Cutting taxes sounds great till

[Skull Pilot]

Private businesses do not exist to benefit the country.

You're right, businesses don't. That's what the government is for. I never said businesses existed for the well being of the country. I asked about government policies. If taxes on big businesses are reduced, in order to benefit the country with the hopes that such cuts will allow companies to create more jobs...but the jobs are not created, why should the government retain those tax cuts? What benefit to the country comes from such government policies?

The more money left in the hands of the people the better it is. Government is not a prudent steward.

 

[MikeK]

Cutting taxes would be great. I'd love to have more money in my paycheck. Not sure why you think being affected by allowing me to keep more of my hard earned money would be a bad thing.

If the income tax rate of the average earner is increased by one percent it will mean the difference of a few dollars less in their paychecks. But for the billionaires and multi-millionaires who have become excessively wealthy because of incremental reductions in the progressive tax rate the difference will be sufficient to pay down the deficit.

And unless one is in the $250k+ earning bracket a restoration of the pre-Reagan progressive tax rate will not affect him at all.

 

[logical4u]

Cutting taxes sounds great till those cuts affect you. America is understanding more every day about what is going on here since the election. Tax cutting has consequences and when most all the cuts go to help one sector of the nation while everything else is force to either cut benefits or programs or make the general public do without or get by with less.

What were told is govt is costing us too much, and it should be cut. Putting money in the hands of people who will create jobs was/is being the big push behind most tax cuts, but where are the JOBS?

People who have money have proven that if you can get to this point where you can use that money you can increase your wealth and never lift a finger, create a job, start a business or help anyone but their own self worth.

So what is the new group in congress all about, there is only one thing that shows up at every step of the process, make the rich have a better oppertunity to get wealthier and those in the middle made to pick up more of the cost of running our nation and our local govts.

So we get to that point when we have the top 20% who have anything they want, the next 20% who have a decent life and then the rest of you that have so little chance to improve it will be sad.

Raising "taxes sounds great till those" raises "affect you. America is understanding more every day about what is going on here since the election. Tax" raising "has consequences and when most all the" taxes "go to help one sector of the nation while everything else is force"d to either cut benefits or programs" (for their families and themselves) "or make the" working "public do without or get by with less.

What were told is govt is costing us too much, and it should be cut. Putting money in the hands of people who will create jobs was/is being the big push behind most tax cuts, but where are the JOBS?

People who have money have proven that if you can get to this point where you can use that money you can increase your wealth and never lift a finger, create a job, start a business or help anyone but their own self worth." Do you have a link/evidence this is so? Economics lesson: money 'invested' is money that is used to start new businesses or hire more people.

"So what is the new group in congress all about, there is only one thing that shows up at every step of the process, make the" people that earn enough money to pay taxes are no longer punished as harshly by having to give more of their money to government programs that they disagree with and would never voluntarily support and "have a better oppertunity to get wealthier and those in the middle" will have to pay their 'fair' share "to pick up more of the cost of running our nation and our local govts.

So we get to that point when we have the top 20% who have anything they want" (can you define that please, because I am not wealthy, but would be considered so by your definition here and could not 'afford' to put my children into the schools that were 'high end', they had to settle for community college, though the taxes I paid would have paid the tuition for one semester, easily in a 'good' college)", the next 20% who have a decent life and then the rest of you that have so little chance to improve it will be sad."

Question: how can people from other countries come here with very little, take the lowest paying jobs and after 20 or 30 years of hard work, have enough money to retire, comfortably?

What is the difference between growing up in this country 'poor' and coming here from another country without knowing the language or the system? In many cases, the government gives NOTHING to the 'legal' immigrant, and yet they manage to 'learn', improve, and prosper. What is the difference?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Trending more towards laissez faire; not "is" laissez faire. The results thus far have been disastrous, and all I hear is that we need to do MORE laissez faire?

What specifically are you referring to?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Know who said these famous words and meant it.

famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

This should be put on every republicans quotes as it speaks volume as to who they are and who they represent.

I think it's become obvious that you're just here to troll. Everyone would do well to stop talking to you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In NYC, there is Welfare, so how can you assume that without it there'd be enough Shelter and Food? You can't, quite frankly. Without the safety net, ESPECIALLY in NYC, Homelessness and Hunger existing now would be increased exponentially.

I highly doubt that. You'd be surprised how hunger is a motivator to get off your ass and find a job and to also think twice about the choices you make, knowing that other people's money won't be available to carry your weight if you screw up.

Rudy Giuliani got a million people off the welfare rolls in the 90s and poverty went down, not up.

 

[MikeK]

The more money left in the hands of the people the better it is. Government is not a prudent steward.

The flaw in that reasoning is the relatively obscure fact that the super-rich do not inhabit the "people" category. They are a de facto aristocracy -- a ruling class by virtue of their excessive wealth. And a great deal of that wealth is being brought to bear for the singular purpose of preventing government from being a prudent steward.

The way that is done is by dominating the media and deploying a cadre of efficient propagandists to mobilize a following of ignorant acolytes and convert them to the Gordon Gecko philosophy, which holds that greed is good and government is bad.

Government is to the super-rich what the crucifix is to vampires. Thus their compulsive need to corrupt it.

 

[Jarhead]

Cutting taxes would be great. I'd love to have more money in my paycheck. Not sure why you think being affected by allowing me to keep more of my hard earned money would be a bad thing.

If the income tax rate of the average earner is increased by one percent it will mean the difference of a few dollars less in their paychecks. But for the billionaires and multi-millionaires who have become excessively wealthy because of incremental reductions in the progressive tax rate the difference will be sufficient to pay down the deficit.

And unless one is in the $250k+ earning bracket a restoration of the pre-Reagan progressive tax rate will not affect him at all.

the fact that you use that 250K number speaks volumes of where you get your information from.

A small business owner with a family of four living in the NYC tri state area making 250K is, at best, middle class.

You are a puppetr of the left wing talking heads.

That one little thing....250K...siad it all.

Nite all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The more money left in the hands of the people the better it is. Government is not a prudent steward.

The flaw in that reasoning is the relatively obscure fact that the super-rich do not inhabit the "people" category. They are a de facto aristocracy -- a ruling class by virtue of their excessive wealth. And a great deal of that wealth is being brought to bear for the singular purpose of preventing government from being a prudent steward.

The way that is done is by dominating the media and deploying a cadre of efficient propagandists to mobilize a following of ignorant acolytes and convert them to the Gordon Gecko philosophy, which holds that greed is good and government is bad.

Government is to the super-rich what the crucifix is to vampires. Thus their compulsive need to corrupt it.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington

Government is not your friend. I don't care if you're rich or poor. The more of one's own money one is allowed to keep, the better off we all are.

 

[sinister59]

Cutting taxes sounds great till those cuts affect you. America is understanding more every day about what is going on here since the election. Tax cutting has consequences and when most all the cuts go to help one sector of the nation while everything else is force to either cut benefits or programs or make the general public do without or get by with less.

What were told is govt is costing us too much, and it should be cut. Putting money in the hands of people who will create jobs was/is being the big push behind most tax cuts, but where are the JOBS?

People who have money have proven that if you can get to this point where you can use that money you can increase your wealth and never lift a finger, create a job, start a business or help anyone but their own self worth.

So what is the new group in congress all about, there is only one thing that shows up at every step of the process, make the rich have a better oppertunity to get wealthier and those in the middle made to pick up more of the cost of running our nation and our local govts.

So we get to that point when we have the top 20% who have anything they want, the next 20% who have a decent life and then the rest of you that have so little chance to improve it will be sad.

like cutting the police force , firemen , medics , trash pick up , all city services .
the you ***** .

 

[kaz]

No.. it is not a noble effort of government to accomplish the SUBJECTIVE concept of 'fairness'... it is a noble effort of government to accomplish equal treatment for all citizens regardless of race, sex, income, or whatever else, in a free society

I have three words for you. Wealth redis tribution. That is the primary function of the reality of our government. You live in a delusional world thinking that is equal treatment of citizens.

 

[kaz]

Cutting taxes sounds great till...

Oh, oh, oh, pick me Mister Kottaire.

Cutting taxes sound great until the economy improves, companies start investing and hiring, people and businesses work less hard to avoid taxes and government revenue goes up as it has for every tax cut in history.

Hmmm...I thought I had that one, but they still sound great...

If tax cuts are the answer to all of our problems, and if tax cuts always increase revenues, then why don't we just cut taxes to zero. Apparently, your argument that every tax cut increases revenues would suggest that we would get the greatest return by cutting taxes to zero. Or is there a point when the formula no longer works?

No one should ever pay more then 10% of any dollar earned to the government

 

[kaz]

Truth is most people aren't bitching about what they pay, but the rich ***** do it non stop

So the Left attacking the rich for having too much money and they want to take it from them is the rich bitching? Another clueless post from you. SOP.

 

[kaz]

Cutting taxes sounds great till...

Oh, oh, oh, pick me Mister Kottaire.

Cutting taxes sound great until the economy improves, companies start investing and hiring, people and businesses work less hard to avoid taxes and government revenue goes up as it has for every tax cut in history.

Hmmm...I thought I had that one, but they still sound great...

Really? So the government revenue went up because of the Bush tax cuts? That is why business and unemployment is so great at present?

More trickle down bullshit. It is 'piss on the peon' and always has been.

A sane policy would be to revert back to the tax structure under Clinton for everybody, then begin real infrastructure investment.

So the only economic event that you recall during the Bush administration was his tax cuts and therefore everything can be traced to that? Seriously? Dot com burst, 9/11, recession, those don't mean anything to you? It was just the tax cuts?

 

[kaz]

If tax cuts are the answer to all of our problems, and if tax cuts always increase revenues, then why don't we just cut taxes to zero. Apparently, your argument that every tax cut increases revenues would suggest that we would get the greatest return by cutting taxes to zero. Or is there a point when the formula no longer works?

yeah lets just not have a tax and see how far our governments go.

No one here is arguing for no taxes. Next stupid comment please.

I know, don't you love liberal arguments?

Taxes are too high.

You can't have no taxes, argument rejected. Bam, gotcha...

 

[kaz]

I like how in huge portions of of the world their primary view of government is they are worried about government breaking down their doors at night and they or their parents or children disappear. In most of the world they are worried that government doesn't allow them the freedom to simply make their own choices or speak out for making their own choices. In this country, liberals live in endless hysterical fear that government isn't giving them enough. It's just a fundamental lack of perspective.

Have you been snorting propaganda confetti again?

No, why. Did you run out?

 

[kaz]

Cutting taxes sound great until the economy improves, companies start investing and hiring, people and businesses work less hard to avoid taxes and government revenue goes up as it has for every tax cut in history.

[...]

If you study modern history you will find that reduced taxes on the rich contributed significantly to the Great Depression

So you lecture me to "study modern history" and then your lecture starts with that a dozen years after the implementation of the income tax it was in fact "reduced taxes on the rich" that "contributed significantly" to the great depression.

Maybe you can help me with that timeline. They implement the income tax, they go up a half dozen years, then down a half dozen years and bam, great depression.

Wow, every time I think a pompous liberal can't come up with a more bizarre argument, one of you manages it. Well done, my friend. I am truly impressed.

 

[Bern80]

The more money left in the hands of the people the better it is. Government is not a prudent steward.

The flaw in that reasoning is the relatively obscure fact that the super-rich do not inhabit the "people" category. They are a de facto aristocracy -- a ruling class by virtue of their excessive wealth. And a great deal of that wealth is being brought to bear for the singular purpose of preventing government from being a prudent steward.

The way that is done is by dominating the media and deploying a cadre of efficient propagandists to mobilize a following of ignorant acolytes and convert them to the Gordon Gecko philosophy, which holds that greed is good and government is bad.

Government is to the super-rich what the crucifix is to vampires. Thus their compulsive need to corrupt it.

A little known fact is the above OPINION is a a little known myth. A convenient excuse to consider yourself virtuous for not being wealthy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Cutting taxes would be great. I'd love to have more money in my paycheck. Not sure why you think being affected by allowing me to keep more of my hard earned money would be a bad thing.

If the income tax rate of the average earner is increased by one percent it will mean the difference of a few dollars less in their paychecks. But for the billionaires and multi-millionaires who have become excessively wealthy because of incremental reductions in the progressive tax rate the difference will be sufficient to pay down the deficit.

And unless one is in the $250k+ earning bracket a restoration of the pre-Reagan progressive tax rate will not affect him at all.

And who are you to determine who is "excessively" wealthy? Why do you get to determine when someone has enough?

 

[MikeK]

I highly doubt that. You'd be surprised how hunger is a motivator to get off your ass and find a job and to also think twice about the choices you make, knowing that other people's money won't be available to carry your weight if you screw up.

Rudy Giuliani got a million people off the welfare rolls in the 90s and poverty went down, not up.

What you've said here is a valid argument in favor of eliminating fraud and improving efficiency in distributing available public assistance funds. But it should not be construed as a general condemnation of public assistance programs or an encouragement to transform financial distress into abject poverty via sweeping cancellation of ongoing public assistance programs.