Can socialists in this country explain how taxing American corporations/companies more is good?

[AntonToo]

First, the claims about the Bush era tax cuts are false. Just flat out, they are wrong.

A: They assume that the growth that happened during the 2003 to 2007 years, would have happened, even without the tax cuts. Maybe you missed it, but there was a recession before that. The tax cuts helped to end that recession.

B: Obama allowed many of those tax cuts expire. And the rest Obama himself personally supported and extended.

Obama said, "I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession. ... So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. ... As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for jobs. It’s the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it’s the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize."​

So you can lie, and call it Bush tax cuts, but Obama supported them and extended them.
Stop acting like pathetic children and own your choices.

2. We opposed the bailouts. Opposed Freddie and Fannie. We opposed having other debt. And we opposed the recovery measures that clearly failed.

If the only cause on that list was the wars against terrorism: A: The debt would be a tiny fraction of what it is. B: I would gladly support it.

A. Completely false. Just because tax cuts are expansionary and grow economy doesn't mean they ALSO don't reduce revenues - they do. It's not a free lunch. Yes, there are some dynamic effects that fractionally reduce their costs to budget, but they are certainly not magic self-financing beans.

in 2 You talk about opposing other expansionary policies while clearly making the entirely false assumption that they didn't help economy. Of course they did silly. Bailouts were paid back in near full so you were wrong on those and 870 Billion in stimulus (1/3 of which was tax cuts) DID NOT simply disappear, they went into economy and yes, created some dynamic effects that reduced their upfront costs.

Nothing you said points to willingness to pay even a cent for the debt from the wars. You supported the wars while supporting tax-cutting and nothing you said squares that budget peg.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

DEFINITELY worse off than in France, Germani, Holland Switz, Scandinavia, OZ, NZ, Canada. DUHHHHH Dupes...
None And get 6 week vacations, free day care, free health care etc etc DUHHHHHHH.

I find that amazing.

Nobody pays for those six weeks of vacation, healthcare, or day care?

 

[Conservative65]

It does not matter.

I don't care why the debt was created, it's still bad. If I spend more money than I make every single year, until I owe $100,000 when I earn $20,000 a year.... do you really think "how" I racked up that much debt is going to make a difference?

When Greece went bust, did "how" they racked up their debt mattered? NO!

So who cares? How does this change anything?

...ok how much of your tax cuts are you willing to give up to pay for the wars we got involved in over the last decade...even a dime?

Conservatives like to shoot the shit about deficits, but don't you fucking dare make them be part of the solution!

How much are the almost half that pay no income taxes willing to pay to fund the government many of them benefit from in social welfare programs? You have a problem with those actually paying not paying what you think is enough yet you don't want to talk those that contribute nothing to society you Liberals say we ALL live in.

 

[Conservative65]

I love the Dim theory

Ok give me Repub theory...but you simply saying so DOES NOT make it so.

Andy, in post #910 provided a list. Outside of that, the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund anything you Liberals say should be funded.

 

[AntonToo]

How much are the almost half that pay no income taxes willing to pay to fund the government many of them benefit from in social welfare programs? You have a problem with those actually paying not paying what you think is enough yet you don't want to talk those that contribute nothing to society you Liberals say we ALL live in.

SOMEONE ELSE, NOT ME should be a part of this solution - did I understand you correctly?

Isn't it strange how YOU contributing something just doesn't ever seem to interest conservatives?

How about some constructive compromising? You give up something, I give up something and yes, low incomers give up something too along with general economic growth. Obama had grand bargain on the table for most of his presidency, but because of NUH-UH! DON"T YOU DARE TOUCH MY SHT! wingers like you nothing serious can get done when it comes to budget.

 

[Wilbur Right]

How much are the almost half that pay no income taxes willing to pay to fund the government many of them benefit from in social welfare programs

How did republicans decide that giving the low wage earners ALL their tax money back in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit was "fair"? Can you answer that?

Are you to stupid to take advantage of the nice, tax avoidance measures in the tax code? Or do you file for the EITC?

 

[billyerock1991]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem. Everyone consumes wealth, but not everyone produces wealth. So inherently any individual that does not produce wealth, but still consumes wealth, is by definition a cause of the decline of the country.

However, beyond that, there are people who do work, and do produce wealth, but they still consume more wealth, than they produce.

Those people, as well, are a burden on society, even if they are still working.

Now of course the automatic exception, are those who are impaired, or incapable of work. But beyond the limitations, people who are able bodied people, capable of producing, should be required to produce.

Being on assistance, isn't inherently problematic. What is inherently problematic, is consuming more than you produce.

If the value of the goods and services you consume, is greater than the value of the goods and services you produce, then by definition, our entire society would be more wealthy, if you didn't exist. You are a burden on society, that our governments must tax and pay for, or borrow and pay for.

That is the problem.

