Quote :

"That's just proof that no matter how much the left talks about the "rich" paying their "fair share", it's ultimately redistribution of wealth that they want."

yes. of course. wealth could use a little redistribution right about now.

5/22/2010 7:22:00 PM

Quote :

"Oh I don't know, how about the 10% of the population who paid over 70% of all income tax collected. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1 More to the point though is the appalling fact that half the country pays nothing or receives money, while the other half actually pays something. Can we at least agree that the amount of tax credits and deductions you can receive should never be allowed to exceed the amount of tax withheld? "

And yet you still didn’t explain where anyone was “bleeding.” You’ve bought into the propaganda of these people who actually have the money to push their perspective.

And the entire point of gov. is to take peoples’ money and spend it in a way that’s conducive to a healthy country. Why would I agree to something that is agains the entire premise of all forms of government?

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 2:47:50 PM

Quote :

"And the entire point of gov. is to take peoples’ money and spend it in a way that’s conducive to a healthy country. Why would I agree to something that is agains the entire premise of all forms of government?"

I'm sorry, you're too stupid for me to talk to anymore. You have no grasp on the purpose of government.

5/23/2010 4:40:32 PM

In other words, I win. Thanks.

5/23/2010 4:42:39 PM

Wow, I missed that gem. That's pretty pathetic that you define the purpose of government in that way.

5/23/2010 5:33:16 PM

Quote :

"Or instead of spending $50 billion to buy GM, he could've given every household a million dollars... that would've only cost about 270 million..and would've sparked much more economic activity than paying back his chums in the the auto union."

wow

you should probably stop posting

5/23/2010 5:40:05 PM

haha, or at least start multiplying and dividing

5/23/2010 5:40:49 PM

Quote :

"Wow, I missed that gem. That's pretty pathetic that you define the purpose of government in that way. "

lol

i don't define it that way, that is the way gov is.

What non-fascist gov ever in history DIDN'T collect money from its citizens to spend on other citizens?

5/23/2010 6:04:22 PM

Quote :

"Bush cut taxes on millionaires giving them back far more than they need to, in your theoretical world, give people jobs, and the result was record high unemployment. And your brilliant idea is to repeat this step...?"

if only the cutting of taxes were what caused the unemployment, you might have a point. of course, it didn't cause unemployment. other big-government ideas did, like fucking with the housing sector via Freddie and Fannie.

5/23/2010 8:01:06 PM

Look, the idea about the top 10% paying 70% of the taxes is only extreme if they aren't making nearly that amount of the income. I know that there is some disparity there (meaning the top 10% don't make 70% of the income), but per The Tax Foundation web site,

Quote :

"In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes. The 2007 numbers show that the top 1 percent’s income and tax shares reached all-time highs for the third year in a row. That is likely to reverse direction when data from recessionary 2008 is published a year from now."

So basically total income for the top 1 percent was increasing, not decreasing, even though their tax burden was also increasing.

It also says that the bottom 50% made about 12% of the total AGI for the country, and paid a little under 3% of the taxes.

I think the idea of class warfare in the tax system is unfortunate in the perception, but it's going to be inherent when there is such a huge gap between the rich and the poor (top 10% of earners in our country make 50% of the wealth). If you raised taxes on the bottom 50%, you still wouldn't increase revenue significantly because they don't have much of the income to tax. You would have to raise the taxes on the bottom 50% by 30% of their income just to equal a 7.5% tax hike on the top ten percent. Seriously, think about that for a minute.

If the bottom 50% make $12 (roughly their slice of the $100 pie) a year and you raise taxes on them to take 30% more, you get $3.60 more.

If the top 10% make $48 and you tax them at around 7.5% more, you get about the same $3.60.

That's why people always aim for the wealthiest. If the wealth at the bottom was more significant, then raising taxes on them would do more to help the budget deficit.

5/23/2010 9:17:04 PM

they also aim for the wealthiest because they are easy targets and easy to demonize; see TWW.

5/23/2010 9:30:07 PM

Quote :

"if only the cutting of taxes were what caused the unemployment, you might have a point. of course, it didn't cause unemployment. other big-government ideas did, like fucking with the housing sector via Freddie and Fannie. "

It's doesn't matter what caused it for this discussion (and you put way too much importance on freddie/fannie anyway) , but merely cutting taxes clearly won't fix it.

^ easiest targets why? easiest to demonize why...?

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 9:51 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 9:47:18 PM

it's entirely important. you prefaced that by saying that doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanity... clearly you were suggesting or at least trying to suggest that the recession was related to the tax cuts

Quote :

"That's why people always aim for the wealthiest."

bullshit. they aim for the wealthy because there are fewer of them and votes are what ultimately matter.

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:05 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 10:03:00 PM

You're reading what you want to read. I was not in any way suggesting the recession was caused by the tax cuts.

The overarching point is that the economy and jobs are more complex than the typical conservative's crowing about socialism and taxes and jobs. It's not a simple A-B effect like you are so hoping that it is.

Quote :

"bullshit. they aim for the wealthy because there are fewer of them and votes are what ultimately matter. "

wow. More simplistic reasoning. Why do you insist that the world is so black and white? Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it can't be understood...

[Edited on May 23, 2010 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2010 10:07:13 PM

Quote :

"I was not in any way suggesting the recession was caused by the tax cuts."

then why use the einstein quote?

Quote :

"wow. More simplistic reasoning. Why do you insist that the world is so black and white? Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it can't be understood..."

wow, more ad hominem. i'll take that as an admission that I am right. that politicians pander to voting blocs, and promising goodies to 51% of your constituency is a great fucking way to get elected.

5/23/2010 10:18:59 PM

Quote :

"then why use the einstein quote? "

It's not that hard to understand. Tax cuts didn't do anything to stop job losses the first time, and there's no reason now to think they would stop job losses. Why try something that will most likely fail, while putting us in a more precarious position?

Quote :

"wow, more ad hominem. i'll take that as an admission that I am right. that politicians pander to voting blocs, and promising goodies to 51% of your constituency is a great fucking way to get elected. "

So your issue isn't with government or politicians, it's with the principles of democracy?

5/23/2010 10:30:14 PM

Quote :

"Tax cuts didn't do anything to stop job losses the first time, and there's no reason now to think they would stop job losses."

were they ever intended to stop job losses when they were instituted? nope.

Quote :

"Why try something that will most likely fail, while putting us in a more precarious position?"

*cough*bank bailouts*cough* but hey, that's what liberal wet dreams are all about anyway, right?

Quote :

"So your issue isn't with government or politicians, it's with the principles of democracy?"

too bad we were set up as a republic to avoid just such a situation, with the added boost that taxes were supposed to be proportional to population. oh, fuck, we kicked that out, didn't we? and why did we do it? because we wanted to attack the wealthy.

5/23/2010 10:34:32 PM

Quote :

""Tax cuts didn't do anything to stop job losses the first time, and there's no reason now to think they would stop job losses." were they ever intended to stop job losses when they were instituted? nope. "

haha what?

that's like saying water doesn't hyrdate you when you drink it, unless the water intends to.

I never realized that when i get money back on my tax return, there was some magical intention attached to it.

So when conservatives say taxes kill job, they mean that only taxes that intend to kill jobs, kill jobs? And when they say tax breaks create jobs, only tax money people get back that are intended to create jobs, create jobs?

And if there is some specific type of tax break that "intends" to creates jobs, what exactly is this magical type of tax cut? haha

Quote :

"too bad we were set up as a republic to avoid just such a situation, with the added boost that taxes were supposed to be proportional to population. oh, fuck, we kicked that out, didn't we? and why did we do it? because we wanted to attack the wealthy. "

So if we're not a democracy by burroLogic™ then wouldn't that mean your assertion that 51% of the population is running things a bit senseless?

You can't have it both ways.

5/23/2010 10:43:36 PM

don't be obtuse about the purpose of the tax cuts. it wasn't "to create jobs." We weren't told "let's have tax cuts so we can stop job losses."

Quote :

"So if we're not a democracy by burroLogic™ then wouldn't that mean your assertion that 51% of the population is running things a bit senseless?"

not at all. a president can get himself elected by promising goodies to people on other people's dime. so can congressmen and senators. it;s not that fucking hard to comprehend.

5/23/2010 10:46:22 PM

^ so when Obama cut taxes, if only he said "these are to create jobs" it would have created jobs?

When Bush cut taxes, if only he said "these are to help the economy out" the economy would have been fine after that?

What are you saying?

You seem to be arguing for tax credits for hiring employees (which Obama did), not tax cuts...

5/23/2010 10:48:09 PM

obtuse moron is obtuse

5/23/2010 10:53:15 PM

I bet I can guess what ur word-of-the-day is

5/23/2010 11:55:30 PM

Quote :

"i don't define it that way, that is the way gov is. What non-fascist gov ever in history DIDN'T collect money from its citizens to spend on other citizens?"

That doesn't mean that defines the purpose of government.



Also, the rich are hit with taxes for pretty much all of those reasons mentioned above:

1. More juice to be made from the squeeze
2. Tyranny of the majority
3. Easy to demonize and rationalize taking their money, whether or not it's really ethical (ehh, they have plenty of it...I'd rather pay less)

5/24/2010 11:12:35 AM