View Poll Results: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, the democrats need more money to spend

    20 40.82%
  • No, I want to keep my own money

    29 59.18%
Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 181

Thread: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

  1. #111
    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 Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare.
    The Obama has decided that all of the usual liberal rhetoric about GWB's tax cuts beng just for the rich is just aother lie from the partisan bigots, and has decided to leave in place all of the tax cuts for those making less than 200/250k per year because they will provide relief to the middle and working class families that need it.

    We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk
    The upper class has grown and the lower class has remained stagnant.
    How is that bad?

  2. #112
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'm offended by those who keep throwing out this same BS! You lump those who disagree with your rational for fairness and equality (in this case on taxes) and think we're unpatriotic or that we hate capticalism and the free market system. We'll we don't!

    I believe in capticalism. I believe that every man, woman and child has every right to go out into this world and if he works hard enough or gets lucky and either earns his keep or falls into a cash cow he or she deserves to reap the benefits of his wealth and prosperity. What I DON'T agree with is imposing taxes on those who can't afford them and giving large tax breaks to those who really don't need them.

    The Conservative rational on tax cuts has always been that they create jobs. We'll, where they hell are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts? And if they are suppose to work so well to stimulate the economy, why did this country fall into a Recession? And if fiscal conservatism is such a big concern for the Right, why didn't they uphold their side in being responsible stewarts of the People's money and ensure that both wars (War in Iraq and in Afghanstan) were paid for?

    SEVEN YEARS of tax cuts to those making +$300K/annually and what does this nation have to show for it?

    Answer = A National/Global Recession

    Now, I could understand if these tax cuts were for major corporations, but they aren't. They're for wealthy individuals. So, unless these people are puring their money back into their businesses instead of paying for their multi-million dollar homes, expensive cars or private jets, I fail to see how giving weathy individuals a tax break when such hasn't done a thing to spur the economy! The logic being used just doesn't appear to be very sound to me, and the evidence is all around us.

    Businesses have closed.
    People remain unemployed.
    States are broke!
    U.S. companies are still looking for ways to ship their business overseas taking much needed jobs with them.

    Until you can show me that the Bush tax cuts will begin to work and VERY SOON, I see no reason to continue them.
    1) WTF are you to say what someone else needs

    2) If one person works hard and owns two homes or two cars and others are without cars or homeless do you say that the latter should be given one of the homes because the first guy doesn't NEED two homes

    3) WTF Is Capiticalism?

    4) can you prove the tax cuts caused the recession? No you cannot-tax revenues INCREASED

    5) why should I get to keep less of the next dollar I make compared to you? I already pay far far more in taxes than I use



  3. #113
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Let's not get twisted off into irrelevance. I do agree that $1M is not uber wealthy. In fact, it isn't all that much money. That said, the estate tax kicks in at $2M so the $1M is irrelevant. ...and that said, the issue is about the elimination of the estate tax most benefits the UBER wealthy. That statement is true. 85% of the wealth in this country is held by 20% of the people (and 35% by 1% of the people). Elimination of the estate tax most benefits the 1% of the population. This should not be a discussion about where the estate tax kicks in ($1M or $10M) but rather the value of an estate tax. The government should be after mega-estates, not families that have managed their financial affairs well.

    IMHO, the absence of the estate tax grossly benefits a very small number of people, continues to bifurcate our society along economic lines (which will not have good long-term ramifications for its stability) and concentrates capital in the hands of those that did not earn it (non-productive members of our society... daddy funded welfare). The notion of that capital should be earned and not given (clearing the chips and returning people to go with $200) has some value to our society. Adjusting the minimum estate value subject to the tax is easy... raising the minimum from $2 to $5 or $10 million is not the same as eliminating estate tax.

    This was a bad move by the Bush Administration (number 45 of the top 100 Bush blunders), at least for America. I am sure I got a few dinners paid for by some of his Texas oil buddies, especially those that died in 2010, but this did nothing for our economy except cut off tax revenues. Fortunately this bad idea terminates on its own.
    estate taxes were a scheme for social engineering based on the absence of a progressive income tax of any consequence. If you lose 50% of what you earn to taxes WTF should you lose another 50% upon death. Heirs to a fortune certainly did more to earn it than greedy politicians who use the estate tax to gain votes from the spiteful and the envious



  4. #114
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    This is so not true and very misleading.

    It is very, very unlikely that 3% increase in tax rates at the highest bracket to increase an individuals taxes by more than 3% except at very, very, very high levels of income (where most of the income is subject to the highest bracket). Even then, it would not be as high as a 10% increase in taxes.

