• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

LesGovt said:
Well, we know that the tax cut for the rich, when considered in aggregate, went heavily to the non-wealthy.
Click to expand...

Unfotunatly jobs didn't ,and for tax cuts to be effictive one must pay taxes and to pay taxes one must have a job.:peace
 
EarlzP said:
I have noticed you have a problem with any one who does not agree with your baloney but this is even a new tactic for you, is this the republicans newest word game? I noticed that Perry has decided to be not only deceptive but also evasive when answering questions
Click to expand...

again non responsive
 
TheDemSocialist said:
TurtleDude so can you answer what purpose did the tax cuts for the wealthy serve?
Click to expand...

asked and answered.

TurtleDude said:
the purpose of the tax cut was Bush fulfilling one of his campaign promises to overturn the dem imposed massive tax hike on those who pay taxes. It also had the effect of helping an economy which had been damaged by the clinton dot com bubble burst and 9-11. The other impact was that it caused the rich bashers to have conniptions but their dear leader felt the tax normalization of Bush was so good he extended them
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
the purpose of the tax cut was Bush fulfilling one of his campaign promises
Click to expand...
Good job..... He did that...

to overturn the dem imposed massive tax hike
Click to expand...
"Massive tax hike"? What under Clinton it was 39% now its 34%.... Thats a "massive tax hike"? Seriously?!?!?!

on those who pay taxes.
Click to expand...
Oh thats right only the rich pay taxes.....

It also had the effect of helping an economy
Click to expand...
Pshhh... FALSE. Added a ton to the debt and deficit...
Five myths about the Bush tax cuts
Bill King: Facts don’t support belief that tax cuts spur growth | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Economists Bush Tax Cuts Hurt Economy | New Just In
RealClearPolitics - Video - Ed Schultz: Bush Tax Cuts Hurt The Economy
Ezra Klein - CBO: Extending the Bush tax cuts will hurt the economy, reduce incomes
Why Reagan/Bush Tax Cuts hurt the economy PT1 - YouTube
Daily Kos: CBO Warns Permanent Bush Tax Cuts Will Hurt Economy
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Bill King: Facts don’t support belief that tax cuts spur growth | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Economy pays price for Bush’s tax cuts

Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.

Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week.

The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated.
Click to expand...
You can read more but i doubt you will because in your words everything that you dont agree with is "just a lie".


which had been damaged by the clinton dot com bubble burst and 9-11.
Click to expand...
You have absolutely no proof of this... I have never heard this once in my life...

The other impact was that it caused the rich bashers to have conniptions but their dear leader felt the tax normalization of Bush was so good he extended them
Click to expand...
:lamo
 
the purpose of the tax cut was Bush fulfilling one of his campaign promises
Click to expand...
Good job..... He did that...

to overturn the dem imposed massive tax hike
Click to expand...
"Massive tax hike"? What under Clinton it was 39% now its 34%.... Thats a "massive tax hike"? Seriously?!?!?!

on those who pay taxes.
Click to expand...
Oh thats right only the rich pay taxes.....

It also had the effect of helping an economy
Click to expand...
Pshhh... FALSE. Added a ton to the debt and deficit...
Five myths about the Bush tax cuts
Bill King: Facts don’t support belief that tax cuts spur growth | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Economists Bush Tax Cuts Hurt Economy | New Just In
RealClearPolitics - Video - Ed Schultz: Bush Tax Cuts Hurt The Economy
Ezra Klein - CBO: Extending the Bush tax cuts will hurt the economy, reduce incomes
Why Reagan/Bush Tax Cuts hurt the economy PT1 - YouTube
Daily Kos: CBO Warns Permanent Bush Tax Cuts Will Hurt Economy
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Bill King: Facts don’t support belief that tax cuts spur growth | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Economy pays price for Bush’s tax cuts

Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.

Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.

Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week.

The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated.
Click to expand...
You can read more but i doubt you will because in your words everything that you dont agree with is "just a lie".


which had been damaged by the clinton dot com bubble burst and 9-11.
Click to expand...
You have absolutely no proof of this... I have never heard this once in my life...

The other impact was that it caused the rich bashers to have conniptions but their dear leader felt the tax normalization of Bush was so good he extended them
Click to expand...
:lamo
 
a leftist attack on the Bush tax cuts does not dispute the reasons advanced for the tax cut. One of the reasons I voted for Bush was I paid too much taxes under clinton and Al gore wanted to jack them up even more. I pay too much for what I get compared with most of the country that gets the same or more and pays far far less
 
TurtleDude said:
Sure, we spend too much on the military and our bases in areas that no longer are subjected to a realistic threat with the collapse of the iron curtain need to be severely downsized, if not closed.
Click to expand...

And we spend too much on optional ME wars.
As previously stated, we could cut our military spending and reduce the size of government by $350 billion dollars a year and still would be spending 3 times as much as China, the next biggest military spender.

But the domestic nonsense that limits our global competitive ability as well as feeding the entitlement addictions of millions need to be sliced as well.
Click to expand...

Unlike the military, SS has not added one dime to our debt! Of course we are going to have revisit health care reform as the recent Republican idea of an insurance mandate is but a band-aid.
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
Well, we know that the tax cut for the rich, when considered in aggregate, went heavily to the non-wealthy.
Click to expand...

One would think, that like a clock, you would at least be right twice a day. You continually prove that axiom wrong:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."
 
TurtleDude said:
a leftist attack on the Bush tax cuts does not dispute the reasons advanced for the tax cut.
Click to expand...
What???
You claimed it helped out the economy. It clearly did not at all......
It also added to the deficit...

One of the reasons I voted for Bush was I paid too much taxes under clinton
Click to expand...
4% more than Bush tax rates is "too much"?

and Al gore wanted to jack them up even more.
Click to expand...
Uhh you just said a flat out lie... Actually both candidates wanted to cut taxes...

I pay too much for what I get compared with most of the country that gets the same or more and pays far far less
Click to expand...
Your taxes are at a HISTORIC LOW TURTLE!!!
 
The Democrats are targeting people who earn above a certain amount. People who own small businesses often pay income taxes as individuals. These people earn enough to have that target on their backs only because of the amount. They are not targeted because they own a smoll business.
 
TurtleDude said:
I pay too much for what I get compared with most of the country that gets the same or more and pays far far less
Click to expand...

Then why don't you move to a country where you feel you get what you pay for?
 
earthworm said:
During the days of the "founding fathers" we had the poor, the serfs, and slaves, along with a small middle class and the wealthy.
And there was little in the way of taxes.
Is this what the tea baggers want us to return to ??
Click to expand...
Don't be rediculous. I am a self proclaimed member of the tea party. I recognize that when rich people are targeted for increased taxes, then they don't buy things or use services that employ middle class people like me. For instance, when the rich don't buy fancy boats, the boat builder loses business and some of the middle class employees of that boat builder get laid off.
 
earthworm said:
This is the result of the right-wing spin of the truth.
The proposed increases are for incomes over and above $250,000.
The problem is the extremeists, on both sides.
Click to expand...
That is the talking point. The truth is all who pay any tax at all get a tax increase.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
The Democrats are targeting people who earn above a certain amount. People who own small businesses often pay income taxes as individuals. These people earn enough to have that target on their backs only because of the amount. They are not targeted because they own a smoll business.
Click to expand...

The proposals being discussed now, target elimination of tax cuts for those making a million dollars and up, which will affect only about one percent of small businesses, like hedge fund managers, etc.
 
Camlon said:
There was never a tax cut just for the wealthy. They are now trying to increase taxes for the wealthy, but Obama is lying. Raising taxes just on the ones earning more than 250K will bring very little revenue. It could also hurt the economy, because the rich may move.

If Obama really cared about the deficit, he would increase taxes on everyone.
Click to expand...

WRONG, He would cut taxes for everybody. Then he would cut SPENDING. We are spending too much money that we don't have.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
WRONG, He would cut taxes for everybody. Then he would cut SPENDING. We are spending too much money that we don't have.
Click to expand...

So did your hero Reagan. He was the one that started all this "massive spending"...
 
gmeyers1944 said:
Do you believe that. I DON'T.
Click to expand...

I have no reason not to believe that is not the case.


I am guessing you probably also didn't believe that Obama would have provided the middle class tax cut earlier in his administration either, but he did! :sun
 
Catawba said:
The proposals being discussed now, target elimination of tax cuts for those making a million dollars and up, which will affect only about one percent of small businesses, like hedge fund managers, etc.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me
 
gmeyers1944 said:
Don't be rediculous. I am a self proclaimed member of the tea party. I recognize that when rich people are targeted for increased taxes, then they don't buy things or use services that employ middle class people like me. For instance, when the rich don't buy fancy boats, the boat builder loses business and some of the middle class employees of that boat builder get laid off.
Click to expand...

Why would a small percentage of a millionaire's income disable them from buying? This makes no sense. Sure, if they were actually spending all their money, then they would not be able to buy more products, however, we know that they aren't spending much at all. Do you propose that the millionaires decide not to buy out of spite for the governments tax policies?
 
TurtleDude said:
a leftist attack on the Bush tax cuts does not dispute the reasons advanced for the tax cut. One of the reasons I voted for Bush was I paid too much taxes under clinton and Al gore wanted to jack them up even more. I pay too much for what I get compared with most of the country that gets the same or more and pays far far less
Click to expand...

if you are middle class and make under $250,000 per year, than you likely do pay too much taxes ... however, if you make more than that .. how can you complain?
 
presluc said:
Unfotunatly jobs didn't ,and for tax cuts to be effictive one must pay taxes and to pay taxes one must have a job.:peace
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the non-wealthy should not have received their tax cut. Okay.
 
Catawba said:
One would think, that like a clock, you would at least be right twice a day. You continually prove that axiom wrong:

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline."
Click to expand...

that is a dishonest response. You are ignoring actual dollars-which the rich got less of-versus tax rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom