Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

How did you reach that conclusion?

Personal feelings.

I see. You used an objective approach.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

How did you reach that conclusion?

Personal feelings.
There are people who would use some help.
And there are people who think they are entitled to help, and would abuse anything they got.

Well at least you based it upon some empirical basis. For a second I thought it was purely a guess.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How did you reach that conclusion?

Personal feelings.

I see. You used an objective approach.

LOL. I wrote mine before I read yours - get offa my wavelenght.

[billvon 2,446]

>You are damn right it's not 'FAIR.' That is MY FRIGGIN' MONEY!

As long as you never drive on public highways, never live in an area defended by US troops, never use the airlines, and never use any device that receives frequencies administered by the FCC - then I would agree.

Until then, you're not going to get stuff for free no matter how many words in CAPS you post.

> I am the one that makes that decision.

In a way, yes, you are. You vote, and can use the power of your vote to close every VA hospital, end the US military, shut down the US highway system, and close down the FCC.

But if you don't want to do that (or more accurately you and a majority of the US) then the representatives that you and your fellow countrymen elect will decide what to do with your tax money.

[billvon 2,446]

>We have those other types of things you mentioned covered by what
>are called USER FEES.

So who should pay user fees for the military? Just the people who feel like it? That's a huge chunk of our budget right there.

How about VA hospitals? Should veterans pay user fees for them?

[billvon 2,446]

>Like I said- you want to take my original response and fly it out to left field . . .

If your solution does not account for expenses like supporting a military, it's not going to be viable in the real world.

>Next time some of you 'give the tax cut money to people who didn't pay
>it crowd' want to give a panhandler $.50, try stopping someone on the
>street and taking the change from their pocket instead of yours. See how
>that works out for you.

Sure. And you try asking a soldier if he'll dedicate a few years of his life to the military for free. Let me know how that goes.

[billvon 2,446]

>If there is a $500 Million tax cut, it should go back to the people that
>paid the taxes to do with what they want.

Agreed; indeed, that's sort of the definition of tax cut. But that's not what you said. You said "Likewise don't tell me I can't keep the money that I earned because it should be given to someone else to spend. That is MY decision."

Now, if you meant "you can tell me what to do with some of my money as long as it's a limited amount" then I agree there as well.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Well at least you based it upon some empirical basis. For a second I thought it was purely a guess.

I'd speculate this is the only reliable system to decide who to help.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Again- none of which has anything to do with the original concept here. If there is a $500 Million tax cut, it should go back to the people that paid the taxes to do with what they want. If they want to then give it people down around the poverty line, that's their decision.

Why you decided to pick out a few sentence fragments and fly off on this weird tangent is beyond me Bill.

Oh, so give it back to the highest 5% then? They pay almost all the taxes, not you or me. And about that, 12 trillion bucks is what has to go back the gov before we can give any more money back as if it was overpaid. So talk of overpaid is ridiculous.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Well at least you based it upon some empirical basis. For a second I thought it was purely a guess.

I'd speculate this is the only reliable system to decide who to help.

What, a guess or personal opinion w/o any science or observation going into it? Are you saying that's the only reliable system to decide who to help?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

What, a guess or personal opinion w/o any science or observation going into it? Are you saying that's the only reliable system to decide who to help?

The problem with any system is that as soon as there is a rules-based system which uses specific criteria to determine who to enroll, you'll have freeloaders fooling the system by faking or artificially putting themselves under those criteria.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

YAY!!! DING DING DING!!

Lucky finally get's it! You pay the taxes, you get the tax cuts!

So we should make the uber-rich even more rich? That's a great idea; why haven't you run for any office yet?

Quote

If Lucky pays $100 in taxes and there is a 3% cut, or rebate, or whatever then Lucky gets a whopping total of $3 back.

With a progressive system it doesn't work that way; yours is a juvenile example of teh tax system. Would you like to address how when the top tax brkt drops below 30% we are in danger, below 20% we're dead? I didn't think so.

Quote

But Lucky doesn't want that. Lucky wants the big bad government to take money from the return going to someone else who paid MORE in taxes than Lucky and give it to Lucky.

I want those with money, those who have made/stolen. inherited, acquired their massive waelth via teh US system to pay the most to the system by a long stretch. I also want a baseline of very basic benefits for all, so if you want to bastardize what I'm saying and pretend there is a connection between the very rich and teh very poor then enjoy yourself, but it isn't realistic. You, like others, are still unable to draw a connection between taxation and spending, othe rthan very indirectly at the national debt and we know who owns most of that.

Quote

That's called THEFT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

You'll say that since the millionaires don't consent, this is theft. That is ridiculous, that's like saying I don't freely-give the authorities the right to control traffic at 65, yet when I accept a license and drive I agree to that. It's not a law I agree with and I'm constantly violating it, but it is a legally imposed law, even tho I don't freely consent to it.

That's the same as what you're talking about. There are tax laws legally drafted and passed, yet you disagree with them so you want to call them theft to draw the ire, yet it would be the same for me to call speeding laws, oppression and call cops oppressors for enforcing them. See, it's a bit out of touch to refer to taxes as theft unless they are truely imposed against the law, that would be theft. And before the taxation without representation argument, you may not like your representatives and their policies, but they are the ones who are legally elected to make those decisions.

Quote

And it's not 12 trillion it is closer to 54 trillion or more depending on which set of figures you use.

Oooow, show me how those pesky Dems have stolen 54 trillion dollars.

Quote

Approaching 400% of the GDP.

How do you get that?

Quote

That's a household earning $70k a year being almost $280k in the hole with $200k of that being balloon payments that they are not saving for. Simply unsustainable. And when those payments come due, that household is going to just walk away from what they owe.

I agree that the Republicans who are responsibel for almost all of the debt are the vilians, I just don't agree with your numbers. It is bad, just not as bad as you say.

Quote

If people are not saving now, they shouldn't be sticking their hand out in the future when they are broke.

That's why we have a safety net system, so when people are in trouble tehy don't starve, as in the Great Depression; a Republican's dream.

Quote

I won't be giving any spare change.

Depending upon what you earn, you will be forking over as per tax schedlues.

[billvon 2,446]

>So we should make the uber-rich even more rich?

We shouldn't "make" anyone anything. A taxation system should support government services (like the military) as efficiently as possible, and with as little impact as possible - not make people into things.

>I want those with money, those who have made/stolen.
>inherited, acquired their massive waelth via teh US system to pay
>the most to the system by a long stretch.

In a progressive tax system (like the sort we have) they do.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The problem with any system is that as soon as there is a rules-based system which uses specific criteria to determine who to enroll, you'll have freeloaders fooling the system by faking or artificially putting themselves under those criteria.

That happens at all income levels, not just with the poor.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We shouldn't "make" anyone anything. A taxation system should support government services (like the military) as efficiently as possible, and with as little impact as possible - not make people into things.

I guess, "make" was a general word. At the ame time, tax tables do make people into classes. As it is now, if you have a wage of 200k+ your taxes are so low as compared to other nations that you are enabled to enjoy class mobility. Whereas if your wage is 30k/yr with no benefits you spend all that income dealing with basics so you are unable to enjoy class mobility.

These tables change over time of course and these are teh tables that, "make" people into certain classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Table at the bottom-left. This is why during the roaring 20's, they weren't roaring for poor / MC, they were roaring for the rich where the top 0.1% held as much worth as the entire lower 40% leading to the Great Depression. So teh tax system did, "make" these guys filthy rich versus after Hoover in 1932 and FDR in 33 and beyond virtually quadrupled the top tax rate from 24% to 94%. Of course swell guys like Reagan and GWB lowered that to, "make" people filthy wealthy again. That's what I meant, it was a bit vague.

Quote

In a progressive tax system (like the sort we have) they do.

We do, but it varies. At times it's ridiculous (1925-28, 1986-88, 2002 onward). And at times it's too high, and others it's just right. I think 50-60% is just right. And we're ow enough to bring foreign investors over w/o choking ourselves.

[billvon 2,446]

>At the ame time, tax tables do make people into classes.

No, people make people into classes.

> As it is now, if you have a wage of 200k+ your taxes are so low as
>compared to other nations that you are enabled to enjoy class mobility.
>Whereas if your wage is 30k/yr with no benefits you spend all that income
>dealing with basics so you are unable to enjoy class mobility.

Incorrect. Someone who makes 30K/yr pays almost no taxes. Someone who makes 200K a year pays an enormous amount in taxes. In both cases, what gives them class mobility is the money they make, not the taxes they pay.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

What, a guess or personal opinion w/o any science or observation going into it? Are you saying that's the only reliable system to decide who to help?

The problem with any system is that as soon as there is a rules-based system which uses specific criteria to determine who to enroll, you'll have freeloaders fooling the system by faking or artificially putting themselves under those criteria.

Oh yea, and we need to deny them by denying all people any social welfare, even the vastly legitimate ones. Kinda like executing all guilty and innocent on death row so we can ensure we get the guilty ones. You, my freind, have defined what it is to be a contemporary conservative......or we could be compassionate and provide welfare and try to stomp out all abuse that we can.

I know several conservatives down on their luck that put themselves there and then when they are doing better and can no longer fake it, decry welfare. Plenty.

One had a kid on access, maybe his 2nd, not sure, but at least one on the gov nipple and receievd foodstamps, etc, then < 3 years later had his own A/C business and decried welfare and access.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No, people make people into classes.

People certainly have to start by getting educated, but once they start earning, the tax brackets have a lot to do with it.

Quote

Incorrect. Someone who makes 30K/yr pays almost no taxes.

And with little to no svs pays all that into basic maintenance and none into savings.

Quote

Someone who makes 200K a year pays an enormous amount in taxes.

Not as compared to other countries.

Quote

In both cases, what gives them class mobility is the money they make, not the taxes they pay.

There is a very real correlation; the money they make undergoes taxation scrutiny. The difference is the money they keep.

[billvon 2,446]

>People certainly have to start by getting educated, but once they start
>earning, the tax brackets have a lot to do with it.

Again, no - unless you choose tax brackets so that no one can make more than poverty level. That would be a bad idea.

>And with little to no svs pays all that into basic maintenance and
>none into savings.

Correct. They have less money because they make less money - not because the government is not taxing them at the correct rate.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Again, no - unless you choose tax brackets so that no one can make more than poverty level. That would be a bad idea.

Or you choose tax brkts that allow people to keep most of what they make and coincidentally provide no social svs, that makes for a system that creates disparity.

Quote

Correct. They have less money because they make less money - not because the government is not taxing them at the correct rate.

Basic svs being taken care of by the gov allows for the lowest class to get a start versus wealthy people who have highertaxes not being allowed to become wealthy as easily or quickly.

It's really a culmination of personal effort, the tax system and social svs. It's not one or the other. Some environments favor class mobility and others favor social equity/harmony.

[champu 1]

Quote

Basic svs being taken care of by the gov allows for the lowest class to get a start versus wealthy people who have highertaxes not being allowed to become wealthy as easily or quickly.

Again, I agree with you on most aspects of the safety net concept and making education readily available so that people end up using the net less frequently, but when you start talking about limiting people's ability to become rich as an actual stated goal of progressive taxation you completely lose me. If you define what is desired as a bare minimum for everyone, and social programs are put in place to ensure everyone has that, then who gives a shit how much more rich than the bare minimum people get? You have your bare minimums provided for and you also have class disparity. So what?

[DougH 270]

Quote

If you define what is desired as a bare minimum for everyone, and social programs are put in place to ensure everyone has that, then who gives a shit how much more rich than the bare minimum people get? You have your bare minimums provided for and you also have class disparity. So what?

Because the bitter and jealous care. This is just as much about providing the "saftey net" as it is knocking those evil rich bastards down a peg or two.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[champu 1]

Shhhh!

I'm trying to be Socratic here.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It is simple example for a reason- that is what would happen. If the government had a 3% budget surplus and decided to give it back, every one who paid taxes would get 3% of what they paid back. You paid $100, you get $3 back. Someone in the top tier paid $147,000, multiply it by 3% and that is their chunk of the surplus.

Once the money is paid in as taxes, it is the government's money. As such, the fairest way to distribute it among the people is on a per capita basis, equally among all citizens, regardless of how much was paid in taxes. The most economically productive distribution would be to give it to people who are most likely to spend it immediately, i.e. the poor.

Taxes we have paid do not belong to us. They belong to our government.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

Reagan cut the top tier tax rates and federal tax revenue grew by almost 30% over 1980 by the end of his term. Would that have happened if he kept them high? I don't know- I'm not a macroeconomist.

Of course, Reagan also tripled the national debt.

BTW, what was Reagan's change in revenue after taking into account inflation and population growth? HINT, inflation was 36.8% from the start to the end of Reagan's term.

For GWB's 8 years of voodoo economics, inflation adjusted revenues fell too).

From 1980 to 1988 real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent— better than GWB's performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the 41 percent gain under Clinton from 1992 to 2000.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.