How Does Taxing the Rich "Help" the Middle Class?

[bedowin62]

Internet tough guy.

that's what you are

you lack the manhood to stay on subject, so you attack me and my personal life.

what a sad pathetic worm you are. Do you feel better acting like this? Does it make you feel all manly? Will you go tell you FB "friends" how you gave hell to a poor man?

I work and take no handouts.

when life gets hard, I dig in and push harder. wimps like you run to mommy and daddy and cry that it's not fair

shame they failed to raise you into a man

I have no problems with the poor, I have problems with hypocrites. You happen to be both.

The fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy explains a lot. You support a party that blames the countries problems on the poor and comes up with 'solutions' that favor the rich. And you as a poor person support that. Oh I get it, it's those OTHER poor people that are the problem, not you. Right?

Simply amazing.

This entire reply is BS.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. Truly insightful.

YAWN

it must be both of us them dude; cuz i dont see what insight YOU are providing Care4all

Can't someone translate this in to English for me please.

ok; you arent saying anything. is that clear enough????

 

[kaz]

Okay then....using your uh....logic...if one were to post 3 well known examples that refute yours, would that mean you are wrong to conclude all rich don't work hard and inherited their wealth?

I'd like to know just how hard a hedge fund manager works that would justify making $39,000/hr?

It's irrelevant "how hard" they work, it matters how much value they deliver. If they make their clients money, they deserve a cut of that.

Here's a dirty little secret that no leftists grasp. All jobs are that way. You get paid for the value you deliver to your employer. Shhhhhhh...

 

[bedowin62]

Internet tough guy.

that's what you are

you lack the manhood to stay on subject, so you attack me and my personal life.

what a sad pathetic worm you are. Do you feel better acting like this? Does it make you feel all manly? Will you go tell you FB "friends" how you gave hell to a poor man?

I work and take no handouts.

when life gets hard, I dig in and push harder. wimps like you run to mommy and daddy and cry that it's not fair

shame they failed to raise you into a man

I have no problems with the poor, I have problems with hypocrites. You happen to be both.

The fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy explains a lot. You support a party that blames the countries problems on the poor and comes up with 'solutions' that favor the rich. And you as a poor person support that. Oh I get it, it's those OTHER poor people that are the problem, not you. Right?

Simply amazing.

This entire reply is BS.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. Truly insightful.

YAWN

it must be both of us them dude; cuz i dont see what insight YOU are providing Care4all

I'm having a conversation...not providing insight.

i didnt mean you. your posts are fine. he's the one not providing insight, and i dont blame you for calling BS

 

[Brain357]

This is what Liberals keep saying, but Just how does that work, when the Government keeps the money?

Conservatives ALWAYS simple answers to complex issues



The Middle Class is not “Normal”

There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class. Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels.

At the top there is a very small class of superrich. Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, "middle" class of professionals and mercantilists - doctor, lawyers, shop-owners - who help keep things running for the superrich and supply the working poor with their needs. And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people - typically over 90 percent of the population - who make up the working poor. They have no wealth - in fact they're typically in debt most of their lives - and can barely survive on what little money they make.

So, for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in “normal” capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.




You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.

This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years. The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.




The Middle Class is not “Normal”


Why Raising Taxes On The Rich Is Important

Why Raising Taxes On The Rich Is Important



The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%.



http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/taxes-and-rich-0


IF the US went back to a higher tax rate (effective) like we did 1932-1980, how would it look?

Assume the "job creator had an income of $10,000,000 and paid a 19% federal EFFECTIVE tax rate ($1.9 million taxes) but IF they top rate was 70% ($7 million taxes), WOULD HE GROW HIS BIZ BY EXPANDING HIS COMP AND HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES? Instead today, the "job creator" just pays lows taxes and takes the money and GAMBLES it on Vegas East (WS)

are you even capable of thinking for yourself????

or is regurgitating Soros' spoonfed propaganda all you can manage?

You need to stop trying to think for yourself. So far you just babble.

 

[kaz]

The poor don't pay income and most likely not property taxes.

But their landlord pays property taxes with their money

Bam! In one, moment of partial lucidity you glimpsed one tiny nugget of truth. The Democrats ... are lying to you. Taxes are embedded in the price of the products we buy. If you grasped the implication of that, it would rock your world regarding your brain dead politics. Sadly I'm sure that epiphany will stay there and you won't actually connect it to anything else

Was there some indication where you believe I said taxes arent included in things we buy? Because you saying "The sky is blue....The Dems are lying to you" and cheering about it

If you actually grasped that taxes are embedded in the products we buy, you would stop fucking around with your tax the rich bull shit and advocate simple, flat taxes

I have grasped that but understanding that doesnt mean I have to agree with anything you declare I should fuck face. I never even brought up flat taxes at all.

Swish, right over your head. Most things are

 

[bedowin62]

This is what Liberals keep saying, but Just how does that work, when the Government keeps the money?

Conservatives ALWAYS simple answers to complex issues



The Middle Class is not “Normal”

There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class. Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels.

At the top there is a very small class of superrich. Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, "middle" class of professionals and mercantilists - doctor, lawyers, shop-owners - who help keep things running for the superrich and supply the working poor with their needs. And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people - typically over 90 percent of the population - who make up the working poor. They have no wealth - in fact they're typically in debt most of their lives - and can barely survive on what little money they make.

So, for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in “normal” capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.




You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.

This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years. The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.




The Middle Class is not “Normal”


Why Raising Taxes On The Rich Is Important

Why Raising Taxes On The Rich Is Important



The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%.



http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/taxes-and-rich-0


IF the US went back to a higher tax rate (effective) like we did 1932-1980, how would it look?

Assume the "job creator had an income of $10,000,000 and paid a 19% federal EFFECTIVE tax rate ($1.9 million taxes) but IF they top rate was 70% ($7 million taxes), WOULD HE GROW HIS BIZ BY EXPANDING HIS COMP AND HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES? Instead today, the "job creator" just pays lows taxes and takes the money and GAMBLES it on Vegas East (WS)

are you even capable of thinking for yourself????

or is regurgitating Soros' spoonfed propaganda all you can manage?

You need to stop trying to think for yourself. So far you just babble.

YOU MEAN you have nothing?//

got it!

 

[Darkwind]

Okay then....using your uh....logic...if one were to post 3 well known examples that refute yours, would that mean you are wrong to conclude all rich don't work hard and inherited their wealth?

I'd like to know just how hard a hedge fund manager works that would justify making $39,000/hr?

It's irrelevant "how hard" they work, it matters how much value they deliver. If they make their clients money, they deserve a cut of that.

Here's a dirty little secret that no leftists grasp. All jobs are that way. You get paid for the value you deliver to your employer. Shhhhhhh...

No, no...I tried that with them months and years ago...

It doesn't feel good to them so they don't understand it.

 

[RDD_1210]

I have no problems with the poor, I have problems with hypocrites. You happen to be both.

The fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy explains a lot. You support a party that blames the countries problems on the poor and comes up with 'solutions' that favor the rich. And you as a poor person support that. Oh I get it, it's those OTHER poor people that are the problem, not you. Right?

Simply amazing.

This entire reply is BS.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. Truly insightful.

YAWN

it must be both of us them dude; cuz i dont see what insight YOU are providing Care4all

Can't someone translate this in to English for me please.

ok; you arent saying anything. is that clear enough????

Who are you again? Are you Two Thumbs wife?

 

[Brain357]

This is what Liberals keep saying, but Just how does that work, when the Government keeps the money?

Conservatives ALWAYS simple answers to complex issues



The Middle Class is not “Normal”

There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class. Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels.

At the top there is a very small class of superrich. Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, "middle" class of professionals and mercantilists - doctor, lawyers, shop-owners - who help keep things running for the superrich and supply the working poor with their needs. And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people - typically over 90 percent of the population - who make up the working poor. They have no wealth - in fact they're typically in debt most of their lives - and can barely survive on what little money they make.

So, for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in “normal” capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.




You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.

This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years. The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.




The Middle Class is not “Normal”


Why Raising Taxes On The Rich Is Important

Why Raising Taxes On The Rich Is Important



The fact of the matter is that the American tax code as a whole is almost perfectly flat. The bottom 20% of earners make 3% of the income and pay 2% of the taxes; the middle 20% make 11% and pay 10%; and the top 1% make 21% and pay 22%.



http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/taxes-and-rich-0


IF the US went back to a higher tax rate (effective) like we did 1932-1980, how would it look?

Assume the "job creator had an income of $10,000,000 and paid a 19% federal EFFECTIVE tax rate ($1.9 million taxes) but IF they top rate was 70% ($7 million taxes), WOULD HE GROW HIS BIZ BY EXPANDING HIS COMP AND HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES? Instead today, the "job creator" just pays lows taxes and takes the money and GAMBLES it on Vegas East (WS)

are you even capable of thinking for yourself????

or is regurgitating Soros' spoonfed propaganda all you can manage?

You need to stop trying to think for yourself. So far you just babble.

YOU MEAN you have nothing?//

got it!

