If some peoples taxes are going up

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is so fuckin' weird. Why are you defending a rich person's low tax rate? You think they give a shit what your tax rate is?

Probably not. The only thing people should care about are what their tax rate is.......including you. Given the fact the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of all collected federal income tax, and that's not enough, then what percentage should they be paying?

 

[OnePercenter]

In a sane world, the wealthy would pay a higher percentage of their income than the middle class or the working poor. In a sane world, we would all pay a bit more and start bringing down the National Debt. But this is not a sane world. It is one where ignoramuses decide what is real science, one in which economic policies that have already failed twice, trickle down, are still being pushed by one of the major political parties.

By "sane" you mean forcing the ambitious and successful people to subsidize the weak? There is a word for that

By "ambitious" do you mean predator?

Amazon, Walmart, UBER, and Lyft are all predator companies who prey on not only who work/contract, but on their customers who "think" they are getting a good deal, AND established companies who are not only hurt but in some cases bankrupted.

 

[g5000]

“Don’t believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.”

 

[g5000]

“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.”

 

[The Derp]

Prove it.

From the Joint Committee on Taxation

You can see the rate changes yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Wow. Are you really this dumb or are you being facetious?

He's being a troll.

 

[The Derp]

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

As usual, you can't take what a Conservatives says truthfully because they're always lying to distort the picture.

20 million new jobs? No. 15 million. So you're lying by exaggeration.

Huge economic growth? No. Going from $6T to $8T isn't "huge economic growth".

And what of the deficit that doubled and the debt that tripled? Somehow deficit and debt concerns don't matter to you as much when you're trying to play make-believe.

 

[The Derp]

No, he didn't.

Too bad for you that he did. He even called it "trickle down" himself.

His running mate was a twat.

You're a twat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prove it.

From the Joint Committee on Taxation

You can see the rate changes yourself.

Thanks for the link.

So where is the hike on the poor?
Going from 9.1% down to 8.6%, going from -0.7% down to -1.0%, or maybe going from 3.9% down to 3.6%?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

As usual, you can't take what a Conservatives says truthfully because they're always lying to distort the picture.

20 million new jobs? No. 15 million. So you're lying by exaggeration.

Huge economic growth? No. Going from $6T to $8T isn't "huge economic growth".

And what of the deficit that doubled and the debt that tripled? Somehow deficit and debt concerns don't matter to you as much when you're trying to play make-believe.

Huge economic growth? No. Going from $6T to $8T isn't "huge economic growth".

Yes, huge economic growth.

 

[TNHarley]

Its not immature. That was terrible terminology.

Nope. It's immature. That's your position. One that Grover Norquist had at 14. You're basically in a state of arrested development. That's not something I can help. You gotta fix that deficiency all on your own. You up to it? Can you put in the minimal effort required? I'm not so sure...

We shouldnt have an income tax. If our fed gov wasnt so fucking bloated, we wouldnt need it.

This is the immaturity I'm talking about. We have a nation of 320,000,000 people and an economy that is about $20T in size. We need a large, strong bureaucracy to manage that.

Conservatives live in a fantasyland where people should act, instead of reality where people really act.

I beg to differ. My 8 year old son owes tens of thousands of dollars doing it your way. I believe it's time for a change.

 

[OnePercenter]

Its not immature. That was terrible terminology.

Nope. It's immature. That's your position. One that Grover Norquist had at 14. You're basically in a state of arrested development. That's not something I can help. You gotta fix that deficiency all on your own. You up to it? Can you put in the minimal effort required? I'm not so sure...

We shouldnt have an income tax. If our fed gov wasnt so fucking bloated, we wouldnt need it.

This is the immaturity I'm talking about. We have a nation of 320,000,000 people and an economy that is about $20T in size. We need a large, strong bureaucracy to manage that.

Conservatives live in a fantasyland where people should act, instead of reality where people really act.

I beg to differ. My 8 year old son owes tens of thousands of dollars doing it your way. I believe it's time for a change.

You mean tax breaks for the rich and shit wages for the workers.

 

[TNHarley]

Its not immature. That was terrible terminology.

Nope. It's immature. That's your position. One that Grover Norquist had at 14. You're basically in a state of arrested development. That's not something I can help. You gotta fix that deficiency all on your own. You up to it? Can you put in the minimal effort required? I'm not so sure...

We shouldnt have an income tax. If our fed gov wasnt so fucking bloated, we wouldnt need it.

This is the immaturity I'm talking about. We have a nation of 320,000,000 people and an economy that is about $20T in size. We need a large, strong bureaucracy to manage that.

Conservatives live in a fantasyland where people should act, instead of reality where people really act.

I beg to differ. My 8 year old son owes tens of thousands of dollars doing it your way. I believe it's time for a change.

You mean tax breaks for the rich and shit wages for the workers.

Tax breaks for the rich are happening now. Ever hear of people bitching about taxes?

 

[Brain357]

You know, I'm still wondering why the corporations are going to have their taxes cut permanently, while the rest of us average citizens will get tax breaks that will expire in 10 years.

And yeah, I'm going to be watching VERY closely when I file this time for taxes. Why? Because when I retired, I calculated what my withholdings should be so that the government didn't get to hold on to my money for a year and then send me a big rebate in April, but yet enough was withheld so that I didn't have to pay in anything either.

Generally, for the past 10 years or so, I usually end up with a rebate check of 2 to 3 dollars, or maybe I have to pay a dollar or two.