    People don't seem to really understand the graduated tax system. If you increased the highest tax rate by 5 percentage points from 35 to 40%, only that income ABOVE the income threshold would be subjected to the tax increase. The tax on the income below that threshold would be unchanged. Given that highest threshold for married couples is about $360,000 of TAXABLE income (which is about 20% less than real income, your results may vary), this affects very few people.

    As a matter of example, consider in 2008 the 35% bracket for married couples kicked in at $357,000. To have $357,000 of taxable income, your real income would likely have been well north of $400,000 (as not all income is taxable due to deductions, exemptions and credits). But lets say you made $500,000 with a taxable income of $400,000. A married persons tax bill would have been $111,575. If you instead raised the upper threshold by 5 points to 40%, the taxes would instead have been $113,690, an increase of $2,115. This would be a 1.9% increase in your tax bill (on a 5 percentage point increase in the highest rate)....

    The problem with discussions on taxes is that people don't really understand how they work. They are ugly in the details, but the actual results of taxes paid as a percentage of income are much, much lower than people realize. For example, note that at $500,000 of income your federal tax bill (though well inside the highest tax bracket) is $111,575 or 22% of income (not 30, 40 or 50%, which seems to be the understanding of many)
    this is beyond stupid.

    an increase of the tax rate from 35% to 39.5% means those of use in the top bracket are sure going to pay alot more than 4.5% more taxes. ANyone who has dividend income is going to being paying almost 40% on that rather than 15%

    If you are in the top bracket and you have 100K in dividend income in addition to the salary that puts you in the top bracket you only get to keep 60K or so rather than 85K

    that's a huge tax hike

    If people are so hell bent on making the rich pay more and more, what sort of additional objective benefits are you all willing to give the rich in return. The lame and lie filled claim that the rich get more benefits from government is nonsense. The poor use far more government resources.



  5. #115
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare. They should be repealed. We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk. It is getting harder and harder for working families to buy a home. Two income households are now a requirement, not a luxury (so much for that pro-family GOP talking point).
    complete BS. the tax cuts went to people who paid taxes.

    we need a flat tax or a sales tax such dems cannot pander to people who think like you and hate that others make more than you do



  6. #116
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Bush's so called "tax cuts" were nothing more than corporate welfare. They should be repealed. We also need to go back and establish the tax provisions that existed prior to Reagan. Since the time of Reagan, the middle class has shrunk. It is getting harder and harder for working families to buy a home. Two income households are now a requirement, not a luxury (so much for that pro-family GOP talking point).
    No, its' becoming to damn easy for people to buy homes which is a huge part of our economy's septic problem.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  7. #117
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,115

    Re: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    this is beyond stupid.

    an increase of the tax rate from 35% to 39.5% means those of use in the top bracket are sure going to pay alot more than 4.5% more taxes. ANyone who has dividend income is going to being paying almost 40% on that rather than 15%

    If you are in the top bracket and you have 100K in dividend income in addition to the salary that puts you in the top bracket you only get to keep 60K or so rather than 85K

    that's a huge tax hike

    If people are so hell bent on making the rich pay more and more, what sort of additional objective benefits are you all willing to give the rich in return. The lame and lie filled claim that the rich get more benefits from government is nonsense. The poor use far more government resources.
    It's a pity that you lack sufficient understanding of the income tax system to even understand my point much less refute it. It's a further pity that you lack the wit to gracefully handle the situation and resort to your classless schoolyard insults (beyond stupid...come on, deal with reality...you are out of your league on this issue) and then obfuscate issue by introducing new element to the argument (new taxes on dividends).

    I took you to task ONLY with the statement that a 3% rate increase on the highest bracket was the equivalent of an 10% increase in taxes. I delivered a prima facie case using a real example that your statement simply was not true. My example set a scenario for a person solidly in the upper tax bracket.... his taxes increased 1.9% with a 5% (not 3%) increase in the upper rate (numbers run through a real tax calculator). I also said in extreme examples you would be correct, that a 3% increase in the upper rate could deliver a 10% increase in the tax bill, but most of the person's income would have to be in the upper bracket. I ran some more numbers. I appears once the married person was over $10M in TAXABLE income (an income that would likely be higher than $10M, and much much higher than $10M if cap gains were involved) only then did the 3% rate change equate to a 10% increase in the tax bill... but that is an extreme example.

