• 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!

It is who you give the tax cuts to![W:260]

Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

Prove it. Prove person A's increased other taxes outweigh Person A's income tax cut. Prove it without assuming or coming to conclusions.

I did that already. Sheesh. I can't help it if you don't understand.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

So then you answer my question with a question. By your own definition, you just proved that you are lying.

The point being made was that tax cuts on the wealthy caused revenue shortages which were then filled with excise taxes that affect the poor and middle class more negatively than they affect the wealthy.

Then YOU came out and said this nonsense about "how do tax cuts on the poor make them poorer?" Well, Sherlock, the tax cuts WEREN'T on the poor, so show me where you're getting that info.

That was my original question and you guys keep deflecting. Prove that person A's increased other taxes are more than person A's income tax cut. There were tax cuts to EVERYONE. All you can argue is that the rich got more dollars in tax cuts than did the poor but you can't prove that the poor's income tax cuts caused them to have less income due to higher other taxes. The rich paid higher other taxes too!
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

Prove it. Prove person A's increased other taxes outweigh Person A's income tax cut. Prove it without assuming or coming to conclusions.

SNL couldn't write this stuff!!

"Come to a conclusion without coming to a conclusion!!"

Replies to a question with, "Did you know that it means people are lying when they respond with a question when you ask them a question?"

If you take a portion of the income tax burden associated with 10% of the most wealthy and redistribute it amongst everybody (in the form of a sales tax), those below the top 10% are going to be paying more.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

There were tax cuts to EVERYONE.

Not in Kansas. The tax cuts there were for the wealthy and businesses. Secondly, the Bush Tax Cuts may have been for everyone, but they were more for the rich, who saw their effective tax rate lowered significantly more than that of everyone else.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

I did that already. Sheesh. I can't help it if you don't understand.

You didn't prove it a direct connection. Please prove that person A is less well off that person A would have been without their income tax cuts. All you have is an opinion that he would have surely paid more in in sales taxes than what his decrease in income taxes was. And, you have not proven it on a federal level. If Trump cuts everyone's taxes you can't prove that the government will make up the money by starting a national sales tax or anything else.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

SNL couldn't write this stuff!!

"Come to a conclusion without coming to a conclusion!!"

Replies to a question with, "Did you know that it means people are lying when they respond with a question when you ask them a question?"

If you take a portion of the income tax burden associated with 10% of the most wealthy and redistribute it amongst everybody (in the form of a sales tax), those below the top 10% are going to be paying more.

But you obviously can't prove that the increase in their other taxes outweighs the decrease in their income taxes or you would have done it. And, you can't compare things mixing up state levels with federal levels. The federal government doesn't have a sales tax, therefore when people get a cut on their federal income taxes they can't increase a non-existent national sales tax to make up the difference. Please prove that when Reagan or some other president gave cuts to federal income taxes that the poor were not better off because they had to pay higher other federal taxes. You guys yourselves argued that the tax cuts increased deficits and then you turn around and say that the decreased tax revenues had to be made up with other tax revenues. Which way is it? If they made up the revenues by raising other taxes then there would be no deficits and yet you say there were deficits.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

Not in Kansas. The tax cuts there were for the wealthy and businesses. Secondly, the Bush Tax Cuts may have been for everyone, but they were more for the rich, who saw their effective tax rate lowered significantly more than that of everyone else.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT KANSAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet another deflection.
 
The Bush tax cuts should have been focused on the poor and the middle income eaners, but a great portion went to the wealthy. These cuts did little to help the economy. We are a consumer driven economy. Where the wealthy may have invested most or all of the tax relief they got from the Bush tax cuts, where they invested it wasn't in the US. The poor and the middle income wage earners spent most or all of what they received. The problem was the little they got individually from the tax cuts on top of stagnent wages actually hurt the economy by limiting demand, something very important in a consumer driven economy. So much so that we were almost in a depression when Obama got into office. People complain about the slow growth of the economy since Obama came into office. Without an increase in the poor and middle income earners purchasing power or/and an increase in real wages, economic growth may remain slow. The last few months we have seen a growth in real income. Now if Trump and the GOP aim their tax cuts at the poor and middle income earners, we may stimulate the economy and see really good growth numbers. If we just give more money to the wealthy all we will do is increase the deficit.

Not that this will happen but hey I never thought Trump could possibly get the nomination let alone win the general election. There should never be any targeted cut or rise of taxes for anyone. There should be a flat tax with a percentage that is applied to every single person who earns a wage of any kind. The current system is fully corrupted and needs to be thrown out. Every deduction is a sign of corruption as it serves some kind of special interest. Politicians use the tax code to cement their power. We need to blow this system up.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

You didn't prove it a direct connection. Please prove that person A is less well off that person A would have been without their income tax cuts. All you have is an opinion that he would have surely paid more in in sales taxes than what his decrease in income taxes was.

