Do Republicans Really Want to Cut Taxes on the Wealthy and Raise Them on Everyone Els

[Flaylo]

Do Republicans Really Want to Cut Taxes on the Wealthy and Raise Them on Everyone Else? - Yahoo! News

Hell facking yeah they want to. They still don't understand that those who hoard the majority of the country's wealth should be the ones paying more taxes, not the other way around to make it look "fair".

 

[Stephanie]

Wow, that is some UNBIASED article by Yahoo news.

 

[JoeB131]

Do Republicans Really Want to Cut Taxes on the Wealthy and Raise Them on Everyone Else? - Yahoo! News

Hell facking yeah they want to. They still don't understand that those who hoard the majority of the country's wealth should be the ones paying more taxes, not the other way around to make it look "fair".

Reality check, guy. The wealthy have the money to shelter their wealth...

The rest of us don't.

Even when the top tax rate was 90%, people rarely paid that much, unless they were a dumb Hollywood star who was impractical about money.

The smartest thing we could do is go back to funding our government entirely from tariffs and excises. That would encourage job growth here and eliminate the need for a lot of government.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(The Democrats are like the Pied Piper of Hamelin leading the city's children down to and then into the river. They know the river is up ahead, but they are also keenly aware that if they are forced to stop spending, they are out of business, with their constituencies no longer able to go to the polls with visions of bread and circuses dancing in their heads.
Therefore they cannot cut, even if they know full well the till is empty.)

"Is the Social Security Fraud Drawing to a Close?

Social Security, not Medicare or Medicaid, is the crown jewel of the entitlement state. For several generations now, it has been sold to voters as a more or less sacred compact. Many Americans still believe that the federal government maintains an “account” in their name, which contains assets. Some even think that their “account” contains their own contributions, carefully set aside for their retirement by Franklin Roosevelt or his successors. If this is not the biggest fraud in the history of the human race, it is certainly in the top five. Inexorable demographic realities are casting the shadow of extinction over Social Security; ironically, though, what may set the program’s demise in motion is a cheap political trick by the Democratic Party.

Last December, as part of a budget deal, the Democrats negotiated a temporary 2% cut in the employee’s portion of the payroll tax. Many economists argued that this was an inefficient tax cut, and it certainly contributed to federal deficits. But the politics of the payroll tax cut were powerful. Nine months later, the temporary payroll tax cut is about to run out, and the Democrats are trying to make a political issue out of extending it. This headline is typical: “The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor.” “Raising taxes” means allowing a temporary cut to expire on schedule. So at least we have established a principle: if the Bush income tax cuts expire, that too is a tax increase.

Politically, the Democrats’ effort to portray themselves as tax-cutters is easy to understand. Last December, however, many of the more ideological Democrats protested that the payroll tax cut threatened the underpinnings of the Social Security program. "


Is the Social Security Fraud Drawing to a Close? | Power Line

 

[Claudette]

Well if the Bush tax cuts expire then everyones taxes should be raised. Fair is fair.

They would get more revenue from the middle class then they would from the wealthy. There just aren't enough wealthy people out there.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - tax dem rich business owners dat outsource our jobs...

Tax the rich: How Obama will pay for his stimulus package
September 12, 2011: President Obama proposes paying for his stimulus package primarily by raising more revenue from high-income households.

President Obama proposed Monday to pay for his $447 billion stimulus package largely by taxing the rich more. Obama's largest proposed pay-for -- which the White House estimates would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years -- would limit itemized deductions and certain other exemptions for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more ($250,000 and up for married couples). The tax measure would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, when the White House assumes the top two income tax rates would revert to 36% and 39.6%, up from the current 33% and 35% as a result of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Obama's proposal would cap itemized deductions at 28%. That would mean for every $100 in deductions the rich claim in 2013, they would be able to reduce their tax bill by only $28. That would be less than the $36 or $39.60 they would get if they are in the top two tax brackets. Relative to other federal tax filers, high-income households benefit disproportionately from itemized deductions -- including those for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Obama's plan is similar to one he offered in each of his three budgets. But the proposal has gone nowhere in Congress. The president put forth other repeat proposals on Monday to pay for the stimulus package.

So-called carried interest -- a portion of the money paid to managers of hedge funds and other investments partnerships -- would be taxed as ordinary income under Obama. Translation: It would be subject to rates as high as 39.6%, up from the current preferential rate of 15%. The White House estimates this change could raise $18 billion over 10 years. Obama also wants to repeal various oil subsidies for an estimated savings of $40 billion. And he would impose a less-generous depreciation rule for the purchase of corporate jets. That measure would raise an estimated $3 billion. All told, the pay-for proposals would raise roughly $467 billion, White House budget director Jacob Lew told reporters.

Lew noted that the White House measures "intentionally overachieve" on savings to compensate for likely differences in estimates that will be made by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the official cost-and-savings arbiter for Congress. "We've built in a cushion for the differences that happen," Lew said. The president's pay-for proposals will likely meet with stiff opposition from Republicans. Many GOP lawmakers don't want to raise taxes on anyone and aren't keen on the president's jobs plan to begin with, even though it contains more than $200 billion in tax cuts. And at a time when Congress' debt super committee is working to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years, Obama's pay-for plan would reduce the committee's revenue-raising options. On the other hand, many career deficit hawks support measures to spur the economy now, so long as they are paid for eventually and paired with a long-term debt reduction plan.

Source

 

[rdean]

yes

 

[Dot Com]

Republicans? Of course

 

[waltky]

Rich folks benefit from capital gains tax rates...

Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy feeds growing gap between rich and poor
The K Street office of Mark Bloomfield, president of the American Council for Capital Formation, is full of knickknacks collected in three decades of lobbying for cutting the capital gains tax.

The coffee table has campaign buttons that read “Capital Gains = Better Jobs.” One wall displays a blown-up cartoon retracing the steps that led President Jimmy Carter to reluctantly sign a cut in the capital gains tax rate. On a shelf sits a framed, handwritten note from President George W. Bush in December 2003 that says: “Dear Mark, I got your treatise on taxes — many thanks. I will look it over with keen interest. Merry Christmas.” For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do. And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.

The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say. “This is something that should be on the table,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), one of 12 members on the congressional “supercommittee” tasked with reducing the deficit. “There’s no strong economic rationale for the huge gap that exists now between the rate for wages and the rate for capital gains.”

Advocates for a low capital gains rate say it spurs more investment in the U.S. economy, benefiting all Americans. But some tax experts say the evidence for that theory is murky at best. What is clear is that the capital gains tax rate disproportionately benefits the ultra-wealthy. Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains.

While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent. “The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard,” said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. “It’s by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate in value.”

MORE

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd like to see everyone pay the same percentage. Less than 10%.

But then I like people being treated equally. We are Americans. We all have the responsibility to support our country. And we shouldn't put a burden on anyone else what we don't accept ourselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

Republicans? Of course

Except there are no classes. We all work.

 

[ladyliberal]

Wow, that is some UNBIASED article by Yahoo news.

Yahoo News is a news aggregator-- it just retransmits news articles from other sources. This one came from Forbes.com. The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool" (I'm not mocking them-- that actually is their motto) and their editor-in-chief is Steve Forbes, one of the most famous proponents of a flat tax ever.

Obviously this was more of an opinion column than a news article, and its author feels differently about flat taxes. Still, he doesn't really criticize them as bad economics, he mainly points out their limitations as political positions.

To me, the important part of the tax code is that it is progressive (and that it takes in enough revenue to pay for spending in the long run). A consumption tax could only do that with some sort of rebate system, or charging different types of consumption differently (such as a luxury tax), which already limits the amount of simplifying that could follow from relying more on taxing consumption.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do Republicans Really Want to Cut Taxes on the Wealthy and Raise Them on Everyone Else? - Yahoo! News

Hell facking yeah they want to. They still don't understand that those who hoard the majority of the country's wealth should be the ones paying more taxes, not the other way around to make it look "fair".

You may not have gotten the memo on this, Flaylo...but we've almost reached the point where fully 50% of the population pays no income tax at all while the top 5% hand over 50% of the taxes paid in this country. I'm not quite sure where the "fairness" is in that.

 

[Charles_Main]

Do Republicans Really Want to Cut Taxes on the Wealthy and Raise Them on Everyone Else? - Yahoo! News

Hell facking yeah they want to. They still don't understand that those who hoard the majority of the country's wealth should be the ones paying more taxes, not the other way around to make it look "fair".

The smartest thing we could do is go back to funding our government entirely from tariffs and excises. That would encourage job growth here and eliminate the need for a lot of government.

