They weren't passing anti middle class policies like the Republicans. They weren't giving tax breaks to the rich which means they weren't shifting the tax burden more onto us.
When did Republicans ever shift the tax burden to the middle-class?
I'll challenge you right here and right now:
As a middle-class working man, I can easily list several expenses that I have to pay for thanks to the Democrat party and in particular, DumBama. I want you to show me one......just one expense I had to suffer under Republican leadership.
The truth of the matter is that under Democrat control, the wealthy and middle-class get screwed, because their money is transferred to the so-called poor, or otherwise those that don't feel like working.
The Republicans (and mostly the conservatives) are all for the middle-class. If there was never an Obama, nor a Democrat led Congress, I would be doing so much better today financially.
When the rich and corporations got huge tax breaks and the debt doubles, that shifts more of the tax burden on us.
Gov Rick Snyder gave corporations tax breaks and now says he has to raise our taxes to fix the roads. Because we don't have any money he says. That's a great example
When the rich and corporations got huge tax breaks and the debt doubles, that shifts more of the tax burden on us.
When did the corporations get huge tax breaks from Bush?
After the Bush tax cuts, the rich were paying a bigger chunk, the opposite of your claim.
When the rich get richer and the middle class and below get poorer, the rich will pay more of the tax burden..... it is a progressive tax system.... if the rich are successful in acquiring more income, while the others acquire less of the pie, it's only natural for their share of the taxes paid in dollars, go up.....you earn more income, you pay more income tax in dollars, even if your tax rate does not change, and even if your tax rate goes down....
Yes, it's called penalizing success and rewarding failure. How's that working out for us so far? And if you think that's a good social system, then why don't you try doing the same with your children and see how they turn out.
Ray, even if we had a flat rate income tax, if the rich became richer, with more income, they would pay more in 'dollars'' in income tax.....
Would that be ''punishing them"?
of course not.
And if the middle class man earned more in income, with the same flat rate tax, he too would pay more in ''dollars'' in income tax.
And visa/versa, if the rich man earned less income, he would pay less in tax dollars, same with the middle class guy.
Going back to what Todd was saying....about the rich paying a higher share of the tax dollars paid....with no tax rates changed, he is paying more in tax dollars because he earned more, while the guy from the middle was earning less income, therefore paying less in tax dollars.
This is WHY the richer people are paying more of the total tax dollars collected, and the middle class guy or less are paying less of the total share of taxes, i.e. because they are earning less of the total income.
It's a good position to be in....the rich guy's....he is earning more income/money each year, while all the rest of the citizens on average, are earning less in income.
Who gives a flying hoot if the rich guy is paying a larger share of the taxes collected, and the rest have less of a share of the taxes collected, when your share as the rich guy is larger because you are earning in income, boo coos more than you previously did?
You in plural, as the rich guys, are doing well, while the others are doing crappy!!!
That's all it means when someone mentions and uses the cliche or term of, ''The rich are paying a larger share of the taxes collected....''
It only means the rich guys are doing good and are getting paid more, while others are not.