How Dem House of Rep's Can Finish Off Republicans in 2020

[BULLDOG]

Can you name a single thing the republican congress has done to help the economy?

Lowering taxes on businesses.
Removing job killing regulations on small and large businesses alike.
Lower taxation for working Americans.
Getting rid of Commie Care fines that sucked over 3 billion dollars a year from working Americans.

Trickle down has never worked.

 

[Toronado3800]

House Democrat's can finish off Republicans in both the Senate and House of Rep's and take back rhe White House opening an opportunity to pack federal courts, including the Supreme Court with overwhelming liberal judges.

Tax reform can change America in one masterful plan. All the House must do is propose large tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets and eliminate all the breaks and loopholes going to the super high upper-income folks and obscenely rich. America will love the plan and flock to the voting polls.

That may partially work but the phrase FINISH OFF is a it grandiose.

 

[Shrimpbox]

The true benefits of the tax bill won’t kick in until people file their 2018 taxes. Of course camp can’t imagine anything good will happen, likely he wouldn’t admit to it if there was.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Can you name a single thing the republican congress has done to help the economy?

Lowering taxes on businesses.
Removing job killing regulations on small and large businesses alike.
Lower taxation for working Americans.
Getting rid of Commie Care fines that sucked over 3 billion dollars a year from working Americans.

Trickle down has never worked.

Seems to be working just fine now. Lowest unemployment in nearly 50 years, Average income up over 3% which it hasn't done in a long time. Business and consumer confidence at an 18 year high. And yes, employees getting raises, bonuses or both.

What doesn't work is being the most anti-business President in two generations.

 

[kyzr]

The days of past practices may soon be over. The dems "soaking the rich" and having them move accounts to Switzerland or other tax havens, and the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked. Soon the Debt and interest on the Debt will crash everything, so unless the DC coxuckers figure it out soon the Chinese will be the new and only super-power.

2020 may not be the cycle when the economy crashes, but Medicare is scheduled to be bankrupt in 2024, and social security in 2034, so things will start to happen in the next cycle or two. Who will be to blame? Both parties.

the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked.

That must be why, after rates are cut, the wealthy pay an ever larger share of income tax receipts.

Link please, who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts", how about including payroll taxes? Are you one of those who say "only little people pay taxes"? If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet. The tax revenue below is totally inadequate:
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

• FY 2019 - $3.422 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.34 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.

The tax cuts and increased spending are exploding the Debt
Federal Budget Deficit Projected to Soar to Over $1 Trillion in 2020
The forecast is considerably bleaker than the budget office’s projections in June last year, before Congress approved the tax cuts and agreed to increase spending. The $804 billion projected deficit for the current fiscal (2018) year is $242 billion larger than what the budget office had expected in June. In addition, the budget office now projects a cumulative deficit of $11.7 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $1.6 trillion from last June’s projection for that time period.

By 2023, according to the budget office, interest costs are projected to exceed what the government spends on the military.
By 2028, interest payments will reach $915 billion, more than triple the interest costs last year.

who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts",

Well, when you whine about the cut in the income tax rate and say the middle class is paying for the wealthy, I'd think that you'd care that after the cut, the wealthy are paying more of the share and the middle class is paying less. But you'd have to be honest to admit you were wrong.
Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect. They are paying less than their fair-share should be.
The point I'm trying to make is that the top rate needs to cover the Budget Deficit or the system crashes as interest payments explode.

how about including payroll taxes?

Since payroll taxes were not changed by the tax cuts you dislike, why would I include them?
To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base. Its not just "income tax".

If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet.

Since they already do pay a lot more, you should be happy. Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

The tax revenue below is totally inadequate: It's true, government spending should be cut. A lot. Agreed

Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect

You're simply wrong.
After Reagan's big cut in 1981, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Reagan's cut in 1986, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2001, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2003, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.


Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update - Tax Foundation

They are paying less than their fair-share should be.

I thought we were talking real world actual numbers?
Who gives a shit what you think their "fair-share" should be?

To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base.

The payroll tax hasn't been changed. If you want to whine separately about that, start a thread.

Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

Sounds like you should push your Dem Senators/Representatives to cut spending.