You know how the world was back when everyone did that? Lots of wars fought sparked mostly because of Trade issues. Sounds like a blast.

 

[auditor0007]

Do Republicans Really Want to Cut Taxes on the Wealthy and Raise Them on Everyone Else? - Yahoo! News

Hell facking yeah they want to. They still don't understand that those who hoard the majority of the country's wealth should be the ones paying more taxes, not the other way around to make it look "fair".

You may not have gotten the memo on this, Flaylo...but we've almost reached the point where fully 50% of the population pays no income tax at all while the top 5% hand over 50% of the taxes paid in this country. I'm not quite sure where the "fairness" is in that.

When you manipulate numbers, you can come up with figures like that. Unfortunately, it's a fallacy to the truth. First of all, you state that 50% pay no income taxes, and then go on to say that the top 5% pays over 50% of the taxes. What you fail to state is that the 50% who pay no federal "income tax" do pay payroll taxes. You also fail to include the fact that the top 5% of income earners pay very little in payroll taxes, which evens things out a great deal. On top of that, you are only including "income taxes" when you say the top 5% pays 50% of all taxes. This is an outright lie. They only pay around 30% of all federal taxes, yet they earn 45% of all income. Federal Income taxes only account for 40% of all federal revenues, so your statement is incorrect.

As for the 50% who do pay some in payroll taxes, they pay much higher rates in state taxes than the wealthy do. In all but a couple of states, the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage while the highest income earners pay the least.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nope, I went to cut them across the board.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do Republicans Really Want to Cut Taxes on the Wealthy and Raise Them on Everyone Else? - Yahoo! News

Hell facking yeah they want to. They still don't understand that those who hoard the majority of the country's wealth should be the ones paying more taxes, not the other way around to make it look "fair".

You may not have gotten the memo on this, Flaylo...but we've almost reached the point where fully 50% of the population pays no income tax at all while the top 5% hand over 50% of the taxes paid in this country. I'm not quite sure where the "fairness" is in that.

When you manipulate numbers, you can come up with figures like that. Unfortunately, it's a fallacy to the truth. First of all, you state that 50% pay no income taxes, and then go on to say that the top 5% pays over 50% of the taxes. What you fail to state is that the 50% who pay no federal "income tax" do pay payroll taxes. You also fail to include the fact that the top 5% of income earners pay very little in payroll taxes, which evens things out a great deal. On top of that, you are only including "income taxes" when you say the top 5% pays 50% of all taxes. This is an outright lie. They only pay around 30% of all federal taxes, yet they earn 45% of all income. Federal Income taxes only account for 40% of all federal revenues, so your statement is incorrect.

As for the 50% who do pay some in payroll taxes, they pay much higher rates in state taxes than the wealthy do. In all but a couple of states, the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage while the highest income earners pay the least.

How is what I posted a "fallacy"? I'm quite aware that the bottom 50% pay payroll taxes which is why I used the term "income tax". Here's the thing, Auditor...when the bottom 50% pays that payroll tax, on average they end up collecting far more out of the system than what they've paid in, which means in essence they aren't paying a tax at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well if the Bush tax cuts expire then everyones taxes should be raised. Fair is fair.

They would get more revenue from the middle class then they would from the wealthy. There just aren't enough wealthy people out there.

Why do you think the definition of "rich" has been changed to anyone making 200K a year?

News Flash: Making 200K a year does not make you rich. In fact at the 200K mark not only do you get whacked with the alternative minimum tax but you lose the ability to contribute to an IRA. And now the dimmies want to raise taxes on the so called rich people making 200K

 

[California Girl]

Wow, that is some UNBIASED article by Yahoo news.

What do you expect from a company that uses 'citizen' "journalists". You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.... someone should remind Yahoo of that.

On the funny side.... when I read the thread title I thought "Oh, yay! fail&won'tgo is finally learning to question what he reads. Imagine how much my gast was flabbered when I found that was not the case. With Fail&Won'tGo, it's SNAFU.

 

[The T]

Wow, that is some UNBIASED article by Yahoo news.

What do you expect from a company that uses 'citizen' "journalists". You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.... someone should remind Yahoo of that.

On the funny side.... when I read the thread title I thought "Oh, yay! fail&won'tgo is finally learning to question what he reads. Imagine how much my gast was flabbered when I found that was not the case. With Fail&Won'tGo, it's SNAFU.

And his mind is FUBAR.