Printable View
So in their position...extend the Bush tax cuts for all or no one...I am glad they finally made the Republicans go on record on their stance...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40504582...-capitol_hill/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/...ex.html?hpt=T1
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/04/131809...1m-plus-income
More proof that the Dems and Repugs are not identical.
The point is not that the Dems are Knights in Shining Armor, but the Repugs are simply of a different nature, profoundly corrupt, 100% bad faith, and fully enlisted with the wealthy in the VRWC's unstoppable, unlose-able war on everybody and everything. scumbag Boner as leader typifies the entire party. scumbag convict DeLay, too.
Why would people NOT want the tax cuts extended for the so-called "rich"?
If they were going to give the "rich" a tax cut and raise every else's taxes, then I could see a problem.
How much money should one be making a year to call him rich, Darrin?
uh, the deficit is or isn't a gawd-awful disaster that's destroying America?
The Repug schizophrenia on the deficit and protecting the rich is as insane and dishonest as all their positions.
The American pie is infinitely expandable. What the rich are pocketing is what the non-rich are being forced to redistribute to the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
According to Dems, it's 200K single and 250K couple. That's just upper middle class, IMO. To me, rich would be >= 1 mil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Hey, I know you have the IQ of a dead squirrel, but you do know that SPENDING is part of the equation, right?
stepped in your own trap: which spending do you want to cut and how much will it reduce the deficit?
A good read:
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Quote:
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
Quote:
To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
Quote:
The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988.The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.
No single tax cut in the history of this country increased revenue as a byproduct of the alleged 'trickle down' effect. Considering that the tax cuts are seldom accompanied by spending cuts, the overall effect is increase of debt.
Happened with Reagan, happened with Bush, and will keep on happening now.
Before anybody panders about how noble tax cuts are, I want a full breakdown of realistic spending cuts that could get pass through Congress. Heck, I'll even take realistic spending cuts that the current crop of Republican elected are willing to take on.
I just want to know why we can't go ahead and extend the cuts for the under $250M, which everyone seems to agree on, then haggle over the +$250 crowd later in a separate bill. Is there any good reason we shouldn't do that?
Politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Oh wait, you said a good reason . . . .
Protectors of the "middle class"!!!111
It's their money. Not yours. Piss off imo.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Good enough for most, I guess. Go team!
...and then there was 1929. Are you missing the pattern here? GOP lowers taxes, the rich flourish until everyone is brought down by the bubble popping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Lather, rinse, repeat.
In the last 50 years, how many years did revenues actually decrease?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The Heritage foundation stink tank, financed by the VRWC, is wonderful, believable source.
Buffet, and without any doubt, other super-weatlhies, pay less the 20% effective tax.
It's part of their lies. "progressive" taxation exists only on paper. The middle class pays an higher effective income tax rate than the superwealthy who have the funds to buy advice on how to evade and avoid taxes, like piping $Bs into offshore accounts.
If the 3% of small business owners who make above $250K don't know how to evade and avoid 3% increase in paper tax rate, then fuck 'em.
The entire financial sector is a fraud, a casino, but "it's their money" but its our risk, our decade-long pain, lost assets, dream-free, stagnating present and future.
That's what your fortune cookie says.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons
That's what the present and medium term future is at the macro level.
Thought this graphic was interesting. Look at the yellow area in the 1950's to 1960's. People at 1 million+ were taxed at 90%! What would motivate you make a million if you only kept 10 cents on the dollar?
http://images.vizworld.com/wp-conten...ts-595x487.jpg
And yet people still did!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
the old high-marginal-tax-demotivates argument, disproved in practice across many decades and many countries.
How about the fact that $2 million after taxes is more than $1 million?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Anyway, that graph has to be wrong because the unemployment rate in the 50's and 60's only hovered between 4-6%, and that couldn't have been possible if we were taxing the rich at a higher rate.
:lmao:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Economic prospects aren't the only dream out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux