Brown_Pride
All Star
we're not talking about that though are we? We're talking about a modest increase. When they start talking about 50 and 70 % come and get me and we'll march on Washington together.
GOP Rep. Has No Answer For Why Republicans Wont Vote For Middle-Class Tax Cuts
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
we're not talking about that though are we? We're talking about a modest increase. When they start talking about 50 and 70 % come and get me and we'll march on Washington together.
A modest increase won't cover the spread my niggy. Your whole stance doesn't make sense. When we talk about how the lower + middle class have seen far bigger tax cuts than the rich, and are enjoying the lowest tax rates in history, numbers don't matter. The deficit doesn't matter. But when you talk about the rich, aw hell naw we HAVE to go back to pre Bush tax rates. Never mind how much $$$ it will raise. The point is they dont need it and the govt should have it.
we're not talking about that though are we? We're talking about a modest increase. When they start talking about 50 and 70 % come and get me and we'll march on Washington together.
If they took rates up to 70%, like they did a couple of decades ago, you'd be celebrating and citing those periods of prosperity as proof of the effectiveness of such draconian tax code. Never mind how much tax evasion and economic stifling that would prompt. Mission accomplished
SATIL is more comfortable making up hypotheticals apparently
Making up hypotheticals? I posted actual tax #s and dude said "i've seen that table time and again, i just don't care." So dude wants to talk tax policy w/o citing actual tax numbers :fight:
cryptosapien
Rookie
"OBRIEN: Why dont Republicans and Democrats vote to keep the taxes lower for middle class and people at lower income and let the other ones expire? And you could do that now. And we wouldnt go over the fiscal cliff.
HENSARLING: What the Speaker has done is exactly what the President claimed he he wanted. The Speaker has put on the table a balanced approach.
OBRIEN: You cant be surprised that the president said no go to that, right? Within only a couple of hours because it did not increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, which he has consistently said.
HENSARLING: The President won 51-49. He has an electoral college victory. Its good enough to get him re-elected but not enough to give him a mandate."
fukking salesmen scum. Billions spent on propaganda, because it works. People are stupid. I don't even know what to say (to people who buy in to this shyt).
HENSARLING: What the Speaker has done is exactly what the President claimed he he wanted. The Speaker has put on the table a balanced approach.
OBRIEN: You cant be surprised that the president said no go to that, right? Within only a couple of hours because it did not increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, which he has consistently said.
HENSARLING: The President won 51-49. He has an electoral college victory. Its good enough to get him re-elected but not enough to give him a mandate."
fukking salesmen scum. Billions spent on propaganda, because it works. People are stupid. I don't even know what to say (to people who buy in to this shyt).
Piff Perkins
Veteran
I'd prefer for all the taxes to be raised, but I don't think it's a good idea to do right now. Studies show letting the middle income ones expire would shrink the economy, whereas letting the higher income ones expire has little impact.
We should wait for the economy to improve before getting rid of the middle income cuts.
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
A modest increase won't cover the spread my niggy. Your whole stance doesn't make sense. When we talk about how the lower + middle class have seen far bigger tax cuts than the rich, and are enjoying the lowest tax rates in history, numbers don't matter. The deficit doesn't matter. But when you talk about the rich, aw hell naw we HAVE to go back to pre Bush tax rates. Never mind how much $$$ it will raise. The point is they dont need it and the govt should have it.
If they took rates up to 70%, like they did a couple of decades ago, you'd be celebrating and citing those periods of prosperity as proof of the effectiveness of such draconian tax code. Never mind how much tax evasion and economic stifling that would prompt. Mission accomplished
and dude said "i've seen that table time and again, i just don't care." So dude wants to talk tax policy w/o citing actual tax numbers :fight:
I go left on a lot of issues, but the left loves the government. You have to deal with it. If we raise the highest marginal rate to 38% apparently it will kick our economy into overdrive.
Yea but then people say you can't cut anything related to the middle class either, as that will "put families on the street"
Middle class is apparently everyone above the poverty line but outside the 1%.... thats like 80% of the country
The mechanisms driving the income + wealth gaps are completely unrelated to the tax code... the tax code has never been better for "the middle class", so why people want to fix things through taxes is beyond me
I do agree that a big jolt to the middle class is a bad idea. But its insane to keep putting it off indefinitely. At this rate w/the govt not addressing the big items keeping the "middle class" from accumulating wealth (higher education, healthcare, housing), govt will default before the middle class gets back on its feet
Govt needs to stop fukking everything up. If they get out of higher education colleges will be forced to drop tuition to levels people can afford without loans. If they get out of housing prices will drop to levels that make sense and won't encourage people to take HELOCs (they are on the uptick again). They need to simplify the shyt out of healthcare. Slash the military, ditch goofy deductions like child deductions and mortgage interest, and put that money towards a single payer program. A-b-bu-bu-but... but nothing. The tax increases on "the middle class" would be more than offset by the out of pocket savings on the big 3 H's. Govt is distorting the hell out of everything and nobody is winning but the folks who own the businesses they subsidize
I didnt mean to snap at you specifically, just speaking generally.
Well to be fair marginal rates were higher during periods of prosperityI go left on a lot of issues, but the left loves the government. You have to deal with it. If we raise the highest marginal rate to 38% apparently it will kick our economy into overdrive.
But the country was also totally different... Govt wasnt subsidizing college loans, govt wasnt fukking up healthcare, Freddie/Fannie Mae hadn't been called on to distort the housing market
Also depending how far you go back, certain citizens got second class rights and treatment by law
The country was a lot smaller
And we had a lot less competition globally
So if people wanna go back we gotta go allll the way back... only ways to do that are with bombs or a time machine
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
We've got bombs.
You're really making this more difficult than it has to be.
I feel that you feel you shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.
Brown_Pride
All Star
and you only want to work with numbers ignoring the people behind those numbers. It's all good and easy to say the group making 15k a year needs to pay 10% but the actuality of it is that doing that is more draconian that asking someone making 250k a year to pay 50%. So yeah, fuk that table.A modest increase won't cover the spread my niggy. Your whole stance doesn't make sense. When we talk about how the lower + middle class have seen far bigger tax cuts than the rich, and are enjoying the lowest tax rates in history, numbers don't matter. The deficit doesn't matter. But when you talk about the rich, aw hell naw we HAVE to go back to pre Bush tax rates. Never mind how much $$$ it will raise. The point is they dont need it and the govt should have it.
If they took rates up to 70%, like they did a couple of decades ago, you'd be celebrating and citing those periods of prosperity as proof of the effectiveness of such draconian tax code. Never mind how much tax evasion and economic stifling that would prompt. Mission accomplished
Making up hypotheticals? I posted actual tax #s and dude said "i've seen that table time and again, i just don't care." So dude wants to talk tax policy w/o citing actual tax numbers :fight:
when you want to discuss the issue with ME, not with what you think i'm saying let me know.
a. I never said taxes should not be raised on the middle class; just the bottom end(poor). You keep lumping middle and lower class in the same bucket in regards to my stance and that's just not how i see things. I already said the middle class should have their tax rates increased to pre bush as well.
b. @ 70% i'd be up in arms, that's just not right. Think what you want to think about what I WOULD think and i'll know what i would think about my thinking.
c. i don't care that taxes on the rich go up
deal with it, because as it turns out most Americans don't either. 2% vs 98% son, those are solid numbers. I expect the rich to pay more, that just a fundamental difference between libs and conservs.
beenz
Rap Guerilla
beenz
Rap Guerilla
I believe that even if we raise taxes, gov't will still find a way to fukk it up as they spend excessively no matter how much revenue is generated.
I really wish they could cut spending, and the first place I'd look to cut is for military and defense spending. cuz haliburton, raytheon, boeing, lockheed and all these defense companies have been getting fat off our tax dollars for 10 plus years now.
I really wish they could cut spending, and the first place I'd look to cut is for military and defense spending. cuz haliburton, raytheon, boeing, lockheed and all these defense companies have been getting fat off our tax dollars for 10 plus years now.
Looking at this, you're going to still argue for "equitable" tax increases?
I don't think you understand how marginal taxes work.
Only every dollar you earn above $250,000 is taxed at the higher tax rate. If you make $275,000, only $25,000 is taxed at the higher tax rate, the rest would still be taxed at old rate. So you'll only pay 3%x$25,000= $750 in higher taxes, which is peanuts.
No need to get dirty and bring facts and logic into this.