Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[DiamondDave]

Sniper, it's not about teachers, firefighters, and cops getting rich. It's about laying off teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. They won't have jobs, period. They are laid off. No job. No money to spend in the community.

When you work hard, what you accumulate is YOURS. You pass laws and you tell me that you want to take it away from me because YOU know how to use it best.

The rich are making the rules.

Income from investments is taxed at a lower rate than income from work.

Why aren't both kinds of income taxed at the same rate?

Maybe because ~50% pay no income taxes at all.. and in order to pander for the votes of those that are kept without that tax burden and stake in the game, rates on earners and producers have been jacked up... because it is easier to pander when you come bearing gifts that are paid for by others

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why is the money that is earned from investments taxed at a lower rate than the money earned from work?

Both are income. Why is the tax rate different?

Because money placed in investments has already been taxed as income.

It is taxed twice.

 

[SAT]

The reason that 47% pay no taxes is the result of years of Dem and Pub tax cuts. So why ***** now?

The idea that that 47% have no skin in the game is ignorant. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, road taxes, property taxes, etc.

So back to the question: Why is investment income taxed at a lower rate than income from actual work?

Keep in mind that those at the top often did little more than pick their parents wisely. Let's don't pretend that they are a bunch of geniuses.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't had time to read the thread yet but I will answer the request in the title of the thread:

I support the wealthy because they are the ones who provide the jobs that allow me to BE in the middle class.

It is as simple as that.

Really, who do you work for? Are the only jobs you're aware of in places owned by the top 1%?

Remember that our Fearless leader considers anybody making $250,000 or more to be 'rich'. Most of the jobs in the country don't come from the 1%; however, that 1% is not irrelevent to the jobs being created because of the huge amounts of money they funnel into philanthropy, foundations, scholarships, universities, and other quality of life considerations.

No poor person nor any person just getting by has ever offered me a job. It has always been those who live in very nice homes in better neighborhoods, drive more expensive cars, and can afford to go to major league footbal games. They are all probably in the top 10% anyway, and I don't begrudge them a dime they have. Without them we would all be in much worse shape than we are.

 

[SAT]

Seeing the Forest: Tax Tricks: Is Corporate Income Taxed Twice?

Conservatives claim that income from corporate dividends is "taxed twice" -- first when the corporation pays its taxes (if it does pay taxes), and then when the recipient of dividends pays taxes on that income.

They don't claim, however, that when you pay your plumber the plumber shouldn't have to pay taxes because you already paid taxes on your income. That's different, I guess, because you and your plumber both have to work. Income from working has no such considerations of favor.

Try again.

Why is income from investments taxed at a lower rate than income from work?

 

[SAT]

Remember that our Fearless leader considers anybody making $250,000 or more to be 'rich'. Most of the jobs in the country don't come from the 1%; however, that 1% is not irrelevent to the jobs being created because of the huge amounts of money they funnel into philanthropy, foundations, scholarships, universities, and other quality of life considerations.

No poor person nor any person just getting by has ever offered me a job. It has always been those who live in very nice homes in better neighborhoods, drive more expensive cars, and can afford to go to major league footbal games. They are all probably in the top 10% anyway, and I don't begrudge them a dime they have. Without them we would all be in much worse shape than we are.

Yes, he's right. Those who earn a quarter of a million dollars annually are quite well off.

I don't begrudge them, I only ask that they contribute to the society that put the infrastructure in place that supports their efforts.

Poor people work, and poor people create demand by buying things.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Seeing the Forest: Tax Tricks: Is Corporate Income Taxed Twice?

Conservatives claim that income from corporate dividends is "taxed twice" -- first when the corporation pays its taxes (if it does pay taxes), and then when the recipient of dividends pays taxes on that income.

They don't claim, however, that when you pay your plumber the plumber shouldn't have to pay taxes because you already paid taxes on your income. That's different, I guess, because you and your plumber both have to work. Income from working has no such considerations of favor.

Try again.

Why is income from investments taxed at a lower rate than income from work?

Not analogous.

You cant invest capital you havent paid income tax on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why don't you take up with the administration you voted in, SAT-an, the definition of poverty.

I'm sorry, but they have their hands full running the nation. They don't have time to explain to us why you can't grasp a simple question and give a responsive answer. Do you, or do you not, see that simply saying "he's got a Jacuzzi, so he's not poor" is simplistic to the point of idiocy?

It is social poverty that is the detriment...and, rather than ameliorate conditions, Liberal 'welfare' policies amplify the problem.

Oh, God, Charles Murray.

Liberal welfare policies don't amplify the problem. Right wing policy decisions do.

Policy decisions that ensure that people have unequal access to education, safe environments, transportation, even the chance to vote...these factors keep people down. Which is the plan.

You are a particularly ignorant fellow...

"Oh, God, Charles Murray."
So, which of Murray's works have you read?
None?
You merely mouth whatever your Left-wing leaders tell you to?
Quite a time saver.

...I feel that I'm taking advantage. But, since you have demanded the spanking...here it is:


1. "Liberal welfare policies don't amplify the problem. Right wing policy decisions do."

a. Right wing policies: Clinton was forced to sign welfare reform over the cries from Liberals that folks would be dying in the streets.....


"And, notably, there are now about 2 million mothers working who previously would have been on welfare. It would appear the TANF program has met its central goal of promoting work and personal responsibility. But more specifically, the 1996 reforms have been followed by a major decline in the welfare caseload, big increases in employment and earnings of single mothers, substantial increases in total income of families headed by mothers, and the biggest declines in child poverty since the 1960s (Figures 1 and 2). These effects are deep and significant: the nation has enjoyed the first sustained decline in welfare rolls in history, single mothers are now more likely to work than at any time in the past, the earnings of female-headed families are at an all-time high, child poverty is at its lowest level since 1979, black child poverty is the lowest ever, and poverty among female-headed families is the lowest ever."
Welfare Reform: An Examination of Effects - Brookings Institution

BTW....brookings is a left of center think tank.


Well....so Right wing policies have been successful...how about Left-wing policies??

2. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Do you feel as dumb as you appear, SAT-an?
Have you ever read a book?
Book...a bound, formerly tree product, with ink....

 

[SAT]

Not analogous.

You cant invest capital you havent paid income tax on.

Please, explain further.

 

[OODA_Loop]

For one to invest money legally...... it has been taxed as income.

When I recieve gains from the investment of that already taxed capital it is at a lower rate.

 

[SAT]

For one to invest money legally...... it has been taxed as income.

When I recieve gains from the investment of that already taxed capital it is at a lower rate.

It remains income. As with the plumber. I have paid taxes on my income, why should he pay taxes on what he earns from me?

Chic, Clinton was not forced to sign welfare reform. He campaigned on it. The dispute was over how to reform welfare, not whether to reform it.

 

[toxicmedia]

Why don't you take up with the administration you voted in, SAT-an, the definition of poverty.

I'm sorry, but they have their hands full running the nation. They don't have time to explain to us why you can't grasp a simple question and give a responsive answer. Do you, or do you not, see that simply saying "he's got a Jacuzzi, so he's not poor" is simplistic to the point of idiocy?

It is social poverty that is the detriment...and, rather than ameliorate conditions, Liberal 'welfare' policies amplify the problem.

Oh, God, Charles Murray.

Liberal welfare policies don't amplify the problem. Right wing policy decisions do.

Policy decisions that ensure that people have unequal access to education, safe environments, transportation, even the chance to vote...these factors keep people down. Which is the plan.

You are a particularly ignorant fellow...

"Oh, God, Charles Murray."
So, which of Murray's works have you read?
None?
You merely mouth whatever your Left-wing leaders tell you to?
Quite a time saver.

...I feel that I'm taking advantage. But, since you have demanded the spanking...here it is:


1. "Liberal welfare policies don't amplify the problem. Right wing policy decisions do."

a. Right wing policies: Clinton was forced to sign welfare reform over the cries from Liberals that folks would be dying in the streets.....


"And, notably, there are now about 2 million mothers working who previously would have been on welfare. It would appear the TANF program has met its central goal of promoting work and personal responsibility. But more specifically, the 1996 reforms have been followed by a major decline in the welfare caseload, big increases in employment and earnings of single mothers, substantial increases in total income of families headed by mothers, and the biggest declines in child poverty since the 1960s (Figures 1 and 2). These effects are deep and significant: the nation has enjoyed the first sustained decline in welfare rolls in history, single mothers are now more likely to work than at any time in the past, the earnings of female-headed families are at an all-time high, child poverty is at its lowest level since 1979, black child poverty is the lowest ever, and poverty among female-headed families is the lowest ever."
Welfare Reform: An Examination of Effects - Brookings Institution

BTW....brookings is a left of center think tank.


Well....so Right wing policies have been successful...how about Left-wing policies??

2. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Do you feel as dumb as you appear, SAT-an?
Have you ever read a book?
Book...a bound, formerly tree product, with ink....

The Brookings Inst is not center left. That's just what idots like Bernie Goldberg, Fox, and others say when thier tanky thinking doesn't go their way.

Be clear....I'm not calling you an idiot.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It remains income. As with the plumber. I have paid taxes on my income, why should he pay taxes on what he earns from me?

Because it is the plumber's earned income.

 

[Foxfyre]

Remember that our Fearless leader considers anybody making $250,000 or more to be 'rich'. Most of the jobs in the country don't come from the 1%; however, that 1% is not irrelevent to the jobs being created because of the huge amounts of money they funnel into philanthropy, foundations, scholarships, universities, and other quality of life considerations.

No poor person nor any person just getting by has ever offered me a job. It has always been those who live in very nice homes in better neighborhoods, drive more expensive cars, and can afford to go to major league footbal games. They are all probably in the top 10% anyway, and I don't begrudge them a dime they have. Without them we would all be in much worse shape than we are.

Yes, he's right. Those who earn a quarter of a million dollars annually are quite well off.

I don't begrudge them, I only ask that they contribute to the society that put the infrastructure in place that supports their efforts.

Poor people work, and poor people create demand by buying things.

And you think the more wealthy don't? The more wealthy provide the jobs and/or the taxes that allow the 'poor' to create demand by buying things. The more wealthy are not obligated to pay more than the labor is worth, however, and are not in business to do social work. To assume that they have the moral obligation to do so is misguided and misdirected.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are calling for higher taxes on others.

This behavior isnt new or unique. And it originates with jealousy and envy. How far removed you try to make yourself is your issue to resolve within yourself.

So your mind is so limited that the only reason you can imagine for increasing the top marginal tax rate is envy?

Seriously?

You can't stretch your mind enough to see that people might have any motivation beyond envy.

Do I have that right?

Oh we understand the attempt to grab more money for the US Treasury. But it's your naive belief that it will go to "jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters". With HUGE increases in yearly debt, imploding entitlement funding status, stagnant private sector of the economy, and a track record of using tax money to roll the dice Vegas style ---- It's really ignorant to think that Congress and the Prez are gonna USE that money wisely. YOU'VE got to compete with the beggars and whiners who expect that money will go to welfare or mere distribution. In other words -- you have no PLAN for that money. And that's a prime reason we reject taking it....

Then set your mind at ease. The money is going to the states, for preserving the jobs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers. It's in the bill.

Losing those jobs will not only hurt kids educationally, and make communities less safe [both of which harm the economy], losing those jobs means people spend less. Do you understand what less demand does in an economy?

Do you understand the bailing out water is NOT as efficient as FIXING the leak? The STATES each have their own problems. And I'm sure as heck not interested in supporting leftist paradises like LA and San Fran and Chicago in their spendthrift ways? This is not a solution to the economy. It WILL NOT make the private sector stronger. It will give the states the same "too big to fail" status that a misdirected leftist Congress WANTS to give to Wall Street giants and car companies. Besides, I doubt that the OWS protesters are gonna be happy with redistributing your pirate booty to JUST public servants. It does not address the general problem of welfare inequality. In fact -- it addresses very little than bandage on a major wound..

 

[Foxfyre]

Seeing the Forest: Tax Tricks: Is Corporate Income Taxed Twice?

Conservatives claim that income from corporate dividends is "taxed twice" -- first when the corporation pays its taxes (if it does pay taxes), and then when the recipient of dividends pays taxes on that income.

They don't claim, however, that when you pay your plumber the plumber shouldn't have to pay taxes because you already paid taxes on your income. That's different, I guess, because you and your plumber both have to work. Income from working has no such considerations of favor.

Try again.

Why is income from investments taxed at a lower rate than income from work?

It is taxed at a lower rate to make investment an attractive option to create wealth. Without making it as attractive as possible to invest assets, most people won't risk those assets at a high rate of taxation when the risk of losing their investment already exists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm sorry, but they have their hands full running the nation. They don't have time to explain to us why you can't grasp a simple question and give a responsive answer. Do you, or do you not, see that simply saying "he's got a Jacuzzi, so he's not poor" is simplistic to the point of idiocy?



Oh, God, Charles Murray.

Liberal welfare policies don't amplify the problem. Right wing policy decisions do.

Policy decisions that ensure that people have unequal access to education, safe environments, transportation, even the chance to vote...these factors keep people down. Which is the plan.

You are a particularly ignorant fellow...

"Oh, God, Charles Murray."
So, which of Murray's works have you read?
None?
You merely mouth whatever your Left-wing leaders tell you to?
Quite a time saver.

...I feel that I'm taking advantage. But, since you have demanded the spanking...here it is:


1. "Liberal welfare policies don't amplify the problem. Right wing policy decisions do."

a. Right wing policies: Clinton was forced to sign welfare reform over the cries from Liberals that folks would be dying in the streets.....


"And, notably, there are now about 2 million mothers working who previously would have been on welfare. It would appear the TANF program has met its central goal of promoting work and personal responsibility. But more specifically, the 1996 reforms have been followed by a major decline in the welfare caseload, big increases in employment and earnings of single mothers, substantial increases in total income of families headed by mothers, and the biggest declines in child poverty since the 1960s (Figures 1 and 2). These effects are deep and significant: the nation has enjoyed the first sustained decline in welfare rolls in history, single mothers are now more likely to work than at any time in the past, the earnings of female-headed families are at an all-time high, child poverty is at its lowest level since 1979, black child poverty is the lowest ever, and poverty among female-headed families is the lowest ever."
Welfare Reform: An Examination of Effects - Brookings Institution

BTW....brookings is a left of center think tank.


Well....so Right wing policies have been successful...how about Left-wing policies??

2. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Do you feel as dumb as you appear, SAT-an?
Have you ever read a book?
Book...a bound, formerly tree product, with ink....

The Brookings Inst is not center left. That's just what idots like Bernie Goldberg, Fox, and others say when thier tanky thinking doesn't go their way.

Be clear....I'm not calling you an idiot.

"Left-leaning Brookings touts Huntsman, while Maddow says he lost debate"


Read more: Brookings Institution | Jon Huntsman | Rachel Maddow | The Daily Caller

 

[flacaltenn]

Sniper, it's not about teachers, firefighters, and cops getting rich. It's about laying off teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. They won't have jobs, period. They are laid off. No job. No money to spend in the community.

When you work hard, what you accumulate is YOURS. You pass laws and you tell me that you want to take it away from me because YOU know how to use it best.

The rich are making the rules.

Income from investments is taxed at a lower rate than income from work.

Why aren't both kinds of income taxed at the same rate?

If you have to ask that question after 47 threads on begging and whiner redistributioners, you're not paying attention.. We ENCOURAGE investment and innovation by defining Capital Gains Tax that is taxed at a lower rate. It is that way because EVERY Cap Gains dollar is put at risk by loaning it or using it to create a bigger economic pie. Leftists don't generally understand risk and why folks might choose to ACTUALLY sit on piles of money rather than putting it to work. But then -- in general -- leftists ABHOR risk. The whole purpose of govt in their feeble brains is to remove ALL RISK from life.

Taking a job and making a salary does not entail any risk. Not only that -- but it's NEW money coming into the economy. Cap gains is on money that has previously been earned and taxed and is being NOW USED to serve the economy again.. You could do that.. It would help MORE than the standard begging, whining, and spending other people's money that we are getting from you...

By the way:: "the rich are" NOT "making the rules".. There is a majority of Americans convinced that redistribution is wrong on principle and NOT a cure for our economic future success. YOU -- on the other hand are a small minority that confuse MORE GOVT income as charity to doled out as you see fit.. You are not winning the hearts and minds required to make the rules in your image..

 

[SAT]

It is taxed at a lower rate to make investment an attractive option to create wealth. Without making it as attractive as possible to invest assets, most people won't risk those assets at a high rate of taxation when the risk of losing their investment already exists.

Gee, that sounds like the government playing favorites, doesn't it?

It remains income. As with the plumber. I have paid taxes on my income, why should he pay taxes on what he earns from me?

Because it is the plumber's earned income.

And the professional investor makes his money by investing it and getting a payoff.

Which is how you have Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his secretary.

Which he believes is wrong.

Don't you agree?

And you think the more wealthy don't? The more wealthy provide the jobs and/or the taxes that allow the 'poor' to create demand by buying things. The more wealthy are not obligated to pay more than the labor is worth, however, and are not in business to do social work. To assume that they have the moral obligation to do so is misguided and misdirected.

I never said that they didn't. I simply pointed out that your attack on the poor was misguided.

I posted an analogy about progressive taxation in another thread, I guess no one read it, unfortunately.

Do you understand the bailing out water is NOT as efficient as FIXING the leak? The STATES each have their own problems. And I'm sure as heck not interested in supporting leftist paradises like LA and San Fran and Chicago in their spendthrift ways? This is not a solution to the economy. It WILL NOT make the private sector stronger. It will give the states the same "too big to fail" status that a misdirected leftist Congress WANTS to give to Wall Street giants and car companies. Besides, I doubt that the OWS protesters are gonna be happy with redistributing your pirate booty to JUST public servants. It does not address the general problem of welfare inequality. In fact -- it addresses very little than bandage on a major wound..

Do you understand that this shit about fixing the leak is just shit?

The states need help because of the recession. Not because they are profligate.

When the ship is sinking, does a captain want the bilge pumps going AND the leak fixed?

 

[toxicmedia]

You are a particularly ignorant fellow...

"Oh, God, Charles Murray."
So, which of Murray's works have you read?
None?
You merely mouth whatever your Left-wing leaders tell you to?
Quite a time saver.

...I feel that I'm taking advantage. But, since you have demanded the spanking...here it is:


1. "Liberal welfare policies don't amplify the problem. Right wing policy decisions do."

a. Right wing policies: Clinton was forced to sign welfare reform over the cries from Liberals that folks would be dying in the streets.....


"And, notably, there are now about 2 million mothers working who previously would have been on welfare. It would appear the TANF program has met its central goal of promoting work and personal responsibility. But more specifically, the 1996 reforms have been followed by a major decline in the welfare caseload, big increases in employment and earnings of single mothers, substantial increases in total income of families headed by mothers, and the biggest declines in child poverty since the 1960s (Figures 1 and 2). These effects are deep and significant: the nation has enjoyed the first sustained decline in welfare rolls in history, single mothers are now more likely to work than at any time in the past, the earnings of female-headed families are at an all-time high, child poverty is at its lowest level since 1979, black child poverty is the lowest ever, and poverty among female-headed families is the lowest ever."
Welfare Reform: An Examination of Effects - Brookings Institution

BTW....brookings is a left of center think tank.


Well....so Right wing policies have been successful...how about Left-wing policies??

2. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

Do you feel as dumb as you appear, SAT-an?
Have you ever read a book?
Book...a bound, formerly tree product, with ink....

The Brookings Inst is not center left. That's just what idots like Bernie Goldberg, Fox, and others say when thier tanky thinking doesn't go their way.

Be clear....I'm not calling you an idiot.

"Left-leaning Brookings touts Huntsman, while Maddow says he lost debate"


Read more: Brookings Institution | Jon Huntsman | Rachel Maddow | The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller, Rachel Maddow, Huffington, etc.......ALL garbage!....poison for the mind and temperment!