View attachment 85614

When did Boeing start making solar panels or electric cars?????

nothing like dodging the issue .. thats all you repub-lie-tards know how to do

 

[Wilbur Right]

and the Child Tax CreditHistory, Purpose, Goals, and Effectiveness
Report • By Thomas L. Hungerford and Rebecca Thiess • September 25, 2013

Issue Brief #370
Download PDF

Press release


The earned income tax credit (EITC), first proposed in the early 1970s, was signed by President Ford. It was later substantially expanded by President Reagan, who deemed it “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress” (Snyder 1995). However, in recent years, the EITC has often come under political attack. It is criticized (sometimes implicitly but often explicitly) because it eliminates the income tax liability of many low-income workers, thus, it is claimed, giving them no “skin in the game” in support of the common good.1 Others criticize it for redistributing income to “people who have never paid a dime in their lives” but nevertheless “get a check from the government” (Sandmeyer 2013).

Recent expansions of the EITC and the child tax credit (CTC) will phase out in 2017. Further, recent discussions about broad-based tax reform have focused much attention on eliminating or scaling back tax expenditures—special tax rates, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and credits (often called loopholes), including the EITC and CTC, that reduce tax liability. Given this, and given past criticisms of these tax credits targeted to low- and moderate-income taxpayers, it is useful to review the history, purpose, and goals of the EITC and CTC, as well as the research on the credits’ effectiveness in meeting these goals. This brief does so; its principal findings are:

• Both the EITC and the CTC were initially proposed, supported, and expanded by Republican policymakers with broad bipartisan support.
• Claiming the EITC and CTC can be complicated and involves filing additional tax forms, which leads to errors of both over- and underpayment.
• The EITC appears to increase the labor force participation of single mothers, yet the high marginal tax rates associated with its phase-out range do not appear to have a significant work disincentive effect.
• The EITC is, by far, the most progressive tax expenditure in the income tax code.
• The EITC reduces poverty significantly, with children constituting half of the individuals it lifts out of poverty.
• The EITC and CTC are effective in increasing after-tax income of targeted groups, reducing poverty, and reducing income inequality.

Say thanks to Ronnie Reagan. He loved giving poor people more refund than they paid in. Why?

 

[rightwinger]

Why do you need an amendment to balance the budget?

Show you can actually do it for 5-10 years and then consider an amendment

Yeah, and Obama had deficits over a trillion dollars a year, for 3 or 4 years, and you want "others" to "show you can actually do it".

Practice what you preach, hypocrite.

This nation has only added 17 amendments in the last 220 years. Amendments are rare and difficult to do

A balanced budget is a simple thing to do. Why is Congress wasting it's time on an amendment rather than just do its job?

Then why didn't Obama do it? He didn't come within a mile of a balanced budget.

Why?

Because trying to balance a budget with a country fighting off an economic collapse is a fucking stupid thing to do

Yeah, first let's make up a myth, that if the government had not acted stupid.... then the economy would have collapsed. Then we can justify anything.

But let's turn right around, and claim we should have a balanced budget, and Republicans are terrible for not having one.

But we really shouldn't have a balanced budget because the world is going to end.

But Republicans are bad for not having a balanced budget the we claim we shouldn't have.

Left-wing thinking.... is the same as mental illness. You people can't get through 2 posts without contradicting yourself.

There are times that forcing a balanced budget is a fiscally irresponsible thing to do. War is one example. Trying to balance a budget while you are facing economic collapse is another

 

[Wilbur Right]

Why won't the republicans who control Congress stop the EITC?

Any of you low wage haters know the answer to that question?

 

[Conservative65]

How much are the almost half that pay no income taxes willing to pay to fund the government many of them benefit from in social welfare programs? You have a problem with those actually paying not paying what you think is enough yet you don't want to talk those that contribute nothing to society you Liberals say we ALL live in.

SOMEONE ELSE, NOT ME should be a part of this solution - did I understand you correctly?

Isn't it strange how YOU contributing something just doesn't ever seem to interest conservatives?

How about some constructive compromising? You give up something, I give up something and yes, low incomers give up something too along with general economic growth. Obama had grand bargain on the table for most of his presidency, but because of NUH-UH! DON"T YOU DARE TOUCH MY SHT! wingers like you nothing serious can get done when it comes to budget.

Since I don't benefit from social welfare but pay the taxes that fund them, it means I contribute. Freeloaders that get social welfare but don't pay the taxes that fund them don't. That means they expect others to be part of the solution for situations in which they find themselves.

I already give up something. It's time those that don't do something for the society they live in that you Liberals say all of us should fund.

 

[rightwinger]

How does that alter the fact the Obama has racked up $9 trillion in new debt?

Have you ever glanced at the components of that debt? You know...stuff that caused it?

It does not matter.

I don't care why the debt was created, it's still bad. If I spend more money than I make every single year, until I owe $100,000 when I earn $20,000 a year.... do you really think "how" I racked up that much debt is going to make a difference?

When Greece went bust, did "how" they racked up their debt mattered? NO!

