oh really? not sure that worked out as planned, even though the GOP says it every year.

now it looks like they just hide it as "cutting taxes" in their ads - being deceptive about who actually gets the cuts

come out GOP fanboys, i know you have some good responses...

9/23/2008 7:09:26 PM

9/23/2008 7:16:48 PM

... which then disappear once your company folds.

9/23/2008 7:32:21 PM

i'll be honest...i kinda hope it is "income redistribution"...the ones they'd take money from are prolly more likely to be the people that caused this mess in the first place

9/23/2008 7:36:44 PM

when did we have tax cuts just for the rich?

9/23/2008 7:52:59 PM

^^^^yes soap box is full of ONLY new topics, nice

^
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tax+cuts+for+the+rich&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

but im generally referring to the argument that tax cuts for the rich promote jobs - something i hear a lot

9/23/2008 8:03:32 PM

You didn't answer his question.

Quote :

"when did we have tax cuts just for the rich?"

9/23/2008 8:18:50 PM

not sure i ever said tax cuts ONLY for the rich, but sure, i can rephrase to "tax cuts that grossly benefit the rich over middle or lower class income levels"

pretty weak though prawn star

9/23/2008 8:24:27 PM

I wanna know how they plan to fund a trillion dollar bailout and two wars while cutting taxes

9/23/2008 8:30:38 PM

^ Debt. It's the American way. If all your credit are maxed out, get another one!

9/23/2008 8:35:06 PM

you know if i pay less taxes; I have more money to hire some blue collar chum to be my driver/butler/gardner/etc.

9/23/2008 8:40:49 PM

Yeah, but the government might also use the money they steal from you to hire someone.

9/23/2008 8:41:48 PM

Quote :

"not sure i ever said tax cuts ONLY for the rich, but sure, i can rephrase to "tax cuts that grossly benefit the rich over middle or lower class income levels""

Imagine that, the people who pay the most taxes benefit the most when there's a tax cut, who would've guessed?

9/23/2008 8:42:40 PM

Quote :

"pretty weak though prawn star"

No, your argument is pretty weak.

It's common knowledge that, other things being equal, tax cuts stimulate the economy. And the Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy for a while. It was the reckless federal spending, loose monetary policy built on borrowed money, irresponsible government interference in the housing market, and moral hazard created by the formation of GSE's that did us in.


[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 8:56 PM. Reason : 2]

9/23/2008 8:46:39 PM

im not saying cutting tax for the rich has gotten us into the current situation

this was a separate issue about cutting taxes disproportionately for the rich and hiding behind the fact that we are "cutting taxes for everyone" - like a recent McCain ad proclaims

and your statements are not entirely correct:

http://www.jobwatch.org/
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/02/b1425171.html
http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense2008/20080710

i'll let you read it, im not going to pick out the pertinent quotes

9/23/2008 9:59:41 PM

FLAT TAX on income.

This way the upper middle class and the elites are not unfairly overtaxed on productive earned income. Also, to ensure the poor and working class adequately pay into all the social services they seem to think they deserve/need; often because of their own behaviors.

9/23/2008 10:29:14 PM

^how is that sustainable?

9/23/2008 10:35:04 PM

^ Why wouldn't it be considering their would still be a tax on wealth (estate/capital gains) and all the other sources with which the gov't gets money.

Ignoring even that; surely adding up the number of poor who would pay an increased tax %age would even out the wealth to which would pay a lower %age in the flat tax plan.

9/23/2008 10:44:16 PM

Quote :

"Ignoring even that; surely adding up the number of poor who would pay an increased tax %age would even out the wealth to which would pay a lower %age in the flat tax plan."

rriiiiiiight.....

oh, wait, you said "surely". I guess that means you have data to back this up

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 10:46:01 PM

consider this:

eliminate the national debt
save the same amount of money, invest in the market as the federal government (weak socialism)

Then all federal programs will be supported with just interest, corporate tax, and user fees. In fact, a large portion of corporate tax would also not be needed.

