How does taxing the rich give to the middle class?

[BlancoNino]

Having grown up in a middle-class family, we've never recieved a tax cut or any sort of benefit from the Clinton tax increase.

Can someone please tell me?

 

[Stunt]

When a tax increase is implemented a tax cut usually doesn't occur simultaneously. The net result is all people take advantage of the same social services (education, roads, etc) while others put more money into the pot.

It's kinda like having everyone at work on salary and a few keeners work weekends to keep your workplace open. Even though you aren't getting paid more for the same work, others are putting in more effort than you are. The result is less burden is placed on you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Increasing taxes doesn't help anyone. Else you take the money and use it for social programs, which almost always help the poor and not the middle class.

About the only places where tax increases may do good is when you increase things like the gas tax and use that money for highway spending. There you are taking the additional revenue and spending right where it belongs.

But increased the tax rate of the "rich" from 35% to 37% (of whatever it was) does not help the middle class at all. Now if you cut the middle class tax rate at the same time then maybe you are helpinf them.

 

[Aisengard]

Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. Funny thing about that, no one was taxed into poverty, the government had a surplus, and the economy was in the best shape than ever before in American history.

Bush lowers taxes on the rich, the economy is middling at best even when the country is AT WAR, and we have massive deficits.

Trickle-down economics was bunk before Reagan tried it. Why people thought a second go-round was a good idea, I'll never know.

 

[Stunt]

If the decision was made to increase taxes by the government and you didn't get a tax increase...I would consider it a benefit. Not the ideal situation but staying level while others go up or going down while others are level is obviously better.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. Funny thing about that, no one was taxed into poverty, the government had a surplus, and the economy was in the best shape than ever before in American history.

Bush lowers taxes on the rich, the economy is middling at best even when the country is AT WAR, and we have massive deficits.

Trickle-down economics was bunk before Reagan tried it. Why people thought a second go-round was a good idea, I'll never know.

Clinton raised taxes at a time when he could net some short-term surpluses from it. To be fair to Reagan, Clinton also didn't inherit the same mess either.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. Funny thing about that, no one was taxed into poverty, the government had a surplus, and the economy was in the best shape than ever before in American history.

Bush lowers taxes on the rich, the economy is middling at best even when the country is AT WAR, and we have massive deficits.

Trickle-down economics was bunk before Reagan tried it. Why people thought a second go-round was a good idea, I'll never know.

The surplus was a direct effect of less spending and a booming economy. His tax raise actually results in very little extra income, outside what would have came from economic improvement.

Now look at the economy post 2003 tax cuts. It is growing a rate faster than that of 1980s and 1990s. If we were't spending like a mad man we would be able to balance the budget.

Also, a huge factor is the Clinton defense cuts. He cut the amount of moeny spent on defense from around 4% of our gdp down to 3% of GDP. Since 9-11 we have had to spend extra to make up for these cuts. 1% of GDP is like $100 billion dollars. So a large part of the surplus was through these cuts.

We can balance the budget again by controling spending and not touching tax rates. That should be our goal. Reduce spending increases to 3-4% per year instead of the 7+% we see now.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. Funny thing about that, no one was taxed into poverty, the government had a surplus, and the economy was in the best shape than ever before in American history.

Bush lowers taxes on the rich, the economy is middling at best even when the country is AT WAR, and we have massive deficits.

Trickle-down economics was bunk before Reagan tried it. Why people thought a second go-round was a good idea, I'll never know.

Clinton raised taxes at a time when he could net some short-term surpluses from it. To be fair to Reagan, Clinton also didn't inherit the same mess either.

Clinton actually inherited an economy that was already coming out of recession. And he left an economy that was going into a recession. Those two facts make him look that much better on economic issues.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. Funny thing about that, no one was taxed into poverty, the government had a surplus, and the economy was in the best shape than ever before in American history.

Bush lowers taxes on the rich, the economy is middling at best even when the country is AT WAR, and we have massive deficits.

Trickle-down economics was bunk before Reagan tried it. Why people thought a second go-round was a good idea, I'll never know.

Economy crashed before Clinton left office. People were heavily leveraged in stocks with little to no earnings. M&A's were at all time highs and companies had no idea what the hell they were buying or future sustainability. P/E ratios at the time were absolutely insane and the whole industry collapsed.

This was not "the best shape ever before", if you honestly think that, you need to do some research.

Bush had to live through the recessional period after the bust, a terror attack that shook the world (markets, travel, tourism died), and cut taxes all in a short period. All combined to give the deficits of today. The war while a mistake, isn't costing the treasury as much as people think and the US has always been at war; even under Clinton.

Trickle-down is just a catch phrase liberals use to justify large government. Real conservatives advocate privatized government services, minimized handouts and entitlement, minimal taxation and individual rights and freedoms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand when your taxes are cut, you spend more on goods and services (boosts the economy). Will this give an equal amount of tax revenue back...of course not.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Clinton raised taxes on the middle class. Funny thing about that, no one was taxed into poverty, the government had a surplus, and the economy was in the best shape than ever before in American history.

Bush lowers taxes on the rich, the economy is middling at best even when the country is AT WAR, and we have massive deficits.

Trickle-down economics was bunk before Reagan tried it. Why people thought a second go-round was a good idea, I'll never know.

Economy crashed before Clinton left office. People were heavily leveraged in stocks with little to no earnings. M&A's were at all time highs and companies had no idea what the hell they were buying or future sustainability. P/E ratios at the time were absolutely insane and the whole industry collapsed.

This was not "the best shape ever before", if you honestly think that, you need to do some research.

Bush had to live through the recessional period after the bust, a terror attack that shook the world (markets, travel, tourism died), and cut taxes all in a short period. All combined to give the deficits of today. The war while a mistake, isn't costing the treasury as much as people think and the US has always been at war; even under Clinton.

Trickle-down is just a catch phrase liberals use to justify large government. Real conservatives advocate privatized government services, minimized handouts and entitlement, minimal taxation and individual rights and freedoms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand when your taxes are cut, you spend more on goods and services (boosts the economy). Will this give an equal amount of tax revenue back...of course not.

Wow, one of the best worded pro-Republican arguments I've seen on this site.
Maybe you should leave Canada and head south

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow, one of the best worded pro-Republican arguments I've seen on this site.
Maybe you should leave Canada and head south

I'm not Pro-Republican :|
I have never liked the Republican party; their foreign policy is far too aggressive, they spend like there's no tomorrow, they tend to be bigotted towards minorities, they are puppets for corporate and special interests, and finally their leader is a complete moron.

I am a CANADIAN Conservative.

 

[Aisengard]

Oh right. So tell me, since the 2006 economy is so great, and it's all because of Bush, then why isn't the 1998 economy all because of Clinton? That's 6 years, right?

'Inheritance' is so much bull. So Clinton got an economy coming out of recession, because of what? Reagan's final policies? And the economy under Bush Sr., the one with the recession, whose fault is that? Carter's, right? And it was also Carter's fault that 4 years after he held office, Reagan had a recession? Get some consistency. How long after a president's economic policies does it have an impact on the economy? 4 years? 6 years? 12? Only when it's convenient to whatever idiotic point you're trying to make?

Face it, Clinton may have inherited a growing economy, but he was the one that kept it going throughout his presidency. You can say 'dot-com bubble' all you like, but the fact of the matter is that economic growth as a whole increased under Clinton. Look at the baseline of the stock market for example. Even when it 'crashed' it only went down to a point much higher than when Clinton took office. I think that fact makes him look pretty damn good on economic issues, yeah.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The surplus was a direct effect of less spending and a booming economy. His tax raise actually results in very little extra income, outside what would have came from economic improvement.
[ ... ]

You're making up stuff again. The numbers don't support your propaganda points.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wow, one of the best worded pro-Republican arguments I've seen on this site.
Maybe you should leave Canada and head south

I'm not Pro-Republican :|
I have never liked the Republican party; their foreign policy is far too aggressive, they spend like there's no tomorrow, they tend to be bigotted towards minorities, they are puppets for corporate and special interests, and finally their leader is a complete moron.

I am a CANADIAN Conservative.

Don't suppose the Canadian Conservative party ever considered expanding across the border? We need real conservatives in American politics.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Having grown up in a middle-class family, we've never recieved a tax cut or any sort of benefit from the Clinton tax increase.

Can someone please tell me?

Increasing taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers helps the middle class by reducing the amount we borrow, i.e., the federal debt. This in turn reduces the cost of government by reducing the cost of debt service and the amount of debt you and your children will have to repay.

It is also more equitable. Currently the very wealthy are taxed at a lower effective rate than much of the middle and upper-middle class. Increasing their taxes would restore some balance.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Having grown up in a middle-class family, we've never recieved a tax cut or any sort of benefit from the Clinton tax increase.

Can someone please tell me?

Increasing taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers helps the middle class by reducing the amount we borrow, i.e., the federal debt. This in turn reduces the cost of government by reducing the cost of debt service and the amount of debt you and your children will have to repay.

It is also more equitable. Currently the very wealthy are taxed at a lower effective rate than much of the middle and upper-middle class. Increasing their taxes would restore some balance.

Balance for whom.

Are the wealthy utilizing a greater proportioni of the resources?

The tax rate is already graduated where the higher your income, the higher the tax rate.

If you want to bring in equitability; remove the loop holes instead of playing Robin Hood.

 

[Albatross]

the smart should be crippled somehow,that would restore some balance,because my mediocrity feels offended.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Having grown up in a middle-class family, we've never recieved a tax cut or any sort of benefit from the Clinton tax increase.

Can someone please tell me?

Increasing taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers helps the middle class by reducing the amount we borrow, i.e., the federal debt. This in turn reduces the cost of government by reducing the cost of debt service and the amount of debt you and your children will have to repay.

It is also more equitable. Currently the very wealthy are taxed at a lower effective rate than much of the middle and upper-middle class. Increasing their taxes would restore some balance.

Balance for whom.

Are the wealthy utilizing a greater proportioni of the resources?

They derive a greater overall benefit from the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure in the U.S., largely funded through taxes.

The tax rate is already graduated where the higher your income, the higher the tax rate.

If you want to bring in equitability; remove the loop holes instead of playing Robin Hood.

As I already pointed out, however, the wealthy pay a lower effective rate than much of the middle and upper-middle class. The loopholes you mention are primarily things like preferential treatment of capital gains and the FICA cap. Do you agree that capital gains should be taxed as regular income? It would restore significant progressiveness.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Economy crashed before Clinton left office.

Trickle-down is just a catch phrase liberals use to justify large government.

Both of your false statements prove you know nothing about the U.S. yet you spew as if you did.

Trickle down was coined by Ronald Reagan Era Politics way before you were born.

It's Republican's Revisionist's that make the claim that the Economy "crashed" before Bush came into Office.

The only thing that nose dived at the time was overzealous non-rich boy's independent's like myself that tried to get into the stock market based on the Internet boom because online trading came into being.

I, along with countless others got our asses handed to us for trying to play with the rich boys.

Again things that occured while you were in Elementary school.

I suggest you do further research before making claims especially when they relate to the U.S. and you don't live here.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Uncap the FICA limits

Capital gains below 2 years should be taxed as normal income - Leave existing rate for "long term" gains.
This will reduce the incentive to use the stock market valudations as control for a companies long term health.

Make every tax law have a 3 yr sunshine expiration. This removes it for direct Congressional election term manipulation.

All tax laws must be stand alone, not used as riders

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Economy crashed before Clinton left office.

Trickle-down is just a catch phrase liberals use to justify large government.

Both of your false statements prove you know nothing about the U.S. yet you spew as if you did.

Trickle down was coined by Ronald Reagan Era Politics way before you were born.

It's Republican's Revisionist's that make the claim that the Economy "crashed" before Bush came into Office.

The only thing that nose dived at the time was overzealous non-rich boy's independent's like myself that tried to get into the stock market based on the Internet boom because online trading came into being.

I, along with countless others got our asses handed to us for trying to play with the rich boys.

Again things that occured while you were in Elementary school.

I suggest you do further research before making claims especially when they relate to the U.S. and you don't live here.

What version of history are you spewing? The dot com crash was in full swing by early 2000, the last year of Clinton's presidency (not that he really had anything much to do with the boom or the crash).

It is also not the fault of the "rich boys" that you and many others failed to learn the lessons of 1929.

The term "trickle down economics" was invented by the Democrats to describe Regan's economic policy.