What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

Catawba · Aug 12, 2011

Councilman said:
First off the liberals are trying to create a them and us situtation not based in reality.

No, the working class is being dumped on while the rich are making record profits, and you think the rich are the ones that need to continue getting tax cuts.

Next:

That means they are paying more than their fair share. Obama is trying to get riots under way here do he can declare Marchall, play Dictator

Declare "Marchall?" Congress would be carrying out the will of the people they represent, as a majority of the country agree that it is time to end the tax cuts for the wealthy.

No need to declare "Marchall" to get that done. :sun

PzKfW IVe · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
No, the working class is being dumped on while the rich are making record profits, and you think the rich are the ones that need to continue getting tax cuts.

Better ask The Obama about that, given that He forced the Democrats to extend those cuts.

Catawba · Aug 12, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
Anyone that does not pay federal income tax is 'not pulling their load'.

If you are speaking of the rich that pay no federal income tax, I agree. If some lower middle class and the poor are paying no federal income tax it is because their load is already too big as a percentage of their income. Thanks to trickle down economics, which ain't been trickling down, 1 in 7 Americans are now poor. How do you tax poor people more to pay trillions for unfunded wars?

Catawba · Aug 12, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
Doubtful.
If you're paying more than 4-5% of your gross in Federal income tax, you're doing something wrong.

Billionaires' guide to U.S. taxes shows Top 400 pay lower rates than you

“This is clearly far and away the most generous tax situation that´s existed,” says Gregory D. Singer, a national managing director of the wealth management group at Alliance- Bernstein LP in New York. “It´s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

The 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income paid income taxes at an actual, or “effective,” rate of just under 17 percent in 2007, down from almost 30 percent in 1995, according to the Internal Revenue Service. The effective rate for the 1.4 million people in the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped to 23 percent in percent the year before. That means the top 400 pay a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its April 11 issue.

Much of the top 400´s income is from dividends and capital gains, generated by everything from appreciated real estate to stocks and the sale of family businesses. As Warren Buffett has said, since most of his income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the people who clean his office."

Read more: Billionaires' guide to U.S. taxes shows Top 400 pay lower rates than you - Personal Finance - MiamiHerald.com

PzKfW IVe · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
If you are speaking of the rich that pay no federal income tax, I agree.

Out of the >300,000,000 people in the US, mow many of them qualifty as "rich" and then pay $0 in federal income taxes?

If some lower middle class and the poor are paying no federal income tax it is because their load is already too big as a percentage of their income.

It doesnt matter -why- someone isn't pulling their load - the fact that they are -not- pulling their load remains.
If you believe that people living here have a responsibility to contribute - contextually, to pay federal income tax - to society so that they may reap the benefits of same, then that responsibility exists regardless of how hard it might be to contribute.

PzKfW IVe · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
The 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income paid income taxes at an actual, or “effective,” rate of just under 17 percent in 2007

It might have helped if you had actually red what I posted:

If you're paying more than 4-5% of your gross in Federal income tax, you're doing something wrong.

The only time I've paid more than 5% is the year that I didn't have a mortgage interest/proprty tax deduction.

See, you're confusing 'effective tax rate' with 'tax bracket rates' - either because you don't know the difference or admitting that there is a difference doesn't support the point you want to make.

Catawba · Aug 12, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
Better ask The Obama about that, given that He forced the Democrats to extend those cuts.

Go check the record, a majority of Congressional Democrats voted against extending the tax cuts. Same with the unfunded war in Iraq. Two of the largest sources of our recent debt that the majority of Democrats voted against and almost all Republicans voted for.

Catawba · Aug 12, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
Out of the >300,000,000 people in the US, mow many of them qualifty as "rich" and then pay $0 in federal income taxes?

It doesnt matter -why- someone isn't pulling their load - the fact that they are -not- pulling their load remains.
If you believe that people living here have a responsibility to contribute - contextually, to pay federal income tax - to society so that they may reap the benefits of same, then that responsibility exists regardless of how hard it might be to contribute.

We can talk about greater hardship on the poor after the rich are once again paying their fair share.

Ockham · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
A bull**** claim that you have never once backed up.

Thanks for your.... *ahem* Opinion.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in07tr.xls

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in07tr.xls

PzKfW IVe · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
Go check the record, a majority of Congressional Democrats voted against extending the tax cuts.

I'm sorry -- I didnt see where you'd go ask The Obama about extending GWB's tax cuts for the rich - the ones He campaigned against.
But then, I understand that you are compelled to defend your Secular Messiah at all costs, and so will do everything you can to ignore this fact.
Please, continue.

Same with the unfunded war in Iraq. Two of the largest sources of our recent debt...

:lol:
The unfunded -increase- in entitlement spending FY2009 alone exceeds the total current cost of the war in Iraq - but its the WAR that causes the deficits.
:lol:

Catawba · Aug 12, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
It might have helped if you had actually red what I posted:

The only time I've paid more than 5% is the year that I didn't have a mortgage interest/proprty tax deduction.

See, you're confusing 'effective tax rate' with 'tax bracket rates' - either because you don't know the difference or admitting that there is a difference doesn't support the point you want to make.

Of course we are talking about effective tax rates (what people actually pay). My mortgage is paid off, no more deduction and the property tax deduction doesn't amount to squat. As Warren Buffett stated, he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the people that clean his building.

But hey, thanks for your opinion there, internet guy! :sun

PzKfW IVe · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
We can talk about greater hardship on the poor after the rich are once again paying their fair share.

I see that you failed to address the point - that the responsibility to 'contribute' to the society that provides you the benefits you gain from living here exists regardless of how hard it might be to contribute. Not a surprise.

And, how many people qualifty as "rich" and then pay $0 in federal income taxes? I didn't see your response.

PzKfW IVe · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
Of course we are talking about effective tax rates (what people actually pay).

Well then... like I said-- if you're paying more than 4-5%, -you- are doing something wrong.
Dont blame -your- inability to better manage your finances on anyone but yourself.

Catawba · Aug 12, 2011

Ockham said:
Thanks for your.... *ahem* Opinion.

B∞a¿=úØº=@8Òˇm8x-8X@ç"∑⁄1»ˇêcourier1*»ˇº
MS Sans Serif1*»ˇê
MS Sans Serif1*»ˇº
MS Sans Serif1*»ˇê
MS Sans Serif1"»ˇº Helvetica1"åˇê Helvetica1"åˇº Helvetica1"»ˇê Helvetica1»ˇºArial1xˇêArial1ÇˇêArial1†ˇêArial1"†ˇê Helvetica1†ˇºArial1»ˇêCourier1"xˇê Helvetica1‹êCalibri1‹ êCalibri1‹êCalibri1‹
ºCalibri1‹ ºCalibri1‹êCalibri1‹êCalibri1,>ºCalibri1>ºCalibri1‹>ºCalibri1‹>êCalibri1‹
êCalibri1‹êCalibri1‹?ºCalibri1h>ºCambria1‹ºCalibri1‹
êCalibri1"Pº Helvetica"$"#,##0_);$"$"#,##0$!"$"#,##0_);[Red]$"$"#,##0$""$"#,##0.00_);$"$"#,##0.00$'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]$"$"#,##0.00$7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* $#,##0$;_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* $#,##0$;_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* $#,##0.00$;_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* $#,##0.00$;_(* "-"??_);_(@_)§ $#,##0$•@*.-¶(#,##0" ";#,##0" ";"-- ";@" "ß" "@%® #,##0" ";#,##0" ";"-- ";@" "©#,##0"";#,##0"";"--";@""!™#,##0" ";#,##0" ";"-- ";@" "´""@/¨*#,##0" ";\-#,##0" ";"-- ";@" "≠ General_)Æ\ \ \ \ @*.5Ø0#,##0.00" ";\-#,##0.00" ";"-- ";@" "7∞2#,##0" ";\-#,##0" ";"-- ";@" "?±:#,##0" ";\-#,##0" ";"-- ";@" ";≤6#,##0" ";\-#,##0" ";"-- ";@" "A≥<#,##0.00" ";\-#,##0.00" ";"-- ";@" "=¥8#,##0.00" ";\-#,##0.00" ";"-- ";@" "GµB@"..............................................................."O∂J\ \ \ \ @"..............................................................."d∑_\ \ \ \ @"...................................................................................."k∏f\ \ \ \ @"..........................................................................................."1π,#,##0.00" ";\-#,##0.00" ";"-- ";@" "3∫.#,##0.0" ";\-#,##0.0" ";"-- ";@" "7ª2#,##0.000" ";\-#,##0.000" ";"-- ";@" "9º4#,##0.0000" ";\-#,##0.0000" ";"-- ";@" ";Ω6#,##0.00000" ";\-#,##0.00000" ";"-- ";@" "æ0.000000000000000ø0.0000000000000000¿0.00000000000000000¡0.000000000000000000¬0.0000000000000000000√0.00000000000000000000ƒ0.000000000000000000000≈0.0000000000000000000000∆0.00000000000000«0.0000000000000»0.000000000000…
0.00000000000*0.0000000000À0.000000000Ã
0.00000000Õ 0.0000000
Œ0.000000œ0.00000–0.0000
—0.000=“8#,##0.000000" ";\-#,##0.000000" ";"-- ";@" "” \ \ \ \ @

