Tax cuts for the rich

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

TurtleDude said:
so what is the point of ranting about the rich got most of the tax cuts?

its a captain obvious moment

Disparate amount of tax cuts. Coupled with middle class tax increases.

If I was to design a perfect tax system, the goal would be to raise the needed amount of revenue with the least disruption to every one's standard of living. That means the wealthy would pay a higher percentage of taxes, since simply put they can afford more before it negatively impacts their standard of living. That is the heart of the progressive tax system. What Ryan and Romney both want to do is make the tax code much less progressive, which I think is going the wrong way. Further, since any tax cuts are going to reduce revenue to the government, and massive spending cuts are going to harm the economy(potentially devastate it), I think now at least is the wrong time to cut taxes. Solve the deficit, then mess with the tax code.

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
lol....well done. Yes, they complain about people who don't pay any federal income taxes not getting a tax cut. Uhhhhh, how can you cut a tax that they don't pay?

I miss captain obvious, and wish he would make a comeback in this campaign cycle......I'm thinking he might.....

Show me where any one has complained those not paying federal income tax are not getting a tax cut. This is another of those straw men.

Darroll · Aug 14, 2012

This pisses off the brain dead thinking it's true.

Masada · Aug 14, 2012

Fruityfact said:
Your usual talking point is flawed..as usual

flawed? lol...he just sourced the statistic. The top 5% earns 22% of all the money, while paying 40% of all the taxes. That's a stat, not a talking point.

But why bother quoting actual statistics to liberals anymore? Statistics aren't facts to liberals, they are just Fox News talking points......

Did you hear that? That was the sound of your credibility flying out the window.......

tessaesque · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
48% of Americans pay NO federal income tax. Sooooo, if Obama wants to cut their taxes, which taxes would he cut? They are already not paying any federal income taxes. So would he cut the national sales tax? Because that would be a tax cut for everyone, including the rich.

I mean, we all know liberals aren't too good at following an idea all the way through. So, it's a tremendous question. Half the country already pays nothing in federal income taxes, so what tax would he cut in order to give them a tax break and not include the rich?

There is no national sales tax.

Masada · Aug 14, 2012

Redress said:
Show me where any one has complained those not paying federal income tax are not getting a tax cut. This is another of those straw men.

Obama and the left complain all the time about Republicans just wanting to give more tax breaks to the rich. But the rich pay the lion's share of the taxes. So, if he supports lowering taxes for the poor, who pay no federal income tax at all, what tax would he cut to give them a break that wouldn't include the rich?

In other words, what tax do the poor pay that the rich dont pay? Answer, there isn't one. So, how could he cut the federal income tax rate on people who aren't paying federal income taxes? He says he wants tax breaks to go to people who need them. Ok fine. But 48% of the country pays no federal income tax. So which tax would he cut?

It's a simple question. Don't dodge it. It really is simple.

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
flawed? lol...he just sourced the statistic. The top 5% earns 22% of all the money, while paying 40% of all the taxes. That's a stat, not a talking point.

But why bother quoting actual statistics to liberals anymore? Statistics aren't facts to liberals, they are just Fox News talking points......

Did you hear that? That was the sound of your credibility flying out the window.......

Just a hint: facts and talking points are not mutually exclusive. In fact a talking point can be a fact, repeated time and again out of context.

Fruityfact · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
flawed? lol...he just sourced the statistic. The top 5% earns 22% of all the money, while paying 40% of all the taxes. That's a stat, not a talking point.

But why bother quoting actual statistics to liberals anymore? Statistics aren't facts to liberals, they are just Fox News talking points......

Did you hear that? That was the sound of your credibility flying out the window.......

It is a statistic...but how about you give the other side of the statistics?
If you fail to understand what i'm getting at ill explain it to you

Masada · Aug 14, 2012

Redress said:
Disparate amount of tax cuts. Coupled with middle class tax increases.

If I was to design a perfect tax system, the goal would be to raise the needed amount of revenue with the least disruption to every one's standard of living. That means the wealthy would pay a higher percentage of taxes, since simply put they can afford more before it negatively impacts their standard of living. That is the heart of the progressive tax system. What Ryan and Romney both want to do is make the tax code much less progressive, which I think is going the wrong way. Further, since any tax cuts are going to reduce revenue to the government, and massive spending cuts are going to harm the economy(potentially devastate it), I think now at least is the wrong time to cut taxes. Solve the deficit, then mess with the tax code.

