GOP support a raise in taxes

[Skynet]

Wow are you stupid.


Or are you going to say that it isn't the exact same wording so not the same thing? It is the exact same meaning. Or do you not understand the meaning of what you write?

so the "average middle class person will not benefit" means the "average middle class person will benefit" in your mind?

guess the word not escaped you there

I guess the idea that "not benefit as much as" means they will benefit.
Are you really stupid or just afraid to admit you're wrong?

The top 1% would get an annual average reduction of $261,000, a 14.8 percentage point drop.

Meanwhile, Americans in the lowest 20% of income would see their taxes drop by an average of only $23

well if you wanna get super technical i guess $23 is a benefit. compares to $261,000

Put another way, Americans who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will see their after-tax income increase by 1.7%, while Americans who earn more than $1 million will see a 24.1% bump.

and i guess $241,000 is equal to $850

retard.

 

[The Rabbi]

so the "average middle class person will not benefit" means the "average middle class person will benefit" in your mind?

guess the word not escaped you there

I guess the idea that "not benefit as much as" means they will benefit.
Are you really stupid or just afraid to admit you're wrong?

The top 1% would get an annual average reduction of $261,000, a 14.8 percentage point drop.

Meanwhile, Americans in the lowest 20% of income would see their taxes drop by an average of only $23

well if you wanna get super technical i guess $23 is a benefit. compares to $261,000

Put another way, Americans who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will see their after-tax income increase by 1.7%, while Americans who earn more than $1 million will see a 24.1% bump.

and i guess $241,000 is equal to $850

retard.

You can't admit you fucked up and I'm the retard?
No, I dont think so.

 

[Skynet]

I guess the idea that "not benefit as much as" means they will benefit.
Are you really stupid or just afraid to admit you're wrong?

The top 1% would get an annual average reduction of $261,000, a 14.8 percentage point drop.

Meanwhile, Americans in the lowest 20% of income would see their taxes drop by an average of only $23

well if you wanna get super technical i guess $23 is a benefit. compared to $261,000

Put another way, Americans who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will see their after-tax income increase by 1.7%, while Americans who earn more than $1 million will see a 24.1% bump.

and i guess $241,000 is equal to $850

retard.

You can't admit you fucked up and I'm the retard?
No, I dont think so.

well if you wanna get super technical i guess $23 is a benefit. compares to $261,000
and i guess $241,000 is equal to $850


just the benefit i was talking about for all those middle class people

 

[Missourian]

If you truly believe that having a very small percentage of people increase their wealth exponentially while the rest of the people's wealth diminishes than nobody can help you. This is exactly what has been happening over the last 30 years. If it continues, eventually there will be a revolution. History has proven this time and time again.

I used to support much of this type of thinking. The difference is that I see how much it has hurt us as a country. It is the main reason that our kids, as a whole, will have a lower standard of living than our generation, and it will only get worse from there if we continue with policies that reward an elite class of people while completely neglecting the needs of the masses.

Income taxes, which is the topic we are discussing, only apply to money that is earned.

It isn't a "reward" to keep the same percentage of what one earns as everyone else.

That's called justice, equality, and equal treatment.

On a separate topic:

For the record, I agree that we will need to increase taxes.

But first, spending needs to be cut to the bone.

If we raise taxes before spending is cut, spending won't be cut...congress will just kick the can down the road....again.

then why does every GOP solution continue the mantra of cutting taxes? look at Pawlenty's plans, he wants to eliminate all together the capital gains tax, interest income tax, dividends tax and the death tax. all which favor only the wealthy.

I don't know.

I do know that there is not enough budget cutting available to pay off the national debt.

We are going to have to eventually raise income taxes to pay on that debt.

Hopefully, we can structure that increase in such a way that the proceeds ONLY go to paying the national debt.

 

[Missourian]

You're not comparing apples to apples, either. Governments can't be run like restaurants are.

The restaurant is irrelevant.

I'm not responsible for paying your share just because I make more money.

Whether it's your share of the food and service at a restaurant or your share of taxes for government protections, opportunities and services.

Government does not exist for the purpose of making a profit off the taxpayers.

Also, your taxes go into a huge "pot," if you will, so to think of them as paying "someone else's share" is meaningless. You have no idea whether your check is going to roads, ICBMs, or welfare programs, and neither does anyone else.

You are deflecting.

Half of American's population puts money in the pot from which all Americans benefit.

All American's should share, if not equally, then proportionally equally to the pot.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The restaurant is irrelevant.

I'm not responsible for paying your share just because I make more money.

Whether it's your share of the food and service at a restaurant or your share of taxes for government protections, opportunities and services.

Government does not exist for the purpose of making a profit off the taxpayers.

Also, your taxes go into a huge "pot," if you will, so to think of them as paying "someone else's share" is meaningless. You have no idea whether your check is going to roads, ICBMs, or welfare programs, and neither does anyone else.

You are deflecting.

Half of American's population puts money in the pot from which all Americans benefit.

All American's should share, if not equally, then proportionally equally to the pot.

We agree that all Americans who earn income should share in the same year that they earn it. We just differ on the rate at which they should share.

 

[Missourian]

Government does not exist for the purpose of making a profit off the taxpayers.

Also, your taxes go into a huge "pot," if you will, so to think of them as paying "someone else's share" is meaningless. You have no idea whether your check is going to roads, ICBMs, or welfare programs, and neither does anyone else.

You are deflecting.

Half of American's population puts money in the pot from which all Americans benefit.

All American's should share, if not equally, then proportionally equally to the pot.

We agree that all Americans who earn income should share in the same year that they earn it. We just differ on the rate at which they should share.

Fair enough.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think a graduated tax system constitutes 'unequal treatment;' after all, every person is subject to the same tax code, and high earners pay the same on their lower scale earnings as anyone else. I pay 35% of everything in excess of $379,150 - Of course in my case that's 35% of zero.

No matter how idiotic an argument is, there will always be someone bonehead liberal willing to use it.

If a person's entire earnings were taxed at the higher rate once you break the threshold (which perhaps some of you think they are... Divey did ), perhaps you'd have a case.

The above statement is incomprehensible gibberish.

I do agree we shouldn't be protecting charity via the tax code however, especially since so many 'Non-profit organizations' are at best only tentatively so.

So you want to get rid of charity. How beautifully liberal!

The liberal mentality is fundamentally opposed to charity because it believes government should be the only alternative for the disadvantaged.

It's difficult to comprehend the idiocies that liberals believe.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I don't think a graduated tax system constitutes 'unequal treatment;' after all, every person is subject to the same tax code, and high earners pay the same on their lower scale earnings as anyone else. I pay 35% of everything in excess of $379,150 - Of course in my case that's 35% of zero.

No matter how idiotic an argument is, there will always be someone bonehead liberal willing to use it.

Or a bonehead right winger.

If a person's entire earnings were taxed at the higher rate once you break the threshold (which perhaps some of you think they are... Divey did ), perhaps you'd have a case.

The above statement is incomprehensible gibberish.

Makes perfect sense to IQs in the triple digits.

I do agree we shouldn't be protecting charity via the tax code however, especially since so many 'Non-profit organizations' are at best only tentatively so.

So you want to get rid of charity. How beautifully liberal!

The liberal mentality is fundamentally opposed to charity because it believes government should be the only alternative for the disadvantaged.

It's difficult to comprehend the idiocies that liberals believe.

It's depressing that anyone would be stupid enough to thank or rep you for this.

 

[grunt11b]

Two top Republican lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy -an idea the White House is weighing– because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

- Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas

GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

uh oh! you mean tax cuts dont stimulate the economy?

Due to Progressive legislation throughout the years, hard decisions have to be made now. When they government is spending more then it is taking in, what is the answer? The government will have to stop unnecessary spending, and take in more revenue in order to sustain itself. If you hate the idea that you might have to pay higher taxes, then blame all of the progressives in the Democrat/Republican party throughout the years that have spent money we did not have. It's not the Republicans "The new conservatives" fault that the Democrats "Kicked the can down the road" in 2010 and left it up to them to make these hard decisions.
This whole budget deal, was supposed to have been signed by the Democrats when they controlled both house and senate in 2010, they "For the first time in American history" failed to sign a budget, and they did it because they knew they could use it against fiscal conservatives by forcing them to make the right/hard choices for this country.
Dont blame this on Republicans, when the Democrats had full control over this issue and did nothing.

