tax breaks for the rich vs cuts for the people

[Jarhead]

Actually a valid point. While the book rate was at 70% I wonder what the actual % paid in taxes was back then compared to now, for various tax types. No one seems to discuss that.

It is more than a valid point.
It is the EXACT reason innovation was not stymied during the 70% tax rate years.
Anyone who was in business back then knows this.....and of course it is never discussed....it only hurts the liberal side of the debate.
And when it is boriught up? Well...first it is referred to as mentrally retarded by NY Carbineer....and then the lohgic is ignored.

Were Bill Gates and Paul Allen RICH in the 70's, when they were doing all this valuable innovation.

NO THEY WEREN"T, so the tax structure for the RICH didn't even apply to them. Which makes the original premise even more R E T A R D E D.

lol...you just can not apply intelligence....it is way too logical for you...so you simply say things and then call OTHERS retarded.

They were willing to invest time and money to make somethiung big.....soemthing they likely wouldnt have wanted to do if, in fact, there was a 70% actual loss of profits to taxes.

I cant argue this with you....you refuse to even TRY to understand how busines planners work.....what cost benefit analysis is all about....how it is applied and what criteria are applied when determining the viablity of a venture....

Thus why so many liberals hated the whole mortgage thing....they did not know the importance of considering the ramifications of a decision on a mortgage.

They simply went with "hey, it looks good to me"...and then whined and complained when they did not realize there was an alternative outcome to consider.....

Ironically...I have refinanced 4 times...and NEVER took an ARM......why? Becuase I know there is always the possibility of a down side to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe it's not being answered because it's a stupid question. We are taxing too much, we are spending too much. The bottom half pay virtually no taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of them.

What you are really asking is, do you want the "rest" to have jobs or get government checks and "services." Because whether or not you get the chance to screw the rich bastards you despise or not for having more money then you do, they create the jobs and taxing them more means you have more poor to give precious government benefits to. You can go with the typical liberal "no it's not," or you can go the logical route to prove what I say is wrong and disprove the entire field of economics in your next post.

It's funny the lengths the Right here will go to avoid answering the question.

Let me ask it again.

We cannot balance the budget without sacrifice.

What should the Rich sacrifice?

Let me add...

...if the Rich should be exempt from sacrificing, who shouldn't be? Who should the sacrifice be borne by?

Specifically.

Let me also add...

What should I have to sacrifice? I'm not rich; I make about 50 grand a year. My taxes are relatively high because I'm single no dependents.

What should I have to sacrifice that the Rich shouldn't?

YOU are the one asking for people (the rich) to scarifice.

No one else is.

The rest of us are saying, if you want to balance the budget, stop the spending...stop saying government can be there to suppoort the people...

Why?

Becuase they cant be there to support the people. They dont have the money to do so.
Go back to what you are supposed to do....

Stop paying for things like Cowboy Poetry.....and PBS that makes more than m0ost companies in America.....
stop promising people that if they have to dig hard to be comfortable, not to worry...government can make you comfortable..

Start telling people...."you are the one that gambled with an ARM...now do what you gotta do to dig out of the hole you created for yourself...."....and "you are the one who hoped your money will make money for you in the market....do what you gotta do to land on your feet again".....and...."you are the one who was too lazy to read the fine print and signed anyway....do what you gotta do to land on your feet again".....and...."you are the one who lied about your income on that NINJA loan...do what you gotta do to land on your feet again....

You falsely assume that the Rich have not shared in the BENEFIT of years of deficit spending.

 

[Jarhead]

It's funny the lengths the Right here will go to avoid answering the question.

Let me ask it again.

We cannot balance the budget without sacrifice.

What should the Rich sacrifice?

Let me add...

...if the Rich should be exempt from sacrificing, who shouldn't be? Who should the sacrifice be borne by?

Specifically.

Let me also add...

What should I have to sacrifice? I'm not rich; I make about 50 grand a year. My taxes are relatively high because I'm single no dependents.

What should I have to sacrifice that the Rich shouldn't?

YOU are the one asking for people (the rich) to scarifice.

No one else is.

The rest of us are saying, if you want to balance the budget, stop the spending...stop saying government can be there to suppoort the people...

Why?

Becuase they cant be there to support the people. They dont have the money to do so.
Go back to what you are supposed to do....

Stop paying for things like Cowboy Poetry.....and PBS that makes more than m0ost companies in America.....
stop promising people that if they have to dig hard to be comfortable, not to worry...government can make you comfortable..

Start telling people...."you are the one that gambled with an ARM...now do what you gotta do to dig out of the hole you created for yourself...."....and "you are the one who hoped your money will make money for you in the market....do what you gotta do to land on your feet again".....and...."you are the one who was too lazy to read the fine print and signed anyway....do what you gotta do to land on your feet again".....and...."you are the one who lied about your income on that NINJA loan...do what you gotta do to land on your feet again....

You falsely assume that the Rich have not shared in the BENEFIT of years of deficit spending.

No I dont...
I know all have shared in deficit spending.
But we are talking about "from here on in"....
And I think it is quite simple...
Stop many of the progrmas out there and let us all suffer for our greed and waste of the decades gone by...
And whoever suffers will become stronger for it in the long run.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe it's not being answered because it's a stupid question. We are taxing too much, we are spending too much. The bottom half pay virtually no taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of them.

What you are really asking is, do you want the "rest" to have jobs or get government checks and "services." Because whether or not you get the chance to screw the rich bastards you despise or not for having more money then you do, they create the jobs and taxing them more means you have more poor to give precious government benefits to. You can go with the typical liberal "no it's not," or you can go the logical route to prove what I say is wrong and disprove the entire field of economics in your next post.

Jeezus...You talk like my ex girl. Everything is emotional adjectives to make a point. No one hates the rich, there are rich liberals so according to you they hate themselves which is stupid as hell.

Second, they've had the tax breaks for 10 years. If tax breaks have anything to do with job creation like you are claiming. Where are the jobs?

Ill enjoy watching you explain how tax cuts dont really equal job creation and other factors come into play and essentially destroying your previous post

I have answered the question many times on here and I laugh at how no one on the left ever wish to respond...

So lets see if you do....

There were many more jobs created during the tax cut years than you are made aware of by the media...as if they analyzed what took place as I did...and I had to as it is my job to.....they would have recognized the following.....

1) There were a glut of unemployed that hit the streets following the dot com bubble burst.
2) there was a dramatic change in office technology in the early 2000's including individual voicemail and advanced graphics programs cutting back the need for support personnel in offices...such as receptionists and word processing staff.
3) there was a dramatic change in printing technology making advanced printing operations more automated and less expensive for mid sized companies....cutting back the need for personnel such as collaters and "copy clerks"
4) there was a a boom of the internet and the cpability of all to use boolean searches leading to a drastic reduction for the need of research department personnel....some in law major NYC law firms were reduced from over 100 to as few as 2
5) there was a dramatic increase in "internship" college programs that were deemed as good "training opportunities" and pushed on ALL companies by colleges and government.
6) There was your typical INCREASE in of age people entering the workforce...

Yet.....

Unemployment did NOT increase until we hit the expected recession that comes every 6-8 years.

Truth is, there was vaild reason to see unemployment increase based on all the reasons stated above....but it didnt.

There were millions of jobs created...companies grew...even though technology gave them reason not to.

Make sense?

So wait, unemployment did increase and just because you use the words "expected recession" doesnt take away from that. Another note recessions happen every 6 years? So the "Obama recession" is fasely labeled? Could those things you mentioned cause more unemployement? Sure, it's possible...but that is a theory, your theory. Maybe it's possible for jobs to dry up at the same time as they are being secretly created by others but where are the jobs? Dont tell me that the unemployment rate is where it is because the rich are creating jobs...lol.

 

[Bern80]

How about we drain the swamp and start out with a whole new tax system. Then we can make square wheels more effecient and dance through the lollipop fields.

Ugh, there are other solutions besides the "destroy and rebuild" scenarios that we know will not happen

Of course there are. Just not better ones. Other options are only going to further complicate an already too complicated tax code. This 14 trillion dollar debt is kind of a bad deal. It's not a problem that can be solved by cutting 60 billion here or a few hundred billion there. We have reached the point where government must reexamine and fundamentally change its role in society. The future simply can not afford for government to continue to spend money the way it does. Soon even China will not loan us anymore money.

The choice is up to the voters. If we the voters choose to be more secure and decides they don't want to give up the things government currently provides then they are also deciding to be less free due to the major tax hikes that will have to occur to continue to fund everything government does currently in our society.

Or..........we decide we are willing to accept the risks that more freedom brings. We are willing to accept responsibility for our conditions in outcomes. We accept that the only person truly obligated to provide for you is you. Whether that be financing your health care costs or your retirment or acquiring the skills to find a job that pays enough to provide the standard of living you desire.

 

[Jarhead]

Jeezus...You talk like my ex girl. Everything is emotional adjectives to make a point. No one hates the rich, there are rich liberals so according to you they hate themselves which is stupid as hell.

Second, they've had the tax breaks for 10 years. If tax breaks have anything to do with job creation like you are claiming. Where are the jobs?

Ill enjoy watching you explain how tax cuts dont really equal job creation and other factors come into play and essentially destroying your previous post

I have answered the question many times on here and I laugh at how no one on the left ever wish to respond...

So lets see if you do....

There were many more jobs created during the tax cut years than you are made aware of by the media...as if they analyzed what took place as I did...and I had to as it is my job to.....they would have recognized the following.....

1) There were a glut of unemployed that hit the streets following the dot com bubble burst.
2) there was a dramatic change in office technology in the early 2000's including individual voicemail and advanced graphics programs cutting back the need for support personnel in offices...such as receptionists and word processing staff.
3) there was a dramatic change in printing technology making advanced printing operations more automated and less expensive for mid sized companies....cutting back the need for personnel such as collaters and "copy clerks"
4) there was a a boom of the internet and the cpability of all to use boolean searches leading to a drastic reduction for the need of research department personnel....some in law major NYC law firms were reduced from over 100 to as few as 2
5) there was a dramatic increase in "internship" college programs that were deemed as good "training opportunities" and pushed on ALL companies by colleges and government.
6) There was your typical INCREASE in of age people entering the workforce...

Yet.....

Unemployment did NOT increase until we hit the expected recession that comes every 6-8 years.

Truth is, there was vaild reason to see unemployment increase based on all the reasons stated above....but it didnt.

There were millions of jobs created...companies grew...even though technology gave them reason not to.

Make sense?

So wait, unemployment did increase and just because you use the words "expected recession" doesnt take away from that. Another note recessions happen every 6 years? So the "Obama recession" is fasely labeled? Could those things you mentioned cause more unemployement? Sure, it's possible...but that is a theory, your theory. Maybe it's possible for jobs to dry up at the same time as they are being secretly created by others but where are the jobs? Dont tell me that the unemployment rate is where it is because the rich are creating jobs...lol.

OK...one answer at a time...

It is not a theory or a hidden fact that recessions are cyclical and occurr every 6-8 years. They are primarily based on market saturation of demand for goods...as technology changes, people purchase the new technology..the "better" product....and after a period of time, most who will buy that product have done so and therefore demand decreases...and this trickles down....retailers slow down thus manufacturing slows down, thus suppliers to the manufacturerers slow down, venodrs to the suppliers and so on. For example....flat screens came out and all strted purchasing them...after 5 or 6 years, those that wanted one, got one...and very few dispose of one and get a new one...until something more special comes out...maybe the 3D thing will be next.....

Second...the reason it is labelled as the Obama recession is becuase Obama decided to try a timulus. Many argued that it will stymie a recovery...of which usually is anywhere from as liottle as 6 months to as much as 18 months.....and after the 18 month point, it was no longer a cyclical recession....it was a stymied recession...and some believe that it was his stimulus that stymied it.....

As for what you refer to my theory...it is not theory...it is factual....Whenever new technology is created that can replace humans, it creates less of a demand for human labor. There used to be switchboard operators....one for 20 extensions per office...then came advanced phone systems and it was one receptionsist for every 40 extensions...now there is individual voice mail and only one recptionist for a company of over 200 people....

That is just one example..

In NYC....major law firms were able to cut down research departments by the dozens with the inroduction of Boolean search agents and advanced databases...

Every year more enter the workforce than leave it...that, too, is fact...so an even keel of the unemployment rate means jobs are being created.

The truth is there was great corporate growth in the 2000's...and then the recession hit and there was a dip. Happens everytime there is a recession.....you can not expect a manufacturer to keep costs level while sales are down...so they lay off and rehire when demand picks up.

Look...you can refute it all by saying it is theory.....but you cant refute the logiuc of what I presented.

It is what I do for a living....I study the employment market and the trends daily...what causes them and why.