Great example of you trying to think for yourself.

 

[Eaglewings]

This is what Liberals keep saying, but Just how does that work, when the Government keeps the money?

How does making the the rich pay their fair share is the question , they have the best ways to avoid paying taxes. If they do pay taxes, it is very little compared to what a minimum an hour employee pays.

The 1950's middle class boom came from having the rich extremes pay their fair share.

First you have to define what "fair share" actually means in dollar amounts...
You then have to reconcile the fact that it is hardly fair by any definition.

The middle class was born because business boomed and provided good jobs at decent wages. This occurred because there was little downward pressure by government on business....

Lets remember what middle class means. It means they are making a wage or income from a business that exceeds an arbitrary income range on a government calculated scale.

That means that middle class is defined by their income....

It could just as easily be argued that to ease the burden on the middle class, you simply have to reduce the burden on taxes by removing programs in government that use those extra taxes.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

 

[Dad2three]

Tax increases on the rich also increases taxes on the middle class.
Tax cuts on the rich also lowers taxes on the middle class.

LOL

Not to cognizant of your surroundings either, are you?

So lets get this straight...The rich and middle class are linked and cannot be taxed differently because they are like Siamese twins. Great talking to you *pats on the head*

Wow you are fucking stupid......and dishonest...

I never said that...

But you go ahead and find a tax bill in which one class of people had taxes increased ONLY upon them and not the other classes of people...

When they say 'tax the rich' they never raise the top brackets and leave the rest alone....they raise them across the board.....Understand yet retard?

When they lower taxes, Like Bush did, they lower EVERY FUCKING BRACKET......

Understand yet? Need your helmet before you go outside friend?

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy





The legacy of the Bush tax cuts

 

[Brain357]

Tax increases on the rich also increases taxes on the middle class.
Tax cuts on the rich also lowers taxes on the middle class.

LOL

Not to cognizant of your surroundings either, are you?

So lets get this straight...The rich and middle class are linked and cannot be taxed differently because they are like Siamese twins. Great talking to you *pats on the head*

Wow you are fucking stupid......and dishonest...

I never said that...

But you go ahead and find a tax bill in which one class of people had taxes increased ONLY upon them and not the other classes of people...

When they say 'tax the rich' they never raise the top brackets and leave the rest alone....they raise them across the board.....Understand yet retard?

When they lower taxes, Like Bush did, they lower EVERY FUCKING BRACKET......

Understand yet? Need your helmet before you go outside friend?

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy





The legacy of the Bush tax cuts

There was no trickle down or boost to economy either.

 

[Darkwind]

This is what Liberals keep saying, but Just how does that work, when the Government keeps the money?

How does making the the rich pay their fair share is the question , they have the best ways to avoid paying taxes. If they do pay taxes, it is very little compared to what a minimum an hour employee pays.

The 1950's middle class boom came from having the rich extremes pay their fair share.

First you have to define what "fair share" actually means in dollar amounts...
You then have to reconcile the fact that it is hardly fair by any definition.

The middle class was born because business boomed and provided good jobs at decent wages. This occurred because there was little downward pressure by government on business....

Lets remember what middle class means. It means they are making a wage or income from a business that exceeds an arbitrary income range on a government calculated scale.

That means that middle class is defined by their income....

It could just as easily be argued that to ease the burden on the middle class, you simply have to reduce the burden on taxes by removing programs in government that use those extra taxes.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

There is no causality to your chart.....Other factors were at play in the economy that led to those boom times....One has to understand that taxation is a downward pressure on economic activity and as such, is a net negative. You cannot remove energy from a system and sustain it....

When the top marginal rate was lowered to 39% (and all the other brackets brought down as well) a severely depressed economy began to recover and then burn at a high rate.....

Was that the only cause? No.....but it was a 'primer' for the pump....

The best way to lower tax burdens on any class is to remove the programs that make those taxes necessary....and lets face it.....90% of those programs are not necessary but exist to purchase votes.

 

[Dad2three]

This is what Liberals keep saying, but Just how does that work, when the Government keeps the money?

How does making the the rich pay their fair share is the question , they have the best ways to avoid paying taxes. If they do pay taxes, it is very little compared to what a minimum an hour employee pays.

The 1950's middle class boom came from having the rich extremes pay their fair share.

First you have to define what "fair share" actually means in dollar amounts...
You then have to reconcile the fact that it is hardly fair by any definition.

The middle class was born because business boomed and provided good jobs at decent wages. This occurred because there was little downward pressure by government on business....

Lets remember what middle class means. It means they are making a wage or income from a business that exceeds an arbitrary income range on a government calculated scale.

