You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[DiamondDave]

The only people saying enough is enough is the extremely rich... who through loopholes and credits... end up paying less than I do in taxes at $100k. Them... and people like you who actually believe the "poor little rich folk" propaganda that gets spewed from the Corporate Controlled Media.

Dude, according to Obama, YOU ARE RICH, you poor clueless sap!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SavgJlBLA"]‪Obama: families making $97,000 are "upper class" and should pay more taxes‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

You are an idiot! Obama HAS STATED THAT THOSE MAKING 97K ARE "THE RICH!"

And what are you whining to me for? My husband makes under 75K while I am looking for a job (and since I have been a stay at home mom since 1994) I doubt our combined salaries will get us UP to 100K.

Yet, I have ABSOLUTELY NO ILLUSION that my taxes WILL GO UP under Obama.

You can be stupid and believe Obama will not raise YOUR taxes. But the last time taxes were raised, (retroactive to Jan 1) in 1993, guess what?

HERE ARE THE FACTS!

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 [WHEN REAGAN CUT TAXES] to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

What this means is, when taxes were cut it REDUCED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, while when taxes were raised, IT RAISED THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHILE THE TOP TIER SIMPLY EMPLOYED STRATEGIES TO AVOID IT!

Now THIS IS REALITY! You can rattle off your fantasies about how Obama will close the loopholes, but his hundreds of waivers for preferred companies to avoid Obamacare prove it to be just that, A FANTASY!

The loopholes will go no where! And those who can't avoid the loopholes WILL SIMPLY LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

Tim Horton's has already done so.

Obama's tax hike will NOT have the effect that you fantasize about. It will not hurt the rich you dream about "getting even" with. It will hurt and is DELIBERATELY TARGETED AT YOU!

You'll feel it first before I will, you moron!

Wow... you are quite insane. I can tell by the maniacal laughter at the end of your posts. First off... if you notice... I said the extremely rich... $100k is doing pretty OK, but it is still very much in the Middle Class realm. Furthermore, If my taxes go up a little.. I can live with that.

What I can't live with is that when I turn 65, that I can't afford to live. I've been busting my ass since I was 14 and my body is starting to break down already at 46. I've had a three level fusion surgery to my back, and my knees will someday need replaced. I'll be lucky to get my 35 years in... that's 13 years away, let alone work till I'm 67 or 70.

As far as your idiotic blathering about "getting even" with the rich? This isn't about "getting even".... this is about doing what's right for America's people. They will just "leave"? yeah right... do you know what Corporate Taxes tend to run in other countries that don't have loopholes to jump through? All I know is that while the Rate is 39%, they pay next to nothing.. yes.. I know... GE.. Obama... blah, blah, blah... I don't excuse GE at all... they are part of the problem... but you act as though GE is the ONLY one... because they are fun for you guys to use because of your hatred of Obama.

I'll tell you what... they're bluffing. Regulations are higher in other countries, there is more of that hated "Socialism"... health care, etc... in other countries and there is less Corporatism in other countries... they ain't going nowhere.

I think I'm done trying to have a conversation with you... You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

Your situation is your situation... whether I feel sorry for or not is of no consequence.. same with the rest of the populace... but sorry Charlie, your upkeep is not the responsibility of anyone but you.. at your current age, or 65 or 80

And as we have tried to tell you so many times... nobody is deserving nor entitled to differing treatment under law... at least that is what you guys also try and tell us in areas of the social mesh that you care about and when it boosts causes you support...

But you have stated many times thru your stances.. that selective equal treatment by government under law is ok with you... so why should we think it will stop??

 

[Steelplate]

However, Ditch Diggers have families to raise, bills to pay and all the NEEDS that a CEO has. Why shouldn't they make enough to be able to so? THAT'S what we are saying.

Lets look at this shall we?
The ditch digger should have had the initiative to get an education that would have allowed him to watch someone dig that ditch instead of grabbing the shovel himself.
But since he did not show any concern for his future at that point, he should have realized that raising a family on 8 bucks an hour would be tough, and perhaps not had those kids to start with. Condoms are cheap.

Since he failed on all parts of his life, why should he be allowed to look at me to provide him anything?
As I said before, taking my child on vacations around the country and overseas is a far better use of my money than giving it to someone that failed to plan.

If I have to support the kids, take them out of the home, put them in a state or federal facility to be raised and have my tax dollar go there instead of the pocket of the unplanned laborer. At least this way the money can go to the kids instead of the liqueur store or drug dealer.

Once again... do you feel that everyone has the intellect to go to college? Your fucking bigoted assertions are what I hate about the Tea Party... These are the reasons that there is no fucking way that I believe you about "charity". You hate people that you consider "lesser" than you. Guess people who aren't book smart enough to go to College should just be sent to the gas chamber... I know.. we'll lock them up in these camps... we'll call them "concentration camps"... because that's their whole problem.. they refuse to concentrate, right? Then... we'll tell them that before we teach them how to Concentrate... they have to take a shower first... all that Ditch Digging makes them sweaty and stinky.... then we'll get them into the showers... and instead of water... we'll gas them with cyanide.

