Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[JonKoch]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

The poor pay no income taxes you fucking moron.

Yes but they pay other taxes, and since the bottom 50% of US receive less than 12% of ALL US income, a drop from almost 18% in 1980, think that matters? Hint that's almost $5,000 PER FAMILY

Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes

Jan 15, 2015 - The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes—in every state.
Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.
Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

Tell the poor don't vote for democrats then.....vote Republican less taxes and




Less cost of living.



.

Yes all those poor red states look good

GOPers just put things on the credit card


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala

 

[JonKoch]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

The poor pay no income taxes you fucking moron.

Yes but they pay other taxes, and since the bottom 50% of US receive less than 12% of ALL US income, a drop from almost 18% in 1980, think that matters? Hint that's almost $5,000 PER FAMILY

Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes

Jan 15, 2015 - The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes—in every state.
Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.
Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

But the rich are paying the majority of the taxes and the poor will just stay the same. The OP is still bull shit.

You mean the guys making the VAST majority of money are paying much smaller share of taxes? True

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.
As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

 

[PredFan]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

The poor pay no income taxes you fucking moron.

Yes but they pay other taxes, and since the bottom 50% of US receive less than 12% of ALL US income, a drop from almost 18% in 1980, think that matters? Hint that's almost $5,000 PER FAMILY

Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes

Jan 15, 2015 - The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes—in every state.
Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.
Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

.




Tell the poor don't vote for democrats then.....vote Republican less taxes and




Less cost of living.



.

Yes all those poor red states look good

GOPers just put things on the credit card


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala

Irrelevant nonsense.

 

[PredFan]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

The poor pay no income taxes you fucking moron.

Yes but they pay other taxes, and since the bottom 50% of US receive less than 12% of ALL US income, a drop from almost 18% in 1980, think that matters? Hint that's almost $5,000 PER FAMILY

Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes

Jan 15, 2015 - The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes—in every state.
Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.
Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

But the rich are paying the majority of the taxes and the poor will just stay the same. The OP is still bull shit.

You mean the guys making the VAST majority of money are paying much smaller share of taxes? True

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.
As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

 

[The Derp]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

John F. Kennedy
“But the most direct and significant kind of Federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand—to cut the fetters which hold back private spending.If Government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency.The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.” President Kennedy goes on to say “I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a burden on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking…In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government’s most useful role is not to push into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures…When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.”-John Kennedy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates…. [A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.” —John F. Kennedy, 1963[1]


J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts revenue increased by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006



Forbes: "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks," co-authored with her husband, fellow University of California, Berkeley, economist David Romer.

In their article, they find that "tax increases are highly contractionary" and that tax cuts are highly expansionary. Otherwise-careful economists Greg Mankiw of Harvard and Lawrence Lindsey of the American Enterprise Institute have run with this result, as they should,

NYSUN: It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Why, Robert Bartley couldn't have put it better himself. Mr. Obama was totally flummoxed, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. The Democrat of Illinois spoke of the need to "finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it," and of the need to "invest in our infrastructure" and in "our schools."

Mr. Gibson, to his credit, wouldn't let the point go. "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," he replied to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama replied by changing the subject, to "a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to."

Mr. Gibson tried the same question, more or less, on Senator Clinton. She, at least, disavowed raising the capital gains rate above 20%, ruling out a return to the 28% rate contemplated by Mr. Obama. But when Mr. Gibson pressed her on why she would raise it at all, she went into lunk-headed, static analysis mode, displaying a lack of understanding as severe as that afflicting her rival. "You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is," she said.

Dwyer,Washington Times: By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years



http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough?

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

Heritage: A general consensus exists that a higher capital gains tax rate would harm the economy, but at what point would the revenues lost due to slower economic growth exceed the revenues gained from the higher tax rate? How many jobs would be lost and how many wage gains would be missed to implement the President’s notion of tax "fairness”? Analysis by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President’s budget provides the basis to answer these questions: Only a slight reduction in economic growth will offset the revenue gained from raising the capital gains tax, producing little tax revenue on net. It is more likely to reduce total federal receipts.




In 1990, when the Congress considered a 30 percent cut in the rate on gains, OTA estimated that such a cut would increase revenues by $12 billion over five years; the JCT projected a loss of $11 billion. If they had not factored in a realizations response, the two agencies would have estimated revenue costs of $80 billion and $100 billion, respectively--effectively illustrating how large a behavioral response is incorporated in capital gains revenue estimates.
In general, there is significant consensus that broad-based reductions in taxes on capital have the potential to boost economic growth over the long run. Reductions in capital taxation increase the return on investment and therefore the formation of capital. The resulting increase in the capital stock yields greater output and higher incomes throughout much of the economy.

In particular, treating capital gains favorably can reduce the inefficiency caused by the double taxation (under both the corporate income tax and the individual income tax) of corporate profits. And innovation and entrepreneurship may also respond positively to lower capital gains tax rates.

