle class got nothing. Thus -must- have been a lie.
    As I said, I really don't care whether you think some random criticism from some random person you dislike was a lie. I'm not interested in your infantile partisanship.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #48
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    As I said, I really don't care whether you think some random criticism from some random person you dislike was a lie. I'm not interested in your infantile partisanship.
    That's rather ironic, given your adherence to yours.


    And to paint the 'does nothing for the nmiddle class' criticism of GWB's 2001/2003 tax cuts as 'random', both in nature and in source, is to illustrate a remarkable degree of willful ignorance.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    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?
    They should be made permanent and then added on to.

  10. #50
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    There's a couple of things though:

    1. Many of the people in the top income bracket aren't actually rich, and many people who don't pay taxes aren't actually poor. 40% of Americans are not poor, and a married couple making $400K annually isn't necessarily upper class. Incidentally, it's kinda odd that people making $400K and people making $10 million are taxed at the same rate.

    2. Don't you think it's dangerous to government fiscal responsibility when 47% of tax returns don't involve any actual taxes being payed? When such a large portion of the population has no stake in the money which their government spends, there's a lot less incentive to spend less, and a lot more to spend more.
    What do you mean by this? Are you saying 47% of the people who submitted returns paid no taxes all year?
    "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.

Page 5 of 33 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •