The Shameless Republican Race to Cut Rich People's Taxes

YOU want to redistribute THEIR wealth and property.

No we are NOT with you, go out an make your own.

 

OP is forgetting that both the Flat Tax plan and the 999 plan would scrap the current tax code, thereby closing all "loopholes" that rich people take advantage of, thereby actually taxing them more, not less. But who cares about reality when we can spew Leftist ignorance?

 

Are you more interested in raising the rate at which we tax people, thinking you are going to take more money from them, or in raising more revenue for the government?

 

More ridiculous drivel. I will concede our tax system is crap. It's unbelievably complex and unfair. However, your points are just more class warfare crap which is meaningless. Here's the deal with WB:

BTW, have you ever wondered why billionaires like George Soros financially support politicians who say they will "increase taxes on the rich"? That's the side you're on. Seriously, ever wondered that???

It's because the tax increases are most often put on people trying to become rich, not those already rich. Hence, the rich, big government advocates can gain far more by "buying" the politicians. The "bought" politicians then provide them with confidential information about administrative decisions, which these donors then use to place big bets in the market, making themselves much richer. If you have deep financial pockets and inside information, you can make huge amounts of money when markets drop.

Congrats

 

Maybe he could get one of Obama's Shovel Ready Jobs !!!

Then he could become part of the solution instead of a drain on us all...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O55aRrvXtio"]Obama: Shovel-Ready Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected - YouTube[/ame]

Hey, Isnt that Obamas "Jobs" Czar hes laughing with???

hmmm....​

 

Mac-7 is trotting out the tired old trope of the delusional conservative. America is apparently full of huge numbers of welfare cheats (usually non-white) who do nothing but commit crimes and neglect their kids while never paying a cent in taxes; meanwhile, the deserving rich folk are taxed within an inch of their lives in order to support this horde of useless mouths.

This story always plays well, but if you look at the evidence rather than selecting narrow and misleading slices of the picture (for example, income tax is hardly the only tax/government fee people pay), you can see that over the past 3 decades the very rich have gotten quite a bit richer, the rich have gotten a little richer, and everyone else has (in aggregate) stayed about the same. It is true that in the last couple of years the rich have taken a hit, but it was market instability rather than government persecution that cost them money.

Maybe it's time to grow up and look at the real facts, rather than resorting to the kind of fairy tales you read a little conservative-to-be before bedtime. You could load extra taxes on the bottom 50% and it wouldn't do much except drop GNP (because the poor put almost all their money back into the economy because they invest very little).

 

So, you're not gonna answer the question?

 

Look here is the deal... we need both... If we want a functioning society rich and poor people have to pay taxes. That is the bottom line. People read an Ayn Rand book, change their party to libertarian and they think they are a John Wayne cowboys who live off the land.... I don't think so. We benefit greatly from all the things our tax money brings. And the sad truth is that some people simply take advantage of the government. We can make programs to deter this behavior... but I promise you it will always occur. But you know what... it's the best we've come up with so far. If you think that those who are the neediest among us should "fend for themselves" you are delusional. Would you really want to live in a society where there are pockets of poor lawless, destitute, diseased people and a minority or super wealthy? Does medieval Europe sound fun to you? Alright great... me neither... So we have to make some concessions so people aren't say [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFjdMKJVkzQ"]dieing on the street[/ame]. That is why we are the great society. We need a balance... and you, I, and these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s in Washington need to find one.

 

WTH? YOu post a video of a child getting run over and this has what to do with the tax system?? Get some help, please!

 

Yep, Reagan's Welfare Queen trope never dies among the feeble minded.

The US hardly has any direct social welfare system. TANF has only about 5M beneficiaries, 4.5M of which are poor kids, average age 8. 400K are single mothers. About 100K are single fathers.

That's it. Unless you're a quadraplegic it's almost impossible for an adult male in this country to get anything like welfare.

It's another conservative pseduoproblem meant to distract us from the real problems we face -- income inequality, falling real wages, crumbling infrastructure.

