• 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!

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

So you think taking more taxes from the rich will help the middle class? Please give me an example of anytime that higher taxes made someone in the middle class move up a class? Do you realize how foolish your statement is? Allowing people to keep more of what they earn regardless of the class is what creates class movement. I cannot believe I have to convince someone the value of keeping more of what they earn?

Here's why: the rich don't spend when given stimulus because they already make significantly more than they spend. Giving them more money doesn't make them spend more. They hoard it and gain the interest from it.

Further, tax cuts don't create jobs. Were it the case, then the Bush tax rates (which we currently have) would be putting people back to work. It's not happening. And it didn't really happen in the mid-2000s either. The "boom" of the Bush recovery was almost exclusively given to the top 10% of earners. The remaining 90% of wage-earners only collectively shared 12% of the mid-2000s growth. If your philosophy of giving tax cuts to the wealthy to assist the middle class were accurate, then the growth would have been more evenly spread throughout all levels of wage-earners instead of being so specifically clumped up at the top.

The opposite is true if you lower taxes for the bottom 60% of earners. They are much more likely to spend on home improvements, electronics, clothing, and other things that will drive up demand - and increase income for the top earners.

The 2000s are the prime example of how poorly structured tax cuts can hurt the economy. They were the exact equivalent of Hoover's foolish tax cuts right before the Great Depression.

As a result, new policies need to be developed that give true incentives ONLY for hiring. You cannot give the tax cut up front, it must only be collected after hiring.

The only thing that will grow jobs is increased demand for products. You don't increase demand for products by cutting taxes for the wealthy. You cut taxes for the working and middle classes - who will then spend the money, which will then make the rich, richer (through natural market forces - not through unnecessary tax cuts).

We can agree that spending must be reigned in. But tax cuts do not solve anything if they're not properly targeted.

Additionally, who uses the nation's infrastructure more? The organic farmer or Wal-Mart? Who uses highways more? Who uses the electric grid more? Who requires more police and fire protection? Giant corporations and the wealthy use a much greater share of our government-provided infrastructure than do simple wage-earners and small businesses, and thus progressive rates are appropriate.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

While that is true, what Conservative pushes is effectively what Argentina did. And any student of history knows, that didn't go well for them.

Ok, should have gone back, didn't know your post was there. Interesting that I would have to convince someone as brilliant as you that tax cuts put more money into your pocket so you can spend it the way you see fit including investing or savings. Amazing that some people have a problem with that concept and buy the liberal position that the govt. needs the money more than the individual. I really don't know why I waste my time because tax cuts even benefit liberals like OC but apparently liberals are so brainwashed they don't understand it.

Now OC wants to compare the U.S. to Australia and because there is a claim that Australia failed cutting taxes here is going to fail. I wonder what it is that OC and those who claim that any failure is due to tax cuts. Do you know the make up of the Australia economy? Do you know the income of the people in Australia? How about the budget of the Govt. and its obligations? I would have thought that someone as brilliant and calculating as you would have done the research before agreeing that Australia has failed. I must have missed that news report and if it happened it was the results of tax cuts.

OC, I know you have trouble keeping more of your money and apparently so do a large group of your "friends." If it is too stressful for you then there is a line on your tax form that allows you to send more of your money to the Federal Govt. Then you can tell your employer that if they ever decide to give you a raise that the stress is too great so you would like that money sent to the govt. as well. Keep believing that raising taxes is a good thing for the American consumer whose activities make up over 60% of our GDP. Keep telling yourself that raising taxes will create jobs for the 16 million unemployed Americans? Keep telling yourself that raising taxes won't change human behavior and those evil rich people will just role over and take it.

Now I know nothing is ever going to change your mind because you are absolutely brilliant and thus all knowing but I would love for you to provide us all your expertise in how to get 16 million Americans back to work and create govt. revenue to pay down the massive debt Obama has created in just two years takingour debt to over 13.2 trillion dollars. I am convinced that taxing the rich will be part of your solution.

Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.com
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

FilmFestGuy;1058919870]Here's why: the rich don't spend when given stimulus because they already make significantly more than they spend. Giving them more money doesn't make them spend more. They hoard it and gain the interest from it.

Hmmm, they hoard it? Any idea what the banks that pay that interest does with the money the rich are hoarding?

Further, tax cuts don't create jobs. Were it the case, then the Bush tax rates (which we currently have) would be putting people back to work. It's not happening. And it didn't really happen in the mid-2000s either. The "boom" of the Bush recovery was almost exclusively given to the top 10% of earners. The remaining 90% of wage-earners only collectively shared 12% of the mid-2000s growth. If your philosophy of giving tax cuts to the wealthy to assist the middle class were accurate, then the growth would have been more evenly spread throughout all levels of wage-earners instead of being so specifically clumped up at the top.

Interesting that throught various threads I have posted BLS.gov data that disagrees with you. Maybe you ought to write them and tell them that their numbers are wrong. Further it seems the IRS disagrees with you as well but again i am sure you are right and they are wrong. Interesting numbers you have there that all the Bush tax cut went to the rich. I guess the Congress got it wrong, the IRS got it wrong, and the Treasury Department got it wrong too because the Bush tax cuts of 2003 cut rates for ALL taxpayers not just the rich. I am amazed at how you got it right and all those agencies got it wrong. You obviously should be working for them to straighten them out. I also am amazed that the IRS reports taht 47% of the people in this country pay no income taxes leaving 53% to shoulder the entire burden.

The opposite is true if you lower taxes for the bottom 60% of earners. They are much more likely to spend on home improvements, electronics, clothing, and other things that will drive up demand - and increase income for the top earners.

And where do you get this gem? Bottom 60% of wage EARNERS? Is that part of the 53% that pay taxes or the 47% that don't? Think we ought to give income tax cuts to people who don't pay any income taxes?
I suppose you buy the rhetoric that tax cuts have to be paid for and are an expense to the govt. I have checked everyone on the Treasury site and cannot find an expense line item for tax cuts. I always wondered how personal income for an individual could be an expense to the govt. I would appreciate you explaining that to me.


The 2000s are the prime example of how poorly structured tax cuts can hurt the economy. They were the exact equivalent of Hoover's foolish tax cuts right before the Great Depression.

How would you have structured the tax cuts since Bush cut them across the board and allowed all taxpayers to keep more of what they earned. I suppose you believe that individual earnings all belong to the govt and thus tax cuts should be targeted to those that don't pay any taxes? is that really a tax cut or is it a welfare payment, I am so confused.

As a result, new policies need to be developed that give true incentives ONLY for hiring. You cannot give the tax cut up front, it must only be collected after hiring.
again I am confused how does the govt. cut taxes up front since taxes are, correct me if I am wrong, paid on revenue thus after they are generated thus cannot be cut up front. I always thought it was the people's money or the business's money before it was the government's. Guess I was wrong according to you.

The only thing that will grow jobs is increased demand for products. You don't increase demand for products by cutting taxes for the wealthy. You cut taxes for the working and middle classes - who will then spend the money, which will then make the rich, richer (through natural market forces - not through unnecessary tax cuts).

Now that is something I never thought of, the rich don't spend their money and buy things. You know I was totally shocked when I found that allowing the tax cuts to expire on the rich would increase revenue 40 billion dollars if the rich don't change their behavior. Now since we have a 3 trillion debt that 40 billion will wipe it out, right? I then did some research and found the following article. I would love to have you analize it for me and tell me where it is wrong. Please ignore the author and focus on the information in the article including IRS data. thanks

Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.com


We can agree that spending must be reigned in. But tax cuts do not solve anything if they're not properly targeted

Additionally, who uses the nation's infrastructure more? The organic farmer or Wal-Mart? Who uses highways more? Who uses the electric grid more? Who requires more police and fire protection? Giant corporations and the wealthy use a much greater share of our government-provided infrastructure than do simple wage-earners and small businesses, and thus progressive rates are appropriate.

I guess I am going to have to pay closer attention as to who uses the infrastructure but you are going to have to help me. When driving the interstate how do you tell a rich person from a poor person? Also don't we have use taxes to fund the highways and most of our infrastructure.

I do thank you for your comments though but I wish I would have gotten them about 40 some years ago as I wouldn't have bothered to go to college and work hard, take risk to become one of those evil rich people. I never dreamed that my being rich hurt you or anyone else. I didn't know that when I was earning my money I was taking it from someone else. Too all those liberals that read this please accept my apology for earning all my income and apparently taking it from some of you thus preventing you from being as successful as I have been. I promise you I will work on my grandkids to make sure they don't make the same mistakes as apparently I did.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Honestly, propaganda with no economic support. Hence why it's not worth talking to you about anything.

OC, don't blame you and I apologize for all the problems I have given you in the past. I simply want to learn where I have gone wrong. I made a serious mistake working hard all those years and didn't realize that when I got a raise and my take home pay went up that it hurt the country. I always thought that if I was successful that I wouldn't need people like you to take care of me and my family. Guess I was wrong.

I realize that all that research I have done at non partisan sites isn't credible and would love to have you give me alternative sites so that I can become better educated and more like you. I sincerely hope you will show me the errors of my way by helping me understand how keeping more of my money hurts you and the country. Too bad you weren't around when I was growing us to tell me not to listen to my parents about personal responsibility and consequences for poor choices. All that hard work which obviously hurt a lot of people. Sorry I am not dependent on you but there still is time. Help me understand what was propaganda that I posted so I never do it again or can ask you for clarification of the data?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Then the charts posted are distortions if not downright lies. They showed the tax cuts by pay range and many of those that show tax cuts don't pay income taxes and that is what Bush cut.
No, they are not distortions or lies. Your analysis of them is, however. Read this very slowly: AGI stands for ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME. That means these figures are the income AFTER all dedutions are taken; AGI has absolutely no correlation to actual income. Well the AGI is always lower than Gross Income, however depending your income level you can have deductions that are not available to someone with lesser income.


400 Highest Income Americans See Income Soar, Tax Rates Fall in 2007 (pdf)
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Here are some numbers to back up what I said:

Wonk Room » Boehner Falsely Claims The Bush Tax Cuts Led To Jobs And Growth, Not Deficits

Here's what the Republicans did for us working folks with their tax cuts in the 2000s:
Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers - washingtonpost.com
Median income rose as did poverty in 2007; 2000s have been extremely weak for living standards of most households

Stagnant incomes and the slowest rate of job growth since the 1940s.

Further, here's proof that the tax rate for the top 1% has absolutely no relation to income growth. In the five years following the Reagan tax cuts, average GDP growth was 2.6%. In the five years after Clinton raised the rate to 39%, average GDP growth was 2.7%. This occurs throughout any period of tax changes.
Economic growth « Consider the Evidence

So, those Bush tax cuts did what again? The answer? It helped create the greatest income disparity since right before the Great Depression:

Trends in American Income Inequality Prior to the Recession-Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog

Not to mention a 15% growth rate in the poverty rate between 2000 and 2006.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

No, they are not distortions or lies. Your analysis of them is, however. Read this very slowly: AGI stands for ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME. That means these figures are the income AFTER all dedutions are taken; AGI has absolutely no correlation to actual income. Well the AGI is always lower than Gross Income, however depending your income level you can have deductions that are not available to someone with lesser income.


400 Highest Income Americans See Income Soar, Tax Rates Fall in 2007 (pdf)

Ok, and why is that a problem, did they take any of that from you? You do realize that the U.S. Treasury shows income tax revenue going up AFTER the tax cuts. I wonder how they came up with that data?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Here are some numbers to back up what I said:

Wonk Room » Boehner Falsely Claims The Bush Tax Cuts Led To Jobs And Growth, Not Deficits

Here's what the Republicans did for us working folks with their tax cuts in the 2000s:
Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers - washingtonpost.com
Median income rose as did poverty in 2007; 2000s have been extremely weak for living standards of most households

Stagnant incomes and the slowest rate of job growth since the 1940s.

Further, here's proof that the tax rate for the top 1% has absolutely no relation to income growth. In the five years following the Reagan tax cuts, average GDP growth was 2.6%. In the five years after Clinton raised the rate to 39%, average GDP growth was 2.7%. This occurs throughout any period of tax changes.
Economic growth « Consider the Evidence

So, those Bush tax cuts did what again? The answer? It helped create the greatest income disparity since right before the Great Depression:

Trends in American Income Inequality Prior to the Recession-Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog

Not to mention a 15% growth rate in the poverty rate between 2000 and 2006.

Well thank you very much for posting such interesting reading. I wonder where the U.S. Treasury Dept. got the information that tax revenue grew AFTER the rate cuts in 2003? Obviously your sources say they are wrong and why would I believe the Treasury Dept.?

Now regarding median income, please help me understand how taxes affected median income or was it median income that affected taxes. I am so confused.

Now regarding economic growth, I usually use the Bureau of Economic Analysis, bea.gov but apparently they got it wrong too as they showed economic growth growing from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion from 2000 to 2008. That looks like pretty good growth to me but guess I am wrong and looking at it incorrectly.

As for those pesky unemployment numbers apparently the bureau of labor statistics got it wrong as well since they show job growth as well until the recession hit. That Damn Bush, he should have listened to the Democratic controlled Congress when they took over in January 2007. He must have vetoed a lot of their legislation to cause the recession all by himself.

Unemployment numbers by month

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599

Discouraged workers that dropped out of the labor market and are no longer counted

2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784

It would be helpful if you or your sources corrected BLS and BEA so they stop misleading the public. I cannot believe those sites were used during the Clinton years and accurate but all of a sudden with Bush and Obama they are wrong. Who would have thought that would happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Ok, and why is that a problem, did they take any of that from you? You do realize that the U.S. Treasury shows income tax revenue going up AFTER the tax cuts. I wonder how they came up with that data?
They always go up. Part of the increase in revenue was because the Bush tax cuts caught some taxpayers with the AMT. The U.S. Tax code is so complex it's amasing to me how you can come up with the conclusion that Bush's was the cause. Truthiness
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

They always go up. Part of the increase in revenue was because the Bush tax cuts caught some taxpayers with the AMT. The U.S. Tax code is so complex it's amasing to me how you can come up with the conclusion that Bush's was the cause. Truthiness

So logic would then say if income tax revenue went up AFTER the tax cuts that the tax cuts that grow govt revenue cannot cause deficits. I am so confused. I hope someone explains that to me. I really don't believe the AMT generates that much revenue but if it does, great, the govt needs the money much, much more than we do.

Revenue by year by category, notice income tax revenue especially after the July 2003 tax rate cuts

Line 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1 Current receipts 3,132.4 3,118.2 2,967.9 3,043.4 3,265.7 3,659.3 3,995.2 4,197.0 4,074.0

2 Current tax receipts 2,202.8 2,163.7 2,002.1 2,047.9 2,213.2 2,546.8 2,807.4 2,951.2 2,780.3

3 Personal current taxes 1,232.3 1,234.8 1,050.4 1,000.3 1,047.8 1,208.6 1,352.4 1,488.7 1,438.2

4 Taxes on production and imports 708.6 727.7 762.8 806.8 863.4 930.2 986.8 1,027.2 1,045.1

5 Taxes on corporate income 254.7 193.5 181.3 231.8 292.0 395.9 454.2 420.6 280.2


Look, I live in TX so know that GW Bush wasn't very smart. Amazing how he got the entire world to believe Saddam Hussein had WMD, and then got the Democrat Congress to agree with tax rate cuts, and then all by himself totally baffled the Democrat Congress to allow him to lead the country into recession. How that "cowboy" did that is beyond me.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Honestly, propaganda with no economic support. Hence why it's not worth talking to you about anything.

OC, I really am waiting for that propaganda with no economic support from you so that I can learn from my mistakes.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Hmmm, they hoard it? Any idea what the banks that pay that interest does with the money the rich are hoarding?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_690596.html

They've got money, but they're not hiring. By your philosophy, they should automatically be hiring, right? Because they have money? Lots of it, even. So, why aren't they hiring?

They aren't hiring because the only thing that will get them hiring is if there is high enough demand for their products that they are required to hire more workers to keep up.

Interesting that throught various threads I have posted BLS.gov data that disagrees with you. Maybe you ought to write them and tell them that their numbers are wrong. Further it seems the IRS disagrees with you as well but again i am sure you are right and they are wrong. Interesting numbers you have there that all the Bush tax cut went to the rich. I guess the Congress got it wrong, the IRS got it wrong, and the Treasury Department got it wrong too because the Bush tax cuts of 2003 cut rates for ALL taxpayers not just the rich. I am amazed at how you got it right and all those agencies got it wrong. You obviously should be working for them to straighten them out. I also am amazed that the IRS reports taht 47% of the people in this country pay no income taxes leaving 53% to shoulder the entire burden.

Yes, there were tax cuts for all levels - but the benefit was most largely laid at the feet of the wealthiest.

It didn't produce results for basically anyone else:
Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And where do you get this gem? Bottom 60% of wage EARNERS? Is that part of the 53% that pay taxes or the 47% that don't? Think we ought to give income tax cuts to people who don't pay any income taxes?
I suppose you buy the rhetoric that tax cuts have to be paid for and are an expense to the govt. I have checked everyone on the Treasury site and cannot find an expense line item for tax cuts. I always wondered how personal income for an individual could be an expense to the govt. I would appreciate you explaining that to me.

See here (amongst meaning places):
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

CBO and CBPP both agree with me. The Bush tax cuts drove up the deficit. In fact, even one of your own admits that tax cuts expand the deficit.

Cantor Appears To Concede That Bush Tax Cuts Will Add To Deficits | TPMDC

How would you have structured the tax cuts since Bush cut them across the board and allowed all taxpayers to keep more of what they earned. I suppose you believe that individual earnings all belong to the govt and thus tax cuts should be targeted to those that don't pay any taxes? is that really a tax cut or is it a welfare payment, I am so confused.

No, and your partisanship is showing here by mischaracterizing everything I'm trying to say instead of trying to debate points. I like my money and my family is making more than we ever have and both recently got raises. I hope to be one of the top 20% of earners one day as I further and further advance in my career.

The point about the various levels of income-earners is this: I'm referring to tax cuts as short-term stimulus. It has to go to people who will spend it. Saving it doesn't do anything for the economy. Period.

I would return tax rates to Clinton level rates (let the Bush cuts expire) for the top two income levels. I would lower the rate slightly on the bottom earning levels. For the top tiers (more likely to be business owners), I would give a tax-break for each new-hire (full-time with benefits only) all the way to the point where they can have an effective rate of 0% - as long as they hire people and purchase equipment.

again I am confused how does the govt. cut taxes up front since taxes are, correct me if I am wrong, paid on revenue thus after they are generated thus cannot be cut up front. I always thought it was the people's money or the business's money before it was the government's. Guess I was wrong according to you.

Again, I'm not talking about tax rate: if at the end of the fiscal year, they show that they increased their full-time payroll, then they earn tax benefits - and for me - I would be willing to let that go all the way to no tax, as long as they hire people.



Now that is something I never thought of, the rich don't spend their money and buy things. You know I was totally shocked when I found that allowing the tax cuts to expire on the rich would increase revenue 40 billion dollars if the rich don't change their behavior. Now since we have a 3 trillion debt that 40 billion will wipe it out, right? I then did some research and found the following article. I would love to have you analize it for me and tell me where it is wrong. Please ignore the author and focus on the information in the article including IRS data. thanks

Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22 - WSJ.com

I guess I am going to have to pay closer attention as to who uses the infrastructure but you are going to have to help me. When driving the interstate how do you tell a rich person from a poor person? Also don't we have use taxes to fund the highways and most of our infrastructure.

I do thank you for your comments though but I wish I would have gotten them about 40 some years ago as I wouldn't have bothered to go to college and work hard, take risk to become one of those evil rich people. I never dreamed that my being rich hurt you or anyone else. I didn't know that when I was earning my money I was taking it from someone else. Too all those liberals that read this please accept my apology for earning all my income and apparently taking it from some of you thus preventing you from being as successful as I have been. I promise you I will work on my grandkids to make sure they don't make the same mistakes as apparently I did.

I actually read your column before (it's an opinion piece, not an article) you linked it here and I disagree.

The rich do spend. The top 1% spend a lot. The problem is, they don't need stimulus to do it. The effect of a tax cut has little to do with them, because their earnings are so high. They are already capable of spending as much as they want.

As far as the infrastructure: do you deny that Wal-Mart uses American infrastructure more than your insurance agent does? Does a business man who takes meetings on both coasts use the infrastructure more than the clerk at your local Hardees?

It's not crazy. It's crazy obvious that large corporations and wealthy financiers frequently use a much larger share of infrastructure than the average work-a-day individual. I don't touch an interstate to get to my three-person office + one intern office.

Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).

(Sorry that took so long, a friend stopped by).

And please, let's stick to facts and not make assumptions. In no way do I think income belongs to the government. It is earned by individuals for their work, product, or services provided. But taxes are a necessary evil for our government to run. When you say things like that, you're relying on stereotypes. I would prefer to have a debate about numbers, philosophies, and facts. Not assumptions based on stereotypes given us by talking heads. These things can be open to interpretation and there are differing ideas. That's what our country is about.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

FilmFestGuy;1058920081]http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_690596.html

They've got money, but they're not hiring. By your philosophy, they should automatically be hiring, right? Because they have money? Lots of it, even. So, why aren't they hiring?

