bo whats up with these new tax cuts?

[KK]

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
Another tax cut that totally leaves out those who need the tax cut the most, which are the poor, or more specifically anyone who makes less than 27 or 28k a year. That is so not right, but of course Bush left that out when he was pimpin'
it to the country.

Okay, of these people that make 27 or 28k a year, how many of those do you think have kids. Probably a damn lot of them. Because if you make 28k a year and don't have kids then you aren't poor by any means. any ways getting back to these people that have kids, do you think that they actually pay taxes, more than likely they pay nothing and still get money back. Yeah, they need a cut, a cut in their refund, or my tax money. It makes me sicks. First off, why have kids if you can't support them, you have no fvckin right to fvck up someone elses life. You have already fvcked up yours, just what this country needs, a bunch of fvck ups for democrats to feed off of.

KK

 

[wyvrn]

Entitlement. People who make less income don't want us to point out their financial screwups, like having kids when you cannot afford them or not getting higher education to make more money or not conducting business to raise your income. They just think that because they haven't been productive enough, the rich should pay a higher percentage of their taxes to make up the difference. Why bother working hard to make more money when you can just tax the producers to get it? I grew up nearly poor, but thankfully I did not allow myself to develop an entitlement mentality. I work my ass off and I am raising my standard of living. Standard of living is not and should not be guaranteed. If you make $27k a year, either learn new skills or do something on the side to suplement your income. But don't tax those who are working their butts off trying to make a good life for themselves, like myself.

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
Another tax cut that totally leaves out those who need the tax cut the most, which are the poor, or more specifically anyone who makes less than 27 or 28k a year. That is so not right, but of course Bush left that out when he was pimpin'
it to the country.

Okay, of these people that make 27 or 28k a year, how many of those do you think have kids. Probably a damn lot of them. Because if you make 28k a year and don't have kids then you aren't poor by any means. any ways getting back to these people that have kids, do you think that they actually pay taxes, more than likely they pay nothing and still get money back. Yeah, they need a cut, a cut in their refund, or my tax money. It makes me sicks. First off, why have kids if you can't support them, you have no fvckin right to fvck up someone elses life. You have already fvcked up yours, just what this country needs, a bunch of fvck ups for democrats to feed off of.

KK

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them.

You say the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor.

- The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
- The lowest 20% of taxpayers pay 1% of all taxes.

Is that not "slightly higher" enough?

 

[wyvrn]

JP = owned. Take your ball and go home now.

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them.

You say the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor.

- The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
- The lowest 20% of taxpayers pay 1% of all taxes.

Is that not "slightly higher" enough?

 

[AstIsis]

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them.

You say the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor.

- The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
- The lowest 20% of taxpayers pay 1% of all taxes.

Is that not "slightly higher" enough?

When I came across this thread, I was hoping someone had the stats on who pays the most in taxes.

I get tired of people who gripe when any type of tax cut is proposed, and particularly when those who pay little/no taxes start in! I am in an upper income tax bracket and firmly believe I pay to much! Sometimes people forget that it is not the government's money, it is mine. It is not my fault if someone has children and can't afford them or if they did not go to college. I work/have worked hard for what I have, why should I not be allowed to keep more of it!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: AstIsis


When I came across this thread, I was hoping someone had the stats on who pays the most in taxes.

I get tired of people who gripe when any type of tax cut is proposed, and particularly when those who pay little/no taxes start in! I am in an upper income tax bracket and firmly believe I pay to much! Sometimes people forget that it is not the government's money, it is mine. It is not my fault if someone has children and can't afford them or if they did not go to college. I work/have worked hard for what I have, why should I not be allowed to keep more of it!

As someone who worked hard for what you have you probably are much more appreciative of the spending the government does to keep you in that place of wealth. Given your higher income and prosperity you benefit the most from stability and governmental spending. The poor and less wealthy segments of our population benefit the least from this spending. You probably don't believe this but frankly you have the most to lose if the government collapsed or we had a good ol french revolution and chopped the heads off all the "wealthy".

Unless you are in the former 38% bracket I would think you would be more concerned that the tax plan as proposed will increase your taxes over the longer term to lower the 38% bracket to 35%. In 2005 and 2007 all the tax cuts proposed end, the current $600 per child tax credit drops to $500, the marriage penalty returns and dividend taxes return.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: AstIsis


When I came across this thread, I was hoping someone had the stats on who pays the most in taxes.

I get tired of people who gripe when any type of tax cut is proposed, and particularly when those who pay little/no taxes start in! I am in an upper income tax bracket and firmly believe I pay to much! Sometimes people forget that it is not the government's money, it is mine. It is not my fault if someone has children and can't afford them or if they did not go to college. I work/have worked hard for what I have, why should I not be allowed to keep more of it!

As someone who worked hard for what you have you probably are much more appreciative of the spending the government does to keep you in that place of wealth. Given your higher income and prosperity you benefit the most from stability and governmental spending. The poor and less wealthy segments of our population benefit the least from this spending. You probably don't believe this but frankly you have the most to lose if the government collapsed or we had a good ol french revolution and chopped the heads off all the "wealthy".

Unless you are in the former 38% bracket I would think you would be more concerned that the tax plan as proposed will increase your taxes over the longer term to lower the 38% bracket to 35%. In 2005 and 2007 all the tax cuts proposed end, the current $600 per child tax credit drops to $500, the marriage penalty returns and dividend taxes return.

Do you actually believe this dribble you are spewing? God it's pathetic there are people that believe sh1t like this. Yeah, I see alot of millionaires aiding from welfare programs. God damn, what has this country become. And do you believe that this country would actually collapse? I only see that happening if asshats believe it's the government that makes this country great and not the people.

KK

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: AstIsis


When I came across this thread, I was hoping someone had the stats on who pays the most in taxes.

I get tired of people who gripe when any type of tax cut is proposed, and particularly when those who pay little/no taxes start in! I am in an upper income tax bracket and firmly believe I pay to much! Sometimes people forget that it is not the government's money, it is mine. It is not my fault if someone has children and can't afford them or if they did not go to college. I work/have worked hard for what I have, why should I not be allowed to keep more of it!

As someone who worked hard for what you have you probably are much more appreciative of the spending the government does to keep you in that place of wealth. Given your higher income and prosperity you benefit the most from stability and governmental spending. The poor and less wealthy segments of our population benefit the least from this spending. You probably don't believe this but frankly you have the most to lose if the government collapsed or we had a good ol french revolution and chopped the heads off all the "wealthy".

Unless you are in the former 38% bracket I would think you would be more concerned that the tax plan as proposed will increase your taxes over the longer term to lower the 38% bracket to 35%. In 2005 and 2007 all the tax cuts proposed end, the current $600 per child tax credit drops to $500, the marriage penalty returns and dividend taxes return.

Do you actually believe this dribble you are spewing? God it's pathetic there are people that believe sh1t like this. Yeah, I see alot of millionaires aiding from welfare programs. God damn, what has this country become. And do you believe that this country would actually collapse? I only see that happening if asshats believe it's the government that makes this country great and not the people.

KK

It's fools like you that think welfare makes up such a signficant portion of our budget that you can just lop it off. Why don't you take a look over at this website and tell me exactly what spending you think the wealthy don't benefit from and should be removed? Nearly the entire budget as spent benefits every American.

Those who prosper most under our system of government stand to lose the most if that system collapses. Never forget history, wide disparities between the wealthy and poor lead to social movements that can result in drastic socio/economic changes. The great depression resulted in a widespread public belief that the "robber barons" had destroyed the economy and as a result the top tax bracket shot up to 94%.

These tax cuts were marketed at improving the economy and those that spend the most benefit the economy the most. As a percentage of people it's better to divide 300 million between everyone in the country equally than to give 1% of the population 90% of that money as the majority of that money will not be spent. If the tax cuts aren't to spur the economy what are they for? Sh!ts and giggles so we can destroy our economy further by running budget deficits?

 

[AstIsis]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: rahvin

As someone who worked hard for what you have you probably are much more appreciative of the spending the government does to keep you in that place of wealth. Given your higher income and prosperity you benefit the most from stability and governmental spending. The poor and less wealthy segments of our population benefit the least from this spending. You probably don't believe this but frankly you have the most to lose if the government collapsed or we had a good ol french revolution and chopped the heads off all the "wealthy".

Unless you are in the former 38% bracket I would think you would be more concerned that the tax plan as proposed will increase your taxes over the longer term to lower the 38% bracket to 35%. In 2005 and 2007 all the tax cuts proposed end, the current $600 per child tax credit drops to $500, the marriage penalty returns and dividend taxes return.

It's fools like you that think welfare makes up such a signficant portion of our budget that you can just lop it off. Why don't you take a look over at this website and tell me exactly what spending you think the wealthy don't benefit from and should be removed? Nearly the entire budget as spent benefits every American.

Those who prosper most under our system of government stand to lose the most if that system collapses. Never forget history, wide disparities between the wealthy and poor lead to social movements that can result in drastic socio/economic changes. The great depression resulted in a widespread public belief that the "robber barons" had destroyed the economy and as a result the top tax bracket shot up to 94%.

These tax cuts were marketed at improving the economy and those that spend the most benefit the economy the most. As a percentage of people it's better to divide 300 million between everyone in the country equally than to give 1% of the population 90% of that money as the majority of that money will not be spent. If the tax cuts aren't to spur the economy what are they for? Sh!ts and giggles so we can destroy our economy further by running budget deficits?

Uhm..I am in the upper tax bracket thanks and have no children. As for the government helping me? How other then national defense and some of the smaller obvious things which I do not mind paying for. Medicare/medicaid/social security? Nope...will never use those since I make to much besides I could invest the money much more efficiently then the feds!

As for social inequality, it will always exist. It is not my fault if someone makes $20,000 a year with 3 kids! I do pay more then those with less money, and I accept that. What I do not get is why punish us for doing well while rewarding those who do not?! It has been proven that socialism does NOT work in the long run.

Why let me keep more of my money? The answer is simple....I will turn around and invest it. This of course does help stimulate the economy by creating jobs.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: AstIsis

Uhm..I am in the upper tax bracket thanks and have no children. As for the government helping me? How other then national defense and some of the smaller obvious things which I do not mind paying for. Medicare/medicaid/social security? Nope...will never use those since I make to much besides I could invest the money much more efficiently then the feds!

As for social inequality, it will always exist. It is not my fault if someone makes $20,000 a year with 3 kids! I do pay more then those with less money, and I accept that. What I do not get is why punish us for doing well while rewarding those who do not?! It has been proven that socialism does NOT work in the long run.

Why let me keep more of my money? The answer is simple....I will turn around and invest it. This of course does help stimulate the economy by creating jobs.

Why do you think life should be fair?

 

[AstIsis]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: AstIsis

Uhm..I am in the upper tax bracket thanks and have no children. As for the government helping me? How other then national defense and some of the smaller obvious things which I do not mind paying for. Medicare/medicaid/social security? Nope...will never use those since I make to much besides I could invest the money much more efficiently then the feds!

As for social inequality, it will always exist. It is not my fault if someone makes $20,000 a year with 3 kids! I do pay more then those with less money, and I accept that. What I do not get is why punish us for doing well while rewarding those who do not?! It has been proven that socialism does NOT work in the long run.

Why let me keep more of my money? The answer is simple....I will turn around and invest it. This of course does help stimulate the economy by creating jobs.

Why do you think life should be fair?

Life is not fair and that is what I keep trying to tell everyone. No, it is not fair that there are those who are poor but I don't want to take care of them. They biatch loud enough about that, so why not let me do so about the inequalities caused by having money.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Social commentary: Heh, I think it's funny that someone who is claiming an earned income credit has a 81 title DVD collection. I love our tax system. When are they going to tax consumption and not income?

I find it even funnier that million/billionaires collect social security when they hit 65. Do they need it? No... do they take it? Yes...

I think your perseption of Social Security is at least somewhat flawed. SSI taxes are witheld from every paycheck, regardless whether you are pisspoor burger flipper or CEO of Fortune 500 company, which makes anyone paying income taxes entitled to it whether they need it or not. So if someone worked all their life and contributed to SS fund, who are we to question why they choose to collect their earned money?

I understand that... it's a matter of who actually needs the funds though. Does a billionare "need" the SS he gets? The same can be said for the recent tax cut, who really "needs" the tax cuts? The rich or the poor?

Of course, they will both get a cut, but only one of them "needs" it.

SS was never set up as a matter of need between rich and poor, it was set up as a forced savings for those irresponsible enough or otherwise who would not save if not for the system. It was never meant to be a tax to redistribute out to those in need. Don't confuse it's intended use.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: AstIsis

Uhm..I am in the upper tax bracket thanks and have no children. As for the government helping me? How other then national defense and some of the smaller obvious things which I do not mind paying for. Medicare/medicaid/social security? Nope...will never use those since I make to much besides I could invest the money much more efficiently then the feds!

As for social inequality, it will always exist. It is not my fault if someone makes $20,000 a year with 3 kids! I do pay more then those with less money, and I accept that. What I do not get is why punish us for doing well while rewarding those who do not?! It has been proven that socialism does NOT work in the long run.

Why let me keep more of my money? The answer is simple....I will turn around and invest it. This of course does help stimulate the economy by creating jobs.

Why do you think life should be fair?

You need to relook at your own debate. You are the one asking for fairness, Artisis is merely stating that life is NOT fair, and the government should not be trying to remedy every cause of unfairness.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Social commentary: Heh, I think it's funny that someone who is claiming an earned income credit has a 81 title DVD collection. I love our tax system. When are they going to tax consumption and not income?

I find it even funnier that million/billionaires collect social security when they hit 65. Do they need it? No... do they take it? Yes...

did they pay into it? yes.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: AstIsis

Uhm..I am in the upper tax bracket thanks and have no children. As for the government helping me? How other then national defense and some of the smaller obvious things which I do not mind paying for. Medicare/medicaid/social security? Nope...will never use those since I make to much besides I could invest the money much more efficiently then the feds!

As for social inequality, it will always exist. It is not my fault if someone makes $20,000 a year with 3 kids! I do pay more then those with less money, and I accept that. What I do not get is why punish us for doing well while rewarding those who do not?! It has been proven that socialism does NOT work in the long run.

Why let me keep more of my money? The answer is simple....I will turn around and invest it. This of course does help stimulate the economy by creating jobs.

Why do you think life should be fair?

You need to relook at your own debate. You are the one asking for fairness, Artisis is merely stating that life is NOT fair, and the government should not be trying to remedy every cause of unfairness.

Actually I'm arguing no such thing. Life isn't fair. Taxation and wealth aren't fair. The majority of people in this country decided we need a very unfair system of taxation called progressive taxation. This means if you make more you pay more. Some of the people on the left on this board argue that everyone should be equally wealthy there by making wealth fair. Others on the right such as yourself and Artisis argue that taxation should be fair and that everyone should pay equal percentages.

People with centrists views recognize that life isn't fair in any manner. I'm a selfish SOB and I don't like paying for welfare that I don't use, but on the other hand taxes aren't fair and if someone that makes more than me has to pay more so I can pay less I don't give a rats ass if it's "fair" or not.

The tax plan as proposed will give me a small tax break for 2 years and the expense of raising my taxes after those periods are up to fund a tax cut in a bracket I'm not in. Being a selfish SOB I don't like that.

 

[Hector13]

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them.

You say the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor.

- The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
- The lowest 20% of taxpayers pay 1% of all taxes.

Is that not "slightly higher" enough?

and how much do you think the top 1% benefit from having our government? If our government were to disappear tomorrow, who loses more, millionaires or the "poor"?

Government has always and will alwyas benefit the rich more so it is only fair that they pay their share.

 

[Hector13]

Originally posted by: rahvin

As someone who worked hard for what you have you probably are much more appreciative of the spending the government does to keep you in that place of wealth. Given your higher income and prosperity you benefit the most from stability and governmental spending. The poor and less wealthy segments of our population benefit the least from this spending. You probably don't believe this but frankly you have the most to lose if the government collapsed or we had a good ol french revolution and chopped the heads off all the "wealthy".

Unless you are in the former 38% bracket I would think you would be more concerned that the tax plan as proposed will increase your taxes over the longer term to lower the 38% bracket to 35%. In 2005 and 2007 all the tax cuts proposed end, the current $600 per child tax credit drops to $500, the marriage penalty returns and dividend taxes return.

thank you. I am glad some people can do some basic cost-benefit analysis.

I am in very high tax bracket (single, no kids) and live in a pretty highly taxed state (NY) and city (I paid over $3-4 grand in new york city taxes on top of the state and federal crap) and not a day goes by that I don't realize what a good deal we ("high" income) people get.

Complain all you want about paying taxes, but if our current, stable legal and political system didn't exist you wouldn't see people making (and keeping) the kind of wealth that is currently possible.

 

[wyvrn]

Originally posted by: Hector13

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them.

You say the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor.

- The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
- The lowest 20% of taxpayers pay 1% of all taxes.

Is that not "slightly higher" enough?

and how much do you think the top 1% benefit from having our government? If our government were to disappear tomorrow, who loses more, millionaires or the "poor"?

I think you have the cause / effect relationship backwards. Without the producers in the country, you wouldn't have the money to fund a government. The middle class and poor certainly aren't contributing enough by themselves now. Look at states that have unfavorable tax laws, companies move out of them. Texas is one example where the state legislature is desparately trying to reform the tax system due to loss of business, and thus jobs and tax revenue. Because of the business losses, we have had to make across the board education cuts. Tuition at colleges just went up again, and college expenses are already too much for most people to afford without going into serious debt. Unemployment in Dallas is about twice the national average, and more of my friends are being laid off everyday. Companies are closing shop, cutting local jobs, and moving to states with more favorable tax conditions. Examples of these companies include Boeing and Texas Instruments, two businesses that have been in Dallas for decades.

The state legislature has already admitted that our tax system penalizes companies unfairly, and is not tied to production. So new companies will not move here because the base tax burden is too high to make it worthwhile. If a company faces the decision of going out of business or moving operations, they are going to move. Once we have loss of business tax revenue and jobs, the worker's ability to spend is diminished. Most local governments in TX get a large portion of their money from sales taxes. When less workers are employed, less spend money. It's a death spiral that has the legislature in very heated debate right now.

Government has always and will alwyas benefit the rich more so it is only fair that they pay their share.

It is obvious you cannot see the forest for the trees. The rich already pay the lion's share. How much is fair to you? In other words, how much income do you favor forcibly redistributing from the producers to the workers?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: wyvrn

Originally posted by: Hector13

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them.

You say the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor.

- The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
- The lowest 20% of taxpayers pay 1% of all taxes.

Is that not "slightly higher" enough?

and how much do you think the top 1% benefit from having our government? If our government were to disappear tomorrow, who loses more, millionaires or the "poor"?

I think you have the cause / effect relationship backwards. Without the producers in the country, you wouldn't have the money to fund a government. The middle class and poor certainly aren't contributing enough by themselves now. Look at states that have unfavorable tax laws, companies move out of them. Texas is one example where the state legislature is desparately trying to reform the tax system due to loss of business, and thus jobs and tax revenue. Because of the business losses, we have had to make across the board education cuts. Tuition at colleges just went up again, and college expenses are already too much for most people to afford without going into serious debt. Unemployment in Dallas is about twice the national average, and more of my friends are being laid off everyday. Companies are closing shop, cutting local jobs, and moving to states with more favorable tax conditions. Examples of these companies include Boeing and Texas Instruments, two businesses that have been in Dallas for decades.

The state legislature has already admitted that our tax system penalizes companies unfairly, and is not tied to production. So new companies will not move here because the base tax burden is too high to make it worthwhile. If a company faces the decision of going out of business or moving operations, they are going to move. Once we have loss of business tax revenue and jobs, the worker's ability to spend is diminished. Most local governments in TX get a large portion of their money from sales taxes. When less workers are employed, less spend money. It's a death spiral that has the legislature in very heated debate right now.

Government has always and will alwyas benefit the rich more so it is only fair that they pay their share.

It is obvious you cannot see the forest for the trees. The rich already pay the lion's share. How much is fair to you? In other words, how much income do you favor forcibly redistributing from the producers to the workers?

I want to point out two simple points that you fail to realize. If the poor in this country organize and decide the rich are too rich then they will use their collective voting power to place into office those polliticians who will punish the rich or we will have a revolution and the poor will violently seize the assets of the rich. Both senerios have happened in history, the first within american history. Do not underestimate the ire the poor feel as the gap between wealthy and poor expands. There is a quite a bit of scare in this country that the middle class is begining to disappear. If that ever does occur the violent revolution scenario becomes likely.

Secondly, life isn't fair and neither is taxation. The wealthy DO benefit more from a stable government and monetary policies that favor them, but shifting tax burden from the wealthy to the poor is NOT in their self interest if they want to prevent catastrophic consequences. Third, by shifting tax burden from the poor the liquidity of the economy is improved and the spending of those poor will come back to benefit the wealthy almost three fold.

And as a last comment, if you think taxes in this country are too high in the upper brackets why not move to mexico where the tax rate is 16%? Is there something in America that keeps you here that they don't have in Mexico? Maybe that is one of those benefits that I mentioned.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Hector13

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: JohnPaul
They don't think the rich should get the same percentage of their taxes back, just because the poor do, because whether the rich like it or not, they are in a much better situation to pay higher taxes than the poor, and what is the big deal with paying a slightly higher percentage than the poor. They act like it will kill them.

You say the rich should pay a slightly higher percentage than the poor.

- The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
- The lowest 20% of taxpayers pay 1% of all taxes.

Is that not "slightly higher" enough?

and how much do you think the top 1% benefit from having our government? If our government were to disappear tomorrow, who loses more, millionaires or the "poor"?

Government has always and will alwyas benefit the rich more so it is only fair that they pay their share.

You think that any millionaire couldn't survive without the government. They could always take their wealth somewhere else, to another country. Also, I can pretty much guarantee you that if you took away all the money a successful person has, he would still be able to become rich again. It's called motivation and most "poor" people lack it.

KK

 

[wyvrn]

I want to point out two simple points that you fail to realize. If the poor in this country organize and decide the rich are too rich then they will use their collective voting power to place into office those polliticians who will punish the rich or we will have a revolution and the poor will violently seize the assets of the rich. Both senerios have happened in history, the first within american history. Do not underestimate the ire the poor feel as the gap between wealthy and poor expands. There is a quite a bit of scare in this country that the middle class is begining to disappear. If that ever does occur the violent revolution scenario becomes likely.

What you fail to realize is the rich in America simply work harder. In the past (IE England), rich have been royalty and held their title simply because of who they were born to. Poor people had little or no opportunity. There is no justification for revolution here. If you want what the rich have, you only need do what they do. What's stopping you? And don't forget that rich americans are some of the biggest philanthropists in the world, here is an example.

You say that he poor will make laws punishing the rich? Well they would have to get out and vote first, which they don't do now. So how are you going to justify revolution of the poor when the poor don't use the democratic process they have in front of them now? There is no need for bloodshed or punishment. Democracy offers peaceful solutions, but you have to be willing to do some work to get changes made.

To quote Thomas Paine during the American Revolution:

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Secondly, life isn't fair and neither is taxation. The wealthy DO benefit more from a stable government and monetary policies that favor them, but shifting tax burden from the wealthy to the poor is NOT in their self interest if they want to prevent catastrophic consequences. Third, by shifting tax burden from the poor the liquidity of the economy is improved and the spending of those poor will come back to benefit the wealthy almost three fold.

The poor benefit the most because the rich pay most of the tax burden. The poor get to live off of it. All they need to do to improve their position is work hard, get an education, conduct busines, etc etc. Nobody is stopping the poor but the poor. The poor have the highest levels of illegitimate children, do the most drugs, commit the most crime, and take the most welfare. Those are facts.

And as a last comment, if you think taxes in this country are too high in the upper brackets why not move to mexico where the tax rate is 16%? Is there something in America that keeps you here that they don't have in Mexico? Maybe that is one of those benefits that I mentioned.

Mexico has a corrupt government. Mexico has no comparitive trade advantage, and therefore is a poor country. Justice is paid for by pesos to public officials. It is no coincidence that most people in Mexico are poor as a result with no chance for change. They have no money so the tax rate doesn't matter. There are no rich people to carry the burden. You could make the tax rate in Mexico 80% and it wouldn't matter, because 80% of nothing is still nothing. The poor benefit in the US because there are rich people to pay their welfare. Your example was a perfect one to prove my point, thank you.

 

[Siddhartha]

Short term:
Stimulate the economy and maybe ensure that GWB gets re-elected.
Long term:
Incredibly high federal deficits, see Ronald Reagan. This will cause the next Democratic President to commit political suicide fixing the mess generated by the tax cuts. He or she will have to either increase taxes, see what happened when Clinton did this to fix the Reagan deficits, and reduce spending, see what is happening in California.

 

[wyvrn]

The interesting thing about GWB is federal spending went up compared to Clinton. Yet half of his schpiel on tax cuts is reducing federal spending also. Not entirely his fault because 9-11 basically created the need for Homeland security, but it is interesting that both Reagan and the Bush's increased spending while reducing taxation.

I like the idea of limiting taxes, but the republicans are gonna have to balance the budget or we will have higher and higher deficits. Politicians like to either raise taxes and spend more (Clinton) or lower taxes and spend more (repubs). Why can't we get a president that likes to reduce taxation (or keep same) and balance the budget at the same time?

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Short term:
Stimulate the economy and maybe ensure that GWB gets re-elected.
Long term:
Incredibly high federal deficits, see Ronald Reagan. This will cause the next Democratic President to commit political suicide fixing the mess generated by the tax cuts. He or she will have to either increase taxes, see what happened when Clinton did this to fix the Reagan deficits, and reduce spending, see what is happening in California.