There are two taxes Romney wants to cut, and one he wants to eliminate. The two he is proposing we cut are corporate tax rates, and capital gains. This encourages businesses to invest in America. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. That's not helping businesses set up shop in America and create jobs. The capital gains tax encourages more investment. The tax he proposes we eliminate is the death tax. Because it's taxing the exact same money twice. Yet Dems love the idea. Double taxation. Really encourages inheritances right? Hey PaPa, better not die until a Republican becomes President, otherwise, your estate is going to be taxed just because you died. Most idiotic tax in the history of taxation.

Federal income tax rates he proposes we lock in the same Bush tax rates. No lowering, no raising. Keep them where they are.

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
Obama and the left complain all the time about Republicans just wanting to give more tax breaks to the rich. But the rich pay the lion's share of the taxes. So, if he supports lowering taxes for the poor, who pay no federal income tax at all, what tax would he cut to give them a break that wouldn't include the rich?

In other words, what tax do the poor pay that the rich dont pay? Answer, there isn't one. So, how could he cut the federal income tax rate on people who aren't paying federal income taxes? He says he wants tax breaks to go to people who need them. Ok fine. But 48% of the country pays no federal income tax. So which tax would he cut?

It's a simple question. Don't dodge it. It really is simple.

See the two parts I bolded? The first one is different than the second. In other words, being against giving tax cuts to the wealthy does not mean you want to give tax cuts to the poor.

Here is Obama's stance on tax cuts: Taxes — President Obama’s Record — Barack Obama. Please read it. When you know what Obama actually is proposing, then we will have ground to talk(hint: it is not lower taxes for those not paying federal income tax.

Masada · Aug 14, 2012

Fruityfact said:
It is a statistic...but how about you give the other side of the statistics?
If you fail to understand what i'm getting at ill explain it to you

I didnt know there were 2 sides to a statistic. I offered you no interpretation of the statistic, I simply restated it. There aren't two sides to a fact. A fact is simply a fact. Now, you can interpret that statistic any Willy Wonka way you wish, but the fact remains, the top 5% of wage earners in this country account for 40% of the tax revenues paid in.

I'll let you explain yourself, as soon as you answer me this: What is your definition of "fair share"? 60%? 80%? When will the tax code become progressive enough? When the rich are taxed at over 50% of their incomes? Give me a solid number to hang a hat on......

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
There are two taxes Romney wants to cut, and one he wants to eliminate. The two he is proposing we cut are corporate tax rates, and capital gains. This encourages businesses to invest in America. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. That's not helping businesses set up shop in America and create jobs. The capital gains tax encourages more investment. The tax he proposes we eliminate is the death tax. Because it's taxing the exact same money twice. Yet Dems love the idea. Double taxation. Really encourages inheritances right? Hey PaPa, better not die until a Republican becomes President, otherwise, your estate is going to be taxed just because you died. Most idiotic tax in the history of taxation.

Federal income tax rates he proposes we lock in the same Bush tax rates. No lowering, no raising. Keep them where they are.

We have been over this, Romney does not propose a change in capital gains rates. Please get your facts straight. Tax

Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

That is a direct quote from Romney's campaign website. The only change he recommends to those is to eliminate capital gains for those making under 200k, which will do very little if anything for investment and is not a cut in capital gains rate.

He also calls for lowering tax rates below the bush rates:

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

He also calls for eliminating the inheritance tax and AMT.

So basically your facts are all wrong.

tessaesque · Aug 14, 2012

Redress said:
See the two parts I bolded? The first one is different than the second. In other words, being against giving tax cuts to the wealthy does not mean you want to give tax cuts to the poor.

Here is Obama's stance on tax cuts: Taxes — President Obama’s Record — Barack Obama. Please read it. When you know what Obama actually is proposing, then we will have ground to talk(hint: it is not lower taxes for those not paying federal income tax.

Honestly, I have a problem with his plan. 95% of Americans won't see a tax increase, but it is completely true that a good chunk of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Many of those who don't absolutely could. I cannot support ANY tax plan that increases taxes on any segment of the population when another segment pays no income tax (federal level, mind you). Further, I refuse to even entertain anybody's tax suggestions (especially those that include increases) until we seriously and legitimately address the size of government and government spending. When we're borrowing 1/3rd of the money we spend there's a very big problem. Raising taxes on anybody should be a last resort solution, but it isn't being viewed that way.

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

tessaesque said:
Honestly, I have a problem with his plan. 95% of Americans won't see a tax increase, but it is completely true that a good chunk of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Many of those who don't absolutely could. I cannot support ANY tax plan that increases taxes on any segment of the population when another segment pays no income tax (federal level, mind you). Further, I refuse to even entertain anybody's tax suggestions (especially those that include increases) until we seriously and legitimately address the size of government and government spending. When we're borrowing 1/3rd of the money we spend there's a very big problem. Raising taxes on anybody should be a last resort solution, but it isn't being viewed that way.