Eliminating the lock-in effect on the allocation of capital is often cited as a potential economic benefit from reducing capital gains rates.

And while reductions in the overall taxation of capital income can measurably increase economic growth,

DonLuskin: Those are the estimates. Now let’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.

CBO’s estimate of the “cost” of the tax cut was virtually 180 degrees wrong. The Laffer curve lives!

 

[The Derp]

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

Can I tell you how happy I am you brought up Capital Gains!? Man, you teed it up for me to knock a hole in one!

So, the last time we cut Capital Gains taxes, in 1997, the result was an increase in the volatility of the stock market. Which means tax cuts are the one and only reason we had a dotcom bubble that popped by 2000.

And you invoke Kennedy, but what you fail to mention is that Kennedy cut the top tax rate to 70%. So if you want to return to a top tax rate of 70%, I'm cool with that. Also absent from the context; the fact that Kennedy increased government spending by 25% from 1961-1963, and LBJ increased government spending by 50% from 1964-1968. So all the growth in revenues comes from government spending, not tax cuts. Thing is you cannot quantify tax cuts as revenue producing because it's not a tangible thing. You are using "feelings" as a substitute for facts. You "feel" that tax cuts create growth, but the reality is that they don't. What creates growth is spending. When taxes are cut, household debt skyrockets. At least, that's been the case since 1981.

 

[The Derp]

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

Ah...so that's why Bush's economy was so great? Oh right, it wasn't. There actually exists no proof that raising taxes harms the economy. Quite the opposite, actually. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and we had the longest sustained period of economic expansion in generations. Conservatives said raising taxes would kill jobs. They were wrong. 22,000,000 jobs were created after Clinton raised taxes. Bush lost 460,000 jobs after he cut them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You "feel" that tax cuts create growth,.

actually there must have been 20 economists in the article who "feel" that way after getting Ph.D's!! Why not reread for comprehension???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. There actually exists no proof that raising taxes harms the economy. Quite the opposite, actually.

10000% insane!!! a business expands when it gains money not when it loses money!! How stupid and liberal are you??

 

[The Derp]

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History.

No they didn't:

Federal Receipts (in billions)
2000: $2,025
2001: $1,991
2002: $1,853
2003: $1,782
2004: $1,880

It took four years for revenue to reach 2000 levels. And that was only because 2004 was the start of the Bush Housing Bubble. By 2009, federal receipts were at $2,105. So if you consider a 4% gain in revenues over Bush's term the biggest revenue gain in American history, then you don't know American history at all.

 

[The Derp]

actually there must have been 20 economists in the article!! Why not reread for comprehension???

I don't consider anything Conservatives say to be truthful. Nevermind the fact that all revenue gains during Bush were due entirely, 100% to the Housing Bubble...the same housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. So all that means is that the revenue growth you're crediting to Bush you should actually be crediting to the Democrats and Clinton...that is, if you are going to blame the mortgage bubble on them.

When the housing bubble popped, federal receipts for 2009 were only 4% above what they were in 2000.

That's not indicative of the greatest revenue gain in American history. LOL! What a moron.

 

[The Derp]

10000% insane!!! a business expands when it gains money not when it loses money!! How stupid and liberal are you??

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOPE!

A business expands when there is demand for their product. Demand comes from consumer spending, which comes from wages. When you jerkoffs cut taxes, you caused household debt to skyrocket:

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't consider anything Conservatives say to be truthful..

Kennedy and his economists were not a conservative!!! and most of the others were not either!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

Can I tell you how happy I am you brought up Capital Gains!? Man, you teed it up for me to knock a hole in one!

So, the last time we cut Capital Gains taxes, in 1997, the result was an increase in the volatility of the stock market. Which means tax cuts are the one and only reason we had a dotcom bubble that popped by 2000.

And you invoke Kennedy, but what you fail to mention is that Kennedy cut the top tax rate to 70%. So if you want to return to a top tax rate of 70%, I'm cool with that. Also absent from the context; the fact that Kennedy increased government spending by 25% from 1961-1963, and LBJ increased government spending by 50% from 1964-1968. So all the growth in revenues comes from government spending, not tax cuts. Thing is you cannot quantify tax cuts as revenue producing because it's not a tangible thing. You are using "feelings" as a substitute for facts. You "feel" that tax cuts create growth, but the reality is that they don't. What creates growth is spending. When taxes are cut, household debt skyrockets. At least, that's been the case since 1981.

Which means tax cuts are the one and only reason we had a dotcom bubble that popped by 2000.

Wow, that's a ridiculous claim!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A business expands when there is demand for their product.

demand for food clothing shelter private jets and Iphones etc is natural and always exists. Did someone tell you that sometimes people don't like to buy food??? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[PredFan]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

You don't learn that in statistics class idiot.

 

[PredFan]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

He's a derp.