pBills Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 So in your view, the top 10% of earners paying 70% of income taxes isn't a fair share? Or that 1/2 of households pay no income tax? My point is that they have received break after break, now paying I believe the lowest amount in what 30/40 years? While they are receiving breaks, the middle-class and others expected to take hits, pay more, etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 My point is that they have received break after break, now paying I believe the lowest amount in what 30/40 years? While they are receiving breaks, the middle-class and others expected to take hits, pay more, etc., etc. Can you elaborate a bit on that "lowest amount in what 30/40 years?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Can you elaborate a bit on that "lowest amount in what 30/40 years?" Right now they are paying 35%, back in the day under the Republican Parties Jesus (Reagan) they were paying upwards of 70%. Now there is talk of lowering the tax rate into the 20's... of course with closing some loop holes. My question is do you really believe that if the tax rate is lowered for them there will be any huge positive affect on the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Right now they are paying 35%, back in the day under the Republican Parties Jesus (Reagan) they were paying upwards of 70%. Now there is talk of lowering the tax rate into the 20's... of course with closing some loop holes. My question is do you really believe that if the tax rate is lowered for them there will be any huge positive affect on the country? Quick math quiz: What generates more money - a 70% tax on $100 in taxable income, or 35% on $250 in taxable income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Quick math quiz: What generates more money - a 70% tax on $100 in taxable income, or 35% on $250 in taxable income? Listen I know that yes, the country gains more income off of taxing the majority which is the middle-class. However does that excuse the wealthy from having to take some hits as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Right now they are paying 35%, back in the day under the Republican Parties Jesus (Reagan) they were paying upwards of 70%. Now there is talk of lowering the tax rate into the 20's... of course with closing some loop holes. My question is do you really believe that if the tax rate is lowered for them there will be any huge positive affect on the country? Are you serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Are you serious? I am dead serious. Do you honestly believe that they will instantly start spending, investing, etc because their rates are lowered? What's also to say that they will stop all spending, investing, etc if their rates are raised. Under Clinton the tax rate was around 40% and the country looked pretty damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Its so funny to see the Libs get so excited over one seat, in NY no less. I guess that ass kickin last November really wasnt that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I am dead serious. Do you honestly believe that they will instantly start spending, investing, etc because their rates are lowered? What's also to say that they will stop all spending, investing, etc if their rates are raised. Under Clinton the tax rate was around 40% and the country looked pretty damn good. And exactly what drove the extra tax revenues during the Golden Clinton era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Its so funny to see the Libs get so excited over one seat, in NY no less. I guess that ass kickin last November really wasnt that important. Yes, one seat. One seat that was never held by a Democrat. Also points out how bad the Ryan plan is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I am dead serious. Do you honestly believe that they will instantly start spending, investing, etc because their rates are lowered? What's also to say that they will stop all spending, investing, etc if their rates are raised. Under Clinton the tax rate was around 40% and the country looked pretty damn good. Lower my taxes and I'll hire more people, yes. Clinton economy was only good because of the tech bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Really? Come on... did you forget about Death Panels, Socialism, etc. Fact of the matter is that people do not want to hear about Seniors having to pay more through a voucher system. A system that many people are scared of.. believing that it will not work. Yet, Republicans will not raise taxes on the wealthy. this...dems learned all they needed to know about scare tactics from the repugs and the healthcare reform bill. live by the sword, die by the sword. this boils down to insurance companies deciding rationing versus govt panels deciding it. rationing itself is a forgone conclusion. even the clueless conservatives in the 26th must know this and they chose gov't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It's funny - I read some of the politcal articles from the Buffalo News, and I see some of the "Republicans" talk about what they stand for. And if these same Republicans were down here in Texas, they would be considered "bleeding hearts" and wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected. Same for the Democrats down here. If they were in WNY, they would be considered "Neo-Nazis". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It's funny - I read some of the politcal articles from the Buffalo News, and I see some of the "Republicans" talk about what they stand for. And if these same Republicans were down here in Texas, they would be considered "bleeding hearts" and wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected. Same for the Democrats down here. If they were in WNY, they would be considered "Neo-Nazis". But you sure can't argue with the success all those left wingers have had governing NYS and WNY in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It's funny - I read some of the politcal articles from the Buffalo News, and I see some of the "Republicans" talk about what they stand for. And if these same Republicans were down here in Texas, they would be considered "bleeding hearts" and wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected. Same for the Democrats down here. If they were in WNY, they would be considered "Neo-Nazis". if the shoe fits...glad i live far from dallas and have never seen its appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Lower my taxes and I'll hire more people, yes. Clinton economy was only good because of the tech bubble. I wouldn't mind seeing the tax rate going back up 40%. Seems fair to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) Becuase there are no special interests at work with the libs. I didn't say there wasn't...but the Republicans had there fun in 2010, embracing your Tea Party, and now, they are starting to learn that they have painted themselves into a corner. No reasonable adult will get the Republican nod, because anyone who is not lock, stock and barell in line witht he Tea Party will suffer the consequences, within their own party...the special interestst that Republicans cater too are not necessarily the ones that will get the most public support. Guys like Mitch Daniels don't want anything to do with the party, right now, because it is a friggin' mess. Maybe they will send the "bat signal" out to Jeb Bush...a real Washington outsider to invigor the troops... Edited May 25, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) But you sure can't argue with the success all those left wingers have had governing NYS and WNY in particular. I guess you forgot about Governor Pataki. Easy to forget three terms in office. Edited May 25, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 It's funny - I read some of the politcal articles from the Buffalo News, and I see some of the "Republicans" talk about what they stand for. And if these same Republicans were down here in Texas, they would be considered "bleeding hearts" and wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected. Same for the Democrats down here. If they were in WNY, they would be considered "Neo-Nazis". Because, it seems, down here in Texas, politics is a sport for the wealthy (Repulicans and Democrats), while the voters, considering the size of this state, are of little consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 But you sure can't argue with the success all those left wingers have had governing NYS and WNY in particular. Seriously. It's the exact same thing here in California. The majority of voters consistently put liberals into office to run their city, county and state offices by overwhelming margins. It never, ever fails. And yet the state is bleeding from every hole in its body while people and businesses move away in record numbers. California unemployment and taxes are some of the highest -- if not THE highest -- in the country, with NYS a very close second. Property is expensive, illegals are free, the unions rule the school, homeless people are everywhere begging for scraps, and now we're about to release almost 40,000 prisoners into the streets to reduce prison crowding because, y'know, taking 40,000 illegal prisoners and sending them back to Mexico would not be very civil. We should start a thread called "Official Place to Post Articles About People and Businesses Leaving CA and NYS" and it would surely rival that Last Post thread over in that place where you can't discuss politics in political threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts