Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[danielpalos]

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy. I make a motion to abolish our current regime of unemployment compensation in favor of general taxes on firms, to fund the unemployment compensation fund.

It will cost less than we are paying now, and it will improve the performance of our economy.

Interesting ... you propose to change the method of funding in order to reduce the cost. You DO realize that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Cost is driven by benefit x no of recipients ..... which is not affected by the funding mechanism.

You also realize that increasing the tax burden on companies increases the retail burden on the buyers, right? Once you do that, then you increase the sales tax burden, as well.

Your approach is simplistic and unrealistic ... a toxic combination of naivete and ignorance.

Yes, they do; you simply don't know what you are talking about. Our current regime is expensive, that is all. We simply need to simplify our tax collection. A general tax is much simpler than a direct tax.

Ignorance run rampant in your part of town?

No, all of the Red Herring fisherman are on Your side of town.

Our current regime is expensive, that is all. We simply need to simplify our tax collection. A general tax is much simpler than a direct tax.

 

[danielpalos]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???

Idiot.

Let's go through this slowly with some q&a.

1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?

Generally theft

Bubs, care to point to ANYTIME taxing the rich hurt growth???? The economy?

You keep s*cking off those "job creators" Bubs

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Those providing labor

Now WTF should the wealthiest pay low tax rates? Did we not have millions of jobs created pre Reaganomics? How about the debt? What benefit do WE derive from subsidizing 50,000+ families worth a min of $100,000,0000 each AS A SOCIETY?

Abolish the "work tax" for the poor!

 

[danielpalos]

Tax all income at ordinary rates on the working one percent, to encourage Job Booms!

Kushner had to resign from 266 positions to avoid conflicts of interest

 

[Skull Pilot]

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand

funny but the government part of freedom vs government has many dimensions do you understand?

No founders believed government is one dimension and that dimension should be tiny

government is never one dimensional

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand

funny but the government part of freedom vs government has many dimensions do you understand?

No founders believed government is one dimension and that dimension should be tiny

government is never one dimensional

As I said Plato and Aristotle represented freedom and government while modern Democrats and Republicans represent the same thing if there is another dimension why are you so afraid to tell us what it is

 

[The Derp]

It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?

No, it's not. The result of the tax cuts "for the poor" was that half of all workers don't even pay federal income tax. Then, Conservatives whine about how 47% pay no taxes and their solution is to cut taxes further. So it's masturbatory; Conservatives cut taxes, then complain that half of workers pay no taxes, then propose a solution to further cut taxes, which results in more workers not paying taxes, which results in Conservatives complaining that they pay no taxes, which results in the proposal of cutting taxes.

And on and on the circle jerk goes...

It's obvious the real reason Conservatives want to cut taxes; they want to starve the Treasury of revenue in order to force spending cuts to programs they are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage to repeal through legislation. So they "back-door" it by screwing with the budget, then point to the deficits created by the budget they screwed with as justification to cut spending they have no chance of cutting through legislation.

Wash, rinse, repeat. It's been that way for 40 years. In that time, what do we have to show for it? A growing income gap (because the middle class and poor haven't seen wage increases), increased household debt (because the middle class has to borrow in order to send their child to college), and no jobs.

 

[The Derp]

You always want to reduce taxes on the rich since they're the ones that create businesses and make the economy grow in

NO! Consumer demand is what grows an economy and leads to business creation. Consumer demand comes from increased wages, not tax cuts for the rich. No business will expand if there's no demand. You cannot manufacture demand in this economy. We already have an On-Demand economy, but the demand is from consumers, not businesses. Why would you expand your business if your revenues are flat because consumer spending is flat? No bank in the world (except for maybe a Russian bank or two) will give you a loan to expand your business if you don't show revenue increases year-over-year. Revenue, not profits, are how you determine your business' growth.

What you are describing is "if you build it, they will come", which worked in Field of Dreams, but that was a movie...not real life.

 

[The Derp]

tell me what creates debt?

Deficits. And what causes deficits? Revenue reductions. We were promised by those on the right that if we cut taxes for the rich, they would pay for themselves. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, we were promised that tax cuts need time to work. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, we were told that tax cuts only work if there are spending cuts (thus undermining the original premise of your argument). When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument migrated to one of hysteric emotion about "letting people keep more of what they earned". When that turned out to be a crock of shit (because household debt skyrockets every time taxes are cut), the argument from you guys veered into even more hysteric territory, with a complete ambivalence to the facts showing the fiscal policy to be completely, 100% crap.

I mean, you only need look at Kansas to see how bad that fiscal policy is. Brownback promised the tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, he said the tax cuts needed time to work. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, he said that spending had to be cut to close the deficits. And that's why Kansas state colleges saw their tuition spike. That's why Kansas is the only state to see its uninsured rate rise when all 49 other states + DC saw theirs fall. That's because health care spending in the state was cut to bridge deficits caused by tax cuts that were promised to pay for themselves.

If you are now saying they don't pay for themselves, what economic benefit is there to even do them? Household debt skyrocketed, undermining the premise that people are "allowed to keep more of what they earned". How can that be the case if household debt increases? The facts and figures undermine the faulty reasoning.

 

[The Derp]

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Workers. Wage theft, in particular. Productivity has increased, yet wages have not. Profits have increased, but compensation has not. So where are all these profits going? Not to the workers, but to the (primarily) majority shareholders who don't trickle down like we were promised they would so many times before.

Why do we keep falling for it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

tell me what creates debt?

Deficits. And what causes deficits? Revenue reductions. We were promised by those on the right that if we cut taxes for the rich, they would pay for themselves. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, we were promised that tax cuts need time to work. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, we were told that tax cuts only work if there are spending cuts (thus undermining the original premise of your argument). When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument migrated to one of hysteric emotion about "letting people keep more of what they earned". When that turned out to be a crock of shit (because household debt skyrockets every time taxes are cut), the argument from you guys veered into even more hysteric territory, with a complete ambivalence to the facts showing the fiscal policy to be completely, 100% crap.

I mean, you only need look at Kansas to see how bad that fiscal policy is. Brownback promised the tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline". When that turned out to be a crock of shit, he said the tax cuts needed time to work. When that turned out to be a crock of shit, he said that spending had to be cut to close the deficits. And that's why Kansas state colleges saw their tuition spike. That's why Kansas is the only state to see its uninsured rate rise when all 49 other states + DC saw theirs fall. That's because health care spending in the state was cut to bridge deficits caused by tax cuts that were promised to pay for themselves.

If you are now saying they don't pay for themselves, what economic benefit is there to even do them? Household debt skyrocketed, undermining the premise that people are "allowed to keep more of what they earned". How can that be the case if household debt increases? The facts and figures undermine the faulty reasoning.

and what creates deficits?

Spending

it's always the spending
ALWAYS

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

what people do with their own money is none of your or the government's business

 

[Skull Pilot]

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand

funny but the government part of freedom vs government has many dimensions do you understand?

No founders believed government is one dimension and that dimension should be tiny

government is never one dimensional

As I said Plato and Aristotle represented freedom and government while modern Democrats and Republicans represent the same thing if there is another dimension why are you so afraid to tell us what it is

it must be nice to just see the world in black or white this or that us or them

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You always want to reduce taxes on the rich since they're the ones that create businesses and make the economy grow in

NO! Consumer demand is what grows an economy and leads to business creation. Consumer demand comes from increased wages, not tax cuts for the rich. No business will expand if there's no demand. You cannot manufacture demand in this economy. We already have an On-Demand economy, but the demand is from consumers, not businesses. Why would you expand your business if your revenues are flat because consumer spending is flat? No bank in the world (except for maybe a Russian bank or two) will give you a loan to expand your business if you don't show revenue increases year-over-year. Revenue, not profits, are how you determine your business' growth.

What you are describing is "if you build it, they will come", which worked in Field of Dreams, but that was a movie...not real life.

Why would you expand your business if your revenues are flat because consumer spending is flat?

Why would consumer spending be flat with an across the board tax cut and increased business formation?

 

[Mr Natural]

it must be nice to just see the world in black or white this or that us or them

It's a simple solution for simple people.

Like our friend Special Ed.

 

[The Derp]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

 

[The Derp]

Why would consumer spending be flat with an across the board tax cut and increased business formation?

There is no proof tax cuts increased business formation at all. Consumer spending is flat because wages are flat as inflation takes hold. People are making nearly the same they did before, but inflation has caused prices to rise, meaning they have less to spend in the consumer economy because their wages were flat, and user fees for things like college tuition, excise taxes, and others increased because of a drop in revenues that create deficits, that lead to spending cuts.

Why did Bush cut taxes in 2001? He didn't need to. All it did was spike household debt while costing 70,000 private sector jobs from 2001-4. After 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, private sector employment declined by 460,000. So do tax cuts create jobs? No.

 

[Chuz Life]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???

Idiot.

Let's go through this slowly with some q&a.

1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?

Generally theft

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Those providing labor

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Workers. Wage theft, in particular. Productivity has increased, yet wages have not. Profits have increased, but compensation has not. So where are all these profits going? Not to the workers, but to the (primarily) majority shareholders who don't trickle down like we were promised they would so many times before.

Why do we keep falling for it?

And those workers who are being stolen from.... are they rich people or are they poor people?

 

[The Derp]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

 

[The Derp]

And those workers who are being stolen from.... are they rich people or are they poor people?

They're working class and middle class people. They are working harder, for longer hours, yet don't see a wage increase even though corporate profits break records every year (at least, they did every year of Obama). So companies are making tons more in profits, yet workers aren't seeing their wages grow. So where are all those profits going? Not trickling down, that's for fuckin' sure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would consumer spending be flat with an across the board tax cut and increased business formation?

There is no proof tax cuts increased business formation at all. Consumer spending is flat because wages are flat as inflation takes hold. People are making nearly the same they did before, but inflation has caused prices to rise, meaning they have less to spend in the consumer economy because their wages were flat, and user fees for things like college tuition, excise taxes, and others increased because of a drop in revenues that create deficits, that lead to spending cuts.

Why did Bush cut taxes in 2001? He didn't need to. All it did was spike household debt while costing 70,000 private sector jobs from 2001-4. After 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, private sector employment declined by 460,000. So do tax cuts create jobs? No.

There is no proof tax cuts increased business formation at all.

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
You disagree?

Cutting regulations helped as well.

Consumer spending is flat because wages are flat

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

user fees for things like college tuition....and others increased

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped?
You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Why did Bush cut taxes in 2001?

They were too high.

All it did was spike household debt

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

while costing 70,000 private sector jobs from 2001-4.

You think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss?
Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!