Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I really don't see anything positive that came from it
Assured that wages would become stagnant, among other things. I find cons walk away from a thread whenever I post this analysis, based on 2008 IRS tables.
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
I find liberals hate it when their pet theories and falsification of data is challenged.
According to the IRS gross tax collections went from $2.1 trillion in 2001 to $2.7 trillion in 2007. There was a slight drop in collections for the first 2 years after the tax cuts, and then it rose steadily. If people were actually earning less after taxes than they were before the tax cuts doesn't that actually prove that the government got more money?
The thing is, your source used AGI for his figures, and then argued that a lower AGI meant people were investing less money. It actually means just the opposite because AGI is the number you get after you take away investments and all the other things that the IRS allows you to deduct before you figure out how much you owe. The guy is supposedly a tax expert, he should know that. I hope you are not using him for your taxes, he is probably robbing you blind.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab18.xls
People keeping more of what's yours to begin with isn't positive?
BTW, only spending money you don't have adds debt.
Let's say you make $50K a year and spend $60K a year. Sure cutting back on spending reduces your debt-no question.
But explain to me how making $55K a year, while still spending $60K doesn't.
Raising revenue also reduces debt (unless spending is also increased of course).
No. It. Does. Not.
Let me see if you can follow some simple math. You have been spending $60,000 dollars for ten years, and were only making $50,000 that entire time. Your debt is now $100,000 plus interest.
You get a raise, and are now making $55,000 a year. You still spend $60,000 dollars a year because your idiot brother in law told you that increasing revenue reduces debt. At the end of 10 years you owe an additional $50,000, the original $100,000, and compounded interest in the total. You raise did not decrease your debt in the slightest. The only way to decrease your debt is actually cut your spending to a level where you can put money toward paying it down.
By the way, if we want to actually make this about the government, they make $50,000 a year, spend $60,000 the first year, and increase spending every year by $5000 a year to get out of debt. At the end of 10 years they are $385,000 in debt, and are spending $60,000. They then try to hit you up for a raise to $55,000 a year, and promise you that they will spend even more money by increasing their spending at a rate of $10,000 a year because they get an additional $5,000.
How long will it take them to reduce the debt like that?
Something tells me you have nothing I would be interested in stealing.
Your example left out the scenario what if the guy got a raise meaning more income (revenue)? Look, armchair experts, every economist ALIVE says that we need to cut spending AND increase revenue to get out of this quagmire. End of story.
It made the world a better place for billionaires, didn't it?
EVery policy ccreates winners and losers.
The rich won, and the nation as a whole lost.
What? Middle class families made out very well in the tax cuts. They got increased EIC and kept more money. That assisted a lot of not wealthy people. As for taxing the highest earners, how much of that is passed down in inflation? Almost all of it is the answer. Review the Carter Administration policy and effect. Disproportionate taxation is our policy already, but the more burdens we place on those who can divert the expense the higher we inflate pricing and in net effect bury the lowest earners.
The naivety of liberals is amazing. They seem to think you can simply take the money from the wealthy and give it to the poor and it has no other effect on economics, like Robin Hood. Something has to be produced to create wealth. Money given and not earned creates nothing but debt. Taking money from people who have earned it, especially when they are the highest producers reduces capital for production and raises costs. Taxes are overhead and they can create inflation as an offset. Higher costs means fewer sales and a need for higher profit per sale or reduction of labor (thats the middle class jobs FYI), or usually both.
Strong economy is based on expansion, production and innovation, none of which does taxation facilitate. Liberals actually seem to want a 2 class system based on providers and dependants. I can only assume they really believe they would be the providers despite producing nothing. Keep taking away incentive to produce and expand and industry will follow suit. Explain where jobs and money come from in that scenario..
You don't have to have taxes withheld even today if you don't want to. But I'd hate to see my tax bill in January to be paid in April if I didn't.
Me keeping what's mine "gives" me nothing.
It's fun watching the logical contortions liberals go through to justify taking what they haven't earned from the people who have earned it.
"We the People" doesn't imply that what's mine belongs to you.Whose is it then?
When the Constitution opens with WE THE PEOPLE, it didn't add that it expected growth of a new country to be dependent on a new crop of money trees. I'd like to know when this I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU attitude became the norm.
When did the "fuck you, gimmie your money" attitude become the norm?
So, what you seem to be in favor of here is gubmint playing God-on-Earth.Me keeping what's mine "gives" me nothing.
It's fun watching the logical contortions liberals go through to justify taking what they haven't earned from the people who have earned it.
