RE: Let's Raise Taxes

RE: Let's Raise Taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:10:39 AM)
quote: I defy anyone on these boards to claim/show that their taxes will go up when this "tax cut for the rich "expires. The claim is made. Unless you define the "rich" as those making more than $80K per year--which I most certainly do not.

Leatherist -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:12:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: I defy anyone on these boards to claim/show that their taxes will go up when this "tax cut for the rich "expires. The claim is made. Unless you define the "rich" as those making more than $80K per year--which I most certainly do not. Let's see them drop the classification of "rich" to 60k, and see who screams then.

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey But I agree that it was a mistake not to make it permanent. And why is that? How big was your tax cut? My Gross income this year was $31,606. I compared my gross this year with the gross in 1999 tax years. I compaired the percentage of gross income against the percentage of that gross paid as taxes. The percentage was less for tax year 2007 than tax year 1999. I live on a fixed retirement income. Therefore the tax cut was a good thing or do you think that People that make as much as I do sho0uld pay more taxes because we earned an income (not social security) for the rest of our lives. In other words,you didn`t get a tax cut. None of the folks posting here got a tax cut.either. The only people who got a tax cut,were the very wealthy. Now if there was a middle income tax break,I`d be all for it. But cutting taxes on the rich and shifting the tax burden on to the middle class has not worked.Trickle down didn`t work and hasn`t worked.20 years of Ragean/Bush/Bush have shown us this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I could never understand why middle class republicans are so hell bent on cutting taxes for rich people when it means they`ll be picking up the slack. If you go out to dinner with a group of friends(say 12) and decide that 2 of you won`t pay as much towards the dinner bill(for what ever fuck`n reason you can imagine),that decrease for those two will now be shifted on to the shoulders of the rest of the dinner goers. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One more question for the "leave no millionaire behind" crowd: Why should wage earners pay a higher income tax, than those that earn their living from investments(ie.,capital gains)? I defy anyone on these boards to claim/show that their taxes will go up when this "tax cut for the rich "expires. Btw, candidate Bush said that the vast majority of his tax cuts would go to the middle class. A bald faced lie that middle class republicans swallowed whole. If on a percentage basis of gross income I paid less in 2007 than I paid in 1999, then I did get a tax cut. So what is your point? I am confused. I live on a fixed income. I pay less in taxes after the tax break. and you are compling becasue I make to much money or what?

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Stephan, If, as the examples given show, revenues increase when taxes are lowered, then how can that translate to increasing the time it takes to pay the debt? (assuming that there is not a concurrent increase in spending) So it becomes obvious the inflow is not the problem, but the outflow. And if you put that "outflow"(nice clean word,how about deficit spending?) on credit,which includes the cost of funding the tax cuts,it`s still got to be payed and will be payed on the shoulders of our grandchildren. Is that moral? We are literally borrowing money from the Saudis and China(to the tune of billions a day) to pay for these massive tax cuts,..... that none of us will see. But we (the middle class)sure are going to pay for that debt,......... and the interest on it too. How does this make sense? Explain it to me.

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:25:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl making a tax cut permanent is not going to stimulate a sagging economy Allowing those tax cuts to expire (i.e., a tax increase) is going to further slow a sagging economy. Liberal economic theologies notwithstanding, the way to stimulate the economy is to take money out of the hands of the government and put that money in the hands of consumers. That means cutting taxes, or at the very least not increasing them. Then why did the economy do so well when Clinton raised taxes on the very rich(ie,not the middle class,ie,none of you)?

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:28:22 AM)
Not all "tax cuts" are the same. A tax cut on the very rich,is not a tax cut for the middle class.(which includes everyone here)

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Not all "tax cuts" are the same. A tax cut on the very rich,is not a tax cut for the middle class.(which includes everyone here) Then why did my taxes go down after the tax break?

Estring -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:30:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Stephan, If, as the examples given show, revenues increase when taxes are lowered, then how can that translate to increasing the time it takes to pay the debt? (assuming that there is not a concurrent increase in spending) So it becomes obvious the inflow is not the problem, but the outflow. And it you put that "outflow"(nice clean word,how about deficit spending?) on credit,which includes the cost of funding the tax cuts,it`s still got to be payed and will be payed on the shoulders of our grandchildren. Is that moral? We are literally borrowing money from the Saudis and China(to the tune of billions a day) to pay for these massive tax cuts,..... that none of us will see. But we (the middle class)sure are going to pay for that debt,......... and the interest on it too. How does this make sense? Explain it to me. You want to cut the deficit? Cut back on government spending. How much more simple do you need it? And if you are so concerned about it, pay more taxes. No one is stopping you from doing that. The fact is, the tax cuts just mean that we will get to keep more of our own money. That money belongs to us, not the government. And time and time again, tax cuts have been shown to be good for the economy. Put the koolaid down for once.