Can I prove this? No. I will not reveal my identity on here....but I know what I know...and if you want to learn from it, great. If you want to argue it....go ahead...but I know you are wrong....becuase, as I said, this is what I do for a living.

 

[mnbasketball]

Class warfare: telling of truth that many don't care to hear or think about.

 

[Jarhead]

Class warfare: telling of truth that many don't care to hear or think about.

Class Warfare: The consequences of a political candidate calculating the numbers and deternmining what group of people is best to vilify for votes..
Now that being said...

The rich make up 5%

The not rich make up 95%

Wonder which party gets a benfit by creating class warfare.

 

[mnbasketball]

So what your saying is atomation screwed the middle class but those at the top don't have to take a hit because they make the choices. So were a doomed society just waiting till we can compete against countries like China and Tiwan.

This is not a recession either, it's what happpens when you allow the greedy to do as they wish unfettered, otherwords a theft that went bad, and of course it came from the upperclass pushing their greed to the limit after being unchecked by athourties who didn't feel there was a need of supervision.

 

[mnbasketball]

You don't create class warfare, it creates itself as people talk about what is, has and will happen the way things are. It's called talking about what is, IS.

 

[Jarhead]

So what your saying is atomation screwed the middle class but those at the top don't have to take a hit because they make the choices. So were a doomed society just waiting till we can compete against countries like China and Tiwan.

This is not a recession either, it's what happpens when you allow the greedy to do as they wish unfettered, otherwords a theft that went bad, and of course it came from the upperclass pushing their greed to the limit after being unchecked by athourties who didn't feel there was a need of supervision.

Automation did not screw the middle class....Those that made career decisions and moves without taking into consideration advances in technology screwede themselves.

I told my brother back in the late 90's that I saw his career as a researcher coming to an end and suggested he start enahncing other skills. He did not listen and he lost his job in 2004.

Question....who do you refer to as the greedy?

The ones that offered "the deal" or the ones that "took the deal"

Who was greedy....the mortgage broker or the borrower?

 

[Jarhead]

You don't create class warfare, it creates itself as people talk about what is, has and will happen the way things are. It's called talking about what is, IS.

And exactly who starts the conversation?

Politicians.

"vote for me and 95% of you will see more money in your paycheck"

"what is wrong with a little spreading the wealth?"

"people have been victimized by greedy wall streeters"

 

[mnbasketball]

The borrower wasn't trying to get rich, except of course those who had money and used it as a way to go after more. But it was those who provided the loans who allowed this to happen, and most of the faulty loans were push through by those who got paid for the amount of loans they provided, not how good of a loan it was.
Then throw in the fact of credit swaps and no regulation, people in the group of what we call the wealthy scammed the process until it imploded, only to have the middle class take the hit for it.

 

[mnbasketball]

And we can't talk about where we were, and we can't talk about were we are and we surely can't talk about where were headed because it will all be considered as class warfare by the right.

So I guess the answer is since we have so many people who aren't trained for improvement and the govt doesn't want to pay for them to improve, we will just have to have a bigger army, and larger amount of slumms for our not wealthy people to live in.

 

[Jarhead]

The borrower wasn't trying to get rich, except of course those who had money and used it as a way to go after more. But it was those who provided the loans who allowed this to happen, and most of the faulty loans were push through by those who got paid for the amount of loans they provided, not how good of a loan it was.
Then throw in the fact of credit swaps and no regulation, people in the group of what we call the wealthy scammed the process until it imploded, only to have the middle class take the hit for it.

Wrong.
100% wrong.
Now learn something so you can debate with confidence.

Most of the refis that went bad were ARM's and NINJAs

The ARM's were offered as a way for a borrower to take cash out or lower his payment or both. It was legally presented as a way for one to maximize their spending power....with the understanding that after a few years at a very low rate, the rate will jump up to prime rate plus X. THey asked the lender how they could handle such an increase and the lender said "you can refi again when that happens and get a fixed rate.....rpoblem was, the value of the home went down and so they couldnt refi...something I knew and all SHOULD KNOW...and why I opted 4 different times NOT to maximize my spending power and instead take a fixed rate. I did not let MY GREED cloud my judgement.