1. After a "tax cut" the top 10% will pay LESS TAX, hence the term "tax cut". No one cares about their "share" of taxes, its the amount they owe the IRS, and its less after a tax cut. Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..
2. If the deficit explodes and SS & Medicare are cut, we'll see what the tax rates are then. An ounce of prevention.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked.

That must be why, after rates are cut, the wealthy pay an ever larger share of income tax receipts.

Link please, who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts", how about including payroll taxes? Are you one of those who say "only little people pay taxes"? If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet. The tax revenue below is totally inadequate:
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

• FY 2019 - $3.422 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.34 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.

The tax cuts and increased spending are exploding the Debt
Federal Budget Deficit Projected to Soar to Over $1 Trillion in 2020
The forecast is considerably bleaker than the budget office’s projections in June last year, before Congress approved the tax cuts and agreed to increase spending. The $804 billion projected deficit for the current fiscal (2018) year is $242 billion larger than what the budget office had expected in June. In addition, the budget office now projects a cumulative deficit of $11.7 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $1.6 trillion from last June’s projection for that time period.

By 2023, according to the budget office, interest costs are projected to exceed what the government spends on the military.
By 2028, interest payments will reach $915 billion, more than triple the interest costs last year.

who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts",

Well, when you whine about the cut in the income tax rate and say the middle class is paying for the wealthy, I'd think that you'd care that after the cut, the wealthy are paying more of the share and the middle class is paying less. But you'd have to be honest to admit you were wrong.
Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect. They are paying less than their fair-share should be.
The point I'm trying to make is that the top rate needs to cover the Budget Deficit or the system crashes as interest payments explode.

how about including payroll taxes?

Since payroll taxes were not changed by the tax cuts you dislike, why would I include them?
To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base. Its not just "income tax".

If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet.

Since they already do pay a lot more, you should be happy. Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

The tax revenue below is totally inadequate: It's true, government spending should be cut. A lot. Agreed

Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect

You're simply wrong.
After Reagan's big cut in 1981, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Reagan's cut in 1986, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2001, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2003, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.


Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update - Tax Foundation

They are paying less than their fair-share should be.

I thought we were talking real world actual numbers?
Who gives a shit what you think their "fair-share" should be?

To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base.

The payroll tax hasn't been changed. If you want to whine separately about that, start a thread.

Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

Sounds like you should push your Dem Senators/Representatives to cut spending.

1. After a "tax cut" the top 10% will pay LESS TAX, hence the term "tax cut". No one cares about their "share" of taxes, its the amount they owe the IRS, and its less after a tax cut. Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..
2. If the deficit explodes and SS & Medicare are cut, we'll see what the tax rates are then. An ounce of prevention.....

No one cares about their "share" of taxes,

You did, you said it right here, "the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked"

What you're saying is, the wealthy are paying a smaller share, the lower 2/3rds have to make up for it, by paying a larger share.

Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..

Every other cut resulted in the share paid by the top portion, increasing.
I guess it's possible this one time would be different. Why do you think your prediction
failed since 1981, but will be correct now?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Trump will veto it. There is no way he will allow himself or his criminal family pay more taxes. Not gonna happen.

And that is rhe point. Trump and Republicans will deny citizens a tax break for selfish greedy reasons. The only way Americans will get a break is by getting rid of Trump and Republicans.

but then there will still be democrats around....unless both parties are gone no one will get a break...

 

[kyzr]

The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%, so why wouldn't they pay 90% of the taxes?

It's like this: If our federal tax rate was 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If our federal tax rate was 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?

Then there is this "of the wealth" myth, as if there was only so much money, and some took too much of it. There is no "the wealth." Wealth is endless in this country. The reason many have less than others is not because somebody has more. We do not live in a bubble where X dollars exist. If that were so, then if I went to the bank for a car loan, they would tell me I can't have one because the rich have all the money. Or if I asked my employer for a raise, he would say he'd love to give me one, but the rich people have all the money. That's never happened to any person in this country.