What's so much more just about a government in debt over one that owns some portion of the nation?

9/23/2008 10:47:42 PM

yeah. there's really no possibility of a problem w/ a government which is making investments in the private sector. Dear god, we thing it's bad enough with lobbyists right now.

9/24/2008 12:11:27 AM

I could see how tax cuts for the rich theoretically COULD create jobs, but in this investment environment, that causality chain is not likely to happen. It'll be a couple of years before that reasoning would work.

Regardless of who gets elected president, it's a sure bet that their tax plans would be heavily modified anyway.

9/24/2008 1:52:28 AM

For those who do not think tax cuts stimulate the economy, what economic theory of yours suggest that raising taxes will benefit the economy?

Pointing to the Clinton admin does not hold water as that was a period of abnormal growth in business investment. The perceived ROI for such investments was so high that the marginal impact of taxes was not enough to dampen demand. Contrast that with today's environment, when capital investment is desperately needed, raising corporate and cap gains taxes is not something we should be experimenting with. Regardless of who you support, this should be common sense.

Pointing to deficit reduction as the sole reason is also not entirely prudent (assuming the goal is to prevent a further slide in the dollar). What has been driving the dollar more than budget deficits are interest-rate differentials. To the extent that raising taxes further weakens the economy, the dollar will price in fewer rate increases, thus weakening vis-a-vis most major ccys.


[Edited on September 24, 2008 at 6:56 AM. Reason : ,]

9/24/2008 6:39:15 AM

^ its not that I don't think tax cuts in general can create jobs, they can under the right circumstances - but when done just for the rich?

i'm just tired of people justifying unequal tax cuts aimed at the wealthy as the way to save the lower/middle class - or classifying these tax cuts as "for everyone".

bush's tax cuts have been shown to NOT create jobs over the rate at which they would have normally been created without tax cuts - ie it failed - this time, and people should know it is not THE solution to create jobs - they should be honest that the main reason the tax cuts are being created is for the benefit of the upper class

when tax cuts are given to the rich, they have a lot more options than just creating jobs in their business - they can reinvest the money, keep it in cash, etc

9/24/2008 12:36:41 PM

I think one of the mistakes with classifying tax cuts as going only to the rich is that it ignores the fact that many small-business owners file individual tax returns, so raising the top bracket would have an impact on jobs.

A more broad argument is that creating an even more progressive tax system removes the incentive for those not in the top bracket to get there. What distinguishes the U.S. from all other nations is our entrepreneurial climate. Taxing success at such high rates discourages risk taking, which is essential to our long-term economic success. As easy at it is to jealously punish those who have been successful, doing so sends a very perverse message to all those currently making the same pursuit.

9/24/2008 2:08:12 PM

Its funny how dems will want to raise taxes on the "rich" which means many small business owners will have less of the money they earn. Then go buy some votes by giving billions to businesses who support them, namely GM.

So they arent for fairness or a decrease for all.... just use yet another tax to help benefit them politically.

btw, its just not the republicans who do this.. but im sick of dems talking out of both ends.
along with these programs to "help the poor" that creates a subculture of govt dependency. There is some help for ya.

9/24/2008 2:20:05 PM

smash the state?

9/24/2008 11:38:44 PM

cutting taxes isn't going to all of a sudden make the rich into nice, selfless humanitarians. They are rich and in general they will do whatever they can to keep as much money as possbile note even because they need to. Just because they can. Tax them.

9/24/2008 11:47:05 PM

look, heres someone confusing wealth with greed

9/24/2008 11:50:01 PM

Fuck it, if they aren't spending it then clearly they don't need it. Why I'd wager to say that they should take all of Bill Gates's money and redistribute it to the people who "need it" that would be a much better way to use it than to do things like invest, fund the largest charitable organization in the world, etc.

Yup, those rich fuckers don't even appreciate the money they have, they should give it to you so you can pay off your cell phone bill and pay off that credit card bill that you racked up buying shit you didn't need and couldn't really afford.

9/24/2008 11:58:27 PM

couldn't afford it because bill gates took all my money on 3 xboxes in 1 year if you really want to go there.

9/25/2008 12:03:40 AM

if you had told them you got the red ring of death they wouldve fixed it for free (thats right, FREE) for THREE YEARS...and considering the 360 hasn't quite been out 3 years, you have no excuse to have bought three Xboxes

9/25/2008 12:21:19 AM

Quote :

"cutting taxes isn't going to all of a sudden make the rich into nice, selfless humanitarians. They are rich and in general they will do whatever they can to keep as much money as possbile note even because they need to"

I can't find the stats at the moment, but I believe the data shows the rich are very, very generous with donating their money. To characterize all rich as misers is not only egregiously inaccurate, but it is also disingenuous.

9/25/2008 7:08:09 AM

Quote :

"A more broad argument is that creating an even more progressive tax system removes the incentive for those not in the top bracket to get there. What distinguishes the U.S. from all other nations is our entrepreneurial climate. Taxing success at such high rates discourages risk taking, which is essential to our long-term economic success. As easy at it is to jealously punish those who have been successful, doing so sends a very perverse message to all those currently making the same pursuit."

Yeah, because the incentive to make more money is completely erased by the fact that you have to pay higher taxes.

$100000 income at 30% tax rate = $70000 take home pay
$1000000 income at 60% tax rate = $400000 take home pay

I mean, I would totally take the $100k too. Fuck paying that 60%. I'll just take less money.

I mean, are you really THAT fucking stupid?

9/25/2008 10:03:19 AM

Quote :

"save the same amount of money, invest in the market as the federal government (weak socialism) Then all federal programs will be supported with just interest, corporate tax, and user fees. In fact, a large portion of corporate tax would also not be needed. What's so much more just about a government in debt over one that owns some portion of the nation? "

Why would the government invest when it can get money out of the market without putting capital into it in the first place? If the government invested, it would have to take profits and losses. As it stands, the government just takes a significant portion of profits and ignores losses (for the most part).

So you're suggesting the government take a portion of the profits of the market (and of individuals who profit from the activities of the market), and then put that money into the market and try to get a better return? Although kind of fun, this is getting a little convoluted.

9/25/2008 11:11:25 AM

^^ First, your analysis is far too simplistic. Secondly, of course taking 100k and 1mm will produce your desired result, but the numbers are so far unrelated that they are not worthy of comparison.

I'll let someone with more patience than I to lecture you on econ 101, but for a quick answer - taxes play a central role in calculating the return on human capital. The incentive for a prospective physician to spend decades in debt is, at the margin, reduced when future streams of disposable income are vastly decreased by higher income taxes.

9/25/2008 12:57:45 PM

Rich people get all of their money back when the government bails them out anyway.

9/25/2008 12:59:12 PM

Quote :

"$100000 income at 30% tax rate = $70000 take home pay $1000000 income at 60% tax rate = $400000 take home pay"

$1000000 income at 60% tax rate = $400000 to invest in new job creation
$1000000 income at 30% tax rate = $700000 to invest in new job creation

so instead of $300000 disapearing into the fed never to see the light of day, its $300000 that can be put back into the market.

9/25/2008 1:08:56 PM

^because thats what everybody does

9/25/2008 8:49:59 PM

ohh's no's people work hard and make money.
tax them so i can sit at home to smoke pot and eat cheetos all day!!!

9/25/2008 9:09:53 PM

I trust that supply-siders aren't talking out of their asses, but I honestly have never heard a reasonable argument for their side.

I really would like to hear one, though. [no sarcasm]

9/25/2008 10:17:00 PM

Quote :

"ohh's no's people work hard and make money. tax them so i can sit at home to smoke pot and eat cheetos all day!!! "

Look at how monumentally stupid you are

9/25/2008 10:30:56 PM

Quote :

"^because thats what everybody does "

Most people that you think of as rich are rich because they do exactly that, they take the money they make and invest it into something.

9/26/2008 8:39:27 AM