Fuck you you fascist bastard.

 

[Hope_and_change]

Socialists, on the other hand, propagated that the state or the government is the one which should be in total control of the planning, production and distribution process. The political theory of socialism advocates cooperation rather than competition, which is capitalism's mainstay. Socialists believe that wealth or profits made from means of production owned by the state, will be used fairly and for the welfare of all the people, rather than just the elite class. Socialism is based on the philosophy that an individual will become more ethical and dedicated towards his work, when he is receiving what he wants and when he is working for everyone else in the society and thus, people do not need any kind of "competition" to propel them to work.

 

[DiamondDave]

"1.1 Trillion in tax cuts since 2008.....all with economic stimulation in mind....and you see where it's gotten us."

We aren't in trouble because of tax cuts, Vanquish...we're in trouble because we have out of control spending. Raising taxes will not bring us out of this recession. Cutting wasteful Federal spending and allowing that capital to remain the private sector will.

That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you.

Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No fucking way.

What about weening off those forced contribution services??? As stated before.. I am in my 40's and would gladly give up all I have put in if I could not have to contribute to SS any more, and rely on my own investing for my retirement future

 

[JakeStarkey]

"1.1 Trillion in tax cuts since 2008.....all with economic stimulation in mind....and you see where it's gotten us."

We aren't in trouble because of tax cuts, Vanquish...we're in trouble because we have out of control spending. Raising taxes will not bring us out of this recession. Cutting wasteful Federal spending and allowing that capital to remain the private sector will.

That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you.

Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No fucking way.

What about weening off those forced contribution services??? As stated before.. I am in my 40's and would gladly give up all I have put in if I could not have to contribute to SS any more, and rely on my own investing for my retirement future

Not going to happen, Dave, in your lifetime. Or your those of your grandchildren.

 

[Steelplate]

"No... live in Snyder County PA(look it up).... and you are delusional. a town of 5k doesn't have the tax base to "live within their means" without state and Federal Subsidies. You're just too blinded by rhetoric to believe or understand it."

"I'm" blinded by rhetoric? Think about what you're saying. Where do you think State and Federal subsidies come from? Government doesn't create wealth...it takes it from those who do. So what you're saying is that it makes sense for us to take wealth from local people...send it all the way to Washington...run it through the morass that is the Federal Government...and then send what ever is left over back to local people in the form of subsidies? That's literally one of the most absurd things I've ever heard and anyone who thinks that's efficient is either smoking crack or is just plain not very smart. Here's a suggestion...let local people KEEP their money to deal with local problems. Our founding fathers understood that the less the Federal Government interfered with local issues the better.

Bullshit... your entire population of 5K could be taxed 0% at the Federal and State level... and if you pooled all your excess money together(after you all paid your mortgages etc)... you wouldn't have enough to keep all that you take for granted. You have no Clue how much your lives are subsidized, not just by government.. but by private industry as well. You do realize that your power Company has a hell of a lot more invested in running power lines out to timbuktu than in Topeka(since you used Kansas)? Power, roads that your tractors chew up at a much higher rate, telephone lines Cell Towers... all of those things Cost MORE in the country than they do in the city... But you don't pay any more in your electric bill, your phone bill etc... than a person in the city does.... they are subsidizing your life.

but you don't get it... and you never will. Because you like the notion of being "independent and self made" but you get more for the same price as people in the city. I didn't want to believe it either, in fact... I fought tooth and nail on another message board from a guy from Pittsburgh... but, when I stopped and looked around... I realized that it's true... we pay less for property, we pay less for most other goods too... then on top of it.. the utilities and the like we pay the same as urbanites, but it costs more to roll that stuff out and more to maintain it than in a city, where everything is compacted.

 

[Steelplate]

"1.1 Trillion in tax cuts since 2008.....all with economic stimulation in mind....and you see where it's gotten us."

We aren't in trouble because of tax cuts, Vanquish...we're in trouble because we have out of control spending. Raising taxes will not bring us out of this recession. Cutting wasteful Federal spending and allowing that capital to remain the private sector will.

That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you.

Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No fucking way.

What about weening off those forced contribution services??? As stated before.. I am in my 40's and would gladly give up all I have put in if I could not have to contribute to SS any more, and rely on my own investing for my retirement future

I wouldn't be opposed to that Dave... as an option, not as policy though. I'll admit it... I am not an investor, I wouldn't even know where to begin. So for people like me, the better option would be Social Security. But as an option? yeah, why not?

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

How do you help the poor by taking more from the rich? Specifically please.

 

[Steelplate]

Socialists, on the other hand, propagated that the state or the government is the one which should be in total control of the planning, production and distribution process. The political theory of socialism advocates cooperation rather than competition, which is capitalism's mainstay. Socialists believe that wealth or profits made from means of production owned by the state, will be used fairly and for the welfare of all the people, rather than just the elite class. Socialism is based on the philosophy that an individual will become more ethical and dedicated towards his work, when he is receiving what he wants and when he is working for everyone else in the society and thus, people do not need any kind of "competition" to propel them to work.

Guess we're not socialists then... which is what we've been trying to tell you all along...

