IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 I'm glad to see that votes still matter, and when the majority of voters elected Obama and the Democratic majority, health care reform was one of the reasons. Gee, if only what was passed last night was really health care reform, you'd be right.
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 Let me guess, you prefer the form or redistribution that comes as tax breaks and trickles down. Both are redistribution of the wealth and both will happen in our country and in others. Adam, that may sound snazzy, but reality doesn't match your comment. I will give you a hint, look up the tax codes (with the Bush tax cuts), see what percentage upper income earners payed in taxes relative to middle/lower income earners and then while you're at it, find what percentage of total taxes the upper 20%, 10% and 1% payed out of total tax receipts collected. Then get back to me.
Doc Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I'm glad to see that votes still matter, and when the majority of voters elected Obama and the Democratic majority, health care reform was one of the reasons. They did what they were hired to do. Congrats to Obama and Pelosi for providing the leadership to get it done. Yes, and while we're at it, congrats to Bernie Madoff for making all those billions. Too bad he's in jail, because Barry could use a man like him.
EC-Bills Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Our current governor in Illinois, the fill-in for the departed Blago was on the radio recently and said that the propoerty tax system is not fair because it is not based on the "ability to pay". He actually tried to defend the statement. Apparently if you buy a house and your next door neighbor has one of the same value and the neighbor has a greater income, the neighbor should have a larger property tax bill. Unbelievable. Tell me about it. Quinn is so in over his head and with Chicago being...well..Chicago, we'll probably be stuck with him for four more years. Look out California, Illinois has your number in trying to be the most screwed up political state in the U.S.
keepthefaith Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I'm glad to see that votes still matter, and when the majority of voters elected Obama and the Democratic majority, health care reform was one of the reasons. They did what they were hired to do. Congrats to Obama and Pelosi for providing the leadership to get it done. When 70+ % of people think we need to reform health care and about 40% like the plan that is proposed, something is wrong. When so many citizens speak out so loudly and in opposition to the plan that is on the table and a majority of elected officials disregard those citizens and move forward with the unpopular plan, something again is wrong. This issue was one that really did cut across party lines and there was a very nice opportunity to devise a solution that would be popular and one that a majority of citizens would have supported. Obama could have shown some leadership by listening to the concerns that were raised and telling Congress, "go back to the drawing board". "Come back with something that more Americans will support, something that addresses their concerns and then I will sign it". He could have showed on this issue that he works for all or a majority of Americans. He didn't. He showed once again that he works for only some and he showed again that he simply wants the producers in this country to subsidize the non-producers. He showed again that in his enormous Presidential toolbox, he has few tools other than the tax tool, the spend tool and the control it with the government tool. Pelosi and Reid have done the same.
Adam Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Adam, that may sound snazzy, but reality doesn't match your comment. I will give you a hint, look up the tax codes (with the Bush tax cuts), see what percentage upper income earners payed in taxes relative to middle/lower income earners and then while you're at it, find what percentage of total taxes the upper 20%, 10% and 1% payed out of total tax receipts collected. Then get back to me. I don't have a lot of time for that- If you know, please tell me- I sure it would be interesting to have that info. Thanks
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 I don't have a lot of time for that- If you know, please tell me- I sure it would be interesting to have that info. Thanks In short, people who received the bush tax cuts still payed a higher percentage of their income than those of the lower to middle income earners. In 2006 the top 20% payed 86.3% of total tax revenues In 2001 the top 20% payed 81.2% What year did the Bush Tax cuts take place? Your argument doesn't hold water on a factual basis. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2...of-Income-Taxes
Dante Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I don't have a lot of time for that- If you know, please tell me- I sure it would be interesting to have that info. Thanks No need to take up your valuable time to find facts when everything can be reasoned out using emotion ignoring logic. Here's a link for you. See the table half way down the page http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 No need to take up your valuable time to find facts when everything can be reasoned out using emotion ignoring logic. Here's a link for you. See the table half way down the page http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Great link, even with the Bush tax cuts, the one's who pay the highest percentage of their incomes towards taxes are the top 1%.
Dante Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Great link, even with the Bush tax cuts, the one's who pay the highest percentage of their incomes towards taxes are the top 1%. Every time I hear the demonizing of the rich I always think of these numbers. In all fairness, they should be getting a tax cut. Ive never understood the "progressive tax" formula and how it could be considered just. And I'm no where close to being rich lol.
John Adams Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Let me guess, you prefer the form or redistribution that comes as tax breaks and trickles down. Both are redistribution of the wealth and both will happen in our country and in others. How about the government not being in the business of redisrtibuting wealth? What you make is yours. And when you die, you can give it away to people you loved in life, charities, however you see fit. I know this is a crazy argument from the perspective of what is actually right and moral but I'm insane like that. It's not like there is a finite amount of wealth. And it's not like the "rich" don't give away zillions.
Adam Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 In short, people who received the bush tax cuts still payed a higher percentage of their income than those of the lower to middle income earners. In 2006 the top 20% payed 86.3% of total tax revenues In 2001 the top 20% payed 81.2% What year did the Bush Tax cuts take place? Your argument doesn't hold water on a factual basis. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2...of-Income-Taxes That's very interesting. Some of it probably is above my comprehension, but I think I get the general idea. I hope to see a similar study 10 years from now. No need to take up your valuable time to find facts when everything can be reasoned out using emotion ignoring logic. Here's a link for you. See the table half way down the page http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html I don't recall going crazy about anything, but ok. When I work from 9 am-1 am several days a week, I tend to get a little tired and don't look everything up myself. I tend to learn quite a bit on this board.
keepthefaith Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Great link, even with the Bush tax cuts, the one's who pay the highest percentage of their incomes towards taxes are the top 1%. The big myth is that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the rich when actually every bracket with income at or above $32K I believe received a tax cut. What will be really interesting is if the cuts are allowed to expire, virtually everybody that is employed full-time will see a tax increase. I know what Obama will want to do is extend the cuts to the lower brackets and allow the upper bracket cuts to expire increasng taxes on the upper earners. However, the makeup of Congress at that time might not be receptive, so in order to keep his campaign promise that he would not increase taxes on the "middle class" he might have to extend the cuts and include the rich! Otherwise it's an increase for everyone. Oh my lord, he's really in a pickle.
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 What will be really interesting is if the cuts are allowed to expire, virtually everybody that is employed full-time will see a tax increase. I know what Obama will want to do is extend the cuts to the lower brackets and allow the upper bracket cuts to expire increasng taxes on the upper earners. It's pretty much a done deal from what I've been hearing, unless he makes a political calculation to extend the cuts to the upper income earners. I just got done reading yesterday that the expiration of the bush tax cuts coupled with the new medicare taxes imposed in the health care bill is the single largest shift of funds from the upper to lower income earners in U.S history.
keepthefaith Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 It's pretty much a done deal from what I've been hearing, unless he makes a political calculation to extend the cuts to the upper income earners. I just got done reading yesterday that the expiration of the bush tax cuts coupled with the new medicare taxes imposed in the health care bill is the single largest shift of funds from the upper to lower income earners in U.S history. So if he allows the cuts to expire, about half of Americans get a tax increase including the middle class. That'll piss off a lot of voters.
Magox Posted March 23, 2010 Author Posted March 23, 2010 So if he allows the cuts to expire, about half of Americans get a tax increase including the middle class. That'll piss off a lot of voters. No, it's the upper income earners that will have the tax increases. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-bud...pire-2010-02-01 Obama wants tax breaks proposed by President George W. Bush to expire this year. His budget would eliminate tax breaks on those making more than $250,000 a year, a move almost certain to be opposed by Republicans and perhaps some Democrats as the economy crawls out of the recession. "We extend middle-class tax cuts in this budget," Obama said Monday at the White House, but "we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it." Well, afterall, he is the "decider".
IDBillzFan Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 So if he allows the cuts to expire, about half of Americans get a tax increase including the middle class. That'll piss off a lot of voters. Voters are already pissed off, and the very moment that people realize that their health care costs are not going down, and that there is no clearly obvious benefit of this new bill to most people, it's only going to get worse. It would seem to me that raising taxes on the middle class is inevitable, but we won't have to wait that long for the natives to grab their pitchforks again. Democrats are banking on the fact that between now and November, people will really see the benefits of the health care bill, which simply won't happen on a large enough scale to turn the tide on opinion. The only real ace-in-the-hole that the Democrats have right now going into November is that hiring 750,000 temporary Census workers will put a significant drop in unemployment for a short time, and that may be just enough to calm the frayed nerves of a country ready to do something truly revolutionary.
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 No, it's the upper income earners that will have the tax increases. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-bud...pire-2010-02-01 Well, afterall, he is the "decider". "we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year." I love that. Why justify it on fiscal grounds when you can demonize people?
meazza Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 "we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year." I love that. Why justify it on fiscal grounds when you can demonize people? Obviously if you're successful, you did something wrong.
erynthered Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 I'll just throw this here.....Biden to obama this morning, "This is a big fccuuking Deal" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQeNikp1Rj8
Recommended Posts