Stephann -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:31:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey So are you saying that we should spend more federal money on pork, raise taxes, to reduce the amount of stuff that I can purchase and the services I can have, thus channeling the money back into the funnel that the government special interests have created? Like Archer said Kennedy, Regan and Bush (yes that is both parties) cut taxes and revenue increased. What caused the problem was when Congress allocated more taxes then to their special interests funnels. Congress is the problem, not the taxpayer. And why is it that you think that raising my taxes will help me? I'm not suggesting either we raise or lower taxes. The term 'tax cut' is a myth. Cutting taxes really means reducing them. If you tax a man at 50%, he'll complain his taxes are too high. Tax him at 20%, he'll say his taxes are too high. Tax him at .01% and... he'll complain it's too high. My personal issue isn't really with the amount we're taxed, but rather the way taxes are used to implement social engineering. I support a flat tax, where every individual is expected to contribute the same percentage of their earnings, regardless of where they come from. My point isn't that taxes are too high; it's that spending is too high. We spend more than we tax, to kill people I don't know. That's my real issue. Stephan

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:33:12 AM)
Again you have ignored the documented fact that the tax cuts actually increased the revenue the US Government took in. I'm all about not spending in deficit mode. Wish the Republicans had kept to the Contract with America fiscal responsibility pledges. However they didn't they have been spending at a rate that is even higher than the Democrats had been spending in the red. But I have no faith that either party will cut spending to the degree nessisary to pay the debt off taxes raised lowered or remaining the same unless and until they cut the spending it's just a matter of how fast or slow we go further into debt.

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:34:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey So are you saying that we should spend more federal money on pork, raise taxes, to reduce the amount of stuff that I can purchase and the services I can have, thus channeling the money back into the funnel that the government special interests have created? Like Archer said Kennedy, Regan and Bush (yes that is both parties) cut taxes and revenue increased. What caused the problem was when Congress allocated more taxes then to their special interests funnels. Congress is the problem, not the taxpayer. And why is it that you think that raising my taxes will help me? I'm not suggesting either we raise or lower taxes. The term 'tax cut' is a myth. Cutting taxes really means reducing them. If you tax a man at 50%, he'll complain his taxes are too high. Tax him at 20%, he'll say his taxes are too high. Tax him at .01% and... he'll complain it's too high. My personal issue isn't really with the amount we're taxed, but rather the way taxes are used to implement social engineering. I support a flat tax, where every individual is expected to contribute the same percentage of their earnings, regardless of where they come from. My point isn't that taxes are too high; it's that spending is too high. We spend more than we tax, to kill people I don't know. That's my real issue. Stephan Oh I agree totally with a flat tax. Take a percentage. No deductions. Everyone shares equally. No exceptions.

Estring -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:43:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Again you have ignored the documented fact that the tax cuts actually increased the revenue the US Government took in. I'm all about not spending in deficit mode. Wish the Republicans had kept to the Contract with America fiscal responsibility pledges. However they didn't they have been spending at a rate that is even higher than the Democrats had been spending in the red. But I have no faith that either party will cut spending to the degree nessisary to pay the debt off taxes raised lowered or remaining the same unless and until they cut the spending it's just a matter of how fast or slow we go further into debt. I agree that the Bush administration has spent like a Dem on steroids. It has been a big disappointment to me. I think that it is hard these days to talk about spending cuts because so many have a "what will you give me" mentality when it comes to who they will vote for. Strangely though, when the government actually will let you keep more of your own money through tax cuts, the "what will you give me" people have a meltdown.

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:43:23 AM)
Still waiting for the specfied "rich" breakpoint to be anonced instead of the etheral class warfare cry of those evil rich. Come on lets define it. otherwise claims of "wihich includes everyone here" are meaningless at best. Where you wanna put the break point Top 20% of income?