The reason most do not pay taxes is because they make a low enough amount that deductions reduce their tax bill to zero. Those are the people who can least afford to have money taken from them. Further, almost every penny taken from them is money that would be directly spent, so taxing those people is reducing the demand for goods and services(you know, what really drives the economy).

mbig · Aug 14, 2012

Redress said:
Romney's plan would result in a major decrease in taxes paid by the wealthy, with a cut in marginal rate large enough that removing exemptions/deductions would not balance it out(note this is for most of the wealthy, individual mileage may vary). Ryan's plan cuts rates to the same level IIRC, leading to the same issue.
.......

Ryan Budget Plan Would Cut Income Taxes for Millionaires by at Least $187,000 Annually and Facilitate Corporate Tax Avoidance | CTJReports

[.........]

Why the Ryan Budget Plan Does Not Specify How It Would Pay for Tax Rate Reductions

As explained already, the Ryan budget plan calls for closing tax loopholes and tax subsidies to offset the costs of reducing tax rates (beyond the rate reductions that are part of the Bush tax cuts) but does not name any particular tax loophole or tax subsidy to be repealed.

There may be a very specific reason for this vagueness. Two years ago, when Rep. Ryan offered a budget plan that would allow individuals to pay income taxes at a top rate of 25% and repeal the corporate income tax, he did propose a specific way to offset the costs — a regressive value-added tax (VAT).

Citizens for Tax Justice analyzed the tax components of that plan and found that, on average, taxpayers among the richest 10% would pay less in taxes while taxpayers among the bottom 90 % would pay more.
We also found that the plan would Reduce Revenues by $2 trillion over ten years.[8]

The truth is that it is very difficult to lower the top income tax rate to 25% and offset the costs simply by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures. That’s why Ryan’s previous plan relied on a regressive VAT. Rep. Ryan probably (correctly) decided the budget plans he would present last year and this year would seem more appealing if he left that detail out of it.

That's right.. he simply, politically, and dishonestly, left off the VAT needed to replace the lost revenue of a 10/25.

Masada · Aug 14, 2012

Redress said:
See the two parts I bolded? The first one is different than the second. In other words, being against giving tax cuts to the wealthy does not mean you want to give tax cuts to the poor.

Here is Obama's stance on tax cuts: Taxes — President Obama’s Record — Barack Obama. Please read it. When you know what Obama actually is proposing, then we will have ground to talk(hint: it is not lower taxes for those not paying federal income tax.

I know precisely what Obama is proposing. Here, let me let him tell you, instead of you having to take my word for it:

In his own words:

"Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?" "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared? Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?" "I believe we have to go forward,"

I believe it was just yesterday that Obama said this. Yes, indeed, I know precisely what he's proposing. Raise taxes on the wealthy, in order to "share prosperity". Marx would be so proud of his little protege......

tessaesque · Aug 14, 2012

Redress said:
The reason most do not pay taxes is because they make a low enough amount that deductions reduce their tax bill to zero. Those are the people who can least afford to have money taken from them. Further, almost every penny taken from them is money that would be directly spent, so taxing those people is reducing the demand for goods and services(you know, what really drives the economy).

That isn't necessarily true. If you use the child deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and deductions for business expenses (i.e. non-reimbursed mileage) you could easily whittle your tax obligation down to nothing....and plenty of people do. It doesn't mean they can't afford the obligation, it means they managed to avoid it.

The fact is, we don't know who can and can't afford to pay taxes. We make assumptions. But you know what's funny? Most of those people have taxes deducted from their checks every single pay period. They never see it until tax season rolls around and somehow they manage to make it through 12 months just fine.

As to your "money directly injected" argument...that's true of almost every single dollar taxed. If you're going to make that argument then nobody should be taxed because all of the money would end up back in the economy one way or another (investment in business, direct spending, etc).

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
I know precisely what Obama is proposing. Here, let me let him tell you, instead of you having to take my word for it:

In his own words:

"Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?" "Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared? Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?" "I believe we have to go forward,"

I believe it was just yesterday that Obama said this. Yes, indeed, I know precisely what he's proposing. Raise taxes on the wealthy, in order to "share prosperity". Marx would be so proud of his little protege......

Ah, you are one of those. Obama is a commie, socialist Kenyan.