So who cares? How does this change anything?

Not all debt is created equal

Going $20,000 in debt for a Vegas vacation is not the same as going $20,000 in debt to replace your roof
I have much more debt than I make in a year, it is a fiscally responsible decision

 

[Conservative65]

Why won't the republicans who control Congress stop the EITC?

Any of you low wage haters know the answer to that question?

Will the low rent negro in the White House sign it? I can answer that question.

 

[AntonToo]

^lets not lose track that the context is Federal income taxes only, when you include all taxes low income brakets do pay taxes and have skin in the game. In other words the reason Fed's income taxation needs to be so progressive is because all the other taxation is so regressive.

 

[billyerock1991]

and the Child Tax CreditHistory, Purpose, Goals, and Effectiveness
Report • By Thomas L. Hungerford and Rebecca Thiess • September 25, 2013

Issue Brief #370
Download PDF

Press release


The earned income tax credit (EITC), first proposed in the early 1970s, was signed by President Ford. It was later substantially expanded by President Reagan, who deemed it “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress” (Snyder 1995). However, in recent years, the EITC has often come under political attack. It is criticized (sometimes implicitly but often explicitly) because it eliminates the income tax liability of many low-income workers, thus, it is claimed, giving them no “skin in the game” in support of the common good.1 Others criticize it for redistributing income to “people who have never paid a dime in their lives” but nevertheless “get a check from the government” (Sandmeyer 2013).

Recent expansions of the EITC and the child tax credit (CTC) will phase out in 2017. Further, recent discussions about broad-based tax reform have focused much attention on eliminating or scaling back tax expenditures—special tax rates, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, and credits (often called loopholes), including the EITC and CTC, that reduce tax liability. Given this, and given past criticisms of these tax credits targeted to low- and moderate-income taxpayers, it is useful to review the history, purpose, and goals of the EITC and CTC, as well as the research on the credits’ effectiveness in meeting these goals. This brief does so; its principal findings are:

• Both the EITC and the CTC were initially proposed, supported, and expanded by Republican policymakers with broad bipartisan support.
• Claiming the EITC and CTC can be complicated and involves filing additional tax forms, which leads to errors of both over- and underpayment.
• The EITC appears to increase the labor force participation of single mothers, yet the high marginal tax rates associated with its phase-out range do not appear to have a significant work disincentive effect.
• The EITC is, by far, the most progressive tax expenditure in the income tax code.
• The EITC reduces poverty significantly, with children constituting half of the individuals it lifts out of poverty.
• The EITC and CTC are effective in increasing after-tax income of targeted groups, reducing poverty, and reducing income inequality.

Say thanks to Ronnie Reagan. He loved giving poor people more refund than they paid in. Why?

thats a easy one throw the dogs a bone that was reagan's policy back then ... after all they do need the reagan democrats to get elected right !!!!

 

[billyerock1991]

Why won't the republicans who control Congress stop the EITC?

Any of you low wage haters know the answer to that question?

Will the low rent negro in the White House sign it? I can answer that question.

and you claim that republicans aren't racist ...

 

[Wilbur Right]

I already give up something. It's time those that don't do something for the society they live in that you Liberals say all of us should fund.

Yea you gave up something; empathy and humanity.
That's why you are such a fucking flaming asshole.
Congratulations.

 

[Wilbur Right]

How did republicans decide that giving the low wage earners ALL their tax money back in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit was "fair"? Can you answer that?

Come on easy. You hate some low wage earners. Why did the republicans give them the EITC?

 

[Conservative65]

How does that alter the fact the Obama has racked up $9 trillion in new debt?

Have you ever glanced at the components of that debt? You know...stuff that caused it?

It does not matter.

I don't care why the debt was created, it's still bad. If I spend more money than I make every single year, until I owe $100,000 when I earn $20,000 a year.... do you really think "how" I racked up that much debt is going to make a difference?

When Greece went bust, did "how" they racked up their debt mattered? NO!

So who cares? How does this change anything?

Not all debt is created equal

Going $20,000 in debt for a Vegas vacation is not the same as going $20,000 in debt to replace your roof
I have much more debt than I make in a year, it is a fiscally responsible decision

$20,000 debt is $20,000 debt regardless of what you spend it on. It still has to be paid back. That doesn't change based on the reason.

The problem is the federal government spends the $20,000 on the Vegas vacation then, when it's something that has to be done, it involves going in more debt for a total of $40,000.

 

[Conservative65]

I already give up something. It's time those that don't do something for the society they live in that you Liberals say all of us should fund.

Yea you gave up something; empathy and humanity.
That's why you are such a fucking flaming asshole.
Congratulations.

You gave up guts and manhood when you hid behind a lawyer. That's why you're such a fucking coward. You earned it.

I don't have empathy for people that put themselves in a situation due to their choices then expect others to pay for it. That's not what empathy is all about. Since I don't owe a damn thing to anyone simply because they exist, humanity was not given up.