Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The poor folks who pay NO TAXES also use the infrastructure...at LEAST the wealthy are paying for that while the poor just use and abuse it without contributing anything towards it.
There you go off the slide. Those people do not pay no-taxes, they pay no federal income taxes but pay a large portion of their small income in other taxes.
Here is an example of why taxing the poor and not the rich doesn't make sense. The rich have the income and the poor do not. To gain the same revenue from the poor that you would get from a slim increase in the rich, you will need to heavily tax the poor.
they pay no federal income taxes but pay a large portion of their small income in other taxes.
And the wealthy DON'T pay other taxes????
Quote:
Here is an example of why taxing the poor and not the rich doesn't make sense. The rich have the income and the poor do not. To gain the same revenue from the poor that you would get from a slim increase in the rich, you will need to heavily tax the poor.
And taking Obama's proposed increase in taxes for the wealthy would raise $86 Billion per year.
$86 Billion would run the US government for a total of 8 days.
Plus, this is what the firm of Ernst & Young have to say about Obam's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy:
Let me understand your reasoning, raising the taxes on the rich yields an 'insignificant' amount of money but will sink the economy if implemented? That seems quite contradictory.
That thread about the tax hikes shrinking the economy is bogus and didn't even link to the actual Ernst and Young report. Rich people always say raising their taxes will sink the economy. It hasn't happened.
But on significance, a time when the GOP is asking those under 55 to wait until 67 to join Medicare and talking about privatizing Social Security, each of which won't solve the debt problem either, the idea to raise taxes on those that got a fabulous 10-year tax break is quite reasonable.
The GOP proposal to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67 saves $42 billion/yr. Raising taxes on the top 0.1% by 5% raises $50 billion/yr. Raising the top rate to a mandatory 30% adds another $40-50 billion, for a total of $100 bil./yr. Thus, instead of invoking hardship on seniors, we could raise taxes on the super rich and rich, while accomplishing the same objective and have another $50 bil. a year for deficit reduction.
You really are a parody of the Jon Stewart video above. When we tax the poor, it's a significant dent in the deficit. Doing the same thing for the rich, not so much.
* Obama is not raising taxes on you, your repub buds designed your tax breaks to expire.
* You keep ignoring data which shows many corporations, especially super wealthy multinationals, do not pay taxes.
* You seem to be making the repub case that the idle rich "job creators" should not be taxed at all. The less you are taxed, the more jobs you create.
The "reasoning": since the wealthy create the jobs, and lowering their tax rate creates more jobs, then a tax rate of zero would ultimately create the most jobs. Good for America, right?
Then the burden of financing the infrastructure falls on the lower classes. Is that your thinking?
If the result of raising taxes on the idle rich is insignificant, then lowering them is equally insignificant.
Who's talking about lowering them???
RETAINING the same tax rates isn't lowering or raising them.
ONLY Democrats are talking about raising ANYONE'S taxes by removing the tax break they got under Bush.
But thanks for finally getting the memo that raising the wealthy's taxes won't make anything better, in fact, Ernst & Young shows where it'll really HURT the economy.
Lowering GDP by 1.5 or 1% of an already ANEMIC rate of growth would practically put the rate of growth into the negative column.
The "reasoning": since the wealthy create the jobs, and lowering their tax rate creates more jobs, then a tax rate of zero would ultimately create the most jobs. Good for America, right?
Actually, that's correct. Making the wealthy pay NO taxes would indeed create many more jobs.
But since the wealthy pay the VAST MAJORITY of taxes already at an unfairly higher rate, of course it would hurt the economy because then hardly anyone would pay any taxes.
Let me understand your reasoning, raising the taxes on the rich yields an 'insignificant' amount of money but will sink the economy if implemented? That seems quite contradictory.
Maybe you should read and try to grasp the Ernst & Young report.
Quote:
That thread about the tax hikes shrinking the economy is bogus and didn't even link to the actual Ernst and Young report. Rich people always say raising their taxes will sink the economy. It hasn't happened.
There were two links in it....one to the report and one to a synoposis of the report.
See:
Quote:
A slew of tax hikes supported by President Obama will shrink the U.S. economy by 1.3 percent and cause 710,000 job losses, according to a new Ernst & Young report prepared on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business, the S Corporation Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce and presented to the US House of Representative Ways and Means Committee.
This report examines four sets of provisions that will increase the top tax rates:
The increase in the top two tax rates from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%.
The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers.
The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6% and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20%.
The increase in the 2.9% Medicare tax to 3.8% for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains.
With the combination of these tax changes at the beginning of 2013 the top tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% in 2012 to 40.9%, the top tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 44.7% and the top tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 24.7%.
….
This report finds that these higher marginal tax rates result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages. Specifically, this report finds that the higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long-run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock, and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending.
Republicans and conservatives are the last people who should be lecturing anyone on economics.
This is the only post about this ridiculous topic that matters. Republicans, those with the same warped judgment that put Bush in office twice, people who have not shown to have a clue about effectively running an economy, have no business commenting on the economic matters.
If it weren't for Bush, and for the Republican obstructionists in Congress, President Obama would have this economy flourishing in a way that Republicans could never acheive with their regressive policies.
Supporters of Bush have no business talking about the economy. What a misleading title to this thread, but not surprising given how desperate Pubs are now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent post and spot on