That means that middle class is defined by their income....

It could just as easily be argued that to ease the burden on the middle class, you simply have to reduce the burden on taxes by removing programs in government that use those extra taxes.

"This occurred because there was little downward pressure by government on business...."

lol

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

 

[Maryland Patriot]

best way to find out is to get the same education he has and see.

There is no education that would justify $39,000/hr.

evidently there is.

 

[Dad2three]

This is what Liberals keep saying, but Just how does that work, when the Government keeps the money?

How does making the the rich pay their fair share is the question , they have the best ways to avoid paying taxes. If they do pay taxes, it is very little compared to what a minimum an hour employee pays.

The 1950's middle class boom came from having the rich extremes pay their fair share.

First you have to define what "fair share" actually means in dollar amounts...
You then have to reconcile the fact that it is hardly fair by any definition.

The middle class was born because business boomed and provided good jobs at decent wages. This occurred because there was little downward pressure by government on business....

Lets remember what middle class means. It means they are making a wage or income from a business that exceeds an arbitrary income range on a government calculated scale.

That means that middle class is defined by their income....

It could just as easily be argued that to ease the burden on the middle class, you simply have to reduce the burden on taxes by removing programs in government that use those extra taxes.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

There is no causality to your chart.....Other factors were at play in the economy that led to those boom times....One has to understand that taxation is a downward pressure on economic activity and as such, is a net negative. You cannot remove energy from a system and sustain it....

When the top marginal rate was lowered to 39% (and all the other brackets brought down as well) a severely depressed economy began to recover and then burn at a high rate.....

Was that the only cause? No.....but it was a 'primer' for the pump....

The best way to lower tax burdens on any class is to remove the programs that make those taxes necessary....and lets face it.....90% of those programs are not necessary but exist to purchase votes.

HOW DID THE ECONOMY DO WHEN THE EFFECTIVE RATES ON THE "JOB CREATORS" WAS 60%-70%???

 

[Mr Natural]

There was no trickle down or boost to economy either.

Sure there was. We got those nifty $300 checks when Bush raided the surplus left over by the Clinton admin.

 

[Dad2three]

Just imagine how much better off we'd all be if the rich didn't have to pay any taxes at all.

Harding (R) took care of a depression by cutting taxes and Fed spending in 1/2. These actions led to the roaring 20's.

educate yourself and you don't have to imagine b/c you should already know

Harding "took care" of the depression? lol

Yes, Harding/Coolidge ALLOWED the great depression to happen, with their "hands off" approach (like Reagan's S&L and Dubya's Subprime) that allowed the "free markets" to go hog wild!



1921 and All That


The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/?_r=0

 

[ClosedCaption]

Internet tough guy.

that's what you are

you lack the manhood to stay on subject, so you attack me and my personal life.

what a sad pathetic worm you are. Do you feel better acting like this? Does it make you feel all manly? Will you go tell you FB "friends" how you gave hell to a poor man?

I work and take no handouts.

when life gets hard, I dig in and push harder. wimps like you run to mommy and daddy and cry that it's not fair

shame they failed to raise you into a man

I have no problems with the poor, I have problems with hypocrites. You happen to be both.

The fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy explains a lot. You support a party that blames the countries problems on the poor and comes up with 'solutions' that favor the rich. And you as a poor person support that. Oh I get it, it's those OTHER poor people that are the problem, not you. Right?

Simply amazing.

This entire reply is BS.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. Truly insightful.

YAWN

it must be both of us them dude; cuz i dont see what insight YOU are providing Care4all

I'm having a conversation...not providing insight.

You got that shit right

 

[Darkwind]

Tax increases on the rich also increases taxes on the middle class.
Tax cuts on the rich also lowers taxes on the middle class.

LOL

Not to cognizant of your surroundings either, are you?

So lets get this straight...The rich and middle class are linked and cannot be taxed differently because they are like Siamese twins. Great talking to you *pats on the head*

Wow you are fucking stupid......and dishonest...

I never said that...

But you go ahead and find a tax bill in which one class of people had taxes increased ONLY upon them and not the other classes of people...

When they say 'tax the rich' they never raise the top brackets and leave the rest alone....they raise them across the board.....Understand yet retard?

When they lower taxes, Like Bush did, they lower EVERY FUCKING BRACKET......

Understand yet? Need your helmet before you go outside friend?

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy





The legacy of the Bush tax cuts

Ignoring the lies.....why not address what I actually said?

That the tax cuts were cut across the board to all class groups....so the entire economy benefited from them....

This benefited the rich disporprtionately is pure opinion, therefore not valid