"What is your fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

Too much bullshit to reply to. Its very simple. The IRS needs money for the government to function. Currently the coxuckers are borrowing about $900b a year on top of the $21T they already borrowed. The interest on that Debt is $363b and is almost as much as Medicaid or Welfare. In 10 years it will be more than Defense. Someone needs to pay the bills, the top 10% have gained wealth over the last several decades compared to the rest of us, and as Willie Sutton would say, "that's where the money is"., see charts below. Paying a few % more won't kill them....

 

[kyzr]

Link please, who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts", how about including payroll taxes? Are you one of those who say "only little people pay taxes"? If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet. The tax revenue below is totally inadequate:
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

• FY 2019 - $3.422 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2018 - $3.34 trillion, estimated.
• FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
• FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.

The tax cuts and increased spending are exploding the Debt
Federal Budget Deficit Projected to Soar to Over $1 Trillion in 2020
The forecast is considerably bleaker than the budget office’s projections in June last year, before Congress approved the tax cuts and agreed to increase spending. The $804 billion projected deficit for the current fiscal (2018) year is $242 billion larger than what the budget office had expected in June. In addition, the budget office now projects a cumulative deficit of $11.7 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $1.6 trillion from last June’s projection for that time period.

By 2023, according to the budget office, interest costs are projected to exceed what the government spends on the military.
By 2028, interest payments will reach $915 billion, more than triple the interest costs last year.

who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts",

Well, when you whine about the cut in the income tax rate and say the middle class is paying for the wealthy, I'd think that you'd care that after the cut, the wealthy are paying more of the share and the middle class is paying less. But you'd have to be honest to admit you were wrong.
Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect. They are paying less than their fair-share should be.
The point I'm trying to make is that the top rate needs to cover the Budget Deficit or the system crashes as interest payments explode.

how about including payroll taxes?

Since payroll taxes were not changed by the tax cuts you dislike, why would I include them?
To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base. Its not just "income tax".

If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet.

Since they already do pay a lot more, you should be happy. Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

The tax revenue below is totally inadequate: It's true, government spending should be cut. A lot. Agreed

Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect

You're simply wrong.
After Reagan's big cut in 1981, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Reagan's cut in 1986, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2001, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2003, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.


Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update - Tax Foundation

They are paying less than their fair-share should be.

I thought we were talking real world actual numbers?
Who gives a shit what you think their "fair-share" should be?

To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base.

The payroll tax hasn't been changed. If you want to whine separately about that, start a thread.

Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

Sounds like you should push your Dem Senators/Representatives to cut spending.

1. After a "tax cut" the top 10% will pay LESS TAX, hence the term "tax cut". No one cares about their "share" of taxes, its the amount they owe the IRS, and its less after a tax cut. Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..
2. If the deficit explodes and SS & Medicare are cut, we'll see what the tax rates are then. An ounce of prevention.....

No one cares about their "share" of taxes,

You did, you said it right here, "the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked"

What you're saying is, the wealthy are paying a smaller share, the lower 2/3rds have to make up for it, by paying a larger share.

Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..

Every other cut resulted in the share paid by the top portion, increasing.
I guess it's possible this one time would be different. Why do you think your prediction
failed since 1981, but will be correct now?

Simple question: Is the Budget Deficit getting bigger or smaller? ANS: Bigger.
We need more revenue AND to cut spending to balance the budget. The top rate needs to increase not cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts",

Well, when you whine about the cut in the income tax rate and say the middle class is paying for the wealthy, I'd think that you'd care that after the cut, the wealthy are paying more of the share and the middle class is paying less. But you'd have to be honest to admit you were wrong.
Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect. They are paying less than their fair-share should be.
The point I'm trying to make is that the top rate needs to cover the Budget Deficit or the system crashes as interest payments explode.

how about including payroll taxes?

Since payroll taxes were not changed by the tax cuts you dislike, why would I include them?
To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base. Its not just "income tax".

If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet.

Since they already do pay a lot more, you should be happy. Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

The tax revenue below is totally inadequate: It's true, government spending should be cut. A lot. Agreed

Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect

You're simply wrong.
After Reagan's big cut in 1981, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Reagan's cut in 1986, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2001, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2003, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.


Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update - Tax Foundation

They are paying less than their fair-share should be.

I thought we were talking real world actual numbers?
Who gives a shit what you think their "fair-share" should be?

To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base.

The payroll tax hasn't been changed. If you want to whine separately about that, start a thread.

Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

Sounds like you should push your Dem Senators/Representatives to cut spending.

1. After a "tax cut" the top 10% will pay LESS TAX, hence the term "tax cut". No one cares about their "share" of taxes, its the amount they owe the IRS, and its less after a tax cut. Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..
2. If the deficit explodes and SS & Medicare are cut, we'll see what the tax rates are then. An ounce of prevention.....

No one cares about their "share" of taxes,

You did, you said it right here, "the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked"

What you're saying is, the wealthy are paying a smaller share, the lower 2/3rds have to make up for it, by paying a larger share.

Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..

Every other cut resulted in the share paid by the top portion, increasing.
I guess it's possible this one time would be different. Why do you think your prediction
failed since 1981, but will be correct now?

Simple question: Is the Budget Deficit getting bigger or smaller? ANS: Bigger.
We need more revenue AND to cut spending to balance the budget. The top rate needs to increase not cut.

We need more revenue AND to cut spending to balance the budget.

Tell you what, let's cut spending 10% a year, for 3 years.
Then we'll think about adding revenue.

 

[kyzr]

who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts",

Well, when you whine about the cut in the income tax rate and say the middle class is paying for the wealthy, I'd think that you'd care that after the cut, the wealthy are paying more of the share and the middle class is paying less. But you'd have to be honest to admit you were wrong.
Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect. They are paying less than their fair-share should be.
The point I'm trying to make is that the top rate needs to cover the Budget Deficit or the system crashes as interest payments explode.

how about including payroll taxes?

Since payroll taxes were not changed by the tax cuts you dislike, why would I include them?
To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base. Its not just "income tax".

If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet.

Since they already do pay a lot more, you should be happy. Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

The tax revenue below is totally inadequate: It's true, government spending should be cut. A lot. Agreed

Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect

You're simply wrong.
After Reagan's big cut in 1981, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Reagan's cut in 1986, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2001, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2003, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.


Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update - Tax Foundation

They are paying less than their fair-share should be.

I thought we were talking real world actual numbers?
Who gives a shit what you think their "fair-share" should be?

To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base.

The payroll tax hasn't been changed. If you want to whine separately about that, start a thread.

Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

Sounds like you should push your Dem Senators/Representatives to cut spending.

1. After a "tax cut" the top 10% will pay LESS TAX, hence the term "tax cut". No one cares about their "share" of taxes, its the amount they owe the IRS, and its less after a tax cut. Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..
2. If the deficit explodes and SS & Medicare are cut, we'll see what the tax rates are then. An ounce of prevention.....

No one cares about their "share" of taxes,

You did, you said it right here, "the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked"

What you're saying is, the wealthy are paying a smaller share, the lower 2/3rds have to make up for it, by paying a larger share.

Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..

Every other cut resulted in the share paid by the top portion, increasing.
I guess it's possible this one time would be different. Why do you think your prediction
failed since 1981, but will be correct now?

Simple question: Is the Budget Deficit getting bigger or smaller? ANS: Bigger.
We need more revenue AND to cut spending to balance the budget. The top rate needs to increase not cut.

We need more revenue AND to cut spending to balance the budget.

Tell you what, let's cut spending 10% a year, for 3 years.
Then we'll think about adding revenue.

If we increased the tax rates 7% above 2016 levels for all tax brackets, and cut welfare and Medicaid in half, the Budget is balanced. Or equivalent cuts in Defense or education, or any real cuts that total $450b a year. That is a mathematical way to balance the Budget with half spending cuts and half revenue increases. Now if entitlements are tweaked or some other revenue increases used then the tax increase can be less, but 7% isn't that drastic.

 

[JoeB131]

Democrats will blow their opportunity, it's inevitable..

Whatever lets you sleep at night, buddy...

But you guys haven't won the National Popular vote since 2004... and then you did it be scaring the shit out of everyone.

