Why Do Liberals In Washington Really Love Tax Increases?

[mudwhistle]

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

Jillian, the only reason we have a separate schedule for capital gains is so they can be taxed at lower rates. Sell a stock and make $100, you'll pay $15 in tax. Earn $100 digging ditches, you'll pay as much as $35 in tax. Some folks think if income is taxable, the same rate should apply across the board.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you agree that the highest earners...the top 1% shouldn't pay more then anyone else....all taxpayers need to pay the same percentage?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It seems like everything they do eventually ends up leading to possible tax increases.

What better way to do this then to take away our independence....or in other words...take away most of our income.

You mean....of course....without insisting that Corporate America pays IT'S share-o'-taxes....RIGHT??!!!

​

"With a swipe of his debit card in a Phoenix pharmacy, Tyler Hurst bought a $99 bottle of Lexapro and kicked off a 9,400-mile odyssey of international corporate tax avoidance. Each stop along the way—an industrial park in Dublin, a skyscraper in Amsterdam, a palm-shaded law office in Bermuda—helps the medicine's maker, Forest Laboratories (FRX), cut its income tax bill. Although all of Forest's Lexapro sales are in the U.S., the company moves profit$ generated by the world's third-best-selling antidepressant from $ub$idiary to $ub$idiary overseas, exploiting tax advantages in multiple countries. The technique, known as transfer pricing, reduced Forest's net U.S. tax bill by more than a third in 2009, according to the company's annual report."

 

[MaggieMae]

It is a control issue, not a money issue. If it were a money issue, we wouldn't have a capital gains tax

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

Why even call it "capital gains" tax? It's INCOME, period.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Jillian, the only reason we have a separate schedule for capital gains is so they can be taxed at lower rates. Sell a stock and make $100, you'll pay $15 in tax. Earn $100 digging ditches, you'll pay as much as $35 in tax. Some folks think if income is taxable, the same rate should apply across the board.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you agree that the highest earners...the top 1% shouldn't pay more then anyone else.

I'm sayin' ALL income should be taxed (at the same-rate); direct-income OR indirect-income!!!!​

 

[mudwhistle]

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you agree that the highest earners...the top 1% shouldn't pay more then anyone else.

I'm sayin' ALL income should be taxed (at the same-rate); direct-income OR indirect-income!!!!​

Do you believe in double-taxation...or just taxing earnings?

 

[MaggieMae]

It is a control issue, not a money issue. If it were a money issue, we wouldn't have a capital gains tax

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

It's one of the biggest barriers to job growth in the economy.

It also in the short term reduces revenue....because wealth production in the states is stifled...so investors move their money out of the country.

It is a massive tax that makes the rich want to live and do business elsewhere.

Ironically, during the Bush Administration the capital gains tax was dropped to a low of 15%, and companies STILL moved their money out of the country. Why do you think "trickle down" didn't work? They were not investing in their OWN companies by the tax windfall, instead just made themselves and their stockholders richer.

 

[mudwhistle]

why shouldn't we have a capital gains tax?

It's one of the biggest barriers to job growth in the economy.

It also in the short term reduces revenue....because wealth production in the states is stifled...so investors move their money out of the country.

It is a massive tax that makes the rich want to live and do business elsewhere.

Ironically, during the Bush Administration the capital gains tax was dropped to a low of 15%, and companies STILL moved their money out of the country. Why do you think "trickle down" didn't work? They were not investing in their OWN companies by the tax windfall, instead just made themselves and their stockholders richer.

Maybe because states continued to raise their taxes.

This is why Michigan, California, New York, and New Jersey are being decimated.

 

[DiamondDave]

The answer to why liberals in Washington love tax increases comes down to a simple matter of jobs. Their own. I look at it as their abuse of a progressive tax system for their own empowerment. This system allows for them to parade one "feel good" social program after another to the voters, the vast majority of which will give little consideration to their costs.

It's called Fiscal Responsibility (No.....not the "conservative"-version).

​

Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

 

[MaggieMae]

Money is moved out of the country because slave wages are available elsewhere. Even our minimum wage cannot compete with workers who are separated from slavery by a few dollars a day.

Couple that with the fact that you can incorporate in the cayman islands and pay no taxes at all and you have the business man's wet dream.

Not so good for the US. Seems that is none of their concern.

And this proposal has gotten weak support in Congress, from both Republicans and Democrats.

Barack Obama targets offshore tax havens - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The answer to why liberals in Washington love tax increases comes down to a simple matter of jobs. Their own. I look at it as their abuse of a progressive tax system for their own empowerment. This system allows for them to parade one "feel good" social program after another to the voters, the vast majority of which will give little consideration to their costs.

It's called Fiscal Responsibility (No.....not the "conservative"-version).

​

Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

Ah, yes....those mythical Clinton Years!!

​

 

[MaggieMae]

That's a fallacy. Ditch-diggers usually don't pay any taxes...because of their deductions.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....great numbers you showed everyone, there!!

​

How long have you been a taxpayer??

You must not be aware of that tax scale in the back of your IRS booklet or if you're using Turbotax it tells you what your tax is.

You know....the one that tells you after you figure out your taxable income how much taxes you owe.

You are aware of that right?

Usually Ditch-diggers don't make a whole heck of alot....and then their standard deduction cancels out half of their earned income...then add Earned Income deductions for children and so-forth....by the time they figure out their taxable income it doesn't amount to much or anything.

There's a category in the back of the tax booklet for ditch diggers? Let's just generalize and say that construction workers sure as hell make more than burger flippers and take it from there. The construction worker probably DOES pay taxes if he maintains employment, that is.