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 10:51:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Not all "tax cuts" are the same. A tax cut on the very rich,is not a tax cut for the middle class.(which includes everyone here) Then why did my taxes go down after the tax break? Ya didn`t get a tax break.No one here got one. Like me you got a 300 check,"a rebate",which was actually an advance on next years tax return(if you got one) and not a tax cut. Ask your accountant about that. And ask him/her if you got a "tax break" under Bush. You didn`t.People earning over a half million dollars or more got a tax cut. The spending didn`t go down,but their share of that spending went down and was shifted to us,the middle class. That government spending will be borne by someone,someday. But by giving very wealthy people thousands,tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts,you`re only shifting the cost of government on to us,wage earners and people making a 100 thousand a year or less. How does that make sense?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:03:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Not all "tax cuts" are the same. A tax cut on the very rich,is not a tax cut for the middle class.(which includes everyone here) You need to quit speculating about my taxes. You don't know my tax burden any more than you know anyone else's. However U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 So just where are you drawing the middle class to claim there was no tax cut for the middle class?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:10:04 AM)
~ Fast Reply ~ The best way to eliminate the middle class entirely is to tax the rich and tax corporate profits. It is very simple economics. "Rich People" aren't rich people because of their income. They are "rich" because of their assets. Their goal isn't to make more income, it's to create more assets. It's the reason why 'corporate saviors' like Lee Iacocca 'savior' of Chrysler took $1 in salary, his primary compensation was in the form of stock options. Tax the rich's income and they just won't generate personal income. Tax Corporate income, they'll move the operation out of the country, many already have as a result of other restrictions, such as pollution controls, insurance requirements, employee tax, and litigation. I've partnered with "rich people" all my corporate life. Unlike the government who belief that a loosing proposition, like education, or Iraq, can be turned into a winner with the addition of adding more money; they are pragmatic. Make a return on investment or close. That concept works in business. They get a return on their investment, pay taxes on their earnings, and in the meantime create 'middle class' jobs and opportunity. Take them out of the picture, or disincentive them to make income and they'll sit contently on their diversified investments enjoying their yachts, homes, and luxury. You can't tax them if they keep their money on the sidelines and don't generate income. The 'middle class' is derived from 'rich people' and 'corporations'. Kill them, and you kill the middle class. The only middle class left will be those created by blossoming government bureaucracy. Eventually though when the printers can not afford the ink and paper to continue generating more worthless capital, even that middle class will disappear. This morning the Swiss franc, is now 1:1 with the dollar. The Euro trading at $1.56 this morning. Oil is $111./ barrel. Bear/Stearns dropped 50% of its value in the opening moments of the Market. Property values drop further every day, making all the fools who lent money to unqualified borrowers lose on their bet that RE security made their bad credit decisions good. The marriage of a stupid borrower and a dumb, greedy, lender has produced a economic idiot child that we'll all be paying to raise. We haven't hit bottom yet. Not with the people we've elected and definitely not with any of the remaining choices we have to pick from in November. Not unless we go to a system where everyone works for the government, and when that's been tried before the results were never good for the citizens of that State. However, when a major portion of the citizens prefers to live a child-like existence expecting a government to act as a parent, 'curing' and taking care of their every desire, it's a likely outcome. Meanwhile, I hope you took my suggestion and have a few bucks invested in hard currency, gold/silver.

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:19:51 AM)
You republicans must truly be upset that it was Clinton, who had the 1st balanced budget in decades,decreased the rate of growth of government,payed down the "Reagan debts",made government more responsive and efficient(ie,made it work well), increased our credit worthiness and put us on a positive trajectory. Consumer confidence was up.The savings rate was up and personal debt(consumer) was going down. Allen Greenspan called Clinton the best "republican president" he ever worked with. Hurts,I know. Let the "leave no millionaire behind" tax law expire and let`s get back to Clinton-omics. You know,a conservative economic policy. Not neo-conservative economic policy.(sorry Merc)

Estring -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:24:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 You republicans must truly be upset that it was Clinton, who had the 1st balanced budget in decades,decreased the rate of growth of government,payed down the "Reagan debts",made government more responsive and efficient(ie,made it work well), increased our credit worthiness and put us on a positive trajectory. Consumer confidence was up.The savings rate was up and personal debt(consumer) was going down. Allen Greenspan called Clinton the best "republican president" he ever worked with. Hurts,I know. Let the leave no millionaire behind tax law expire and lets get back to Clinton-omics. You know,a conservative economic policy. Not neo-conservative economic policy. You actually mean the Republican Congress who kept Clinton in check. The bigger question is why you don't worship president Bush since his expansion of government and spending is right down your alley.

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:24:42 AM)
There is taxing the rich and there is asking the rich to pay their fair share to the health of society that allows them to accummulate wealth. America is a welfare state for the rich which is why America has more rich people and more poor people than other western states. What is the problem with expecting people who can afford it to contribute to a society that allows them to accummulate and enjoy their wealth?

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:25:47 AM)
LOL wanting to credit Clinton with the ballanced budget after the republican takeover of Congress in 92' LOL Clinton didn't ballance the budget the Republican Congress did. Clintons first 2 years spending were way into deficit territory when he had a rubber stamp Congress. Always wanting to rob Newt of his part in the Ballanced Budget. Oh and Owner what say you to the actual documented facts presented by Celtic. They kinda shoot your bullshit nobody in the middle class benifited all to hell. Hmmm imagine that providing documented tax rates to prove the point.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125