47% will pay zero federal income taxes

[Magox]

If there is a word I could describe you as, it would have to be consistent.

[Booster4324]

If there is a word I could describe you as, it would have to be consistent.

 

 

That is so not the word I choose.

[Magox]

That is so not the word I choose.

I'm taking the non partial view

 

But

 

He is consistent

[ExiledInIllinois]

How about stepping it up to the 20's% that the evil rich are being asked to kick in, or to the 30's% that the super rich will pay?

 

Gladly, when I earn in that bracket. That is the beauty of a progressive tax system. The ability to pay.

 

330k out of 1 million is different that 10k out of 30k. For the millionaire, there is no hardship and struggle to sustain life. They have the ability to pay the most with the least amount of pain, they carry the load.

 

Now you probably think I am being hypocritical.

 

What gets me in the red state-blue state is that the states that have the ability to pay (and the natural resources) aren't paying a fair share. Quite the opposite of the above.

 

Again.. There is no equality here and righty so. I don't understand why you think things should be equal? I may see your point if the rich were being asked to spend more for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. That they are not.

 

Stop trying to make things equal with regard to money.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Do you?

 

Yes.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Then tell your party to stop giving mine to other people.

 

No.

 

[IDBillzFan]

330k out of 1 million is different that 10k out of 30k. For the millionaire, there is no hardship and struggle to sustain life. They have the ability to pay the most with the least amount of pain, they carry the load.

Except, Eric, that you act as though the 330K is just sitting in a drawer doing nothing. If you're pulling it out of his ass, you're probably doing it through his company, which means you're reducing the number of $30K jobs your "millionaire" is going to create.

 

But hey....the government will take care of everyone. Besides, it's just a drop in the bucket. Time to get some skin in the game. Time to be patriotic! Stand up, Chuck! It's not like the guy EARNED that money or anything.

 

I love how free you are with other people's money. And you think I'm the dumbass.

[meazza]

Except, Eric, that you act as though the 330K is just sitting in a drawer doing nothing. If you're pulling it out of his ass, you're probably doing it through his company, which means you're reducing the number of $30K jobs your "millionaire" is going to create.

 

But hey....the government will take care of everyone. Besides, it's just a drop in the bucket. Time to get some skin in the game. Time to be patriotic! Stand up, Chuck! It's not like the guy EARNED that money or anything.

 

I love how free you are with other people's money. And you think I'm the dumbass.

 

It's only money, unless you have none... then you have a problem.

[ExiledInIllinois]

It's only money, unless you have none... then you have a problem.

 

Wannbees: And the people who have little are the ones who seem to struggle the most for it and stay attached to it the hardest. You can always tell who doesn't have much... They protect it and their stuff like a mother bear protecting their Cubs.

 

And this has nothing to do with how it (money) is made.

 

Easy come, easy go.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Except, Eric, that you act as though the 330K is just sitting in a drawer doing nothing. If you're pulling it out of his ass, you're probably doing it through his company, which means you're reducing the number of $30K jobs your "millionaire" is going to create.

 

But hey....the government will take care of everyone. Besides, it's just a drop in the bucket. Time to get some skin in the game. Time to be patriotic! Stand up, Chuck! It's not like the guy EARNED that money or anything.

 

I love how free you are with other people's money. And you think I'm the dumbass.

 

 

Still having "attachment issues" I see. Must be a struggle to be you Mark!

 

[Magox]

Except, Eric, that you act as though the 330K is just sitting in a drawer doing nothing. If you're pulling it out of his ass, you're probably doing it through his company, which means you're reducing the number of $30K jobs your "millionaire" is going to create.

Ding ding ding ding

[ExiledInIllinois]

Ding ding ding ding

Even a quick google search shows that you are wrong. Sorry, it was from 2003. The most recent data will show the same.

 

Actually the winner is right here:

 

Trickle Down

 

Note number 4:

 

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

 

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

 

So, can you tell what our conclusion is yet?

 

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.

 

What is our deficit in 2010... 7 years later??

[Magox]

Even a quick google search shows that you are wrong. Sorry, it was from 2003. The most recent data will show the same.

 

Actually the winner is right here:

 

Trickle Down

 

Note number 4:

 

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

 

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

 

So, can you tell what our conclusion is yet?

 

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.

 

What is our deficit in 2010... 7 years later??

If you are really going to blame the deficit on cutting taxes, then Eric, no offense intended, but you would have to be a moron.

 

So I will ask you, are you blaming our deficit issues because of the tax codes?

 

Oh and if you want to play the silly "I have a link to support my argument, therefore it is fact", then I've got one of those to.

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120

 

 

This one is actually backed by substantiated facts

 

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

 

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

 

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.

 

The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

 

Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981-1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy.

 

You don't need to be a genius to know that if you allow people to keep more of the money they earn, that they will be able to have more to spend, therefore creating more demand for goods and services, which of course then leads more to hiring. And of course, if the job creators get to keep more of the money that their company earns it will allow his/her company to expand.

 

You don't understand that? Do you honestly believe that if you have two companies that sell the exact same thing and have the exact same structure, and earn the same amount of money, but one has 25% of his profits extracted for taxes and the other 35%, that the company that pays the higher tax rate will be equally apt to grow and hire more workers than the company who gets to keep more of his profits?

 

Is that what you're saying?

[Alaska Darin]

Cutting taxes doesn't increase deficits. Continually increasing spending at a pace that far outpaces all other indicators does.

[3rdnlng]

Even a quick google search shows that you are wrong. Sorry, it was from 2003. The most recent data will show the same.

 

Actually the winner is right here:

 

Trickle Down

 

Note number 4:

 

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

 

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

 

So, can you tell what our conclusion is yet?

 

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.

 

What is our deficit in 2010... 7 years later??

 

 

Dear Mister "Exhiled in Illinois":

 

Were you sent there for reeducation, comrade? It is actually painful to read your posts. Did you get them from the state controlled medium?

 

Yuri

[Nanker]

Doper Logic:

Like, the government is getting so rich, man... from the income taxes that all the millions of unemployed are paying, man.

Like, cool, man. Like, everything is so groovy, man.

Like, the more unemployed there are, man... the more taxes The Man collects, man.

It's simple, man. Like, The Man wants us all to be unemployed, man.

Gotta be cool with that, man.

[Keukasmallies]

Aha, Alaska Darin brings up the concept that is rarely mentioned and never seriously considered--cutting spending. Probably because it's such a complex concept. On the other hand, I have become a master of the art--out of cash, don't make a purchase! See, that's easy.

[Nanker]

Aha, Alaska Darin brings up the concept that is rarely mentioned and never seriously considered--cutting spending. Probably because it's such a complex concept. On the other hand, I have become a master of the art--out of cash, don't make a purchase! See, that's easy.

Au contraire, conservatives bring that up continuously. It's a mantra.

The VAT and higher taxes on 53% of the population is not the answer to fixing the deficit problem.

Cutting spending is. Governments have a insatiable appetite for taxes. Politicians get reelected due in large measure on how much money they bring to their constituents in the form of government programs. Liberal Americans have been hypnotized by the allure of government "giving" costly things to the populace without regard to how to sustain them.

[IDBillzFan]

Even a quick google search shows that you are wrong. Sorry, it was from 2003. The most recent data will show the same.

 

Actually the winner is right here:

 

Trickle Down

To make your point that corporate profits don't create jobs, you link to a definition of trickle down economics at a site run by a group who actively promotes Obama's trickle up poverty vision. The only thing missing from that website was the Youtube video of Bill Nye explaining how America would be a better place if only Morelly was in charge.

 

Someone should explain to that group that most people's economic standing in this world is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the rich. You can't MAKE life fair, no matter how hard you try and take from those who have succeeded.

 

But at least I get a better understanding of your economic take on this world.

[GG]

Gladly, when I earn in that bracket. That is the beauty of a progressive tax system. The ability to pay.

 

330k out of 1 million is different that 10k out of 30k. For the millionaire, there is no hardship and struggle to sustain life. They have the ability to pay the most with the least amount of pain, they carry the load.

 

Now you probably think I am being hypocritical.

 

What gets me in the red state-blue state is that the states that have the ability to pay (and the natural resources) aren't paying a fair share. Quite the opposite of the above.

 

Again.. There is no equality here and righty so. I don't understand why you think things should be equal? I may see your point if the rich were being asked to spend more for a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. That they are not.

 

Stop trying to make things equal with regard to money.

 

Mightily predictable. Perhaps you didn't need me to point out that the crux of the debate is not whether progressive taxation is fair or not, it's your contention, "I fully expect to take care of it. I pay and gladly... So should you." when I pointed out that you're so cavalier about the issue because someone else will pay for it.

 

So in your justification that you fully expect to take care of it, you also expect others to take care of it at more than three times your relative contribution.

 

Aren't we mightily cavalier with other people's money? Yes, there's an attachment to it, because people enjoy their jobs and everything that comes with them and not just looking at the clock the moment they arrive on the job. These people also are entitled to bear the fruits of that labor, to the detriment of the parasites that live off the system.

 

And to save you the trouble, not every govrenment worker or a union worker is a worthless lazy slob. There are many caring hardworking people across every profession. But when you create an ecosystem where parasites can thrive, that ecosystem will naturally attract more parasites.