Cooperation over competition? Well.. I guess it depends on what you mean. If you are referring to good, healthy competition between companies, I'm all for it... let the best company win.

But, if you are talking about small business trying in vain to compete with megacorporations... nahh.. That's fucked up.

If you are talking about those same megacorps buying politicians and legislation to keep competition away? Naaah... that's fucked up too.

If you are talking about not wanting to pay a wage to workers that they can actually live on, so they move their manufacturing to slave labor countries and then blaming those affected by those chickenshit maneuvers for being lazy and not wanting to work? That's really fucked up.

How about lobbying and pressuring for free trade agreements that continually fuck over the United States and helps the other "free Trade" partner to the tune of almost $1T/year, and makes Megacorps hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly profits? That's about as fucked up as it gets.

Oh... I could go on... like our bloated defense budget that Is the absolute biggest source of Welfare on the planet... Troops? That's nothing. it's the Equipment. Planes, Ships, Technology, weapon systems etc... all fully funded by our tax dollars. do we really need to spend 8X the amount of our next highest competitor(China)? Especially when we don't have a Soviet Union to worry about anymore... we have guerrilla warfare with a bunch of comparatively poorly equipped, poorly trained fanatics. I think it's time for the rest of the world to fight their own battles... most of them anyway.

how about our monopolistic Health Care system which keeps skyrocketing and we sit still for our people subsidizing the rest of the world... in Medical equipment and Pharmaceuticals? We pay more for health care than any other country in the world all because our "for profit" system is just as corrupt as the rest of our Conglomerates.

How about our Banking industry... which is obviously in cahoots with the Conglomerate? I mean, think about it....Prices keep going up, wages for most of the country have stagnated... so in steps the banks with easy money to lend... which is how we got into the Financial mess we are in. People have increasing trouble taking care of the basics, so they charge a little here and there.. and a little more and a little more.... that way.. the economy keeps rolling as well as the profits... until the bottom drops out... then instead of admitting that they pushed their luck too far, they point the finger at the people still struggling to survive and shout "Personal Responsibility". It's all a sham.

Look... I am not saying that the people are blameless... don't get me wrong. But to sit there and worship the Conglomerate and hold them unaccountable for anything is ridiculous.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How do you help the poor by taking more from the rich? Specifically please.

Answer the OP, first, or start your own OP. Otherwise, we know you are here for grins and chuckles.

 

[Bern80]

However, Ditch Diggers have families to raise, bills to pay and all the NEEDS that a CEO has. Why shouldn't they make enough to be able to so? THAT'S what we are saying.

Lets look at this shall we?
The ditch digger should have had the initiative to get an education that would have allowed him to watch someone dig that ditch instead of grabbing the shovel himself.
But since he did not show any concern for his future at that point, he should have realized that raising a family on 8 bucks an hour would be tough, and perhaps not had those kids to start with. Condoms are cheap.

Since he failed on all parts of his life, why should he be allowed to look at me to provide him anything?
As I said before, taking my child on vacations around the country and overseas is a far better use of my money than giving it to someone that failed to plan.

If I have to support the kids, take them out of the home, put them in a state or federal facility to be raised and have my tax dollar go there instead of the pocket of the unplanned laborer. At least this way the money can go to the kids instead of the liqueur store or drug dealer.

Once again... do you feel that everyone has the intellect to go to college? Your fucking bigoted assertions are what I hate about the Tea Party... These are the reasons that there is no fucking way that I believe you about "charity". You hate people that you consider "lesser" than you. Guess people who aren't book smart enough to go to College should just be sent to the gas chamber... I know.. we'll lock them up in these camps... we'll call them "concentration camps"... because that's their whole problem.. they refuse to concentrate, right? Then... we'll tell them that before we teach them how to Concentrate... they have to take a shower first... all that Ditch Digging makes them sweaty and stinky.... then we'll get them into the showers... and instead of water... we'll gas them with cyanide.

Fuck you you fascist bastard.

A don't get all bent out of shape. People on the right don't think lesser of people who go to college. In fact a lot on the right (including myself) think a lot of college is a collossal waste of money and a scam.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that is why, Bern80, the far right is not qualified to lead the nation.

 

[Bern80]

How do you help the poor by taking more from the rich? Specifically please.

Answer the OP, first, or start your own OP. Otherwise, we know you are here for grins and chuckles.

Get used to this Rev. This is how the weasel operates.

 

[Bern80]

And that is why, Bern80, the far right is not qualified to lead the nation.

So just attending a college is what qualifies someone to lead a country?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who has attend college will tell you that a high school graduate without college can't lead an army, for example. You truly think that no more than high school prepares you to lead the country? Really?

 

[Bern80]

Anyone who has attend college will tell you that a high school graduate without college can't lead an army, for example. You truly think that no more than high school prepares you to lead the country? Really?

Why? What specific knowledge is this that one can only obtain by attending college?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact that you ask the question clearly reveals why you will not understand the point.

 

[Oldstyle]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No fucking way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

 

[snjmom]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No fucking way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

The answer is simple. Fund them instead of borrowing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, we can pay for needed services, and you know it.