They aren't hiring because the only thing that will get them hiring is if there is high enough demand for their products that they are required to hire more workers to keep up.

I wonder who "they" are and I wonder if I was in their position not knowing what my taxes were going to be would hire either. then there is the healthcare costs that will kick in. I believe that 80% of the businesses in this country are small businesses and not those evil corporations. They seem to be the ones not hiring either. I think you are on to something however if we could only find a way to increase demand for products. Wonder what kind of program would put more money into spenders's hands?


Yes, there were tax cuts for all levels - but the benefit was most largely laid at the feet of the wealthiest.

It didn't produce results for basically anyone else:
Income Gaps Hit Record Levels In 2006, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

So then the bureau of economic analysis isn't a credible source? I wish someone would give me credible sources for economic data.

Interesting article you gave me but wonder why it took data from 1979 to 2006 sand stopped at 2006. I always get confused when I hear about income gap and blame that on taxes. Aren't taxes something paid after income in earned? How would takes have anything to do with income gaps? Call me confused. I wonder if maybe lower taxes would help put money into the hands of people to create demand? I still think BEA must have it wrong because they show economic growth of over 4.5 trilloin dollars in the Bush 8 years which is the highest in U.S. history. how can that be?



See here (amongst meaning places):
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

CBO and CBPP both agree with me. The Bush tax cuts drove up the deficit. In fact, even one of your own admits that tax cuts expand the deficit.

Well then the U.S. Treasury which is the checkbook of the country got it wrong as they show tax revenue going up AFTER the tax rate cuts. I don't know how that can be. I always trusted CBO too until I read somewhere that their projections are seldom right as evidenced by their projections with the Obama stimulus. Oh, well, they probably only got it wrong with Obama and not Bush. I just don't understand it though so help me. According to official numbers, unless you have a better source and I am waiting for OC to give me a better source, the Treasury Dept. shows revenue going up after the tax cuts so call me confused but how could anything that grows revenue cause deficits?


Now I have a different take on Cantor's comments but could be wrong and of course you be right, but the fact is we have 16 million unemployed Americans today. I was surprised that is up over 3 million since Obama signed his stimulus plan and those unemployed people aren't getting any tax cuts but also aren't paying any taxes. Without those tax payers and all that spending it would seem to me that tax revenue will indeed drop and create larger deficits. Now I wonder what is going to happen when they raise taxes and how we get those 16 million unemployed back to work paying taxes. Any ideas? Seems McConnell however agrees with the U.S. Treasury that tax revenue didn't drop with the tax cuts, maybe because we had more people paying taxes?


No, and your partisanship is showing here by mischaracterizing everything I'm trying to say instead of trying to debate points. I like my money and my family is making more than we ever have and both recently got raises. I hope to be one of the top 20% of earners one day as I further and further advance in my career.

My partisanship? You mean my screenname gives me away? Good for you, making more money than you ever made? How about those poor less fortunate? Are you sending more money to the govt. to help solve the problem? What exactly do you do with all that money you are making? Maybe you can give some hints to the rich because obviously as has been stated by others they don't spend their money. Good luck on being in that top 20% so you can contribute more money to the govt. I hope you make it as I will be looking for you to help me help solve the poverty problem.

The point about the various levels of income-earners is this: I'm referring to tax cuts as short-term stimulus. It has to go to people who will spend it. Saving it doesn't do anything for the economy. Period.

Now I hadn't thought about that, savings doesn't help the economy at all? I thought that savings went to banks who lent that money to people to buy homes, make home repairs, build businesses. I wonder where the banks get that money if it doesn't come from savings? You are probably right however about the short term benefits of tax cuts. My bet is that when you get more of your own money in each pay check that it probably gets boring and you stop spending after a while as you probably don't outgrow things and don't need anything after you purchased everything you want. The of course there is that little savings thing that you don't like. Remember SS will be there for you so no need to put money aside for retirement.


I would return tax rates to Clinton level rates (let the Bush cuts expire) for the top two income levels. I would lower the rate slightly on the bottom earning levels. For the top tiers (more likely to be business owners), I would give a tax-break for each new-hire (full-time with benefits only) all the way to the point where they can have an effective rate of 0% - as long as they hire people and purchase equipment.

Why just the Clinton levels, the govt. needs the money badly? Let's raise them back to the Carter levels. Sounds a little complicated having different levels of taxes for different levels of income especially when businesses don't know from year to year how much they will be making. Then there is that little issue of healthcare taxes that are going to hit. Wonder if your incentive to hire will offset that expense? Then there is that little equipment issue and depreciation expense. Businesses really don't need to write off depreciation. I wish Businesses would be more patriotic and give more to the govt. to really help give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes.


Again, I'm not talking about tax rate: if at the end of the fiscal year, they show that they increased their full-time payroll, then they earn tax benefits - and for me - I would be willing to let that go all the way to no tax, as long as they hire people.

Sounds like a great idea, just think of the govt. employees we could hire and have the taxpayers pay for to monitor business hiring. I sure hope that tax credit offsets the rising costs of business including I am sure you would want a liveable wage for those employees plus their healthcare benefits. How about retirement, 401K, dental, and eye glasses?

I actually read your column before (it's an opinion piece, not an article) you linked it here and I disagree.

You are probably right, the rich will just sit back and do their patriotic duty and pay those higher taxes. I know that NY just passed a millionaires tax to raise revenue. Wonder how that is working out for the state? I was surprised to see the IRS reporting lower revenue from the rich when tax rates were raised. Wonder why?

The rich do spend. The top 1% spend a lot. The problem is, they don't need stimulus to do it. The effect of a tax cut has little to do with them, because their earnings are so high. They are already capable of spending as much as they want.

I know but since it is there money, think it is right to take it from them? Probably so as they have a duty to pay for those who can work but choose not to as well as to keep up their charitable giving like they do when they had more spendable income. I was amazed at home much money I had to give to charity when my spendable income was higher. Oh, well, I can send it to someone in D.C. and let them divy it out to some other state and not my local community. We are all Americans right?

As far as the infrastructure: do you deny that Wal-Mart uses American infrastructure more than your insurance agent does? Does a business man who takes meetings on both coasts use the infrastructure more than the clerk at your local Hardees?

Absolutely, they have all those polluting trucks on the road stopping in those truck stops buying that high priced diesel fuel and paying use taxes on every gallon. I thought that excise taxes on gasoline and diesel was supposed to pay for infrastructure expenses but I could be wrong. How about finding out for me?

It's not crazy. It's crazy obvious that large corporations and wealthy financiers frequently use a much larger share of infrastructure than the average work-a-day individual. I don't touch an interstate to get to my three-person office + one intern office.

You are probably right large corporations and wealthy financeirs deserve to pay more because they obviously take more from the poor people and offer nothing of value to the community or their employees. I always wondered about those corporate taxes though because I don't recall ever seeing a corporation in the grocery store? I wonder where that money goes?

Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).

I wish I could answer that question but don't know where you got that data. Sure seems unlikely to me that people with more spendable income made less money. I don't believe Bush was in office in 2000 when we went into recession but could be wrong. He may have been creating policy from the state house in TX. Zero income growth, huh? Let me know where I can find that information. NOw I know some blog or site can provide that for us. Let me know when you get the answer.

(Sorry that took so long, a friend stopped by).

And please, let's stick to facts and not make assumptions. In no way do I think income belongs to the government. It is earned by individuals for their work, product, or services provided. But taxes are a necessary evil for our government to run. When you say things like that, you're relying on stereotypes. I would prefer to have a debate about numbers, philosophies, and facts. Not assumptions based on stereotypes given us by talking heads. These things can be open to interpretation and there are differing ideas. That's what our country is about.
[/QUOTE]

No problem, friends are more important that educating me. Are you sure about that, you had me convinced that the govt. needs the money more than the individuals. Taxes aren't evil at all and it seems to make sense that we send all our money to the govt. and let them give us back what they think we need. That way everyone would be in the same boat.

I don't know I think those talking heads on MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS are much smarter than me and I particularly like the way they destroyed President Bush because Bush deserved it and how they are doing their best to help Obama because the country is in worse shape due to Bush. I was just shocked at how everyone told me how stupid Bush was that he was able to do so much damage especially with a Democrat Congress. He fooled them all and I am just sick about it.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

I haven't read the whole thread but here's my take.

Right now I get taxed at 18%. If this coming tax hike isn't stopped then I will be taxed at 25%. I'm poor. Taking that extra 7% will put me living with my folks...something none of us want.

I could really care less what rich folks get taxed. I only care about being able to live.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

I haven't read the whole thread but here's my take.

Right now I get taxed at 18%. If this coming tax hike isn't stopped then I will be taxed at 25%. I'm poor. Taking that extra 7% will put me living with my folks...something none of us want.

I could really care less what rich folks get taxed. I only care about being able to live.

Now that's the spirit, don't care about what the rich pay. My bet is those that don't pay any income taxes could care less what others pay as well. Isn't it easy supporting something that doesn't affect you?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts were good when most people had basically zero income growth from 2000 to present (and that includes 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled everything).
Excellent question, another one would be why the national debt doubled during the Bush presidency?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Excellent question, another one would be why the national debt doubled during the Bush presidency?

pbrauer, I am still waiting for a better source than the U.S. Treasury Dept that shows the tax cuts caused the deficits because that site shows tax revenue growing AFTER the rate cuts in July 2003. Interesting that something that grew revenue would cause a deficit.

Then Film told me about income not growing and maybe the site that shows income would be a good one to use to show that revenue actually dropped after the tax cuts too. I anxiously await better sites because quite frankly I am sick and tired of those non partisan sites like bea.gov, bls.gov, and U.S. Treasury lying to me.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

OC, I really am waiting for that propaganda with no economic support from you so that I can learn from my mistakes.

That would require you to acknowledge and address honestly my posts. And you haven't done that. At all. Since the first day you joined. Come down to the basement if you want to really hear about what we think of you.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

That would require you to acknowledge and address honestly my posts. And you haven't done that. At all. Since the first day you joined. Come down to the basement if you want to really hear about what we think of you.

Wow, I cannot tell you how hurt I am that you think so little of me. What a blow to my ego! No problem, I accept your claim that I provide propaganda with no economic support and I am sure someone else here will give me better sites than bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury so that I don't continue to provide propaganda from those non partisan sites. Maybe I can get better information from MSNBC, MediaMatters, MoveOn, Americans for Progress as I am sure those sites offer objective information and no propaganda and seem to be used a lot here. Maybe using those sites would be helpful in getting me accepted here although it just won't mean much if I am not accepted by you.

Thanks for the civil message however and again I apologize for your belief that I don't honestly answer your posts in a manner that suits you. I can only hope that someone here helps me become at least worthy of discussing issues with you using data you deem credible.
 
Lets here if for the (though belated) fiscal responsible Republican Party.:roll:


<A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday. >
GR2010081106717.gif


washingtonpost.com

Comparing Democratic and Republican tax plans


Yawn.

Then cut $36 billion out of the spending side.

How complicated it that?

If the Democrats in Congress are too stupid to figure out how to save 3% from a spending budget, they should be replaced with Americans.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Concerning 401k and IRA investing, when the average guy withdraws that, he pays a tax rate based on AGI for the year, which for me and my wife was up in the 34% range 2 years ago, and that is whether the account earned money, or lost money. Our income was part earned, and part unearned. We paid SS on the earned portion.

The rich invest in regular accounts, their profits are capital gains on unearned income, and get a preferred tax rate of 15%. They don't pay into SS on unearned income.

Warren Buffet says his employees pay a higher tax rate than he does...

The rich have the politicians in their pockets, while the gullible middle class have no pockets. A lot of middle class demand tax cuts that will save them a few hundred a year, but save the uber rich a few hundred thousand a year, or more....

And for those "conservatives" who think I envy the rich, the wife and I have plenty of assets and our retirement income accumulates faster than we can spend it.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

So your saying what exactly with your graphs? Super rich are getting screwed?

No, the people who want to find a job are going to get screwed if the Messiah succeeds in raising taxes at the bottom of a recession that isn't rising. No surer way to make the Messiah's presidency JUST like FDR's....create a recession at the bottom of a recession.

Some people need to give up on their envy for the rich and start focusing on the fact that their policies are exactly what's causing perpetual unemployment now.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Utah Bill, heard of the Son of Boss tax scheme? A completely artificial way to generate insanely large fake losses to completely eliminate all taxable income? It ain't the poor and middle class who are using them.
 
Back
Top Bottom