Demographics are not your friend. There just aren't enough angry old white people to keep you afloat, no matter how much you cheat.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what's laughable? The way you progressives keep trotting this same "tax the rich" notion out and expecting it to work! Here's what will happen...because it ALWAYS happens the same way! You'll pass your new taxes on the wealthy...they'll respond as they always do...by putting their capital into tax free safe holds to keep you from taxing them or moving their base of operations to an area that doesn't tax them as much.

Um, guy, taxing the rich works just fine.

Clinton taxed the rich, and we got prosperity and balanced budgets.

Obama taxed the rich, and Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits were cut in half.

 

[Meister]

House Democrat's can finish off Republicans in both the Senate and House of Rep's and take back rhe White House opening an opportunity to pack federal courts, including the Supreme Court with overwhelming liberal judges.

Tax reform can change America in one masterful plan. All the House must do is propose large tax cuts for the middle and lower tax brackets and eliminate all the breaks and loopholes going to the super high upper-income folks and obscenely rich. America will love the plan and flock to the voting polls.

That's too 'iffy', if you know what I mean.
The best way is to have sexual misconduct allegations brought against the repubs. Then have the msm run with it.
It would be a sure fire method of retaking the Senate.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You know what's laughable? The way you progressives keep trotting this same "tax the rich" notion out and expecting it to work! Here's what will happen...because it ALWAYS happens the same way! You'll pass your new taxes on the wealthy...they'll respond as they always do...by putting their capital into tax free safe holds to keep you from taxing them or moving their base of operations to an area that doesn't tax them as much.

Um, guy, taxing the rich works just fine.

Clinton taxed the rich, and we got prosperity and balanced budgets.

Obama taxed the rich, and Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits were cut in half.

Um guy, if they were so popular among the middle class, the dems wouldn't have been landslided in 1994. You don't need to lie about what really happened in the 1990's.

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

"However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term."

• Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
• The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
• In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
• The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
• Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
• The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%, so why wouldn't they pay 90% of the taxes?

It's like this: If our federal tax rate was 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If our federal tax rate was 100%, the federal government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?

Then there is this "of the wealth" myth, as if there was only so much money, and some took too much of it. There is no "the wealth." Wealth is endless in this country. The reason many have less than others is not because somebody has more. We do not live in a bubble where X dollars exist. If that were so, then if I went to the bank for a car loan, they would tell me I can't have one because the rich have all the money. Or if I asked my employer for a raise, he would say he'd love to give me one, but the rich people have all the money. That's never happened to any person in this country.

"What is your fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

Too much bullshit to reply to. Its very simple. The IRS needs money for the government to function. Currently the coxuckers are borrowing about $900b a year on top of the $21T they already borrowed. The interest on that Debt is $363b and is almost as much as Medicaid or Welfare. In 10 years it will be more than Defense. Someone needs to pay the bills, the top 10% have gained wealth over the last several decades compared to the rest of us, and as Willie Sutton would say, "that's where the money is"., see charts below. Paying a few % more won't kill them....

View attachment 228424

The fallacy is that when you increase taxes on the wealthy, they just hold their pants pockets open so you have an easier time getting to their wallets.

It doesn't work that way in the real world. In the real world, wealthy people find ways around taxes. If they can't, they increase their wealth which usually means not giving employees raises, increasing the cost of their products, opening overseas manufacturing. There are all kinds of ways.

Right now business is going crazy because people are making investments. They have the resources to do so.

Penalizing success and rewarding failure never leads to anything good in the long run.

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what's laughable? The way you progressives keep trotting this same "tax the rich" notion out and expecting it to work! Here's what will happen...because it ALWAYS happens the same way! You'll pass your new taxes on the wealthy...they'll respond as they always do...by putting their capital into tax free safe holds to keep you from taxing them or moving their base of operations to an area that doesn't tax them as much.

Um, guy, taxing the rich works just fine.

Clinton taxed the rich, and we got prosperity and balanced budgets.

Obama taxed the rich, and Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits were cut in half.

We got prosperity and balanced budgets because of the Dot Com Boom, Joey! When that was winding down...so was our economy! Would you like me to show you Bill Clinton admitting that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did?

As for Obama? Were the deficits cut because of taxes being levied or were they cut because a political stalemate between Republicans and Democrats caused sequestration to occur? Giving Barry credit for that is a real stretch, Joey!

