Republicans vote against Bush tax cuts...

[NYcarbineer]

Damn, what a bunch of wimp ass Conservatives. Let us take the real Fiscal Conservative route. The tax cuts expire for all. That would make a real dent in future deficits. Then let see that the corperations actually pay taxes.

But all we are going to hear on this crocodile tears for the poor millionaires. In the meantime, the unemployment rate is up to 9.8, and a bunch of peoples unemployment checks will run out about Christmas time. A real gift from our oh so Christian Conservatives.

The reason we are in this mess is because the Democraps intentionally spent us into it.

Why would they do that?

Answer: To get to the point where we must allow the Bush Tax-cuts to expire.

That's all this is about.

Then how do you explain the deficits from 2002 to 2008?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The tax cut would only apply to all income over $250k. Thus if you make $300,000 you would see a 3% increase on only the $50,000 over $300k.

The argument that this will kill job creation of small businesses is also untrue. As the majority of small business owners do not have personal incomes of over $250k. The average small business owner makes between $35-$100k. It is a small minority that make over $250k. If the sticking point is $250k. I know people are willing to move the limit higher (possible $500k).

Then there comes the cost. The cost of the extending the middle class tax cut is projected at $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years, ending them for incomes over $250k adds another $700 billion. Can we even afford to add that much more do the debt? Are extending the tax cuts to the top income earners more important than unemployment benefits?

I am for either letting them all expire or only renewing the middle class. The reason being is that the middle class who has the biggest buying power, historically pumps any extra income into the market, while top earners will either save or invest it. Thus the argument that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will curb job growth is dumb.

If you want to spur job growth through tax cuts or rebates, all small businesses who add employee to their payroll to have a tax rebate of of $500-1000 per employee, which will offset any rise in taxes..

That's horseshit. Since when does the government tax the same return on two different scales???

They would tax all of it the same if your gross was above $250k.

You need to show me a link.....which I know you can't because the tax-code has yet to be written.

Do you even know what a tax bracket is?

 

[mudwhistle]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Appropriate, given who posted it.

There must be any number of chain e-mails going around. I'm floored by the number of ridiculously idiotic and utterly false information being proclaimed as fact around here.

Everyone knows that our W-4 takes out our income according to your gross income not what your actual profits are. You can adjust it according to the number of dependents you want to declare but it's pretty much written in stone that you're gonna get a huge chunk of your pay taken out if you go above $200k for singles and $250k for married couples. Another little detail the Dems forgot to mention.

 

[mudwhistle]

The tax cut would only apply to all income over $250k. Thus if you make $300,000 you would see a 3% increase on only the $50,000 over $300k.

The argument that this will kill job creation of small businesses is also untrue. As the majority of small business owners do not have personal incomes of over $250k. The average small business owner makes between $35-$100k. It is a small minority that make over $250k. If the sticking point is $250k. I know people are willing to move the limit higher (possible $500k).

Then there comes the cost. The cost of the extending the middle class tax cut is projected at $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years, ending them for incomes over $250k adds another $700 billion. Can we even afford to add that much more do the debt? Are extending the tax cuts to the top income earners more important than unemployment benefits?

I am for either letting them all expire or only renewing the middle class. The reason being is that the middle class who has the biggest buying power, historically pumps any extra income into the market, while top earners will either save or invest it. Thus the argument that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will curb job growth is dumb.

If you want to spur job growth through tax cuts or rebates, all small businesses who add employee to their payroll to have a tax rebate of of $500-1000 per employee, which will offset any rise in taxes..

That's horseshit. Since when does the government tax the same return on two different scales???

They would tax all of it the same if your gross was above $250k.

You need to show me a link.....which I know you can't because the tax-code has yet to be written.

Do you even know what a tax bracket is?

Yes...I know. Explain how going into a higher tax bracket only applies to those earnings that put you above that bracket?

 

[Ernie S.]

The tax cut would only apply to all income over $250k. Thus if you make $300,000 you would see a 3% increase on only the $50,000 over $300k.

The argument that this will kill job creation of small businesses is also untrue. As the majority of small business owners do not have personal incomes of over $250k. The average small business owner makes between $35-$100k. It is a small minority that make over $250k. If the sticking point is $250k. I know people are willing to move the limit higher (possible $500k).

Then there comes the cost. The cost of the extending the middle class tax cut is projected at $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years, ending them for incomes over $250k adds another $700 billion. Can we even afford to add that much more do the debt? Are extending the tax cuts to the top income earners more important than unemployment benefits?

I am for either letting them all expire or only renewing the middle class. The reason being is that the middle class who has the biggest buying power, historically pumps any extra income into the market, while top earners will either save or invest it. Thus the argument that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will curb job growth is dumb.

If you want to spur job growth through tax cuts or rebates, all small businesses who add employee to their payroll to have a tax rebate of of $500-1000 per employee, which will offset any rise in taxes..

Let them all expire, take the money, hire people to repave the entire planet. If that ain't enough, hire a few million people to dig a giant ditch and a few million more to re-fill it. THAT'S how you get things rolling. Tax cuts don't do you much good when you can't find a f**kin job. And, when you yourself don't have a job, you can't do the spending that in turn creates more jobs.

You don't stimulate the economy by digging ditches and filling them in. Sure you put some people to work, but others have to pay for essentially nothing. Your ditch diggers and ditch fillers have produced nothing.
You create wealth buy producing tangible assets like cars, houses lumber etc. Sure, your ditch workers will be able to afford more tangible assets, but the general population that has to pay their wage is able to afford less. Zero sum gain.

 

[mudwhistle]

Damn, what a bunch of wimp ass Conservatives. Let us take the real Fiscal Conservative route. The tax cuts expire for all. That would make a real dent in future deficits. Then let see that the corperations actually pay taxes.

But all we are going to hear on this crocodile tears for the poor millionaires. In the meantime, the unemployment rate is up to 9.8, and a bunch of peoples unemployment checks will run out about Christmas time. A real gift from our oh so Christian Conservatives.

The reason we are in this mess is because the Democraps intentionally spent us into it.

Why would they do that?

Answer: To get to the point where we must allow the Bush Tax-cuts to expire.

That's all this is about.

Then how do you explain the deficits from 2002 to 2008?

We spent more then we took in.

What does that have to do with the increase in spending the last two years? Before 07' the deficit was $169 billion. Now it's somewhere around $4 trillion.

 

[SuMar]

Let me see if I understand your reasoning here. The Bush Administration passed a temporary tax cut for those making above $250K. But, the premise is that when that temporary tax cut runs it's course, if "nothing" is done the Congress is deemed to have "raised" taxes. So, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it ... it didn't make a sound?

Tax Cuts for the wealthy are done. The economy is in the toilet and the government's just about bankrupt. It's time for those making $250K and up to get back to paying their fair share.

The benefit was given to help spur the economy. It didn't work and time has run out. How does it make any sense to extend this benefit? The money that "the rich" have saved by this tax cut benefit was supposed to be put back into the economy yet one look at corporate America's bottom line and it's obvious to the casual observer that "Corporate America" and "the rich" have been hanging onto their money. Any premise for continuing the tax benefit for the rich has long since passed and the idea itself to spur the economy has failed.

So tell me something......When has it ever been that the rich guy takes it in the shorts?

 

[Cuyo]

Appropriate, given who posted it.

There must be any number of chain e-mails going around. I'm floored by the number of ridiculously idiotic and utterly false information being proclaimed as fact around here.

Everyone knows that our W-4 takes out our income according to your gross income not what your actual profits are. You can adjust it according to the number of dependents you want to declare but it's pretty much written in stone that you're gonna get a huge chunk of your pay taken out if you go above $200k for singles and $250k for married couples. Another little detail the Dems forgot to mention.

What the hell are you talking about, "Profit" vs "Gross Income?"

If you're self-employed, only your profit is taxed. Are you actually suggesting to us that a company pays a tax on their gross sales?

If you're earning wages, you pay taxes on your gross wages, less deductions.

Please clarify what you're calling "Profit" and what you're calling "Gross Income." You're not making a whole hell of a lot of sense, and if you're self-employed as you claim to be, I firmly reccomend you hire an accountant. Fast.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Dems are the reason they were temporary.

The tax cuts were temporary because they raised the deficit. The sunset provision was a gimmick to get around the procedural difficulties imposed by that fact

 

[Truthmatters]

WOW hes now blaming the dems for a bill written and passed by the republicans.

No real surprize the guy is a complete idiot

 

[Trajan]

Damn, what a bunch of wimp ass Conservatives. Let us take the real Fiscal Conservative route. The tax cuts expire for all. That would make a real dent in future deficits. Then let see that the corperations actually pay taxes.

But all we are going to hear on this crocodile tears for the poor millionaires. In the meantime, the unemployment rate is up to 9.8, and a bunch of peoples unemployment checks will run out about Christmas time. A real gift from our oh so Christian Conservatives.

The reason we are in this mess is because the Democraps intentionally spent us into it.

Why would they do that?

Answer: To get to the point where we must allow the Bush Tax-cuts to expire.

That's all this is about.

Then how do you explain the deficits from 2002 to 2008?

what would you like explained? see the charts.....


the fed % of gdp ala tax collection is historically averaged at 18.5%. The tax structures ala lower overall rates creates a larger pool of money to be collected as economic activity creates more money to be taxed.
And if you look at the fed tex rev. on the previous pages I posted page 5 I believe you will see a correlation.
screw it here;
Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 1902-2014 - Federal State Local

scroll to the bottom , the raw numbers of tax % and the amounts collected is right there.


the first chart is annual fed. defcit year to year and the second fed deficit as % of gpd.

 

[Truthmatters]

Christopher Chantrill - Home Page

I dont trust this site.

This is a conservative site MADE to look like a government site.

Go find a respectable unbiased source for your facts.

 

[Trajan]

The Dems are the reason they were temporary.

The tax cuts were temporary because they raised the deficit. The sunset provision was a gimmick to get around the procedural difficulties imposed by that fact

that is correct and thats the only way they could get dems on board.

the issue I think people are stumbling over is the deficit ( which is not always true btw, see the charts, the deficits went completely haywire when the crash occurred) went up even when we had above average or even average tax collection because we spent, ahead of pop. growth and based on faulty forecasts, which as usual didn't forecast correctly because you just cannot forecast 5 years ahead and make a sound fiscal plan in the gov. based on market forces not yet realized or even taken into account, like MORE spending, which always seems to grow no matter what as no prgm ever seems to stay within budget and always winds up getting renewed even after forecasting sunsets or stasis etc.

 

[Truthmatters]

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Umm only one dem was on board.

They did not make them permanent and had many chances to over the years because they are a budget buster.

 

[Trajan]

wow, validation for bud deficit and ant. debt..., what a surprise ....that took 20 seconds.


Fileeficits vs. Debt Increases - 2009.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Reported budget deficit data is from: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf and http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0908.pdf
* Reported debt change data is calculated from: Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
* On-budget vs. off-budget data is from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/spec.pdf ; see page 370 (Table 23-1).
* 2009 deficit is in the CBO Monthly Budget Review for October 2009: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10640/10-2009-MBR.pdf

 

[Greenbeard]

that is correct and thats the only way they could get dems on board.

It was the only way they could pass it through budget reconciliation. The process is intended to be used for deficit reduction and thus can't be used on legislation that increases the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window. Why the focus on the then-minority party and not on the fiscal irresponsibility of the then-majority party?

 

[Trajan]

that is correct and thats the only way they could get dems on board.

It was the only way they could pass it through budget reconciliation. The process is intended to be used for deficit reduction and thus can't be used on legislation that increases the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window. Why the focus on the then-minority party and not on the fiscal irresponsibility of the then-majority party?

yes i remember that. I see, so you want me to focus on what again? Did you read what I wrote and look at the charts, they to speak for themselves. I have to assume you didn't read what I wrote or slid over it taking your own message away despite my verbiage.

you really want to get into a reconciliation debate?

hey I have not hear you address the "fiscal irresponsibility" [sic] of the present party btw so, hey....pot.

 

[Truthmatters]

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Tax cuts DO NOT increase tax revenue no matter how many times youy lie about it.

 

[Full-Auto]

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Tax cuts DO NOT increase tax revenue no matter how many times youy lie about it.

Well this proves democrats have zero understanding of human nature. So now your argument has turned they would be higher.


Different then your other rethoric.

 

[The T]

FactCheck.org: Supply-side Spin

Tax cuts DO NOT increase tax revenue no matter how many times youy lie about it.

Uh-huh...that's why Kennedy did it...Reagan did it, Bush did it...revenues went up...only what you fail to acknowledge is that Congress/Government spends more than it takes in.

Gotta milk that cash cow literally to death.

Try again.