This is why people like are are despised. Who the fuck made you God to decide who is doing what? I worked my ass off for 40 years and paid my taxes with zero complaints that somebody might be "taking" what they didn't "earn." And now I'm sick to death of rich bastards who currently run this country abandoning the moral obligations to sustain THE COUNTRY, not just their fucking Swiss bank accounts and foreign investments.
That's what Bush did twice when he cut taxes without cutting spending. He reduced the amount of revenue available for the spending he was also signing into law and directly brought back massive deficits.
That is patently false. Federal revenue increased after the Bush tax cuts, but the Republicans increased spending even more to offset the gain, which caused the debt.
Seriously, why is it so difficult for you people to look this stuff up?
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
You seem to be doing a damned fine job of playing "us against them" here.When the baby boomers had it all, no sacrifices were necessary, and the attitude expanded with their offspring deciding "Us" and "Them" were going to become the guideposts.
This is why people like are are despised. Who the fuck made you God to decide who is doing what? I worked my ass off for 40 years and paid my taxes with zero complaints that somebody might be "taking" what they didn't "earn." And now I'm sick to death of rich bastards who currently run this country abandoning the moral obligations to sustain THE COUNTRY, not just their fucking Swiss bank accounts and foreign investments.
Whose is it then?
When the Constitution opens with WE THE PEOPLE, it didn't add that it expected growth of a new country to be dependent on a new crop of money trees. I'd like to know when this I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU attitude became the norm.
If you want more money then get off your ass and work for it. You are not entitled to a damn penny of what I or anyone else has. I don't give a flying fuck if Warren Buffet has $40 billion. That $40 billion rightfully belongs to him and he can do whatever he wants with it. If he wants to bathe in $100 bills in a bath tub made of gold then that is his right and it's none of your fucking business. END OF STORY
You're jealous, plain and simple. You're entire outlook is based on your own seething jealousy that other people dare to have more than you do. Well tough shit, because that's life. Your idea that government thugs should take it away from them because you think they have more than they need is authoritarian and Stalinist. Compared to a homeless man on the street, you're living like a millionaire. Mind if we come over to your house and confiscate some of your property so we can put a homeless man in a home today? I'm guessing that would bother you just a bit.
In the first paragraph, you say everything is yours. In the second, you say you don't object to taxes. By the time you get to your third statement, it seems you want to pay taxes only on what benefits YOU, personally.
What I want is for the government to abide by the United States Constitutions and the framework laid out by the founders of this nation that the federal government should have a very minor and limited roll in our lives. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Most of the stuff the feds do should be handled by the states.
Well guess what, pal. I didn't like tax dollars amounting to billions every goddamned week going into that shithole called Iraq, either, but I had no choice.
Neither do it. What's your point?
Oh, and by the way, your federal income taxes haven't gone up since Clinton was president, so most of your gripes about taxes and the expense of governing should be directed to your state if you've seen dramatic rises.
Where did I say my taxes have gone up? I don't even know what you're talking about and I don't think you do either.
You don't have to have taxes withheld even today if you don't want to. But I'd hate to see my tax bill in January to be paid in April if I didn't.
Yes you do. You can go to jail for not having enough withheld.
You don't have to have taxes withheld even today if you don't want to. But I'd hate to see my tax bill in January to be paid in April if I didn't.
Yes you do. You can go to jail for not having enough withheld.
I don't believe that is true. This year, my income changed drastically and I had to pay quite a bit. I asked my accountant if I had to pay quarterly as I did in the past and he said no, that that is false.
Oh really? We never saw 4.5% unemployment?
It's easy to get numbers down to that level when a company lays off one full-timer and hires two part-timers to do the job.
Oh yeah, the old McDonald's jobs argument.
Prove it.
And that's really the crux of this whole debate. People actually believe that "welfare" programs are to blame for the nation's economic woes (setting aside even the entitlement programs, which do take a large bite). Someone actually put together a detailed breakdown of where "welfare" funding actually goes, and it's a shockingly small percentage of the overall budget. Yet to listen to some of you clowns, anyone who doesn't toe the extremist right-wing philosophy of MINE, must be a moocher, a tic, a parasite.
90% of government spending is welfare. Liberals attempt to define welfare so narrowly that almost all payments to parasites are excluded.
Medicare is welfare. Social Security is welfare. Ethanol subsidies are welfare. It's all welfare.
Then I guess the VA is welfare too, eh?
You don't have to have taxes withheld even today if you don't want to. But I'd hate to see my tax bill in January to be paid in April if I didn't.
Yes you do. You can go to jail for not having enough withheld.
Stupid fuck. You don't even go to jail for not paying taxes at all. But you can go to jail for tax evasion.