By the way, that said nothing about his proposed changes to taxes. I quoted, and linked to(so context is clear...it is a good idea) his actual proposed tax change. I did the same with Romney and Ryan. One of us is talking about facts on the topic.

Masada · Aug 14, 2012

Another questin no one ever asks about Obama's Marxist vision of taxing the wealthy in order to "share prosperity" is this:

What does he plan to do with the revenues raised off of taxing the rich? Extend unemployment? Extend welfare? Give it to Green companies like Solyndra? Give it to his union buddies? Pay down the debt (lol)?

Bobcat · Aug 14, 2012

Redress said:
The wealthy would disproportionately benefit from those tax cuts. The middle class cannot stack over 14 million in an IRA.

5% of 10 million and 5% of 10 thousand is the same 5%. Rich people have more money than poor people, so the amount of dollars paid or saved is greater. So what? I thought you liefties were all about paying a fair share. "fair" to most people means that everyone pays the same rate. the guy with more income pays more dollars but everyone pays his proportionate or "fair" share.

but thats not what you really want is it?

Bobcat · Aug 14, 2012

Masada said:
Another questin no one ever asks about Obama's Marxist vision of taxing the wealthy in order to "share prosperity" is this:

What does he plan to do with the revenues raised off of taxing the rich? Extend unemployment? Extend welfare? Give it to Green companies like Solyndra? Give it to his union buddies? Pay down the debt (lol)?

just trust him, he is the kenyan messiah. he can do no wrong. :lamo

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

tessaesque said:
That isn't necessarily true. If you use the child deduction, the mortgage interest deduction, and deductions for business expenses (i.e. non-reimbursed mileage) you could easily whittle your tax obligation down to nothing....and plenty of people do. It doesn't mean they can't afford the obligation, it means they managed to avoid it.

The fact is, we don't know who can and can't afford to pay taxes. We make assumptions. But you know what's funny? Most of those people have taxes deducted from their checks every single pay period. They never see it until tax season rolls around and somehow they manage to make it through 12 months just fine.

As to your "money directly injected" argument...that's true of almost every single dollar taxed. If you're going to make that argument then nobody should be taxed because all of the money would end up back in the economy one way or another (investment in business, direct spending, etc).

while some certainly do what you suggest, it is not the majority, and it is hard to select them out.

That is not true of almost every single dollar invested. The higher the income, the more likely it is invested in stocks or interest generating accounts which do not generate demand for the economy.

a351 · Aug 14, 2012

tessaesque said:
As to your "money directly injected" argument...that's true of almost every single dollar taxed. If you're going to make that argument then nobody should be taxed because all of the money would end up back in the economy one way or another (investment business, direct spending, etc).

Partially true, although once you take into account the propensity of wealthy individuals to simply store away large amounts of capital in savings accounts or various financial investments that have little to no impact on the local economy, it's evident that a modest tax hike on upper earners would be more amiable to continued growth than attempting to squeeze a few bucks out of individuals whose savings rates are already virtually nonexistent.

EDIT: Beat me to it.

Redress · Aug 14, 2012

Bobcat said:
5% of 10 million and 5% of 10 thousand is the same 5%. Rich people have more money than poor people, so the amount of dollars paid or saved is greater. So what? I thought you liefties were all about paying a fair share. "fair" to most people means that everyone pays the same rate. the guy with more income pays more dollars but everyone pays his proportionate or "fair" share.

but thats not what you really want is it?

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/8/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney.pdf

Under the Romney plan assuming revenue neutrality(which he has stated his plan would be), those making under 200k would see a reduction in after tax income of on average 1.2 %. Those making over that all see an increase in after tax income, with those making over 1 million seeing a 4.1 % increase in after tax income.

pdog · Aug 14, 2012

Bobcat said:
what impact does it have on the 50% who pay zero federal income tax? what exactly does "pay your fair share" mean to you?

That wasn't your question - you asked what tax cuts target the rich. The only thing I traded was "only" for disproportionately. I consider your challenge met.

Besides I'm not too interested in discussing only federal income tax as if it exists in a vacuum. Everybody that works and consumes here pays taxes and the source has shifted over time (perhaps you can spot it?).

67117816d1320103906-hausers-law-percentage-tax-receipts-relation-gdp-never-exceeds-20-sources-revenue-graph.jpg

"Fair" includes: the marginal value of a dollar, marginal effort to make a dollar, the shift in wealth over the past 30 years, and the overall idea that money is the fuel of the money machine.

Tax cuts for the rich

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Member

Bring us a shrubbery!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Bring us a shrubbery!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

onomatopoeic

Bring us a shrubbery!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

#NeverTrump

Liberal Fascist For Life!