- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The poor pay taxes too. And they pay more in relation to their buying power.
so what-they use far more than they pay
The poor pay taxes too. And they pay more in relation to their buying power.
This is true. A flat tax would be very regressive and harmful.
what do the poor pay in return for such grand service?
Because the rich are so gracious as to allow them to eat cake.
I think the information regarding Ireland needs to be seriously updated
uh - we live in the USA - not Ireland and as others have said, Ireland is in deep doodoo right now.
Second, lets see the stats that prove that tax cuts lead to more jobs right here in the good old USA. That is the mantra we hear constantly from the right that if we give the rich more money to keep then they will create more jobs for the poor slobs underneath them. So lets see that please.
Tell me (former?) dem operative. why do you spend so much time campaigning for the government to take more wealth of your fellow citizens?
from Turtle
Actually most of my time lately was spent getting a person elected to public office and that was successful.
As for taking wealth from my fellow citizens, I want to give 100% of my fellow citizens extensions on the scheduled tax raises on their first $250,00.00 of their income. The 2% who will pay over that amount are a very tiny portion of the population and I care far more about the other 98% than I do that tiny minority and if they will have enough this year to purchase a gold plated bidet.
I care far more about the other 98% than I do that tiny minority and if they will have enough this year to purchase a gold plated bidet.
The tyranny of the majority.
Thanks! I don't know why it's been so difficult for Conservatives to just tell it straight instead of spouting some obscure platitude, i.e., "correlation =/= causation".
And when I saw that RightinNYC had posted again in this thread I was hoping he finally was bringing the evidence of tax cuts on the rich producing jobs. Instead we just get a repetition of repetition which said nothing in the first place.
class warfare and hatred of those who prosper is common among that party
Screw the concept.
Show us the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts.
I'm not claiming that they created jobs.
from RightinNYC
Then you are alone on the rightwing in that regard.
Cut taxes to stimulate economy and help families
Budget surpluses are the result of over-taxation of the American people. The weak link in the chain of prosperity is the tax system. It not only burdens the American people; it threatens to slow, and perhaps to reverse, the economic expansion: We therefore enthusiastically endorse the principles of Governor Bush’s Tax Cut:
Replace the five current tax brackets with four lower ones, ensuring all taxpayers significant tax relief while targeting it especially toward low-income workers.
Help families by doubling the child tax credit to $1,000, making it available to more families, and eliminating the marriage penalty.
Encourage entrepreneurship and growth by capping the top marginal rate, ending the death tax, and making permanent the Research and Development credit.
Promote charitable giving and education.
Foster capital investment and savings to boost today’s dangerously low personal savings rate.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000
Republican Party on the Issues
No he's not. I went through three or four posts explaining exactly how it affects the economy. You just chose to ignore that and create a straw-man argument that you thought you could easily knock. But don't take my word for it, let's see the official Republican Platform from 2000 when they ran on tax cuts:
They never say if you cut taxes the economy will magically grow. They say the economy will be helped, promoted, stimulated, etc. Your straw-man is debunked.
Budget surpluses are the result of over-taxation of the American people. The weak link in the chain of prosperity is the tax system. It not only burdens the American people; it threatens to slow, and perhaps to reverse, the economic expansion:
This part here is a real hoot.
Note in line #46 of my link that 1999 and 2000 there was no borrowing from Chinese, from the year there is a steady stream of debt.Kinda looks like the repugs brought the prosperity that we now face doesn't it?The ones in red with the -is the years we had to borrow to pay for the bush taxcuts.:2wave:
Net lending or net borrowing 1999= 95.0/ 2000=184.7/ 2001=-34.2/2002=/2003=-278.0/2004=-422.2 2005=-426.8/ 2006=-352.4/2007 -247.2/2008-315.0
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
It's more a common talking point among those on the right who cannot formulate real arguments. When you cannot outdebate people, demonize them.
No he's not. I went through three or four posts explaining exactly how it affects the economy. You just chose to ignore that and create a straw-man argument that you thought you could easily knock. But don't take my word for it, let's see the official Republican Platform from 2000 when they ran on tax cuts:
from Turtle
I have little doubt that you are more than happy to cut taxes even if there is no evidence of creating jobs. You do not have to prove that to me. Your many posts have shown quite clearly where your allegiances and concerns are. However, there are plenty of Republican politicians, conservative think tanks, and right wingers who sold us this bogus bill of goods back in 2001 and 2003 and are now trying to sell it to us again.
If you think that "correlation =/= causation" is an "obscure platitude," then that proves my point better than anything else I've said in this thread.
I'm not claiming that they created jobs.
I'm claiming that it's idiotic to argue that because the economy grew slower than average, the tax cuts must not have caused growth.
This is incredibly basic logic and should be understood by anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a high school education. I'm neither your parent nor your tutor, so I don't give enough of a **** to try to explain this to you any further.
Have a good night.
This part here is a real hoot.
Note in line #46 of my link that 1999 and 2000 there was no borrowing from Chinese, from the year there is a steady stream of debt.Kinda looks like the repugs brought the prosperity that we now face doesn't it?The ones in red with the -is the years we had to borrow to pay for the bush taxcuts.:2wave:
Net lending or net borrowing 1999= 95.0/ 2000=184.7/ 2001=-34.2/2002=/2003=-278.0/2004=-422.2 2005=-426.8/ 2006=-352.4/2007 -247.2/2008-315.0
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis