Obama's New Tax Hikes Aid the Middle Class?

[Conservative65]

We don't operate on a zero sum game. The pie grows and can continue to grow. Your response is nothing more than a desire to blame someone.

Aggregate income is a zero sum game.
In 1970 the richest 1% garnered about 7% of total US income.
In 2010 they increased their share to about 19%.
That one big reason why 47% of US workers don't earn enough to pay income taxes today.
Richest 1 earn biggest share since Roaring 20s

The 47% don't pay incomes taxes because morons like your old ass continue to elect bleeding hearts that feel sorry for someone that can't get it done in life.

 

[georgephillip]

The American Middle class is a myth. Minimum Wage isn't going to do anything except a) feed inflation and b) close off job opportunities until inflation catches up. We've been there before; it ain't pretty; and in a society with a huge debt over it's collective head, floor-sweepers don't get rich. 1% of the richest people becomes even welthier.

The consumption of the middle class drives 70% of the US GDP; when millions of American workers don't earn enough to buy the products of their labor, the richest 1% of Americans are getting richer at the expense of the other 99%.
"Obama, who will promote the plan during his Jan. 20 State of the Union Address, will use much of the proceeds -- $320 billion over 10 years -- to expand tax credits for higher education and child care and create a new break for two-earner couples."
Obama Proposes New Tax Increases on Wealthy to Help Middle Class - Bloomberg

 

[georgephillip]

Tax ... Tax ... Tax some more.
How about you take some budget lessons from the people who have more than debt to show for their efforts ... Stupid Liberals.

"You Americans are such suckers... You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don’t. When working peoples’ taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way—look at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the opposite of how it works for rich people!”
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

 

[Ame®icano]

All that talk about taxing the rich more is just liberal greed talking. All those who support it feel exactly that - greed.

They feel they deserve someone else's money. And they want people with guns to rob other people and give them the spoils.

They're like a woman demanding alimony payments. *****.

 

[georgephillip]

Your economic circumstances certainly do affect the validity of your arguments. You fit int he category of those not paying income taxes demanding those who already pay more than they should doing more. That invalidates your argument because those not paying income taxes shouldn't have a say in how much someone else doing their part pays. Do your part old man and quit being a leech on society.

You swallow every star-spangled load, don't you?
"Time after time conservative pundits have gone on Fox News and talk radio shows, like Rush Limbaugh and blogged about it. America is in a debt crisis. They tell us we’re spending too much money.

"While they are right, the problem is with who they are blaming the spending on.

"They claim it’s the entitlement programs for the poor and middle class that is putting us further and further into debt, and they’re wrong.

"How many billions of dollars have been transferred from the public trust into the hands of the wealthy through tax breaks?

"These tax breaks for specified industries or companies are the way that these large multi-national corporations take away from our schools and public safety.

"This causes property taxes on small businesses and middle class homeowners to rise.

"It’s a transfer of wealth."

America 8217 s Middle Class Is Being Sucked Dry By Corporate Leeches PoliticusUSA s Archives

 

[Conservative65]

Your economic circumstances certainly do affect the validity of your arguments. You fit int he category of those not paying income taxes demanding those who already pay more than they should doing more. That invalidates your argument because those not paying income taxes shouldn't have a say in how much someone else doing their part pays. Do your part old man and quit being a leech on society.

You swallow every star-spangled load, don't you?
"Time after time conservative pundits have gone on Fox News and talk radio shows, like Rush Limbaugh and blogged about it. America is in a debt crisis. They tell us we’re spending too much money.

"While they are right, the problem is with who they are blaming the spending on.

"They claim it’s the entitlement programs for the poor and middle class that is putting us further and further into debt, and they’re wrong.

"How many billions of dollars have been transferred from the public trust into the hands of the wealthy through tax breaks?

"These tax breaks for specified industries or companies are the way that these large multi-national corporations take away from our schools and public safety.

"This causes property taxes on small businesses and middle class homeowners to rise.

"It’s a transfer of wealth."

America 8217 s Middle Class Is Being Sucked Dry By Corporate Leeches PoliticusUSA s Archives

Until these 47% start paying income taxes, they can STFU about someone else already paying having more taken.

 

[georgephillip]

Until these 47% start paying income taxes, they can STFU about someone else already paying having more taken

So how many billions of dollars have been transferred from the public trust into the hands of rich parasites? Just because someone doesn't earn enough to pay income tax doesn't mean they aren't citizens, does it?

 

[Conservative65]

Until these 47% start paying income taxes, they can STFU about someone else already paying having more taken

So how many billions of dollars have been transferred from the public trust into the hands of rich parasites? Just because someone doesn't earn enough to pay income tax doesn't mean they aren't citizens, does it?

Didn't say they weren't citizens. I said if they don't pay, then STFU about someone already paying doing more. If they aren't contributing to the cause, they really have no valid argument saying I, one that already pays, should pay more. It's typical that they do because they think they should benefit without contributing.

 

[Fugazi]

Oh, yay!
The tired argument that I can only get fat at the expense of the skinny.
Do you really believe there is a finite amount of wealth to be made?

There is a finite amount of income earned by Americans every year, and the percentage earned by the richest 1% continues to grow at the expense of the majority of workers.

A finite amount of income?
So how can you raise the minimum wage?

It's fairly simple. Some people have their wage/salary increased, and some have it decreased.

 

[georgephillip]

Didn't say they weren't citizens. I said if they don't pay, then STFU about someone already paying doing more. If they aren't contributing to the cause, they really have no valid argument saying I, one that already pays, should pay more. It's typical that they do because they think they should benefit without contributing.

If they're citizens, they deserve the protection afforded by the First Amendment, right? Most of the 47% of working Americans who don't earn enough to pay Income Tax contribute to the overall tax base through FICA taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and they pay a greater share of their total income in taxes of all kinds than the richest of Americans pay. The simple fact of the matter is the richest of the rich don't pay taxes at a rate they paid before the advent of finance capitalism, and until they do, equality of opportunity will continue to decline for most Americans.

 

[alan1]

You mean GUT federal revenues again? Even AFTER Ronnie raised taxes 11 times to make up for the 50% tax rate he had for his first six years???

Sure, why not? While he is at it, GUT the federal spending also.

 

[HenryBHough]

A deal worth $1,000,000 taxed at 15% brings government $150,000. The same deal taxed at 50% brings the government $0 because the deal doesn't get done. But, alas, liberals still cannot be convinced that they cannot cash checks written in % signs.

 

[Dad2three]

You mean GUT federal revenues again? Even AFTER Ronnie raised taxes 11 times to make up for the 50% tax rate he had for his first six years???

Sure, why not? While he is at it, GUT the federal spending also.

Sorry only party to slow down spending as Prez for the last 50+ years have been Clinton/Obama. You do remember how Reagan/Dubya blew up spending right?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[alan1]

I'll add you to the list of those that don't get any. I say we need to raise your taxes 13% and start taxing the income of those in the 47% that don't pay any now. A family of four pays zero income taxes until the gross income is at least $47,000 based solely on the makeup of the family. If those people are going to participate in society, they need to start paying their fair share of being part of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how some liberals complain that the (undefined) rich don't "pay their fair share" when we have 47% of people with an income paying zero in federal income tax. The people paying zero are the ones not paying their fair share. I've been earning income for 38 years (as of Dec 2014) and every one of those 38 years I've paid federal income tax. Even as a teen the first few years that I was earning income, I was paying federal income taxes. When I was a single parent of children, I got a bit of a break from EIC, but I still paid federal income tax.

 

[Dad2three]

A deal worth $1,000,000 taxed at 15% brings government $150,000. The same deal taxed at 50% brings the government $0 because the deal doesn't get done. But, alas, liberals still cannot be convinced that they cannot cash checks written in % signs.

Yeah, because people will stop making money *shaking head*



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

 

[alan1]

You mean GUT federal revenues again? Even AFTER Ronnie raised taxes 11 times to make up for the 50% tax rate he had for his first six years???

Sure, why not? While he is at it, GUT the federal spending also.

Sorry only party to slow down spending as Prez for the last 50+ years have been Clinton/Obama. You do remember how Reagan/Dubya blew up spending right?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You do realize that the congress is the major control of spending, don't you, not the president. Who controlled congress during the Clinton Presidency? (Hint: It was conservatives.) You do realize who controlled the House during the past few years of the Obama Presidency? (Hint: it was conservatives). Take a look at who controlled congress (spending) during most of Reagan/Bush/and Bush.

 

[Dad2three]

I'll add you to the list of those that don't get any. I say we need to raise your taxes 13% and start taxing the income of those in the 47% that don't pay any now. A family of four pays zero income taxes until the gross income is at least $47,000 based solely on the makeup of the family. If those people are going to participate in society, they need to start paying their fair share of being part of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how some liberals complain that the (undefined) rich don't "pay their fair share" when we have 47% of people with an income paying zero in federal income tax. The people paying zero are the ones not paying their fair share. I've been earning income for 38 years (as of Dec 2014) and every one of those 38 years I've paid federal income tax. Even as a teen the first few years that I was earning income, I was paying federal income taxes. When I was a single parent of children, I got a bit of a break from EIC, but I still paid federal income tax.

Income tax revenues that Dubya dumped to post wWW2 share of federal revenues? 41% of the pie?

The Real Truth Behind The 47 Percent - Why Aren't These People Paying Federal Income Taxes?

Do you know that the overwhelming majority of these people avoid income taxes due to a policy fiercely supported by none other than President Ronald Wilson Reagan who deemed the policy to be “the best antipoverty, the best pro- family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”?


At the outset, we should dispel the myth that 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing in federal taxes.

Because all working Americans are obligated to pay payroll taxes—the money that supports Social Security and Medicare automatically withdrawn from our paychecks—the actual number of households in America paying nothing was closer to 17 percent in 2009 and, more typically, 14 percent in non-recessionary years. Obviously, if fewer people are working, fewer people are experiencing payroll tax deductions from their non-existent paycheck.

And if we add in other federal taxes, such as the federal excise tax on gasoline, the numbers come down even further.

The Real Truth Behind The 47 Percent - Why Aren t These People Paying Federal Income Taxes - Forbes



Five myths about the 47 percent

1. Forty-seven percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

2. Members of the 47 percent will never pay federal income taxes.


Politicians and commentators often talk about those who don’t pay income taxes as though they’re in a special club with lifetime membership. In fact, it’s a highly diverse group, some of whom move in and out from year to year.

When they first join the workforce, for example, young people may not earn enough to pay federal income taxes. The same is true for many of the temporarily unemployed, working parents and entrepreneurs whose businesses experience a loss. But most of these people look forward to the day, perhaps in just a year or two, when their incomes will rise and they will join or rejoin the 53 percent of Americans who do pay federal income taxes.

The reverse is true for many senior citizens: They may pay no federal income tax in retirement, but most did during their working years.

Five myths about the 47 percent - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

You mean GUT federal revenues again? Even AFTER Ronnie raised taxes 11 times to make up for the 50% tax rate he had for his first six years???

Sure, why not? While he is at it, GUT the federal spending also.

Sorry only party to slow down spending as Prez for the last 50+ years have been Clinton/Obama. You do remember how Reagan/Dubya blew up spending right?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You do realize that the congress is the major control of spending, don't you, not the president. Who controlled congress during the Clinton Presidency? (Hint: It was conservatives.) You do realize who controlled the House during the past few years of the Obama Presidency? (Hint: it was conservatives). Take a look at who controlled congress (spending) during most of Reagan/Bush/and Bush.

Got it, YOU can't be honest. You must be a conservative. It's the Dem Prez fault _____ fill in the blank, UNLESS it's a GOP Congress when good things happened, lol

CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES THANKS TO POLICIES PUT IN PLACE IN 1993-1994 WHICH COST THE DEMS THE CONGRESS IN 1995!



BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER he vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut


BUT I FORGET, IT'S SUPER POWERS OF PREZ THAT GET CREDIT (17 YEARS OF REAGAN'S ECONOMY, LOL) BUT THE CONGRESS WHO WAS AT FAULT FOR DEBT? LOL

BTW, BOTH House of Congress control spending, and the GOP had 6 years in Dubya (House) , Reagan's (Senate) 8 years and 2 in Poppy's. Revenue bills ONLY start in the House, lol

 

[Stephanie]

It's pretty hard to take anyone serious who has an avatar of a clown face.

 

[alan1]

Got it, YOU can't be honest. You must be a conservative. It's the Dem Prez fault _____ fill in the blank, UNLESS it's a GOP Congress when good things happened, lol

Actually, I am honest, and factual. And I lean more towards Libertarian.

CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES THANKS TO POLICIES PUT IN PLACE IN 1993-1994 WHICH COST THE DEMS THE CONGRESS IN 1995!

People must have liked the lower federal spending.

BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER he vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut

BJ doesn't really have anything to do with it, does it? Other than your dis-honest way to address it,
Congress still wrote the eventual spending bill that was passed.

BUT I FORGET, IT'S SUPER POWERS OF PREZ THAT GET CREDIT (17 YEARS OF REAGAN'S ECONOMY, LOL) BUT THE CONGRESS WHO WAS AT FAULT FOR DEBT? LOL

You seem to have forgotten that Mr Reagan wasn't president for 17 years (Reminder, he was president for 8 years, less than half of your supposed 17 years).
Do we suffer a Mr Clinton 17 year economy? See how foolish it sounds now?

BTW, BOTH House of Congress control spending, and the GOP had 6 years in Dubya (House) , Reagan's (Senate) 8 years and 2 in Poppy's. Revenue bills ONLY start in the House, lol

I did say "congress", that means both houses. I understand how our government is supposed to work after over half a century of watching it.

Personally, I prefer at least either the house or senate (more preferably, both) to be in opposition to the presidents party. It means less shit gets done, because I've seen that the more federal crap that gets passed usually means the more crap us citizens are forced to suffer with.