dailyfinance.com— A divide may be opening between Obama and allies in Congress about whether to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Will that help the economy?
Jul 27, 2010View in Crawl 4
7%? Isn't the lowest tax bracket right now like 10%? The last time I can remember someone proposing a flat tax it was Steve Forbes and I think he wanted it to be 17%, which would mean HIGHER taxes for over a third of households in the country. Mind you that households which make the most ($350,000 or more) are in the highest bracket (35%). A flat tax of 17% would reduce their income taxes by more than half. I know that a flat tax seems like the most fair method in theory, but it actually makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Hell no! How can anyone justify a tax cut for the rich when we are involved in 2 "wars"? It was a payoff for Bush's rich supporters to begin with, that we couldn't afford when it was implemented and we really can't afford to keep now. Cons are so concerned about the deficit, well, this is a good way to start paying for it. Start by letting the tax cut expire, then end the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and finish with cutting the defense budget by up to half. That would be a great way to get the deficit under control and maybe start paying for things we need, like a real energy plan and national healthcare, instead of just health insurance regulation.
Not only should the tax cuts expire, but the rich need substantial tax hike to make up for all those years they got away with paying practically nothing. The rich got that way by robbing and looting. The more that we take back through taxes, the better.
So many substantive evidentiary links it makes my intellectual anti-Reaganomics c**k swell like a chess-club geek's wedgied ass wearing a jockstrap made out of a beehive.
I was once a looser and felt like anyone who made a lot of money should be penalized too. Then I grew up and became an adult who could make a living and be responsible and not blame everyone else for my situation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Let me make sure I understand this right about our current economic problems. So according to the Digg Neolibs, it wasn't the predatory lending tactics by the financial industry or the crashing of the housing market. It also wasn't the lame duck status with the Dems controlling the congress for Bush's last two years of his second term. It's not the fault of our current president (who was part of the majority party for the past four years). All of the economic problems our nation is now facing is because of Bush's Tax cut. Wow.
According the graph at the website below neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts hurt government revenue while both gave needed relief to businesses and individuals. It's the failing ecomomy the kills government revenue. The deficit and debt problems are because neither Democrats nor Republicans can stop spending other peoples money. The problem is never a lack of taxes. It is always too much spending.
Yes they should be extended. When tax cuts are given to the rich, the rich have more money! When this happens the rich take their extra money and hire poor people to work for them!
I know that many of you digg people are lured by what socialism has done for Scandinavia, and I can see where you are coming from. I am not criticizing but first, I am Australian and I look at your country (obviously The USA) and I guess Switzerland, two lands built largely on the principles of radical freedom, which has served as a success for much of those countries histories (Switzerland is obviously the least socialist/taxed and most successful country in Europe), and I wonder how you seem to be so critical of radical freedom, specifically fiscal freedom. I personally look up to people like Ron Paul (we don't have anyone like that in Australia), and he once said something along the lines of " you have the right to your freedoms and your income, but you don't have the right to other peoples money". It's just that I am saddened that you dislike these concepts and take your history of low taxes and a gold/silver backed currency for granted and your brilliant freedoms, because these concepts and freedoms simply never have and don't exist in Australia.
In my opinion, the reason as to why so many Americans are poor and the rich are extremely rich is because the US government/congress is VERY corporatist and corrupt, I mean for gods sake you use tax payers money and literally give it to the rich, what do you expect.
Bush's "tax cuts" were not a tax cut. A tax cut is either:
Reducing the tax rates on one or more tax brackets for a future year OR
Doing the same for a prior year and refunding the difference
So for example, if I reduce the tax on income for the first 15K from $2000 to $1000, then every tax payer that paid over 15K in taxes would get $1000. A tax payer that paid 7.5K in taxes would get $500. A tax payer that paid no (income) taxes would get 0.
That's not what happened. What happened was
1. The calculation was not based on a tax bracket rate reduction
2. Tax payers that paid no income taxes got in some cases a check larger than the income tax they did pay.
3. Tax payers above a certain income level did not get a check
Although it doesn't sound as nice, a more accurate description is Bush wealth redistribution.
Its funny how all the problems we are having get traced back to Reagan. Trickle down economics does work, unless you want to further stratify the economic divide!
Taxation is theft -- Get rid of all taxes. Oh, and by the way, you'll be happy to know these tax cuts don't apply to the super rich. Also, a good idea would be to stop f**king spending so much.