The NINJAS...no income no employment check loans were offered as a convenience to borrowers...it sped up the process as the processing centers were flooded and lonas were taking MONTHS to get CTC's (clear to close)....and rates were expiring before they even had a chance to close....so they left it up to the borrowers to be honest about their income and employment history. The underwriters were told to analyze the viability of the loan based on the numbers the borrower SWORE to when they signed the application.
Well...many lied and inflated the numbers so they could get the loan the couldnt afford.
Their greed is what prompted them to do it.

Now......THAT is what hapopened and why....The MBS are a different story.....investors lost out due to the MBS industry bundling shit up and selling them....

But it all trickled down to the greed of the borrowers that started the snowball...and then the greed of the rich helped soak them dry as well.

 

[ClosedCaption]

man, there is a hundred reasons not to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. You guys are right if anyone deserves to be comfortable its the rich. Boy, oh boy I hope they make jobs instead of buying prostitutes but lets just give it to 'em and hope for the best. BUT FIRST lets SLASH the call of the 95%'s have paid into but, dont talk about a higher tax rate, no sir re.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm asking what sacrifice the Rich should make towards balancing the budget,

since to balance the budget, sacrifices MUST be made.

So far the answer, from conservatives here, via silence, is NONE.

Are you in agreement? Do you believe the Rich should be exempted from sacrifice needed to balance the budget?

Should all of that sacrifice fall on the non-Rich?

So paying over 70% of all taxes paid isn't enough? Figures.

That's why leftists are parasites. Grow government, take more from the individuals who earn and make the country work. Give to other poor parasites to help keep their power because they outnumber the rich.

Should the Rich pay their 'fair share'? Shit. They're paying MORE than their 'fair share'. How about the Poor finally pony up THEIR 'fair share', hmmmm? End the wealth redistribution and force them to pay a pittance. 10% maybe. Let's end 'Second Christmas' that currently is on every April 15th.

Won't this country benefit more by forcing these people to earn more money to survive, and tax it, just like the middle and upper class currently do?

Your paradigm is upside down. The rich already do more than they should.

And BTW, where's the sacrifice in government? You know, the ones CAUSING this crisis? Where is THEIR sacrifice?

Ok, there's one more rightwing vote for the Rich being exempt from sharing the sacrifice needed to balance the budget. I think that sentiment on the Right is almost unanimous.

Sounds like the Right is allied with the Rich class, in warfare against the un-Rich class. Isn't there a name for war based on class? Now, what would that be....hmmm...

Still avoiding the cause of the injury and asking for more economic opium. Your only answer seems to be 'steal from the rich'.

Yet another whackaloon lib preaching their religion's mantra.

 

[sealybobo]

Infographic: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts






ThinkProgress » Show Me The Money: As Colorado Slashes Funds For Education, Tom Cruise Pays $400 In Property Taxes


Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) is proposing a massive $375 million cut to education funding and proposing to close four state parks. Meanwhile, Tom Cruise, whose net worth exceeds $250 million, pays Colorado just $400 a year in property taxes for a 248 -acre property outside of Telluride that he purchased for $18 million.

How does he do it? By manipulating a tax break designed to help struggling farmers. The Denver Post reports

With reference to the title of the OP:

The bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006. In other words, these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code. This happens through refundable credits like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which result in "refunds" when they are greater than the taxpayer's total income tax liability.

For instance, if a family with one child has an income tax liability of $300, it can claim the Child Tax Credit, which wipes out their tax liability, and still receive $700 from the IRS for the remainder of the $1,000 credit. On April 15, not only do the bottom 40 percent of all taxpayers pay no taxes, but they actually receive additional income from the IRS.

Refundable credits redistribute income from the top 20 percent of earners to the remaining tax filers, with the bottom 20 percent the prime beneficiaries. The bottom quintile's share of income, measured after taxes, actually increased a whopping 17 percent compared to its pre-tax levels because of the income they got from refundable credits. Comparing shares of income before taxes are paid to after, only the top quintile saw their share of income decline.The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes | The Heritage Foundation

Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.From Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorroh"

Pay the poor more and they'll pay more taxes.

 

[sealybobo]

What's this?!?!?!?

Filthy rich liberoidals use every available tax break to avoid "paying their fair share"?!?!???

Well, I'll be dipped!

We should raise their taxes! So you finally agree with us?

 

[sealybobo]

fREE aDVICE.. LIBTARDS..





CLASS WARFARE WON'T WORK OUT FOR YA.. IT JUST WON'T

But it did work out from 1950 to 2000. The rich fought back. We got lazy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight back does it?