• 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?

some more facts to add to the mix

The Tax Foundation - New IRS Data: Tax Code More Progressive in 2004 than in 2000


.

For each income group of U.S. taxpayers, we compare the shares of tax paid to the shares of income earned (see Table1 ). A ratio of tax share to income share for each group in 2000 and 2004 shows how progressivity has increased.


Tax Code Became More Progressive after the Bush Tax Cuts | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA


Do the Rich Pay a Greater Share of the Total Tax Burden? The top 1 percent of earners pays more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. Furthermore, data from the Tax Foundation shows that the share of federal income taxes paid by wealthier income groups has increased over time:

From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of income earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent.
During the same period, the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom 50 percent fell from 6.5 percent to 3.3 percent.
 
You said that we are at a high progressive taxation system with the rich paying the most they have in a while...

You don't read what I stated very well---I said the rich pay a higher share of the total federal income tax burden
 
You still wallow in error you are clueless about the issue, You have claimed that the federal income tax structure is less progressive today than it was in the recent past. That is a lie and yet you squirm and wriggle and divert that is the only issue I am dealing with right now because it is an issue you have lied about. stop trying to talk about payroll taxes and social security they are not relevant to the issue you have demonstrated massive mendacity on.

I see you have posted noting whatsoever to refute the facts that the marginal tax rate is much lower than it was, or that corporate tax as a fraction of GDP is half what it used to be, or that the middle class have pay a greater percentage of their income for SS and Medicare.

When you have something to refute those facts, do let us know.
 
I see you have posted noting whatsoever to refute the facts that the marginal tax rate is much lower than it was, or that corporate tax as a fraction of GDP is half what it used to be, or that the middle class have pay a greater percentage of their income for SS and Medicare.

When you have something to refute those facts, do let us know.

LOL what a pathetic response. You still are changing the parameters because you lost big time on the actual issue. the marginal rate is much lower on the middle class and the poor as well, that is why 47% pay no income taxes now and the top 5% pay more of the tax burden than at any time in the last 70 years of the FED INC Tax.

you are just unable to concede that you were wrong. You are, end of story. that is why you start blathering about social security and other things not at issue here
 
so you claim that when, for the first time in over 60 years, the top 5% pay more of the income tax burden than the bottom 95%, this is not evidence that the current FIT system is more progressive

Okie dokie

Why would you consider this strange when the top 20% control 93% of the countries wealth?
 
LOL what a pathetic response. You still are changing the parameters because you lost big time on the actual issue. the marginal rate is much lower on the middle class and the poor as well, that is why 47% pay no income taxes now and the top 5% pay more of the tax burden than at any time in the last 70 years of the FED INC Tax.

you are just unable to concede that you were wrong. You are, end of story. that is why you start blathering about social security and other things not at issue here

You have dishonestly confused the effects of the recession with marginal tax rates. Either that, or you don't know the difference.
 
First of all, labor is not a commodity... At worst it's a service. Commodities harvested or collected as the fruits of labor. Follow that? Labor is what is used to obtain commodities.

Exactly! Good post.

The civil war settled this ... in this country. Labor is not a commodity unless it is slave labor.
 
Exactly! Good post.

The civil war settled this ... in this country. Labor is not a commodity unless it is slave labor.

I think in the partisanship, something is lost about labor as a commodity and the intent of the statement. As a progressive I agree labor is a commodity, to make the point that there is intent to stop market growth in the 3rd world and address the remaining market with a finite amount of labor. I think international banking and the west, have used 3rd world economies to corner resources with minimal compensation, with the intent of less consumption in the 3rd world. Given 3rd world markets had grown ... labor could not be controlled and jobs barged to cheap labor.

Resources finite and controlled
Market relatively finite
Labor force on GE type barges ... commodity.

Agenda > Elite
 
Exactly! Good post.

The civil war settled this ... in this country. Labor is not a commodity unless it is slave labor.

Uh no, that is not true
 
You have dishonestly confused the effects of the recession with marginal tax rates. Either that, or you don't know the difference.

Once again you divert and engage in mendacity. The issue was-did the current tax rates increase the progressitivity of the tax code. Yes it did. That is not subject to honest dispute
 
Once again you divert and engage in mendacity. The issue was-did the current tax rates increase the progressitivity of the tax code. Yes it did. That is not subject to honest dispute


Your far-right "opinion" that the effects of the Bush recession = more progressive tax rates is noted. However, as has been documented above, the marginal tax rates for the rich are much lower and corporate tax rates as a factor of GDP have been cut by 50%.
 
Your far-right "opinion" that the effects of the Bush recession = more progressive tax rates is noted. However, as has been documented above, the marginal tax rates for the rich are much lower and corporate tax rates as a factor of GDP have been cut by 50%.

MOre ever widening stupidity. you still pretend that marginal tax rates matter rather than the amount of the overall tax burden borne by a particular group

you have backed yourself in a corner and cannot face the fact that you are wrong about what matters in determining if a tax system is progressive or not
 
MOre ever widening stupidity. you still pretend that marginal tax rates matter rather than the amount of the overall tax burden borne by a particular group

you have backed yourself in a corner and cannot face the fact that you are wrong about what matters in determining if a tax system is progressive or not

Insults, opinion and a complete lack of any facts whatsoever, this must be a post by Turtledude!
 
MOre ever widening stupidity. you still pretend that marginal tax rates matter rather than the amount of the overall tax burden borne by a particular group

you have backed yourself in a corner and cannot face the fact that you are wrong about what matters in determining if a tax system is progressive or not

And your obsession with burdon is evidence of your stupidity..

You consistently fail to consider tax burdon in relation to income?? Why should someone that makes 250k a year pay the same amount as someone that makes 20k a year??

If you are not going to consider income to tax burdon then you have no business talking about taxes.. The rich currently are enjoying the least amount of tax burdon when income in considered.. It is stupid to make the claim that they pay the most taxes and should pay less.. Of course they pay the most.. They make the most.. Why wouldn't they pay the most?? If the rich do not wish to pay their fair share in taxes.. They can trade places with the poor.. I am sure the poor who are now rich will have no issue paying the most taxes..

I will really be glad when you conservatives take a math class..

Simply put, if you are not going to consider income in their tax burdon then you simply have nothing to discuss..
 
Insults, opinion and a complete lack of any facts whatsoever, this must be a post by Turtledude!

why don't you just give up. I posted tons of facts on this thread such as the fact that the top 5% pay more of the federal income tax burden than at any time (more than the rest of the country combined) in the last 70 years. You haven't even figured out what progressive means when it comes to a tax system

and pointing out that you have lied, which you have, is not an insult It's one of those pesky facts you avoid
 
And your obsession with burdon is evidence of your stupidity..

I haven't seen a DemonMyst post in awhile. I see nothing's changed. :roll: BTW, pretty sure it's "burden".
 
Last edited:
And your obsession with burdon is evidence of your stupidity..

You consistently fail to consider tax burdon in relation to income?? Why should someone that makes 250k a year pay the same amount as someone that makes 20k a year??

If you are not going to consider income to tax burdon then you have no business talking about taxes.. The rich currently are enjoying the least amount of tax burdon when income in considered.. It is stupid to make the claim that they pay the most taxes and should pay less.. Of course they pay the most.. They make the most.. Why wouldn't they pay the most?? If the rich do not wish to pay their fair share in taxes.. They can trade places with the poor.. I am sure the poor who are now rich will have no issue paying the most taxes..

I will really be glad when you conservatives take a math class..

Simply put, if you are not going to consider income in their tax burdon then you simply have nothing to discuss..

If you are going to call me Stupid you ought to learn how to spell BURDEN

You are unable to fathom the fact that the rich bear more of the income tax burden now than at any time in the last several decades.
 
I haven't seen a DemonMyst post in awhile. I see nothing's changed. :roll:

Yeah the old IRONY award appears again. I suppose I should report the violation too
 
And your obsession with burdon is evidence of your stupidity..

You consistently fail to consider tax burdon in relation to income?? Why should someone that makes 250k a year pay the same amount as someone that makes 20k a year??

If you are not going to consider income to tax burdon then you have no business talking about taxes.. The rich currently are enjoying the least amount of tax burdon when income in considered.. It is stupid to make the claim that they pay the most taxes and should pay less.. Of course they pay the most.. They make the most.. Why wouldn't they pay the most?? If the rich do not wish to pay their fair share in taxes.. They can trade places with the poor.. I am sure the poor who are now rich will have no issue paying the most taxes..

I will really be glad when you conservatives take a math class..

Simply put, if you are not going to consider income in their tax burdon then you simply have nothing to discuss..


Excellent post, although I am sure it will fall on deaf ears.
 
Excellent post, although I am sure it will fall on deaf ears.

Sure, most awesome posts start with, "You are stupid" or some variation thereof. LOL
 
Sure, most awesome posts start with, "You are stupid" or some variation thereof. LOL

Birds of feather. They think if the rich pay lower rates that must mean that the tax system is less progressive even if it means the rich pay more of the taxes which they do
 
Sure, most awesome posts start with, "You are stupid" or some variation thereof. LOL

You mean like this?

You still wallow in error

you are clueless about the issue

you have demonstrated massive mendacity


Your argument is pathetic.


why don't you be a bit more honest

those who claim that because the top rates have dropped, the system is LESS progressive are LYING


LOL what a pathetic response.


Once again you divert and engage in mendacity.


MOre ever widening stupidity.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock the crap off. No namecalling, no insults, veiled or otherwise, no spelling lessons and baiting. Talk about the topic, and just the topic, or be gone from the thread and with points.
 
Back
Top Bottom