    I never took you to task on the issue of changing taxes on cap gains and dividends, that is a different issue. Yes, if you raise the cap gain from 15% to 38%, then you are more than doubling the tax on those gains. I understand that at the expiration of the Bush tax cuts these rates are affected as well, but I was not arguing the overall picture nor specific merits of letting the taxes return to the previous level. That is not the issue I was addressing... another discussion can be had on the merits or lack of merit of this.

    I was only taking you to task on this simple statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    "....I said a 3% increase in tax rates is about a 10% increase in taxes..."
    ...and it is wrong.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 07-10-10 at 12:22 PM.

  8. #118
    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 Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Why am I not surprised that the communist element at DP is all for DEMOCRATS having more money to spend?
    "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. #119
    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 Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    1) WTF are you to say what someone else needs

    2) If one person works hard and owns two homes or two cars and others are without cars or homeless do you say that the latter should be given one of the homes because the first guy doesn't NEED two homes

    3) WTF Is Capiticalism?

    4) can you prove the tax cuts caused the recession? No you cannot-tax revenues INCREASED

    5) why should I get to keep less of the next dollar I make compared to you? I already pay far far more in taxes than I use
    A captialist shill like you is causing millions of innocent American children to die each year because you want to keep your own money. Where is your sense of fairness to the proletariat?
    "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.

  10. #120
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,115

    Re: Should the Bush tax cuts be cancelled next year as Obama wants to do?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    estate taxes were a scheme for social engineering based on the absence of a progressive income tax of any consequence. If you lose 50% of what you earn to taxes WTF should you lose another 50% upon death. Heirs to a fortune certainly did more to earn it than greedy politicians who use the estate tax to gain votes from the spiteful and the envious
    You seem to subscribe to this notion that people pay 50% of their income in taxes. Its hard to blame you for that as it is a common understanding, but I assure you its a myth.

    People that come to this conclusion want to add all of the highest rates of all the taxes on pays together in one lump sum and say "see, its 50%".... hence a myth is born. Unfortunately far too many people believe this myth.

    This math suffers from many flaws in logic. The fact is that taxes kick in and kick out in ways that some just affect lower portions of your income and give way as higher income tax rates kick in on higher portions of your income, so they are never taxing the same dollar at the same time.

    The fact of the matter is, the highest of amount of income that is likely to be taxed annually in almost all circumstances is about 35-37%.... The reason the idea of adding one tax on top of another does not work is that taxes kick and fall off at different levels. For example, those at the highest tax bracket are not taxed on FICA and the same time they are taxed at the highest bracket as FICA disappears at 110,000 of income and the highest brackets kick in at 357,000 so you would never add FICA and the highest bracket together. Due to deductions, exemptions and credits, 20% of your income just is not taxed. The early dollars of your income are taxed a 15%, then 28%, then 33%.. State income taxes exist, but they are deductible for federal purposes, so a 10% state income tax in the 33% bracket is really a 7% income tax. Then there are sales taxes, but here only the lowest incomes have significant percentage of their income go out in sales taxes. The highest incomes do not spend as high a percentage of their monies on consumables and thus sales taxes are an annoyance, at best. An 8% sales tax is not 8% on your tax bill. Property taxes are a function of your house. Although the wealthy have more expensive homes and higher property taxes, these tend to be a much lower percent of a wealthy persons income than a middle class person. I have run these numbers for multiple income scenarios on a spreadsheet to prove this point have a heated cocktail hour discussion....

    So, stand down on this notion that you pay 50% of your income in taxes: not true.

    As to the 2nd part of the notion that an estate would pay 50% tax at its creation then 50% at probate... again a misleading oversimplification. First off, if the estate were created with earned income (very, very unlikely) it was not taxed at 50% per reasons stated above. I really doubt too many people build an estate out of earned income (ballplayers and entertainers, maybe). More likely, the estate was created via capital gain (someone build a business and sold it), so most of the estate was likely taxed at 15-25%.

    The issue of disposition of estate: It is not a 50% across the board tax. It has allowances, deductions, credits and exemptions. Most noteworthy, the first $1 million is not taxed. Granted, estate taxes are steep.

    Given that we have to raise revenues and we have to tax, it seems that taxing estates (an event that moves assets from the creator to a member of the lucky womb society) seems one of the most equitable places to tax. It really makes little sense to concentrate capital in the hands of those who had part in its creation and likely have no clue how to use the assets productively. I would much rather tax estates than income or consumption... but that is me.

Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... 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
  •