Quite the case you have made there! :sun

Ockham · Aug 12, 2011

Catawba said:
Quite the case you have made there! :sun

Can't view excel files huh? Try downloading Sun Office (it's free), then get back to me. :sun

Catawba · Aug 13, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
I see that you failed to address the point - that the responsibility to 'contribute' to the society that provides you the benefits you gain from living here exists regardless of how hard it might be to contribute. Not a surprise.

And, how many people qualifty as "rich" and then pay $0 in federal income taxes? I didn't see your response.

"According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities the real reason why 47%-51% of Americans paid no federal income taxes in 2009 is,
The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired."
It's A Myth That 47% Of Americans Pay No Taxes, In Truth 86% Pay Taxes

"According to a recently released IRS report, almost 1,500 of America's 230,000 millionaires avoided paying any federal income tax in 2009."
Almost 1,500 Millionaires Do Not Pay Income Tax - ABC News

Catawba · Aug 13, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
I'm sorry -- I didnt see where you'd go ask The Obama about extending GWB's tax cuts for the rich - the ones He campaigned against.
But then, I understand that you are compelled to defend your Secular Messiah at all costs, and so will do everything you can to ignore this fact.
Please, continue.

:lol:
The unfunded -increase- in entitlement spending FY2009 alone exceeds the total current cost of the war in Iraq - but its the WAR that causes the deficits.
:lol:

How nice of you to change the subject. None of that changes the truth of what I posted - an almost unanimous Republican majority voted for both extending the Bush Tax cuts and the Iraq war while the majority of Democrats voted against both.

As far as entitlements go. SS has not contributed one dime to our debt. Medicare has the same problem private health insurance does. That won't be addressed until we upgrade our health care system as all the other industrialized countries have done.

RiverDad · Aug 13, 2011

Catawba said:
Medicare has the same problem private health insurance does. That won't be addressed until we upgrade our health care system as all the other industrialized countries have done.

France: The system is imploding, just like ours.

But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.

In recent months, France imposed American-style "co-pays" on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. "A hospital doesn't need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment," President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors.

And service cuts -- such as the closure of a maternity ward near Ms. Cuccarolo's home -- are prompting complaints from patients, doctors and nurses that care is being rationed. That concern echos worries among some Americans that the U.S. changes could lead to rationing.

The French system's fragile solvency shows how tough it is to provide universal coverage while controlling costs, the professed twin goals of President Barack Obama's proposed overhaul.

All the European systems are imploding for the same structural reasons. Aging populations. Here is a report on the Europe-wide phenomenon. In fact there problems are worse that ours in that their populations have a higher ratio of elderly people than the US, and the elderly are the biggest cause of health care inflation.

Catawba · Aug 13, 2011

RiverDad said:
France: The system is imploding, just like ours.

But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.

In recent months, France imposed American-style "co-pays" on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. "A hospital doesn't need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment," President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors.

And service cuts -- such as the closure of a maternity ward near Ms. Cuccarolo's home -- are prompting complaints from patients, doctors and nurses that care is being rationed. That concern echos worries among some Americans that the U.S. changes could lead to rationing.

The French system's fragile solvency shows how tough it is to provide universal coverage while controlling costs, the professed twin goals of President Barack Obama's proposed overhaul.

All the European systems are imploding for the same structural reasons. Aging populations. Here is a report on the Europe-wide phenomenon. In fact there problems are worse that ours in that their populations have a higher ratio of elderly people than the US, and the elderly are the biggest cause of health care inflation.

Why Canadian health care is better

"It was a uniquely American way to raise colon cancer awareness while striking a chord with people who never see a doctor because they can’t afford it. This past August in Los Angeles, more than 6,000 of them lined up for hours and camped out in their cars to attend a temporary free health clinic. In the world’s richest country, some
46 million people have no insurance to cover what every Canadian has taken for granted since the birth of medicare in 1967. The luckiest Americans have employer-sponsored plans—at least while they keep their jobs. The rest can buy insurance, if they have the money. (My friend Elaine, a self-employed Canadian now living in Arizona, had to shop around: Her pretty basic plan costs about US$8,000 for her family of four.) What’s more, even the insured are one health crisis away from financial ruin because their insurer either doesn’t cover all the costs or—unbelievably to us Canadians—cancels their coverage."