We do pay for use of our infrastructure such as streets with our gas taxes. The more you drive, the more you pay at the pump in gas taxes. Done.
The problem with making everyone pay equally for education is that many just would not pay. They don't bother raising there kids, much less educating them. While I agree, we should only pay for the education cost of our on kids, if we don't tax locally to provide sufficient income to fund public schools, many kids just would not get an education. AND, the majority of these uneducated kids would be minorities. They would not invest in their kid's future. Their kids would be failures in life and their careers and once again, it would be blamed on whitey for keeping them down.
Give me a break. You all are morons. Keep the tax cut, Don't keep them. The richest people won't be affected by it. They'll find ways out of paying taxes.
It's the business men who employ you and your kids and your wifes and girlfriends. They are the ones who are going to get hurt and not higher that extra waitress or bagger that they could use.
And the rest of you yelling about paying your fair share? YOU DON'T PAY JACK and you know it. You get a tax refund every year I'm betting. You know what that means... That's right.. YOU DON'T PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE. The rich are paying it for you. Where do you think all the tax money comes from? Not poor people.. not most of you posting on this forum, but the RICH people you so despise.
Most of these comments in this thread come from spoiled little kids that don't even have a job yet, and have no understanding of how the entry level jobs are created by the wealthy people in the world. That's life. Either figure it out, or be stuck in this crappy economy forever
NoCFLJul 27, 2010
Yes, but only for 2 more years. By then the recession will be well behind us!
ryanwbJul 27, 2010
Flat Tax!!!!!
emcoffey3Jul 28, 2010
7%? Isn't the lowest tax bracket right now like 10%? The last time I can remember someone proposing a flat tax it was Steve Forbes and I think he wanted it to be 17%, which would mean HIGHER taxes for over a third of households in the country. Mind you that households which make the most ($350,000 or more) are in the highest bracket (35%). A flat tax of 17% would reduce their income taxes by more than half. I know that a flat tax seems like the most fair method in theory, but it actually makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
veedekJul 27, 2010
Hell no! How can anyone justify a tax cut for the rich when we are involved in 2 "wars"? It was a payoff for Bush's rich supporters to begin with, that we couldn't afford when it was implemented and we really can't afford to keep now. Cons are so concerned about the deficit, well, this is a good way to start paying for it. Start by letting the tax cut expire, then end the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and finish with cutting the defense budget by up to half. That would be a great way to get the deficit under control and maybe start paying for things we need, like a real energy plan and national healthcare, instead of just health insurance regulation.
uncoverorJul 28, 2010
Not only should the tax cuts expire, but the rich need substantial tax hike to make up for all those years they got away with paying practically nothing. The rich got that way by robbing and looting. The more that we take back through taxes, the better.
zenmojoJul 28, 2010
So many substantive evidentiary links it makes my intellectual anti-Reaganomics c**k swell like a chess-club geek's wedgied ass wearing a jockstrap made out of a beehive.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
I was once a looser and felt like anyone who made a lot of money should be penalized too. Then I grew up and became an adult who could make a living and be responsible and not blame everyone else for my situation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vegetablelambJul 28, 2010
I doubt you're an 'adult' in anything but the chronological sense.
sapperliteJul 28, 2010
Let me make sure I understand this right about our current economic problems. So according to the Digg Neolibs, it wasn't the predatory lending tactics by the financial industry or the crashing of the housing market. It also wasn't the lame duck status with the Dems controlling the congress for Bush's last two years of his second term. It's not the fault of our current president (who was part of the majority party for the past four years). All of the economic problems our nation is now facing is because of Bush's Tax cut. Wow.
chilidogsJul 28, 2010
Where did you read that? Oh you didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
sapperliteJul 31, 2010
Maybe you should do your own research but since your obviously another ignorant Lib I will help you.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_have_democrats_held_the_majority_in_congress
stillhateyouJul 28, 2010
I only make about 80k/year and I think even my own taxes are too low. Those making above a quarter of a million dollars can bite me.
beabisJul 28, 2010
According the graph at the website below neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts hurt government revenue while both gave needed relief to businesses and individuals. It's the failing ecomomy the kills government revenue. The deficit and debt problems are because neither Democrats nor Republicans can stop spending other peoples money. The problem is never a lack of taxes. It is always too much spending.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
That website must be run be run by some sort of right wing hate monger because it shows that when taxes are cut tax revenues increase.
sj200Jul 28, 2010
f**k the rich!
bytemeaholeJul 28, 2010
The economy is tanking, so let's have the biggest tax hike in history to restore confidence...
russomdJul 28, 2010
Yes they should be extended. When tax cuts are given to the rich, the rich have more money! When this happens the rich take their extra money and hire poor people to work for them!
tmchazJul 28, 2010
I know that many of you digg people are lured by what socialism has done for Scandinavia, and I can see where you are coming from. I am not criticizing but first, I am Australian and I look at your country (obviously The USA) and I guess Switzerland, two lands built largely on the principles of radical freedom, which has served as a success for much of those countries histories (Switzerland is obviously the least socialist/taxed and most successful country in Europe), and I wonder how you seem to be so critical of radical freedom, specifically fiscal freedom. I personally look up to people like Ron Paul (we don't have anyone like that in Australia), and he once said something along the lines of " you have the right to your freedoms and your income, but you don't have the right to other peoples money". It's just that I am saddened that you dislike these concepts and take your history of low taxes and a gold/silver backed currency for granted and your brilliant freedoms, because these concepts and freedoms simply never have and don't exist in Australia.
In my opinion, the reason as to why so many Americans are poor and the rich are extremely rich is because the US government/congress is VERY corporatist and corrupt, I mean for gods sake you use tax payers money and literally give it to the rich, what do you expect.
Just my two cents
alexanempireJul 28, 2010
Short answer, no.
Long answer, nnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
rakkarJul 28, 2010
Bush's "tax cuts" were not a tax cut. A tax cut is either:
Reducing the tax rates on one or more tax brackets for a future year OR
Doing the same for a prior year and refunding the difference
So for example, if I reduce the tax on income for the first 15K from $2000 to $1000, then every tax payer that paid over 15K in taxes would get $1000. A tax payer that paid 7.5K in taxes would get $500. A tax payer that paid no (income) taxes would get 0.
That's not what happened. What happened was
1. The calculation was not based on a tax bracket rate reduction
2. Tax payers that paid no income taxes got in some cases a check larger than the income tax they did pay.
3. Tax payers above a certain income level did not get a check
Although it doesn't sound as nice, a more accurate description is Bush wealth redistribution.
johoshuaJul 28, 2010
Tax Year 2007
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$410,096
40.42
Top 5%
$160,041
60.63
Top 10%
$113,018
71.22
Top 25%
$66,532
86.59
Top 50%
$32,879
97.11
Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89
hashish16Jul 28, 2010
Its funny how all the problems we are having get traced back to Reagan. Trickle down economics does work, unless you want to further stratify the economic divide!
dream0weaverJul 28, 2010
Taxation is theft -- Get rid of all taxes. Oh, and by the way, you'll be happy to know these tax cuts don't apply to the super rich. Also, a good idea would be to stop f**king spending so much.
brandhayJul 28, 2010
If some insist on calling it "Bush's tax cut", then I'm gonna call this "Obama's tax hike".
eldiablo6870Jul 28, 2010
We do pay for use of our infrastructure such as streets with our gas taxes. The more you drive, the more you pay at the pump in gas taxes. Done.
The problem with making everyone pay equally for education is that many just would not pay. They don't bother raising there kids, much less educating them. While I agree, we should only pay for the education cost of our on kids, if we don't tax locally to provide sufficient income to fund public schools, many kids just would not get an education. AND, the majority of these uneducated kids would be minorities. They would not invest in their kid's future. Their kids would be failures in life and their careers and once again, it would be blamed on whitey for keeping them down.
brentcopelandJul 28, 2010
Give me a break. You all are morons. Keep the tax cut, Don't keep them. The richest people won't be affected by it. They'll find ways out of paying taxes.
It's the business men who employ you and your kids and your wifes and girlfriends. They are the ones who are going to get hurt and not higher that extra waitress or bagger that they could use.
And the rest of you yelling about paying your fair share? YOU DON'T PAY JACK and you know it. You get a tax refund every year I'm betting. You know what that means... That's right.. YOU DON'T PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE. The rich are paying it for you. Where do you think all the tax money comes from? Not poor people.. not most of you posting on this forum, but the RICH people you so despise.
Most of these comments in this thread come from spoiled little kids that don't even have a job yet, and have no understanding of how the entry level jobs are created by the wealthy people in the world. That's life. Either figure it out, or be stuck in this crappy economy forever