You don't need studies to catch the gist of the idea.

Most people in the middle and (especially in the) lower income brackets spend all the money they earn. The stuff they buy has a sales tax. Unless their income tax rate is cut more than their state's sales tax rate is increased, they are worse off. (Let's disregard the fact that since the sales tax would necessarily apply to a smaller number of dollars than income tax (since they paid taxes on their wages), the income tax reduction would have to be larger than the sales tax increase to be equal in consequence). The lowest tax bracket in Kansas was reduced only 0.5%; the sales tax was increased 1.5%. Those people are worse off by 1%. (More if you consider that the sales tax applies to fewer dollars - thus has a larger effect - than income tax).


And, you have not proven it on a federal level. If Trump cuts everyone's taxes you can't prove that the government will make up the money by starting a national sales tax or anything else.

Yet, if Obama were the one cutting taxes and increasing the deficit, you'd be howling about what a communist he must obviously be.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

You don't need studies to catch the gist of the idea.

Most people in the middle and (especially in the) lower income brackets spend all the money they earn. The stuff they buy has a sales tax. Unless their income tax rate is cut more than their state's sales tax rate is increased, they are worse off. (Let's disregard the fact that since the sales tax would necessarily apply to a smaller number of dollars than income tax (since they paid taxes on their wages), the income tax reduction would have to be larger than the sales tax increase to be equal in consequence). The lowest tax bracket in Kansas was reduced only 0.5%; the sales tax was increased 1.5%. Those people are worse off by 1%. (More if you consider that the sales tax applies to fewer dollars - thus has a larger effect - than income tax).




Yet, if Obama were the one cutting taxes and increasing the deficit, you'd be howling about what a communist he must obviously be.

So, you finally admit that you have no studies and are only talking about a "gist". Funny how you demand proof from the right but when it comes to your own claims a gist is just fine.
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

So, you finally admit that you have no studies and are only talking about a "gist". Funny how you demand proof from the right but when it comes to your own claims a gist is just fine.

How is math not proof?
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

So, you finally admit that you have no studies and are only talking about a "gist". Funny how you demand proof from the right but when it comes to your own claims a gist is just fine.

If the income tax decrease (in this case 0.5%) isn't a larger percentage than the sales tax increase (in this case 1.5%) on a group of citizens that spends ALL of their income, then they are being taxed more. As you can see, the sales tax increase was more than the income tax reduction.

If I earn $25,000 and get a 0.5% income tax reduction, I keep $125 more each year.

BUT ... if the sales tax also goes up 1.5%, then I'm spending an additional $280 per year than before those changes took place. It's math.

(That assumes one's take home pay is about 75% of that $25k, and one spends all of one's after-tax income. Therefore, 1.5% of $25,000 x 0.75 = $280; and 0.5% of $25,000 = $125; 280-125= $155 net reduction)
 
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!

If the income tax decrease (in this case 0.5%) isn't a larger percentage than the sales tax increase (in this case 1.5%) on a group of citizens that spends ALL of their income, then they are being taxed more. As you can see, the sales tax increase was more than the income tax reduction.

If I earn $25,000 and get a 0.5% income tax reduction, I keep $125 more each year.

BUT ... if the sales tax also goes up 1.5%, then I'm spending an additional $280 per year than before those changes took place. It's math.

(That assumes one's take home pay is about 75% of that $25k, and one spends all of one's after-tax income. Therefore, 1.5% of $25,000 x 0.75 = $280; and 0.5% of $25,000 = $125; 280-125= $155 net reduction)

We aren't talking about state stuff. If Trump lowers taxes on everyone, including the poor, the poor will be better off than they were before. There is no such thing as a federal sales tax. Same thing with Reagan or any other president you want to talk about. Please prove that when federal income taxes are lowered for the poor that they aren't better off, remembering that there is no national sales tax.
 
Right, a combination of tax cuts for the middle class - the poor hardly ever pay federal taxes, closing the loopholes for the rich, and a significant cut in foreign aid (enriching third world high places functionaries in many cases) could leave us enough resources to finally fix the disastrous state of our national infrastructure. Add to this a better auditing of Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare stamps could reduce the deficit and provide more funds to save the environment, channel help to underachieving schools, and provide our veterans with the care they richly deserve.
 
the poor hardly ever pay federal taxes

In 2015, the bottom quintile paid 7.1% of its income in federal taxes.

>>a significant cut in foreign aid … could leave us enough resources

The Negro's proposed foreign-aid budget for 2017 is $50.1B, a 2.1% reduction from last year's allocation. That's about 1.25% of federal spending, and about one-tenth of the current year's deficit.

>>enriching third world high places functionaries in many cases

Here are the top recipients:

foreign_aid_recipients_2016.jpg (source)
 
Back
Top Bottom