Why Canadian health care is better | Health | Get Healthy | Best Health

TurtleDude · Aug 13, 2011

US healthcare is better for those of us who actually pay for healthcare. On Tuesday a few weeks ago, my doctor ordered an MRI on my knee. I could have had one that afternoon. A professional coach who represented Canada in 5 world championships coaches at my club. He noted that even when he was a world class athlete he could not get an MRI that quickly in Canada and "average" people had to wait much longer

I prefer a system where those of us who not only pay our own health care insurance but pick up the tab for many others don't have to wait 6 weeks or 6 months for an MRI or a colonoscopy or a CAT scan over one where everyone has to wait equally long whether you are paying your own way or you are dependent on others

RiverDad · Aug 14, 2011

TurtleDude said:
US healthcare is better for those of us who actually pay for healthcare. On Tuesday a few weeks ago, my doctor ordered an MRI on my knee. I could have had one that afternoon. A professional coach who represented Canada in 5 world championships coaches at my club. He noted that even when he was a world class athlete he could not get an MRI that quickly in Canada and "average" people had to wait much longer

I prefer a system where those of us who not only pay our own health care insurance but pick up the tab for many others don't have to wait 6 weeks or 6 months for an MRI or a colonoscopy or a CAT scan over one where everyone has to wait equally long whether you are paying your own way or you are dependent on others

I'm going on memory for this claim but I can back it up if I get challenged on it. For the US and Canada to equalize their MRI facilities to the same PER CAPITA level would require the US to rid itself of about 85% of its MRI machines.

U.S. Socialist. · Aug 14, 2011

TurtleDude said:
US healthcare is better for those of us who actually pay for healthcare. On Tuesday a few weeks ago, my doctor ordered an MRI on my knee. I could have had one that afternoon. A professional coach who represented Canada in 5 world championships coaches at my club. He noted that even when he was a world class athlete he could not get an MRI that quickly in Canada and "average" people had to wait much longer

I prefer a system where those of us who not only pay our own health care insurance but pick up the tab for many others don't have to wait 6 weeks or 6 months for an MRI or a colonoscopy or a CAT scan over one where everyone has to wait equally long whether you are paying your own way or you are dependent on others

I'm sorry, I'd much rather you have to wait a little longer, so we can make sure everyone gets covered. 30,000 people die every year in this country because they can't afford healthcare. 1 in 4 Americans who have insurance still don't get the care they need. Secondly, I'm sure the 6 month wait are either an exaggeration on your part or cheery picking.

Catawba · Aug 14, 2011

TurtleDude said:
US healthcare is better for those of us who actually pay for healthcare.

Correction: US healthcare is better for those of us who can actually afford healthcare.

U.S. Health Care: World's Most Expensive

"As in years past, the United States made a poor showing in the 2010 Commonwealth Fund report, earning last place (out of seven surveyed nations) based on the results of surveys taken between 2007 and 2009."
US health care and other industrialized nations: The 2010 Commonwealth Fund report - University of Phoenix

TurtleDude · Aug 14, 2011

RiverDad said:
I'm going on memory for this claim but I can back it up if I get challenged on it. For the US and Canada to equalize their MRI facilities to the same PER CAPITA level would require the US to rid itself of about 85% of its MRI machines.

I was a teaching pro in upstate NY for 3 years. I know damn well that Canadian athletes were coming down to NY for tests that I got routinely for everything from a sprained ankle to double pneumonia. there are three MRI centers within 15 minutes of my house and I live 30 miles from downtown cincinnati

TurtleDude · Aug 14, 2011

Catawba said:
Correction: US healthcare is better for those of us who can actually afford healthcare.

U.S. Health Care: World's Most Expensive

"As in years past, the United States made a poor showing in the 2010 Commonwealth Fund report, earning last place (out of seven surveyed nations) based on the results of surveys taken between 2007 and 2009."
US health care and other industrialized nations: The 2010 Commonwealth Fund report - University of Phoenix

yeah so why would I want canadian style healthcare?

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Noblesse oblige

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Noblesse oblige

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

warrior of the wetlands

Well-known member

Disappointed Evolutionist

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands