PDA

View Full Version : Repubs vs. Dems ...tax cuts.



satanica
07-06-2009, 10:53 AM
The repubs like to claim they are for tax cuts, this is part true.

We all know that Reagan gave the nation the largest tax INCREASE in our history. We also know that the republicans voted for in large numbers.

We also know that Obama gave the nation the largest tax CUT in history, and NOT ONE repub voted for it.

But wait, how does that make sense ? ....If they favor tax cuts, why vote against the largest cuts in history ?

The answer..

They are only in favor of tax cuts to the RICH (Reagan tax cut)

And are against tax cuts for the middle class (you and I)


Discuss:

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 11:00 AM
You fail.:p


Obama's attack on the Middle Class (http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/obama-s-attack-on-the-middle-class.html)
Obama and his public relations team have made it appear that his trillion dollars in higher taxes will fall only on "the rich." Obama stresses that his tax increase is only for the richest 5 percent of Americans, while the other 95 percent receive a tax cut.

The fact of the matter is that the income differences within the top 5 percent are far wider than the differences between the lower tax brackets and the "rich" American in the 96th percentile.

For Obama, being "rich" begins with $250,000 in annual income, the bottom rung of the top 5 percent. Compare this "rich" income to that of, for example, Hank Paulson, President George W. Bush's treasury secretary when he was the head of Goldman Sachs.

In 2005, Paulson was paid $38.3 million in salary, stock and options. That is 153 times the annual income of the "rich" $250,000 person.

Despite his massive income, Paulson himself was not among the super rich of that year, when a dozen hedge fund operators made $1 billion. The hedge fund honchos incomes were 26 times greater than Paulson's and 4,000 times greater than the "rich" man's or family's $250,000.

For most Americans, a $250,000 income would be a godsend, but envy can make us blind. A $250,000 income is not one that will support a rich lifestyle. Moreover, many people prefer lesser incomes to the years of education, long work hours and stress of personal liability that are associated with many $250,000 incomes. In truth, those with $250,000 gross incomes have more in common with those at the lower end of the income distribution than with the rich. A $250,000 income is 10 times greater than a $25,000 income, not hundreds or thousands of times greater. On an after-tax basis, the difference shrinks to about six times.

The American tax code taxes the $250,000 income at the same rate as it taxes a $100,000,000 or higher income. On an after-tax basis, after the federal government grabs 30 percent in income taxes and state government grabs 6 percent, the "rich" man or woman or family earning $250,000 has $160,000. In New York City, where there is a city income tax in addition to state and federal, this sum diminishes further. State sales taxes take another 6 or more percent of most consumption expenditures.

When all is said and done, the after-tax value of a $250,000 income in New York City is about $140,000.

Is this rich? It might be in a small town in Alabama, but not in New York City. The "rich" person or family won't be purchasing a Manhattan apartment, much less a brownstone. They won't be driving a luxury car. Indeed, they won't be able to afford a parking garage for an economy car. If they fly anywhere, it won't be in a first-class seat.

For the most part, $250,000 incomes are located in large cities where the cost of living is high. For example, a husband and wife who are associates at major law firms, each of whom works 60-hour weeks and has no job security, earn $125,000 each. They might both have student loans to pay down. For the Obama administration to lump these people in with Hank Paulson or billionaire hedge fund operators is propagandistic.

What is the difference between the $250,000 "rich" income and the $245,000 "non-rich" income? After Obama's tax scheme goes into effect, the $245,000 income will benefit from a tax cut, and the $250,000 will have a tax increase.
Will people in the 96th percentile ask for pay cuts that will drop them into the 95th percentile?

In America, the truly rich are those in the top 0.5 percent of the income distribution. These are the people with yachts and private airplanes, and who are still rich after they lose half their wealth in a stock market collapse caused by government policy that accommodated financial gangsters.

"Oh, well, I was worth $600,000,000 last year and only $300,000,000 this year. Perhaps we should stop drinking $1,000 bottles of rare vintages and move down to $100-a-bottle wines. Probably shouldn't buy that new yacht or that villa in the south of France."

The upper middle class with $250,000 gross incomes are major losers of the financial collapse. Many of the people in this income class are leveraged to the hilt in order to maintain appearances and can be swept away as easily as the very poor. But those who were frugal and invested for their future have lost 50 percent of their savings. These wiped out people are the ones who will bear the brunt of Obama's tax increase.

If the tax rate on a multimillion dollar annual income goes up by 5 percentage points, the cutbacks won't really affect the lifestyle. But for the $250,000 gross income group, it means no prospect of private schools and Ivy League education for the children, who will be attending state colleges with the rest of the non-rich.

Obama is attacking the only income class that has any independence — the upper-middle-class professionals. The real rich are few in number and seldom present any opposition to government. Recently, the March 23, 2009, New York Times reported that the 400 richest Americans' "share of the nation's total wealth has nearly doubled to more than 22 percent." The average income of the 400 richest Americans is $263 million annually. That is 1,052 times the income of the "rich" $250,000 income.

What the Obama administration is really doing is taxing ordinary people in order to bail out the super-rich. The 95 percent of Americans who get the tax cut will find that it is offset many times by the depreciation in the dollar and the raging inflation that will result from monetizing the multitrillion-dollar budget deficits made necessary by the bailouts of the banksters.
In the United States, government has become expert at manipulating both left-wing and right-wing ideologies. It keeps those on both ends of the spectrum set at each other's throats in order to ensure the government's continuing independence from accountability.

Historically, the definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. Serfs were not free because they owed their feudal lords, the government of that time, a maximum of one-third of their labor. Nineteenth century slaves were not free because their owners could expropriate 50 percent of their labor.

Today, no American is a free person. The lowest tax rate, not counting state income, property tax and sales tax, is 15 percent Social Security tax and 15 percent federal income tax. The "free American" starts off with a 30 percent tax rate, the position of a medieval serf.

In medieval Europe, when tax rates reached beyond 30 percent, serfs rebelled and killed their masters

satanica
07-06-2009, 11:02 AM
How did I fail ?

What did I post that was wrong ?

Please point it out to me so I can correct my OP

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 11:07 AM
How did I fail ?

What did I post that was wrong ?

Please point it out to me so I can correct my OP

Go study the devaluation of the dollar and how it hurts the poor and then get back to me. Then read up on the inflation tax and tell me again that Obama is giving tax cuts. Your ignornace is quite amusing.

satanica
07-06-2009, 11:10 AM
Go study the devaluation of the dollar and how it hurts the poor and then get back to me. Then read up on the inflation tax and tell me again that Obama is giving tax cuts. Your ignornace is quite amusing.

So, Please point out the claim I made that is false. I posted facts, which fact is wrong ?

Sounds easy enough for a child to do, but I predict you will fail.

FeebMaster
07-06-2009, 11:21 AM
Republicans are for what a Republican does in office and against what the Democrats do in office. Democrats are the same for their party.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 11:21 AM
So, Please point out the claim I made that is false. I posted facts, which fact is wrong ?

Sounds easy enough for a child to do, but I predict you will fail.



We also know that Obama gave the nation the largest tax CUT in history, and NOT ONE repub voted for it.

No he didnt'. He cut income taxes and increased the money supply into the economy. That creates inflation, a hidden tax on working Americans. If you give someone something back only to take it away by another means "inflation", you've given nothing.



They are only in favor of tax cuts to the RICH (Reagan tax cut)

Who Republicans? Sorry....I can't relate. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative, so you'll have to play word games with someon else. In that sense, my belief is that NO ONE should be taxed through income.



And are against tax cuts for the middle class (you and I)

See above there Skippy.

I'm for doing away with the whole sha'bang

Why don't you get a clue...K?

Jfor
07-06-2009, 11:25 AM
Are you talking about the payroll change that puts a whopping 7 extra dollars a week in my paycheck which I will end up paying back on April 15th? That the tax cut you talking about?

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 11:30 AM
Are you talking about the payroll change that puts a whopping 7 extra dollars a week in my paycheck which I will end up paying back on April 15th? That the tax cut you talking about?

Yep. That's what he's shoveling'. He doesn't seem to get it that your seven bucks now goes to pay for things like Milk and other staple items that are up 20% increase since last summer and gas and energy which has gone up about a buck since Christmas. He thinks pumping money into the economy doesn't effect that at all.

satanica
07-06-2009, 11:35 AM
No he didnt'. He cut income taxes and increased the money supply into the economy. That creates inflation, a hidden tax on working Americans. If you give someone something back only to take it away by another means "inflation", you've given nothing.


Lets look at who is increasing the money supply and creating inflation...

Inflation rate

2002 1.14%

2006 3.99%

2008 4.28%

If there is a inflation tax hitting you right now it is because Bush has jacked the shit out of the inflation rate by printing and spending money like mad.

Now Obama has restored Paygo, after Bush cancelled it ...putting us back on course.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 11:47 AM
Lets look at who is increasing the money supply and creating inflation...

Inflation rate

2002 1.14%

2006 3.99%

2008 4.28%

If there is a inflation tax hitting you right now it is because Bush has jacked the shit out of the inflation rate by printing and spending money like mad.

Now Obama has restored Paygo, after Bush cancelled it ...putting us back on course.

Holy delusions Batman!!
Even the New York Tiumes thinks this is hypocrisy:


But the announcement — just one day after Mr. Obama lauded the billions of dollars his administration was spending to save or create what the White House estimated as 600,000 new jobs this summer — quickly turned into Round 2 of an escalating war between the White House and Republicans over Mr. Obama’s claims of fiscal responsibility.

You won't get any arguments from me about Bush being an enemy of free markets and fiscal responsibility, but you're such a partisan hack that you can't see O man's all about this too. flippin' ridiculous

Basically paygo mandates "tax increase" everytime a new spending law passes. Real great thing there. :rolleyes:

ROFLMAO!! Basically now that he and Bushy have bankrupted us, we now get to pay as we go. :p


You really meant print as you go.

satanica
07-06-2009, 12:11 PM
Basically paygo mandates "tax increase" everytime a new spending law passes. Real great thing there. :rolleyes:.

Half true. Paygo means that you have to deal with what you have. It doesn't trigger new higher taxes.

But...This is the main difference between the parties. The republicans want to borrow and spend, the democrats want to tax and spend.

The republican plan leaves the country with a massive national debt, as we all know about now.

satanica
07-06-2009, 12:15 PM
ROFLMAO!! Basically now that he and Bushy have bankrupted us, we now get to pay as we go.

Bush added almost 6 trillion to a national debt that was almost 6 trillion.

Obama has been in office 6 months.

And in your feeble mind, you think they both bankrupted the nation ?

Jfor
07-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Half true. Paygo means that you have to deal with what you have. It doesn't trigger new higher taxes.

But...This is the main difference between the parties. The republicans want to borrow and spend, the democrats want to tax and spend.

The republican plan leaves the country with a massive national debt, as we all know about now.

WTH is our current president doing? You sure as hell can't spend your way out of financial troubles! When you take money from the producers to give money as the .gov sees fit, there is going going to be a huge drop in productivity. In case you hadn't noticed, China is not buying our bonds anymore. The fed is buying our bonds by printing more money, thereby devaluing the dollar even more. The ONLY way out of this financial mess Obama's administration is continuing, is by making the dollar worthless.

BadCat
07-06-2009, 12:18 PM
If there is a inflation tax hitting you right now it is because Bush has jacked the shit out of the inflation rate by printing and spending money like mad.

Now Obama has restored Paygo, after Bush cancelled it ...putting us back on course.

I didn't know they had a lot of peyote in Chicago. But really stupidtrash, you should lay off that stuff, it's full of strychnine.

satanica
07-06-2009, 12:21 PM
WTH is our current president doing? You sure as hell can't spend your way out of financial troubles! .

The exact opposite is true. Name one nation that has come out of a deep recession WITHOUT SPENDING.

Jfor
07-06-2009, 12:32 PM
The exact opposite is true. Name one nation that has come out of a deep recession WITHOUT SPENDING.

Government spending doesn't work. It didn't work with the new deal and it isn't working now. See, your issue is you believe that only government can get us out of this. I believe the free market will get us out of this if the government would get the hell out of the way.

Lager
07-06-2009, 12:50 PM
Sorry bud, tax credits are not the same as tax cuts. That may have worked on the same people who brought the whole "change" thing, but I know a bit more about economics than that. Tax credits are a way for government to take care of special interest groups or encourage a behavior that government favors at the time. Tax cuts are a way for government to encourage economic growth by allowing hard working americans to keep more of what they earn. The good thing about tax cuts is they are non biased, and don't depend on race, gender or even sexual orientation!

Lager
07-06-2009, 12:54 PM
The exact opposite is true. Name one nation that has come out of a deep recession WITHOUT SPENDING.

You will find agreement among many economists that government spending during a recession can be beneficial. The key is where that spending is targeted. Letting congress have free reign to decide which pork projects to fulfil, or picking favorite liberal causes to appease special interest groups, isn't considered the smartest use of the funds.

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 01:57 PM
Bush added almost 6 trillion to a national debt that was almost 6 trillion.

Obama has been in office 6 months.

And in your feeble mind, you think they both bankrupted the nation ?

Yeah...it's amazing isn't it. How someone can screw things up in less than one year that it took 8 years for Bush to do.

I've posted this several times, but you still need it to sink in. It's a visualization for us feeble minded. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc&feature=channel_page

Molon Labe
07-06-2009, 02:02 PM
The exact opposite is true. Name one nation that has come out of a deep recession WITHOUT SPENDING.

Since they base their economies on Keynsian economics they are subject to the extreme turns of a business cycle. So I would suggest NO nation has ever come out of a DEEEEEP recession with spending. The market has to adjust. One of the reasons that the Great Depression went on longer than needed is because the government kept propping up malinvestments for nearly a decade.

Please do yourself a favor and get a little deeper than the standard Statist psuedo socialist bullshit talking points.

Rockntractor
07-06-2009, 02:13 PM
The exact opposite is true. Name one nation that has come out of a deep recession WITHOUT SPENDING.

China! They worked and produced their way out of poverty by adapting some of our ways. You don't spend money that is not yours. You have to pay it back. When you grow up and get your first job you will realize this.

Jfor
07-06-2009, 02:57 PM
Actually the US came out of a deep recession in the early 1920's following the WW1.

Follow this link http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim4.html and read it. I dare ya. I know you won't because Huffpo or DU didn't tell you too. Then do a little research on it and then come back and have an intelligent conversation.