Reply With Quote
Shifting the tax burden to the middle class affects them more than it does the rich, since it represents a greater % of their earnings. Middle class doesn't have the same purchasing or investment power as the rich.
good morning rush.
Shifting the tax burden to the middle class affects them more than it does the rich, since it represents a greater % of their earnings. Middle class doesn't have the same purchasing or investment power as the rich.
Insults and name-calling. Awesome! You're a modern-day Voltaire. Do you have anything relevant to say about the topic of this thread?
yep son. your still a cuckold who lets your wife sleep with other men. god bless
The middle class got a larger % of a tax cut than the "rich" did!!!!
No "burden" was shifted; , the rich pay a higher percentage of the taxes today than they did when Bush took office.
I know the middle class got a tax cut under Bush, everybody did. I'm talking about regressive taxation, which is a theory. So I was mistaken when I said Bush shifted the tax burden to the middle class, everyone got a tax cut, it was just more of a boon to the rich.
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. In simple terms, it imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich.
Thanks for "contributing" to this thread, daughter. I'm glad I got to hear your views on taxation.
As a %, it was no more of a "boon".
I've never heard anyone argue for a regressive tax. , a "flat" tax is considered EXTREMELY radical.
of course that would be radical.....to you and I.
we both know how simple it is to write off something as a business expense, or a loss. you and I don't play around when it comes to april.
I have gotten letters from the IRS requesting clarification and proof of deductions four times; each time I was able to do ent the questionable item to their satisfaction.
Conventional wisdom suggests such practices are "easy"; my experience suggests they are not.
Congressman would never pass a flat tax, fair or not, right or wrong; it would remove their greatest power and fund-raising tool; distributing favors.
4 times or 10 times is not the point. you and I both know how to fudge within reason. just because it's not blatant doesn't mean it's legit. be hosest
We seen now that the US conservative ideology of all govt/all taxes/all regulation is bad has failed miserably, handing us the still-growing economic disaster, spreading around the planet.
So the answer to the current crisis is (re-)elect McSame?
4 times or 10 times is not the point. you and I both know how to fudge within reason. just because it's not blatant doesn't mean it's legit. be hosest
Yeah, I'm feeling you; "within reason" being the operative word. Point is; when you're looking at a 500K salary; and a potential 200k tax bill - there isn't much "within reason" you're gonna get away with. Also, they seem to look MUCH closer, when they will be capturing 35 - 39, and not 15%.
Before the tax reform act of '86 (used to be able to deduct credit card interest, and ALL kinds of business deductions) - it was different.
I don't think the answer lies in Washington; they only provide problems.
you and I will never be crushed by taxes. we ALWAYS get to stack the deck. i have a young son to leave this world to.
i want the smart guy, right now.
there are more important things than some little pissant tax increase.
One thing I notice people hear what they want to hear not what was said.
First thing the entire interview has to be listened to not just interpreted snippets.
Now just going by the snippets, the only time the phrase “redistribution of wealth” was used was to show the Warren court was not as radical as people said because they did not venture into ROW. That phrase was never used again.
He said one of the failures of the civil rights movements was the inability to build coalitions on the ground that can effect “redistributive change”. The example cited was rulings for funding school districts that would cost money don’t work well.
He said three people could put together legal justifications for “redistributive change” in the courts but never said he would do it. BTW – you could put together legal justifications for a lot of things you wouldn’t do. That was speaking from a lawyers point of view.
Bottom line at no time did he advocate ROW via courts or the legislature. I never heard we are going to take whiteys money and give it to black people.
"I don't think the answer lies in Washington"
outside of Wash DC, there are two major components.
1. citizens, pretty much powerless
2. corps, we KNOW they will over citizens (and non-citizens) (as they have now with the economic crisis) if not restrained and regulated.
so what's left?
I agree.
I shudder to think of the burden we leave our children if more, and more, and more en lement programs are enacted. THEY are the ONLY thing that is forever. Wars come and go; bad economies come and go; depressions come and go.
Govt. en lements? Come and GROW.
Obama doesn't scare me. Pelosi scares me.
I have formed a tribe.
When anarchy comes we cowboy up at my diggs and start conquering from there....I've got 2 docs; 3 ex-marines, 2 soldiers, a bird colonel; some survivalists, etc. Armed to the ing teeth. Even got 4 lawyers on board (they don't know we use them for food if times get too tough). Sorry, FWDT.
A video that one second after something is said puts big crayon yellow text on the screen to explain it is clearly trying to impress what its own creator thinks are very slow moving minds.
The whole debate is just a foray into semantics. Obama has learned since that interview not to use words like redistribution freely, because it will sound alarm bells for people who see commies behind every telephone pole and beneath every rug. Practically everything an organized society does is in some way a redistribution of wealth-- for example, homeowners pay property tax, but renters don't pay a renter's tax... this takes wealth from those who generally have more money-- homeowners-- and redistributes it via the government for roads, bridges, and a million other things that renters and homeowners alike will benefit from. Social Security does the same, as do all taxes generally.
Oh, on the recording.
Obama simply says that the courts are not capable of mandating economic justice; and that he agrees with that interpretation of the Cons ution.
I also don't think he is talking about mandatory, govt. take from one, give to another distribution of wealth (and if you think his 39% vs. Bush's 35.5 are THAT - your just not thinking right); he's talking more about economic opportunity leading to more equal distribution, and making sure that exists, it think.
The ability to move freely into and out of various classes is admirable; up and down as your productivity/usefullness and ideas are used - or not. The classes will always exist; there will always be more poor than rich; the goal should be to make sure the classes aren't permanent for the people themselves.
I find it hard to believe that you've followed this entire election and listened to Obama speak multiple times, and then voted for him, but upon hearing this video, you are somehow surprised by what he says... it seems to me that either you are being disingenuous, or you like to play the contrarian to see how riled up people can get.And I already voted for Obama.
What do you think school taxes do. They pay for schools whether you use them or not. You know how much money I have paid into the school taxes when my child does not even attend public school, but it is an obligation as a member of the society to educate the young. The more money you have as evidenced by your property ownership, the more taxes you pay for schools regardless of your use or need for them. And no I do not support vouchers because I think it is my choice to opt out of the public school system, but pulling my money out will not do justice for those in it.
This is a bunch of...
Elitist.
I CAN afford to send my kids to a better school than that public piece of crap down the street; but I'm not going to let others less fortunate have that choice.
AND THEN you pat yourself on the back for being such a Humanitarian.
Teacher's unions love your ass.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
