molson_golden2002 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I guess it's safe to assume you don't pay property taxes in NY. Sure I do, about $2,500 a year. Property taxes, state taxes etc. raise a whole new issue. We were talking federal taxes. Those who say the rich are being unduley burdened want to only focus on Federal taxes, not state and local taxes which are much more regressive.
Chef Jim Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Sure I do, about $2,500 a year. Property taxes, state taxes etc. raise a whole new issue. We were talking federal taxes. Those who say the rich are being unduley burdened want to only focus on Federal taxes, not state and local taxes which are much more regressive. Who are Those of which you speak? Taxes be taxes and the rich are paying a higher share in proportion to the poor.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Who are Those of which you speak? Taxes be taxes and the rich are paying a higher share in proportion to the poor. As well they should. How much do you expect a person living in a shelter to pay? Or someone who spends all their earned income on rent, food and stuff for the kids?
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Who are Those of which you speak? Taxes be taxes and the rich are paying a higher share in proportion to the poor. And probably receive less for what they pay. Which again goes back to the not-understood difference between "taxes" and "wealth distribution". When's the last time you heard someone B word about the rich "not paying their share" and it didn't mean "The rich aren't paying enough for the poor to get their share..."?
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 As well they should. How much do you expect a person living in a shelter to pay? Or someone who spends all their earned income on rent, food and stuff for the kids? Which brings us nicely full-circle to the point of the first post in this thread that you seem to be trying to argue against. Jesus, your reading comprehension sucks.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Which brings us nicely full-circle to the point of the first post in this thread that you seem to be trying to argue against. Jesus, your reading comprehension sucks. So then they are tax cuts for the rich! Ok, I agree
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 So then they are tax cuts for the rich! Ok, I agree As opposed to tax cuts for the poor? Please, explain how a tax cut for the poor would work...
KD in CA Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 As well they should. How much do you expect a person living in a shelter to pay? Or someone who spends all their earned income on rent, food and stuff for the kids? And who decideds how much "stuff" to buy for their kids? Who decides which people don't have to pay anything? And how do we keep a system running when increasing numbers of people pay nothing? Don't hurt yourself thinking about it. Just cut and paste some idiotic response.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 As opposed to tax cuts for the poor? Please, explain how a tax cut for the poor would work... Back to the same old tired tact I see. You guys must be reading from a Rush Limbo "Blame the poor" talking points. As has been pointed repeatidly, the poor do not own that much and can't really contribute at the federal level; ergo tax relief for the poor is a non-issue. Should the middle class pay more in taxes to give relief to the rich? Or do you just accept as fine that its all put on the national credit card?
molson_golden2002 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 1) And who decideds how much "stuff" to buy for their kids? 2) Who decides which people don't have to pay anything? And how do we keep a system running when increasing numbers of people pay nothing? 3) Don't hurt yourself thinking about it. Just cut and paste some idiotic response. 1) They do, unless you want to create a government organization to regulate the poor's spending habits. Maybe it could be outsourced! 2) We the people 3) Thinking great thoughts comes naturally and easily to me. Don't confuse me with the Conservative Hannity/Limbo fans on this board
Bungee Jumper Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Back to the same old tired tact I see. You guys must be reading from a Rush Limbo "Blame the poor" talking points. As has been pointed repeatidly, the poor do not own that much and can't really contribute at the federal level; ergo tax relief for the poor is a non-issue. Ah, so now we've established that you DO understand that tax cuts CANNOT benefit the poor, because they don't pay taxes. SO WHAT THE !@#$ ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT, MORON???? Should the middle class pay more in taxes to give relief to the rich? I'm middle-class. My taxes haven't gone up. Quite the opposite, the past few years. And I'm pretty certain I'm not paying extra so that Warren Buffett gets a break. Or do you just accept as fine that its all put on the national credit card? Hey, here's a novel thought: CUT SPENDING. Or are you now advocating taxing the rich to pay for a $600B defense budget?
molson_golden2002 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Hey, here's a novel thought: CUT SPENDING. Actually I'm against that, too. Which is much better than the approach you guys SEEM to be taking. If you are going to spend the money then keep the taxes to pay for it. Don't just cut and charge, that's irresponsible. And BTW, pork spending is good, it gives middle class people jobs. Just pay for it, and yes, pay for it by mostly taxing the rich.
Bungee Jumper Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Actually I'm against that, too. Which is much better than the approach you guys SEEM to be taking. If you are going to spend the money then keep the taxes to pay for it. Don't just cut and charge, that's irresponsible. And BTW, pork spending is good, it gives middle class people jobs. Just pay for it, and yes, pay for it by mostly taxing the rich. "You guys"? What "you guys"? The only reason I look like a Republican to you is because you're an idiot. Which is confirmed by your statement to the effect that the government should spend as much as they want and confiscate as much as they need to do it.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 As opposed to tax cuts for the poor? Please, explain how a tax cut for the poor would work... It will give you next to nothing, which will help you afford health care, according to the President.
Chef Jim Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 And BTW, pork spending is good, it gives middle class people jobs. Just pay for it, and yes, pay for it by mostly taxing the rich. Did I just read that correctly? Wow. Ever talk to someone from a communist country? I have and to a person they all felt that there was no motivation to be successful seeing your wealth/earnings would just be evened out. Great way to grow a economy.
KD in CA Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Actually I'm against that, too. Which is much better than the approach you guys SEEM to be taking. If you are going to spend the money then keep the taxes to pay for it. Don't just cut and charge, that's irresponsible. And BTW, pork spending is good, it gives middle class people jobs. Just pay for it, and yes, pay for it by mostly taxing the rich. Yup, let's have the goverment "create jobs" for a few million more middle class paper shufflers. That's how this country made its way to the top of the economic heap and certainly how we'll fend off the challenges from China. I warms my heart to know that idiots like you will suffer the most when it all comes crashing down. Thanks for the laugh.
VABills Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Yup, let's have the goverment "create jobs" for a few million more middle class paper shufflers. That's how this country made its way to the top of the economic heap and certainly how we'll fend off the challenges from China. I warms my heart to know that idiots like you will suffer the most when it all comes crashing down. Thanks for the laugh. Liberalism, just another work for socialism.
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I'm not against tax cuts or investment or rewarding entrepreneurship, but I'd love to see more favorable or targeted cuts given to people who are putting their money into alternative fuels and energy, sustainable development, and more environmentally-friendly operations. I see no reason why we need to continue to give the Exxons of the world the same kind of breaks, or better, as a company that's actually trying to push forward and create new growth industries -- industries that America could become a leader in, once they scale.
VABills Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I'm not against tax cuts or investment or rewarding entrepreneurship, but I'd love to see more favorable or targeted cuts given to people who are putting their money into alternative fuels and energy, sustainable development, and more environmentally-friendly operations. I see no reason why we need to continue to give the Exxons of the world the same kind of breaks, or better, as a company that's actually trying to push forward and create new growth industries -- industries that America could become a leader in, once they scale. So you don't believe that the Exxons, Citgo's, Dominion Power, etc... aren't investing long term in alternative fuels. Companies that make billions typically do so by having a good business model to not only make themselves profitable today, but really look long term at profits as well. I would venture to guess that they are easily the largest investers in alternative fuels. That's also why they probably continue to have record post tax profits by utilizing those tax deductions for creating alternatives.
Recommended Posts