McFeatters: "But tax cuts presume an income...."The tax cuts are for
the potential employer -- the person providing the jobs. She needs to know
whether she can sustain a larger workforce.
If you read this carefully, the Republicans want to give more to those who have
and deny to those who do not. If ever there was a cleared example of what the
GOP stands for, I don't know what it is.
Only in Esquire's world does lowering taxes on someone constitute a "gift" by
the government.The recent election proved that the average American
is repulsed by the left's view of the government as a means of wealth
distribution.There is a proper role for government in our society.
It is the responsibility of taxpayers to pay an appropriate amount to support
those efforts. The rich should (and do) pay the lions portion of those costs.But that is not enough for the left. They want the government to take
huge amounts of more cash from hard working Americans so they can pass it out to
all their friends.This is theft. Pure and simple. Legal yes, moral
The Bush tax cuts have been in full force throughout this entire economic
debacle. Federal taxes are at a sixty year low as a percentage of GDP. American
taxes are just about the lowest in the developed world. Given all that, our
economy should be booming right now. (That is if the people who say that tax
cuts are the answer to everything were correct. They obviously are not.)
Tea Partiers rage against taxes and say theyre too high. Wrong, says billionaire
Warren Buffett: on the rich, theyre too low.Some Facts:The top 1 percent of US households owns nearly 40 percent of all privately
held stock, from which the dividends flow. Similarly, the super-rich get MORE
THAN HALF their income from capital gains (which is taxed at 15%--the same tax
rate a janitor pays on his income). Taxing income from wealth at
little more than half the rate of income from work.A family making
more than $1 million will receive more than five times the tax cut benefit, in
dollar terms, as a middle-class family making $50,000 to $75,000 This summer, in a piece titled The Class War We Need, CONSERVATIVE columnist
Ross Douthat was aghast to learn that the owners of McMansions were defaulting
at twice the usual rate. The rich are different from you and me, he wrote. They
know how to game the system...... In case after case, Washingtons web of
subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands
it out to speculators and have-mores.
Why is "Economy growing too slowly" is because socialism works fast,
and, capitalism works but works very slowy. In his book Decision Points,
officially being released Nov. 9, Bush writes about behind-the-scenes details of
eight eventful years that began with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and ended with
an economic meltdown. Did he also talk about the RINO's that fully intends to
stay involved, interested in money, greed, corruption, above the law, (ignore us
common people unless they need your votes while re-campaigning again), career
politician's who will take money from any special interest and say or do
anything to keep his hold on power. It's secret government by the insiders, for
the insiders only today. That's for BIG BUSINESS "ONLY" and their deep
pocket's. Dick Cheney, became "angry" in 2007 when the president
decided not to pardon former Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
after Libby was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Libby was convicted
of lying to federal agents investigating the public outing of Valerie Plame as a
CIA operative. President George W. Bush reveals in his memoir "Decision
Points". Obama needs to pass Bush tax cuts.
the Bush tax cuts turned a balanced budget and a surpluss into the biggest
economic dissaster in history. Go back to the Bill Clinton rates. Democratic
policies work, Republican policies dont. Trckle down economics dont work. Tax
the rich feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.
To "Truthseeker | 10:32 a.m." yet that same top 1% that owns 40% of all wealth
also pay about 40% of all income tax revenue.The family making
$50,000 to $75,000 will pay little into the tax system, if they pay at all.
They simply keep a larger percent of their income.Think about this.
If the average middleclass family has their tax rate go from 4% to 3.5%, that is
a decrease of 12.5%. Now, if the wealthy has their tax rate cut from 15% to
14.5%, that represents a 3% tax cut.So, who now benefits the most
from a small tax cut? The person who now pays 12.5% less taxes or the guy who
pays 3% less taxes?
I think people better get used to the fact that the party in America is
officially over for many if not most.The last administration saw it (Great
Depression II) coming, looked after their rich buddies, doled out tax cuts,
supplied incentives to set up shop overseas, found a way for Dick and Lynne
Cheney's Halliburton and Lockheed Martin (defense contractors) to get rich (war
based on lies) and the rest as the say, is history.
working class | 9:25 a.m. and homebrew | 12:33 p.m.The thing you
conveniently ignore when you try to blame the Bush_Tax_Cuts for the economy
today is... Those same tax rates were also in affect during years of
unprecidented growth! Remember, these same tax rates had been in
place for years when the stock market hit it's all-time-high (Oct 2007), and
these same tax rates were in affect for many years when the USA experienced some
of it's LOWEST unemployement rates in my lifetime.What I'm saying
is... obviously tax cuts didn't CAUSE the ecomoic colapes we experienced in
2008. It was something else.And increasing taxes to give the
Government MORE money to play with and waste... while giving the PEOPLE LESS
money to provide for their children and to exand their businesses and hire
people... Will NOT solve the problem.Higher taxes are NOT the
solution to our economic problems we have today. And taxes being too low did
NOT cause the stagnant economy we have today. It was something else.Taxes being "too_low"... does NOT cause a capitalist economy to
colapse. That's an economic FACT.
@Roland "...the economy should be booming right now."You're forgetting that little episode with the sub-prime loans that your
favorite politicians were so intent on making available.
Roland throws out this little tidbit "Federal taxes are at a sixty year
low as a percentage of GDP." Then he says that this is proof that the Bush
tax cuts didn't work.Fact: Federal income tax REVENUES kept going up
even after the Bush tax cuts. Almost every year for the past decade, tax
revenues have been higher (as much as 25% higher) than they were in the year
2000. (Don't believe me? Then look it up.)So, as any first year
business student can tell you, if overall tax revenues have gone up and Federal
taxes are lower as a percentage of GDP, then that means that GDP went up even
faster than tax revenues.It seems to me the Bush tax cuts worked
perfectly. GDP went way up and even though rates were less, taxes revenues were
still higher. After all, 20% of $1000 is less than 15% of $2000.
CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the
deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation
would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half 48 percent of
this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a
Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will
cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair,
Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who
believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large
supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He
continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available
evidence. I never have, and I still don't." ditto says David
Stockman, the architect of Reagan's tax cuts and Bruce Bartlett, Reagan advisor
and treasury official for HW Bush.
To "Truthseeker | 7:51 p.m. " explain how tax cuts cause deficits?If you got a pay cut, does that automatically mean that you are now more
in debt?If the debt increased after tax cuts were made, doesn't that
mean that congress spent more than was collected?