Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you

[HereWeGoAgain]

Bullshit.
They dont raise prices because they have to stay competitive with the competition.
When there is a tax hike all businesses take the hit and all of them raise prices.
So no you dont have any idea how business works.

That's not logical, according to the "free" market ideology, prices are determined by supply and demand. There is a price that maximizes profit, it doesn't matter if you tax that profit by 10%, 20% or 30%, the price that maximizes profit is still the same.

And calling me comrade is akin to calling Bernie Kernal Sanders a right wing extremist.
Giving the impression you know nothing of politics as well.

And Bernie isn't a right wing extremist, just a moderate rightwinger.

I call lots of people comrade, no need to get upset. I could also call you a clueless Ayn Rand fanatic but I try not to be insulting.

So in your opinion the business will just eat the added expense?
You do realize a lot of businesses run on razor thin margins and any added increase that cant be offset by price hikes will be made up in lower pay for employees or the down sizing of staff,or the closing of the business all together.


And why would I be upset at your stupidity?

That is why corporate tax breaks should be based on employing in the US, wages, and benefits. Everyone wins.

I agree totally

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Wealthy people spend lots of money in most cases which of course supports business and job creation.

 

[rightwinger]

The repubs fight for a balance budget by giving the richest tax breaks and increasing military spending. Not much of a fight there either.

Really? So when was the last time the richest got a tax break?

Yes they want to increase military spending. Protecting the country is in our Constitution and they are obligated to do so. Planned Parenthood and Cash for Clunkers is not.

Well they are fighting to eliminate the inheritance tax, a tax effecting only the very richest.

We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. You aren't serious about balancing a budget if you are adding to spending.

What gives you the right to tax someone because they died?

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

So taxing a dollar more than once is ok??
TO HELL WITH THAT!!!

You tax a dollar every time it changes hands

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Aaaah yes...a favorite of the liberal class. Circular logic.

Socialist class actually

And it was you who said that, not me

Hence the comrade comment...
Talking business with a communist is a waste of time.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit.
They dont raise prices because they have to stay competitive with the competition.
When there is a tax hike all businesses take the hit and all of them raise prices.
So no you dont have any idea how business works.

That's not logical, according to the "free" market ideology, prices are determined by supply and demand. There is a price that maximizes profit, it doesn't matter if you tax that profit by 10%, 20% or 30%, the price that maximizes profit is still the same.

And calling me comrade is akin to calling Bernie Kernal Sanders a right wing extremist.
Giving the impression you know nothing of politics as well.

And Bernie isn't a right wing extremist, just a moderate rightwinger.

I call lots of people comrade, no need to get upset. I could also call you a clueless Ayn Rand fanatic but I try not to be insulting.

So in your opinion the business will just eat the added expense?
You do realize a lot of businesses run on razor thin margins and any added increase that cant be offset by price hikes will be made up in lower pay for employees or the down sizing of staff,or the closing of the business all together.


And why would I be upset at your stupidity?

That is why corporate tax breaks should be based on employing in the US, wages, and benefits. Everyone wins.

I agree totally

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Wealthy people spend lots of money in most cases which of course supports business and job creation.

Then I am a job creator too
I spend money and it creates jobs

We are talking solid identifiable jobs. If you hire an additional ten thousand people you get a tax break

If you lay off ten thousand people, you pay a higher rate

Seems fair

 

[Siete]

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

So, can you tell what our conclusion is yet?

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.

circle that!

 

[SAYIT]

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Not every wealthy person gets tax breaks and those who do must operate within the confines of our tax code ... just like everyone else.

As we all know, the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the total federal income tax load while the bottom 47% - who also benefit from gov't programs policies and assets - contribute NOTHING.

So what % would satisfy you?
96%?
106%?

 

[rightwinger]

And you'd pay for your military how without it?

Flat tax, nothing to do with income....

You can't be serious. So the poor pay the same as the wealthy even though the wealthy benefit so much more I suppose? Oh and everyone pays even the poorest right?

Right now the bottom 47% pay very little to no "income" tax...

Put a flat tax on purchases...

Put a tax on every time you buy and sell a stock

There you go again being short sighted... No individuals dollar should ever be taxed more than once, ever.
The federal government only knows how to abuse...

A stock sale should be treated the same as any other sale.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Not every wealthy person gets tax breaks and those who do must operate within the confines of our tax code ... just like everyone else.