Ironically, the higher the income the more loopholes and writeoffs become available so that the wealthiest wind up paying less (as a percentage) than does some middle-income construction worker (or secretary, as Warren Buffett pointed out).

 

[MaggieMae]

The answer to why liberals in Washington love tax increases comes down to a simple matter of jobs. Their own. I look at it as their abuse of a progressive tax system for their own empowerment. This system allows for them to parade one "feel good" social program after another to the voters, the vast majority of which will give little consideration to their costs.

It's called Fiscal Responsibility (No.....not the "conservative"-version).

​

Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.

 

[xsited1]

It's called Fiscal Responsibility (No.....not the "conservative"-version).

​

Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.

I just found this using google. It appears to have a good explanation of the numbers. I don't know who this guy is or what he truly stands for, but the numbers he posts are accurate.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[MaggieMae]

Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.

I just found this using google. It appears to have a good explanation of the numbers. I don't know who this guy is or what he truly stands for, but the numbers he posts are accurate.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Steiner, like many others, confuses the national debt (deficit) and the annual budget, for which there are inescapable operating costs so it will never show a true surplus. There is no way that Clinton had a deficit surplus, of course. Bush even acknowledged the budget surplus in his first SOU address to Congress which was when he first proposed tax cuts to "give the money back to the people."

 

[onecut39]

Ain't it the truth!

I live in Minnesota, land of commie pinkos and knee jerk liberals. Yet even here the rich have made their mark.

Here in liberal land a guy making 30 grand a year pays 11% in state income taxes.

Those making a million or more pay from 7 to 9 percent income tax.

Of course that does not take into account the loopholes and deductions available for certain "types" of income. I suspect they make out pretty well.

 

[xsited1]

So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.

I just found this using google. It appears to have a good explanation of the numbers. I don't know who this guy is or what he truly stands for, but the numbers he posts are accurate.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Steiner, like many others, confuses the national debt (deficit) and the annual budget, for which there are inescapable operating costs so it will never show a true surplus. There is no way that Clinton had a deficit surplus, of course. Bush even acknowledged the budget surplus in his first SOU address to Congress which was when he first proposed tax cuts to "give the money back to the people."

What's frustrating is that I made a concerted effort to help you understand history by providing the actual number and you didn't even bother to read it. If you had, you would have read the following:

Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number.

You would have also noticed the chart with "National Debt" and "Deficit" clearly marked, so there would be no question that Steiner understands the difference. You should also know that Congress controls spending, but I seriously doubt you'll accept that fact.

Why would you want to continue to remain ignorant on this matter?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Clinton "surpluses" were an accounting trick.... they never hapenned.

 

[MaggieMae]

I just found this using google. It appears to have a good explanation of the numbers. I don't know who this guy is or what he truly stands for, but the numbers he posts are accurate.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Steiner, like many others, confuses the national debt (deficit) and the annual budget, for which there are inescapable operating costs so it will never show a true surplus. There is no way that Clinton had a deficit surplus, of course. Bush even acknowledged the budget surplus in his first SOU address to Congress which was when he first proposed tax cuts to "give the money back to the people."

What's frustrating is that I made a concerted effort to help you understand history by providing the actual number and you didn't even bother to read it. If you had, you would have read the following:

Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number.

You would have also noticed the chart with "National Debt" and "Deficit" clearly marked, so there would be no question that Steiner understands the difference. You should also know that Congress controls spending, but I seriously doubt you'll accept that fact.

Why would you want to continue to remain ignorant on this matter?

And I explained why it would never reach zero. There are more economic PROFESSIONALS who can read those figures accurately and who confirm that there was indeed a "budget" surplus (meaning on spending) for FY 1999-2000).

And of course I know that Congress controls spending, but theycan be stymied by a president who will always hold a veto pen, and Bush 43 never vetoed a single spending bill.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Clinton "surpluses" were an accounting trick.... they never hapenned.

That's funny, I don't recall a whole lot of people threatening to storm the White House because they were unhappy employees or small businessmen, in spite of the tax rate being four points higher...

 

[xsited1]

Steiner, like many others, confuses the national debt (deficit) and the annual budget, for which there are inescapable operating costs so it will never show a true surplus. There is no way that Clinton had a deficit surplus, of course. Bush even acknowledged the budget surplus in his first SOU address to Congress which was when he first proposed tax cuts to "give the money back to the people."

What's frustrating is that I made a concerted effort to help you understand history by providing the actual number and you didn't even bother to read it. If you had, you would have read the following:

Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number.

You would have also noticed the chart with "National Debt" and "Deficit" clearly marked, so there would be no question that Steiner understands the difference. You should also know that Congress controls spending, but I seriously doubt you'll accept that fact.

Why would you want to continue to remain ignorant on this matter?

And I explained why it would never reach zero. There are more economic PROFESSIONALS who can read those figures accurately and who confirm that there was indeed a "budget" surplus (meaning on spending) for FY 1999-2000).

And of course I know that Congress controls spending, but theycan be stymied by a president who will always hold a veto pen, and Bush 43 never vetoed a single spending bill.

Of course it could reach zero. You're just making excuses like you normally do. The fact is the conservatives in Congress held spending in check, but somehow Clinton gets all the credit? That's just silly. He should get a little credit which I freely give him because he was easy to control. And Bush 43 and the Neocons in Congress were punished by acting like LBJ-style Democrats as they should (which is why I don't usually vote GOP). But why would you bring up Bush? Oh, yeah. Bush Derangement Syndrome.