 

[JoeB131]

Um guy, if they were so popular among the middle class, the dems wouldn't have been landslided in 1994. You don't need to lie about what really happened in the 1990's.

We know what happened in the 1990's... Clinton gave us prosperity, and you shits impeached him over a blow job.

We got prosperity and balanced budgets because of the Dot Com Boom, Joey!

Yes, yes, the mysterious "Dot Com" boom.... you guys keep telling yourself that myth....

Clinton gave us an awesome economy, and then Bush came along, fucked it up, gave us war, recessions and trillion dollar deficits... and you guys thought that was awesome...

...because you are ******* stupid.

 

[Aldo Raine]

who the **** cares about "share of income tax receipts",

Well, when you whine about the cut in the income tax rate and say the middle class is paying for the wealthy, I'd think that you'd care that after the cut, the wealthy are paying more of the share and the middle class is paying less. But you'd have to be honest to admit you were wrong.
Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect. They are paying less than their fair-share should be.
The point I'm trying to make is that the top rate needs to cover the Budget Deficit or the system crashes as interest payments explode.

how about including payroll taxes?

Since payroll taxes were not changed by the tax cuts you dislike, why would I include them?
To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base. Its not just "income tax".

If the top tax rate owns 90% or so of everything they should pay a lot more than those struggling to make ends meet.

Since they already do pay a lot more, you should be happy. Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

The tax revenue below is totally inadequate: It's true, government spending should be cut. A lot. Agreed

Wrong is saying that after the tax cut the wealthy are paying more. That is incorrect

You're simply wrong.
After Reagan's big cut in 1981, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Reagan's cut in 1986, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2001, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.
After Bush's cut in 2003, the top 10% paid a larger share. Top 1% too.


Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update - Tax Foundation

They are paying less than their fair-share should be.

I thought we were talking real world actual numbers?
Who gives a shit what you think their "fair-share" should be?

To get accurate totals of taxes paid by all segments of the tax base.

The payroll tax hasn't been changed. If you want to whine separately about that, start a thread.

Not until the Budget Deficit is covered

Sounds like you should push your Dem Senators/Representatives to cut spending.

1. After a "tax cut" the top 10% will pay LESS TAX, hence the term "tax cut". No one cares about their "share" of taxes, its the amount they owe the IRS, and its less after a tax cut. Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..
2. If the deficit explodes and SS & Medicare are cut, we'll see what the tax rates are then. An ounce of prevention.....

No one cares about their "share" of taxes,

You did, you said it right here, "the GOP cutting taxes expecting the lower 2/3 of incomes to pay the wealthy's way never worked"

What you're saying is, the wealthy are paying a smaller share, the lower 2/3rds have to make up for it, by paying a larger share.

Besides we're not talking about 1981-2003, we're talking about 2018 forward..

Every other cut resulted in the share paid by the top portion, increasing.
I guess it's possible this one time would be different. Why do you think your prediction
failed since 1981, but will be correct now?

Simple question: Is the Budget Deficit getting bigger or smaller? ANS: Bigger.
We need more revenue AND to cut spending to balance the budget. The top rate needs to increase not cut.

We need more revenue AND to cut spending to balance the budget.

Tell you what, let's cut spending 10% a year, for 3 years.
Then we'll think about adding revenue.

Tell you what cut spending and just take away all expenditures for everyone for three years and let's reevaluate.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Um guy, if they were so popular among the middle class, the dems wouldn't have been landslided in 1994. You don't need to lie about what really happened in the 1990's.

We know what happened in the 1990's... Clinton gave us prosperity, and you shits impeached him over a blow job.

We got prosperity and balanced budgets because of the Dot Com Boom, Joey!

Yes, yes, the mysterious "Dot Com" boom.... you guys keep telling yourself that myth....

Clinton gave us an awesome economy, and then Bush came along, fucked it up, gave us war, recessions and trillion dollar deficits... and you guys thought that was awesome...

...because you are ******* stupid.

No, it was because clinton had to flip flop on taxes and reduce, along with working with a republican congress. Thats why it boomed.