If my rates go up this time, I'm going to know immediately.

Isnt that how the corporate tax rate always is?

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation, but it has yet to work.

Personally, I think that the tax cuts for the citizens should be permanent, and tell the corporations that we will cut their taxes for 10 years, but if they don't move jobs back to the USA, they will return to current rates after 10 years have passed.

That would incentivize companies to bring jobs back here.

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation

No he didn't.

but it has yet to work.

Cutting rates works every time it's tried.

What is the definition of works? Reagan tripled the debt.

What is the definition of works?

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

At the cost of tripling the debt. Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget. Shouldn't that be our goal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isnt that how the corporate tax rate always is?

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation, but it has yet to work.

Personally, I think that the tax cuts for the citizens should be permanent, and tell the corporations that we will cut their taxes for 10 years, but if they don't move jobs back to the USA, they will return to current rates after 10 years have passed.

That would incentivize companies to bring jobs back here.

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation

No he didn't.

but it has yet to work.

Cutting rates works every time it's tried.

What is the definition of works? Reagan tripled the debt.

What is the definition of works?

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

At the cost of tripling the debt. Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget. Shouldn't that be our goal?

At the cost of tripling the debt.

I know! Added $1.6 trillion, won the Cold War huge growth in GDP.
Compare that to Obama, added $9.3 trillion, lost Libya, flooded Europe with refugees and averaged less than 1.5% GDP growth.

Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget.

Sure, he slashed defense and then Gingrich held the line on domestic spending.
You don't think the Internet Bubble was caused by his middle class tax cut...errr...I mean tax hike...

 

[Brain357]

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation, but it has yet to work.

Personally, I think that the tax cuts for the citizens should be permanent, and tell the corporations that we will cut their taxes for 10 years, but if they don't move jobs back to the USA, they will return to current rates after 10 years have passed.

That would incentivize companies to bring jobs back here.

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation

No he didn't.

but it has yet to work.

Cutting rates works every time it's tried.

What is the definition of works? Reagan tripled the debt.

What is the definition of works?

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

At the cost of tripling the debt. Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget. Shouldn't that be our goal?

At the cost of tripling the debt.

I know! Added $1.6 trillion, won the Cold War huge growth in GDP.
Compare that to Obama, added $9.3 trillion, lost Libya, flooded Europe with refugees and averaged less than 1.5% GDP growth.

Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget.

Sure, he slashed defense and then Gingrich held the line on domestic spending.
You don't think the Internet Bubble was caused by his middle class tax cut...errr...I mean tax hike...

Yes Clinton had better economic numbers than Reagan while balancing the budget. I don't see why that wouldn't be our goal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation

No he didn't.

but it has yet to work.

Cutting rates works every time it's tried.

What is the definition of works? Reagan tripled the debt.

What is the definition of works?

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

At the cost of tripling the debt. Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget. Shouldn't that be our goal?

At the cost of tripling the debt.

I know! Added $1.6 trillion, won the Cold War huge growth in GDP.
Compare that to Obama, added $9.3 trillion, lost Libya, flooded Europe with refugees and averaged less than 1.5% GDP growth.

Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget.

Sure, he slashed defense and then Gingrich held the line on domestic spending.
You don't think the Internet Bubble was caused by his middle class tax cut...errr...I mean tax hike...

Yes Clinton has better economic numbers than Reagan while balancing the budget. I don't see why that wouldn't be our goal.

Yes, the Internet Bubble was cool.

 

[Brain357]

What is the definition of works? Reagan tripled the debt.

What is the definition of works?

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

At the cost of tripling the debt. Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget. Shouldn't that be our goal?

At the cost of tripling the debt.

I know! Added $1.6 trillion, won the Cold War huge growth in GDP.
Compare that to Obama, added $9.3 trillion, lost Libya, flooded Europe with refugees and averaged less than 1.5% GDP growth.

Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget.

Sure, he slashed defense and then Gingrich held the line on domestic spending.
You don't think the Internet Bubble was caused by his middle class tax cut...errr...I mean tax hike...

Yes Clinton has better economic numbers than Reagan while balancing the budget. I don't see why that wouldn't be our goal.

Yes, the Internet Bubble was cool.

So was balancing the budget. So then you agree we should be following that policy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You know, Reagan tried to tell us that "trickle down" was a workable model for taxation

No he didn't.

but it has yet to work.

Cutting rates works every time it's tried.

What is the definition of works? Reagan tripled the debt.

What is the definition of works?

For Reagan, huge economic growth, 20 million new jobs.

At the cost of tripling the debt. Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget. Shouldn't that be our goal?

At the cost of tripling the debt.

I know! Added $1.6 trillion, won the Cold War huge growth in GDP.
Compare that to Obama, added $9.3 trillion, lost Libya, flooded Europe with refugees and averaged less than 1.5% GDP growth.

Compare to Clinton who had better economic numbers and balanced the budget.

Sure, he slashed defense and then Gingrich held the line on domestic spending.
You don't think the Internet Bubble was caused by his middle class tax cut...errr...I mean tax hike...

Yes Clinton had better economic numbers than Reagan while balancing the budget. I don't see why that wouldn't be our goal.

Congress makes out the budget. You give Clinton way too much credit. No matter what the Republicans come out with, the Democrats will fight against it like all other legislation they proposed such as Kate's Law.

 

[ClosedCaption]

why is the left bitching? Dont most of them say we should raise the tax rate?

Not sure what this means. You want higher taxes or you dont care about higher taxes because the left likes it?