Is Republican base beginning a shift away from tax cuts for the rich?

[dank69]

That name calling and false accusations is why the democrat party is losing ground.

Why can't people have a decent conversation without all the "racist/misogynist xenophobe" comments, which is a flat out lie.

Keep in mind demcorats fought against every step forward on civil rights for centuries. Even today they "pretend" to promote civil rights while killing unborn children.

~~ EDIT ~~

I am still waiting on proof the new tax laws benefited the rich more than anyone else.

You only said all that because liberals say the opposite.

 

[UNCjigga]

I am still waiting on proof the new tax laws benefited the rich more than anyone else.

Well, just follow the money. What have companies done with the money they got back? They increased CEO pay and bought back their stock (driving up stock price and thus enriching CEOs and billionaire fund managers even further.) I’m sure some front line folks got one-time tax cut bonuses of token amounts, but have their salaries gone up? Nope.

Now that we’ll have our first full year of returns from 2018 to analyze later this year, we’ll be getting more data on where the money is going. Keep up with the CBO reports.

 

[Texashiker]

You only said all that because liberals say the opposite.

No, not the opposite.

Progressives say a lot I agree with, such as:

Universal healthcare
Free higher education
More investments into renewable energy.

Stuff I disagree with:

Tax the rich at 70 - 90 percent
Abortion
Gun laws

If democrats would change their stance on abortion they would win over more conservatives. As it stands I can not vote for a party who promotes the killing of unborn children.

If this were the 1800s I would not vote for the democrats because of their stance on slavery.

If this were late 1890s I would not vote democrat because of jim crow laws.

If this were the early 1900s I could not vote democrat because of their stance on womens rights.

As long as the democrat party victimizes certain groups, they will only attract the most vial group of voters.

 

[Texashiker]

Well, just follow the money. What have companies done with the money they got back? They increased CEO pay and bought back their stock (driving up stock price and thus enriching CEOs and billionaire fund managers even further.) I’m sure some front line folks got one-time tax cut bonuses of token amounts, but have their salaries gone up? Nope.

I understand all of that, and it pisses me off. But, it is their money and they can do with it what they want.

The original question still stands, did the rich get special tax breaks everyone else did not? Not everyone is a CEO or billionaire fund managers.

Surely stock holders benefited from stock prices going up? If you owned stock in a company, and that stock went up in price, you would be happy, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

That name calling and false accusations is why the democrat party is losing ground.

Why can't people have a decent conversation without all the "racist/misogynist xenophobe" comments, which is a flat out lie.

Keep in mind demcorats fought against every step forward on civil rights for centuries. Even today they "pretend" to promote civil rights while killing unborn children.

~~ EDIT ~~

I am still waiting on proof the new tax laws benefited the rich more than anyone else.

Google <tax cut for the rich>. Then recall that the wealthiest were very under taxed even before that was done.

Conservatives just need to admit that trickle down economics haven't worked out the way they'd hoped. Given that, we need to take corrective action if we are to enjoy widespread prosperity. Maybe we all need to swallow our pride a little bit & use the agency of democracy to accomplish that.

 

[dank69]

No, not the opposite.

Progressives say a lot I agree with, such as:

Universal healthcare
Free higher education
More investments into renewable energy.

Stuff I disagree with:

Tax the rich at 70 - 90 percent
Abortion
Gun laws

If democrats would change their stance on abortion they would win over more conservatives. As it stands I can not vote for a party who promotes the killing of unborn children.

If this were the 1800s I would not vote for the democrats because of their stance on slavery.

If this were late 1890s I would not vote democrat because of jim crow laws.

If this were the early 1900s I could not vote democrat because of their stance on womens rights.

As long as the democrat party victimizes certain groups, they will only attract the most vial group of voters.

Okay so to you abortion is much more important than all those other issues?

 

[Ajay]

I get that. Extra income to provide services. That wasnt my question though. Wealth generally doesnt include things like job aid, medical care, or subsidies. Its generall agreed that wealth includes things like assets, money, etc. So back to my question. How would taxing the top 1% transfer wealth to the middle or lower class? Here's a hint: It wont. Yes, many would benefit from all the new services but taxation wont close the wealth gap.

Yes, I did answer your question. These services will help people get better jobs ($$); these services will lower healthcare costs ($$) for the majority of the population. Over time these changes will boost the medium income for the middle class and the poor - thereby closing the wealth gap. There are other things that can be done, both in taxation, services and even salary normalization, but we should take one step at a time and analyze the results.

 

[blankslate]

Probably given enough years under a lower taxes trend downward started by Reagan and the results it had on the middle class and working poor even staunch conservatives who are not rich have to admit the truth of how it has affected their lives....


__________

 

[thilanliyan]

And?

In other words, you are saying you are lazy, and it is not fair that people who are not lazy make more money than you?

I wish I had bought stock in that Amazon online book store back in the late 1990s.

My point was that even "self-made" billionaires have done it off the backs of other tax payers, and sometimes directly with the assistance of tax payer funding so why should they be getting the majority of the tax breaks?

As has been mentioned in other threads, the very wealthy are paying tax rates at about what someone making ~$100k pays. That doesn't seem right.

 

[Jhhnn]

My point was that even "self-made" billionaires have done it off the backs of other tax payers, and sometimes directly with the assistance of tax payer funding so why should they be getting the majority of the tax breaks?

As has been mentioned in other threads, the very wealthy are paying tax rates at about what someone making ~$100k pays. That doesn't seem right.

That's what they were paying before the most recent GOP tax cuts which also cut corporate taxes so they get more in the first place in terms of dividends & stock buybacks. Since it's all done with deficit spending they get to loan the govt the money to cut their own taxes at the same time. It's a roundabout way to give the wealthiest free US govt securities. It's a different kind of Ownership Society.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Google <tax cut for the rich>. Then recall that the wealthiest were very under taxed even before that was done.

Conservatives just need to admit that trickle down economics haven't worked out the way they'd hoped. Given that, we need to take corrective action if we are to enjoy widespread prosperity. Maybe we all need to swallow our pride a little bit & use the agency of democracy to accomplish that.

No they need to admit they are working exactly as they hoped (and knew they would), which is the total opposite of what they've promised over and over again. Rubs knew exactly what this would do, and it was absolutely their intention in doing it.