 

[Urkie]

Due to Progressive legislation throughout the years, hard decisions have to be made now. When they government is spending more then it is taking in, what is the answer? The government will have to stop unnecessary spending, and take in more revenue in order to sustain itself. If you hate the idea that you might have to pay higher taxes, then blame all of the progressives in the Democrat/Republican party throughout the years that have spent money we did not have. It's not the Republicans "The new conservatives" fault that the Democrats "Kicked the can down the road" in 2010 and left it up to them to make these hard decisions.
This whole budget deal, was supposed to have been signed by the Democrats when they controlled both house and senate in 2010, they "For the first time in American history" failed to sign a budget, and they did it because they knew they could use it against fiscal conservatives by forcing them to make the right/hard choices for this country.
Dont blame this on Republicans, when the Democrats had full control over this issue and did nothing.

The political game going on in Washington is nothing new. Republicans have been pretty outspoken that they know exactly how to fix the economy and budget situation so lets see them fix it.

Every move made by the Democrats is quickly criticized anyway even though every major piece of legislation that they passed from 2008-2010 had some kind of conservative compromise in it. They could have really pissed you guys off if they went ahead and raised taxes, added Universal Health Care and cut defense spending.

 

[Cuyo]

I did.

DO you not understand what tax credits are?
Do you knwo what LIHTC are? Section 42?

Read up on it.

Got a lunch meeting....cya

i dont think you understand the difference between personal taxes and business taxes...

Im back.

And yes...I do understand the difference. Afterall, I am a business owner. My company specializes in business planning and human resource solutions. Part of what I do is analyze the tax advantages of alternative decisions.

You see....there are many different ways a company can avoid paying taxes...but by no means does it mean the company is not paying their fair share.

For example....in an LLC...or an S-corp.....the ownership can leave excess revenue available at the end of the calandar year....and that will be taxed....or he/she can take the excess revenue as a distribution and have their existing corporate liquid capital be near 0 and pay no corporate taxes.....BUT....now they will pay it as personal taxes...so either way, tax is paid on the money.

In a large corporation.....the "profits" can be distributed as bonuses.....and therfore very little left to be taxed....but those bonuses? They are now personal income for the recipients of the bonuses...and they must pay taxes on them.

So you see.....even with tax credits aside.....whether or not corporations pay taxes is irrelevant......as the revenue (profit) is ultimately taxed anyway.

Seems to me you listen to the rhetoric...and dont really understand the situation.

Well said.

Could not the same be said about illegal immigrants who 'Pay no taxes?' (which in my experience, isn't many - The ones I've known pay them under a false SSN, which is a boon to the system as they can never collect - Another topic entirely). Sure, if I'm paying someone under the table, they 'Pay no taxes,' but that cash flow came from someplace didn't it? It's either my personal earnings which were taxed, or business earnings which will be taxed at the end of the year.

For the record I don't pay anyone under the table, except on occasion, one of my employees' teenage sons who comes in and helps out from time to time. But it doesn't mean I can't pontificate on the issue.

 

[KissMy]

Obama has cut taxes more than Bush ever did.

Obama the Silent Tax Cutter

You wouldn’t know it, but he’s cut taxes more than George W. Bush did in his first term... Obama is one of the most prolific tax cutters in recent history... Obama has cut taxes to lower levels than Bush did...

Obama planned on cutting taxes even before he became president.

Obama may delay tax-cut rollback for wealthy

President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said... His aides' comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt.

 

[Full-Auto]

Obama has cut taxes more than Bush ever did.

Obama the Silent Tax Cutter

You wouldn’t know it, but he’s cut taxes more than George W. Bush did in his first term... Obama is one of the most prolific tax cutters in recent history... Obama has cut taxes to lower levels than Bush did...

Obama planned on cutting taxes even before he became president.

Obama may delay tax-cut rollback for wealthy

President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said... His aides' comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt.

Crunching the numbers at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress,

Would that be Fuzzy Math University?