As we all know, the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the total federal income tax load while the bottom 47% - who also benefit from gov't programs policies and assets - contribute NOTHING.

So what % would satisfy you?
96%?
106%?

Those who monopolize most the wealth also get to monopolize most of the taxes

Our wealthy are benefitting from the lowest tax rates in 70 years

 

[SAYIT]

tax cuts for the top 2% is a sales tool for trickle down economics, aka RW mantra.

which btw, has never been proven to be effective long term.

Ah, but taxation is a sure-fired way to fuel a successful economy!
WooHoo!

 

[Rustic]

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

No because government takes their money before it goes from the dead person to the heirs.

If my father is worth a million dollars, and he passes that on to his children and grand children, we may each get about $70,000 a piece. If government comes along and takes half of that money first, then we are actually getting taxed at a much higher bracket for the money we are getting.

Government gets a much bigger cut from my fathers estate than his very own children. What's right about that?

Here's the good news: The first $5.4 mil is federal inheritance tax exempt.

To hell with that, the federal should have no claim on any inheritance no matter the size.
Those dollars have already been taxed, who knows how many times.

Cheat the system, the federal government deserves to be cheated.

What comes around goes around...

 

[Rustic]

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Not every wealthy person gets tax breaks and those who do must operate within the confines of our tax code ... just like everyone else.

As we all know, the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the total federal income tax load while the bottom 47% - who also benefit from gov't programs policies and assets - contribute NOTHING.

So what % would satisfy you?
96%?
106%?

Those who monopolize most the wealth also get to monopolize most of the taxes

Our wealthy are benefitting from the lowest tax rates in 70 years

So?

 

[SAYIT]

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Not every wealthy person gets tax breaks and those who do must operate within the confines of our tax code ... just like everyone else.

As we all know, the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the total federal income tax load while the bottom 47% - who also benefit from gov't programs policies and assets - contribute NOTHING.

So what % would satisfy you?
96%?
106%?

Those who monopolize most the wealth also get to monopolize most of the taxes

Our wealthy are benefitting from the lowest tax rates in 70 years

People don't "monopolize wealth." That is the single silliest thing you have ever posted in a storied career of silly postings.
Congrats!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That's not logical, according to the "free" market ideology, prices are determined by supply and demand. There is a price that maximizes profit, it doesn't matter if you tax that profit by 10%, 20% or 30%, the price that maximizes profit is still the same.

And Bernie isn't a right wing extremist, just a moderate rightwinger.

I call lots of people comrade, no need to get upset. I could also call you a clueless Ayn Rand fanatic but I try not to be insulting.

So in your opinion the business will just eat the added expense?
You do realize a lot of businesses run on razor thin margins and any added increase that cant be offset by price hikes will be made up in lower pay for employees or the down sizing of staff,or the closing of the business all together.


And why would I be upset at your stupidity?

That is why corporate tax breaks should be based on employing in the US, wages, and benefits. Everyone wins.

I agree totally

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Wealthy people spend lots of money in most cases which of course supports business and job creation.

Then I am a job creator too
I spend money and it creates jobs

We are talking solid identifiable jobs. If you hire an additional ten thousand people you get a tax break

If you lay off ten thousand people, you pay a higher rate

Seems fair

Not with your paltry spending habits.

 

[Rustic]

Really? So when was the last time the richest got a tax break?

Yes they want to increase military spending. Protecting the country is in our Constitution and they are obligated to do so. Planned Parenthood and Cash for Clunkers is not.

Well they are fighting to eliminate the inheritance tax, a tax effecting only the very richest.

We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. You aren't serious about balancing a budget if you are adding to spending.

What gives you the right to tax someone because they died?

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

So taxing a dollar more than once is ok??
TO HELL WITH THAT!!!

You tax a dollar every time it changes hands

You are too stupid too breath. Huh?
Every time you give your kids money... Tax that money???

Stupid is as stupid does

 

[rightwinger]

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

No because government takes their money before it goes from the dead person to the heirs.

If my father is worth a million dollars, and he passes that on to his children and grand children, we may each get about $70,000 a piece. If government comes along and takes half of that money first, then we are actually getting taxed at a much higher bracket for the money we are getting.

Government gets a much bigger cut from my fathers estate than his very own children. What's right about that?

Here's the good news: The first $5.4 mil is federal inheritance tax exempt.

To hell with that, the federal should have no claim on any inheritance no matter the size.
Those dollars have already been taxed, who knows how many times.

Cheat the system, the federal government deserves to be cheated.

What comes around goes around...

In many cases, that money has not been taxed

You don't pay taxes on a capital gain until that gain is realized. So, if you paid a million for stocks and they are now worth ten million you do not pay taxes on the nine million profit until you sell

If you die. That ten million goes to your heirs

 

[Siete]

Well they are fighting to eliminate the inheritance tax, a tax effecting only the very richest.

We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. You aren't serious about balancing a budget if you are adding to spending.

What gives you the right to tax someone because they died?

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

So taxing a dollar more than once is ok??
TO HELL WITH THAT!!!

You tax a dollar every time it changes hands

You are too stupid too breath. Huh?
Every time you give your kids money... Tax that money???

Stupid is as stupid does

speaking of stupid ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[rightwinger]

Well they are fighting to eliminate the inheritance tax, a tax effecting only the very richest.

We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. You aren't serious about balancing a budget if you are adding to spending.

What gives you the right to tax someone because they died?

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

So taxing a dollar more than once is ok??
TO HELL WITH THAT!!!

You tax a dollar every time it changes hands

You are too stupid too breath. Huh?
Every time you give your kids money... Tax that money???

Stupid is as stupid does

You are allowed to gift your children a certain amount every year ( I think it is like $40 k) above that they pay taxes

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What gives you the right to tax someone because they died?

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

No because government takes their money before it goes from the dead person to the heirs.

If my father is worth a million dollars, and he passes that on to his children and grand children, we may each get about $70,000 a piece. If government comes along and takes half of that money first, then we are actually getting taxed at a much higher bracket for the money we are getting.

Government gets a much bigger cut from my fathers estate than his very own children. What's right about that?

It all about the abuse and frivolous nature of an progressive government and the way it deals with the people's assets given to it to responsibly distribute...

Correct. But if they want to play that game, why don't we tax lawsuit settlements? Oh, but the Democrats would never go for that. Trial lawyers are a big contributor to the Democrats come election time.

Lawyers are taxed on their share of any settlement.

Their clients are not. If we were to tax that money, less people would be suing.

 

[Rustic]

So in your opinion the business will just eat the added expense?
You do realize a lot of businesses run on razor thin margins and any added increase that cant be offset by price hikes will be made up in lower pay for employees or the down sizing of staff,or the closing of the business all together.


And why would I be upset at your stupidity?

That is why corporate tax breaks should be based on employing in the US, wages, and benefits. Everyone wins.

I agree totally

I have no problem with providing tax breaks to job creators. I do have a problem with classifying every wealthy person as a job creator

Wealthy people spend lots of money in most cases which of course supports business and job creation.

Then I am a job creator too
I spend money and it creates jobs

We are talking solid identifiable jobs. If you hire an additional ten thousand people you get a tax break

If you lay off ten thousand people, you pay a higher rate

Seems fair

Not with your paltry spending habits.

He can't help it, too stupid to breath that is.
YOU START A BUSINESS TO MAKE PROFIT, NOT TO IMPROVE LIFE FOR EMPLOYEES!!
If that happens along the way, fine. If it isn't for max profits... No reason for a business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The person who dies isn't getting taxed. The person that gets a windfall of income from the death is the one being taxed.

No because government takes their money before it goes from the dead person to the heirs.

If my father is worth a million dollars, and he passes that on to his children and grand children, we may each get about $70,000 a piece. If government comes along and takes half of that money first, then we are actually getting taxed at a much higher bracket for the money we are getting.

Government gets a much bigger cut from my fathers estate than his very own children. What's right about that?

Here's the good news: The first $5.4 mil is federal inheritance tax exempt.

To hell with that, the federal should have no claim on any inheritance no matter the size.
Those dollars have already been taxed, who knows how many times.

Cheat the system, the federal government deserves to be cheated.

What comes around goes around...

In many cases, that money has not been taxed

You don't pay taxes on a capital gain until that gain is realized. So, if you paid a million for stocks and they are now worth ten million you do not pay taxes on the nine million profit until you sell

If you die. That ten million goes to your heirs

And they get taxed when and if they sell the stock.