49 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Why ask about Obama's cuts when its the previous cuts
which Republican's are refusing to allow to lapse that are creating the problem?
I think you missed the point
Either they both are a benefit to workers, or they both cost the government, or they do both at the same time. It's all in the telling. Nothing quite so misleading as a Lie, unless it's a Half Truth.
....the Bush tax cuts mainly benefited the wealthiest Americans and the loss of revenue from those taxes had a much bigger impact on the deficit than someone getting an extra $5 in their paycheck.
Not quite true...
The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone across the board amnd were more progressive than what they replaced. Of course any tax break will benefit the rich "more" because they pay more. It's like saying the rich have more money.
Show me where the tax cuts reduced revenues and had a big impact on the deficit. That is opinion, not fact.
tax cuts reduce revenue
that shouldn't be hard to prove AND it shouldn't be just an opinion.
But if they can be combined with responsible cuts in government spending then the government isn't really any worse off. The problem with the Bush tax cuts was that spending INCREASED while taxes went down, most significantly for those who were paying the most.
I saw firsthand what lower taxes can do to boost a local economy when I lived in Texas. People were able to keep more of their paychecks which meant they had more money to spend on consumer goods, etc. than someone making the same salary in a state with higher taxes. And because business taxes were also lower, the cost of those goods wasn't as high as in some other places.
My opinion is that right now, with all the money the government owes (and yes, that's due to spending by both Obama AND Bush), they can't afford to keep the lower tax rates for the highest earners. Once the economy improves some more and things feel more stable, then maybe this could be revisited.
Tax cuts do not necessarily reduce revenue...
They can, in fact increase revenues.
It is not a given that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenues. What IS clear is that cuts in SPENDING are needed.
Let's remember who it is that makes the money. Why is it more important that the government have revenue at the expense of those who create wealth?
Starve the beast, or at least, put it on a diet.
What IS clear is that cuts in SPENDING are needed.
and that's what Bush didn't do...He cut taxes and didn't reduce spending.
And that's a fact.
In the future will you correctly give the blame to President Obama for destroying SS by removing 120 billion dollars from the trust fund?
You want to keep the tax cuts
AND you want everyone to keep all the benefits they now have.
WITHOUT going further in debt?
How does that work?
Depends what Republican tax cuts are
Are Republican tax cuts cuts to Corporation Tax and other business tax revenues?
If so, then the government loses revenue. Profits rise and shareholders get more dividend. Since shareholding is now international, that means much of the increased profit goes abroad.
But with Employee tax cuts the money goes directly to US citizens who then spend more and stimulate the economy. More sales, more sales tax, more revenue for the government.
The only tax "cuts" are...
the extension of the Bush tax cuts that apply to everyone.
Why then don't you see it this way
Since the "rich" get a larger amount of the tax cuts, they then spend MORE?
Class envy runs deep.
envy grows more rancid
...at the bottom of the economic barrel. There are those who feel life owes them something. They don't realize they already got it, and that was life. Everything else is up to them to make happen. That's what too many have a problem accepting. They want others to make it happen for them.
More sales tax, more revenue...
Mar, in that case, more than one government is involved. If the Federal Government gives me a dollar and I use it to buy something at the store, there would be a sales tax. But the Federal Government wouldn't get that X percent of sales tax, that would go to my State Government. So yes, you could say "More sales, more sales tax, more revenue for the government." but that does not paint the entire picture. In that case one government gives it, and another gets the tax benefit.
You're not the only one asking that
Yes, I know that
And I have been very consistent in pointing that out.
I am asking the question (again to show how hypercritical Democrats are and as to how the MSM is BIASED)
When Republicans say tax cuts, Democrats scream "How are we going to pay for it"
When Democrats say tax cuts (I know they have a terrible time saying it) Democrats become very silent.
They're freaking out at Obama now...
Imagine if he proposed actual cuts?!!!
Imagine if he proposed actual cuts?!!!
Is going ape poopy.
What an incredible mistake Obama is making by accepting a two year extension for the tax cuts. If he thinks that RAISING taxes will be a great campaign issue for him in 2012..... even Sarah Palin would trounce him easily.
Don't call it raising taxes.
Call it "reducing the deficit". Sounds much better.
Raising taxe won't reduce the deficit
Remember Howard Jarvis...
Remember Howard Jarvis? In 1978 he came up with California's Proposition 13, which cut taxes. I have always remembered something he said in his fight to get that passed. He said that if you give the Government money, they will spend all of it, the only solution is to not give it to them in the first place.
Right on Brother !!!!!!!!!
I actually met him once..
a nice guy, but bughouse crazy.
Maybe we should force the rich...
to pay the same amount of taxes as the rest of us. That would show them!
Actually, the Republicans complain loudly
about the deficit when the Dems propose putting money in the hands of the poor, out-of-work, or middle class. Of course deficits don't matter when it comes to putting more money into the pockets of their donors - the rich.
I'm wondering how much the current problems can be traced back to the tax cuts that have been in effect for ten years. The wealthy have all this extra money that they invest and their investors have to come up with some way to increase their profits so they invest in sub-prime mortgages because the interest rates are higher and, then, hedge their bets with credit-default swaps.
I'm wondering how much the current problems....
can be traced back to the tax cuts that have been in effect for ten years.
How about NONE of them? Your scenario is far fetched and makes little sense.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)