 

Cato made themselves a little chart. How cute. The first glaring omission is that they leave out data past 2002. Why would that be, an inquisitive mind might ask, when the article is dated 2011, and the series of further Bush tax cuts lowered the top rates further?

2003-2010: 7.3%

Oops. That's lower than all the other numbers above, and even includes the real estate and credit bubble economy.

Then there's the issue of demographics. Through most of 1950-1980, the baby boomers were being born or growing up, and had not entered the labor force. The decades that followed, we had more Americans in the workforce, which would boost total revenues collected relative to GDP (that situation is just beginning to reverse).

http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.2uslabor.pdf

One of the other many other things they don't reveal is that spending as a percentage of GDP jumped during those coveted Reagan/Bush years, compared with previous periods.

1950-1980: 18.9%
1980-1992: 22.2%

So what happens when you hire lots of government workers, as in the case of massive military spending? They pay taxes. More revenues col

More importantly, let's examine economic growth during these periods.

Average annual real GDP growth rate:

1933-1980 (top tax rates 70-90%): 4.6%
1980-2010 (top tax rates generally < 50%): 2.7%

Source: bea.gov historical GDP tables

Cato is nice for spoon-feeding talking points to right-wing partisans. Do your own analysis.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

http://www.bea.gov/

 

You need the help. Your ideology fosters the social disintegration that leads to a child being left to suffer because people don't care about their fellow citizens. It's us or them. That's what conservatism peddles and that's what your posts have peddled.

 

Wow, you just showed how completely ignorant you are. So, because I don't think the poor NEEDS more handout obviously would mean I'm okay with a child getting run over. THAT alone shows me how you will LIE to prove your false points. YOU are disgusting.

 

Not at all. A complete analysis includes all taxes, unless you want to admit that the poor and middle class unfairly pay more taxes in state property, sales, and excise, and federal excise and payroll taxes, but I don't think you want to go down that path.

 

you can't even get the bad aspects of our tax system correct.

The complex parts are generally put in by industry and generally (not always) are there to reflect economic reality. Economies are complex, and tax systems, to be functional, also must be complex.

But taxes aren't complex for working people. That's just a false dilemma set up by the Right. It takes about 30 minutes to fill out a 1040EZ and usually the taxes are already paid due to withholding. There is no "complexity" issue for 99% of Americans. It's bogus. The problem isn't complexity but rates. We should lower rates on working people and to that we should hike rates on the rich.

Calling that "class warfare" is just an admission that you can't argue the merits and are reduced to ********** memes.

Oh wow, the Soros meme How predictable.

So you're for campaign fincance reform as the Democrats have fought for it for years and are against the GOP's rejection of such restrictions?

Wait, you're not. You're just being disingenuous.

 

Watch the memes blossom:

"Handouts" to poor kids. The alternative -- let them die on the street. Especially since you are against raising taxes on billionaires to fund programs that result in a more productive population and fewer poor kids. A perfect morally vacuous circle.

Conservatism is morally bankrupt. And I welcome your idiotic insults accordingly.

 

I'm sorry that you don't understand what capital gains are.

 

You have a very sick and twisted mind that anyone wants babies to die in the street. You have lost any credibility with me, not that you had much, but now I see what you will resort to.

 

You've lost the argument and are reduced to blathering insults.

That's what happens when progressive idea hit conservatives in the butt.

 

Revenues are barely higher than they were before the Bush tax cuts. Now adjusting that for inflation and labor force growth...

 

Does the government give money to children?

I didn't realize that.

All this time I thought they sent the checks to the welfare mother to spend.

 

No, let's go down that path.

First, how do the POOR pay higher property taxes than the rich.
(If the poor actually own property to even pay property tax, they can't be that poor to begin with. But property tax is based on the value of the property, so I'd love to hear this!)

 

I know what capital gains are. So tell us, why shoud a billionaire get a capital gains rate on any income since does the rate really result in an incentive for them to invest income that they could never spend in a million years.

YOU don't understand why we have a cap gains rate, do you?

Just plutophilia from the Right.

 

My analysis of your response would be best summed up as: FAIL

 

You're sick due, just simple as that. You compared conservative views to seeing a baby getting run over. Case closed. Sick.