Republican Judgement

[Alien Allen]

here ya go

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

I bet ya think that came from Fox News?

Nope...... MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-tax_tactics

 

[Minor Axis]

What you fail to acknowledge is that the money becomes the operating capital of the company who sells the shares. The billions (trillions?) that are invested are vital to keeping huge employers operating and millions of people working.

It seems like many people believe the stock market is just some form of high tech slot machine for rich people. The reality is that without people willing and able to put their money to work as capital for business on global scale, the whole economic system collapses.

You theory is that any taxes cause the system to fail. No? Then how much tax causes the system to fail? Apparently you think ulta low taxes is the only way an economy can work. History disproves this notion overwhelmingly.

here ya go



I bet ya think that came from Fox News?

Nope...... MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-tax_tactics

I'm SHOCKED that you would put up something by MSNBC. I need to talk to my son. I think he is in the $30-40k range. I'll find out if he paid any taxes last year. I think relatively low income people should pay some taxes. The debate will become, how much? According to some research, the 2009 U.S. poverty level for a family of 4 was about $21k. How much should they be paying?

 

[CityGirl]

I keep hearing that lowering taxes will create jobs. How about a system that rewards job creation after the job is created? A tax refund for every job proved to be created and a tax penalty for every job eliminated. If in fact, tax cuts result in job creation, surely those who believe this would be just as content to receive a tax refund for every new job created.

 

[Minor Axis]

I keep hearing that lowering taxes will create jobs. How about a system that rewards job creation after the job is created? A tax refund for every job proved to be created and a tax penalty for every job eliminated. If in fact, tax cuts result in job creation, surely those who believe this would be just as content to receive a tax refund for every new job created.

Sounds good to me. The problem with GOP proposals is that the tax break is given as a gift, with no requirements at all. And remember we need good paying jobs, not just min-wage jobs. Hell, if they could, the GOP would get rid of min wage.

Middle Class Warfare brought to you on behalf of the GOPpers:

Yahoo Finance: Middle Class is Radically Shrinking

Business Insider: 22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class is Systematically Wiped Out

 

[Accountable]

Says the government employee.

I just can't understand you libertarians... It's all me, me me... I'm sorry but I just can't get onboard with that philosophy.

:confused Neither can I. I also can't get onboard with a philosophy that says one group of people deserve what another group of people have earned more than the earners themselves do.

It's WE THE PEOPLE, not me the people. The government is of the people, by the people and FOR the people. We are not a bunch of isolationists.

Hell, I don't want the government to give me a job, but I DO want the government to provide an environment that helps me get a good paying job with basic protections. I want the government to protect trade agreements that will guarantee that my job isn't outsourced on a whim. I want to be able to join a union if I want and they should be protected.
There are 1001 things the government should do to help protect the American worker.

But that's not job creation. I'm talking about work programs for the sake of creating jobs. They never last. For instance, stimulus money came into my school district. The district created new specialist positions which experienced teachers applied for and got. The slots they left were filled with new rookie teachers eager to start their new careers. Good so far, right? Well, the stimulus money stopped, so the district eliminated the specialist positions. The experienced teachers are going back to their old positions, but with the higher pay since the district isn't allowed to cut an employee's pay. The rookie teachers were let go because they were on probationary contracts. The job creation program ended with status quo except at a higher net cost. An anecdote, but I'm sure you can find the same trend nationwide.

 

[Accountable]

What you fail to acknowledge is that the money becomes the operating capital of the company who sells the shares. The billions (trillions?) that are invested are vital to keeping huge employers operating and millions of people working.

It seems like many people believe the stock market is just some form of high tech slot machine for rich people. The reality is that without people willing and able to put their money to work as capital for business on global scale, the whole economic system collapses.

The company only gets money on the first release. The vast majority of activity in the stock market is investor to investor. I doubt one penny of Minor's investments benefited the companies themselves. They benefit or hurt him and the other investor he buys from or sells to. It's not capital for the company.

 

[Tangerine]

The company only gets money on the first release. The vast majority of activity in the stock market is investor to investor. I doubt one penny of Minor's investments benefited the companies themselves. They benefit or hurt him and the other investor he buys from or sells to. It's not capital for the company.

And how many billions are pumped into the system on "first release?"

And you're saying that the billions and billions of dollars moving through investment banks are never used as funding sources for capital and operating expense financing that keep most all business in America moving on a daily basis? Why then were they deemed "too big to fail" and propped up with Government funds?

 

[Minor Axis]

And how many billions are pumped into the system on "first release?"

And you're saying that the billions and billions of dollars moving through investment banks are never used as funding sources for capital and operating expense financing that keep most all business in America moving on a daily basis? Why then were they deemed "too big to fail" and propped up with Government funds?

The stock market is not the basis/yard stick for tax policy.

:confused Neither can I. I also can't get onboard with a philosophy that says one group of people deserve what another group of people have earned more than the earners themselves do.

Stating issues in extremes does not help your arguments. Progressive tax policy which has been around since at least WWII (acknowledged, the GOP is fighting to kill) says that if you make $100 and someone less fortunate makes $10, they can afford $1 or a free ride, while the $100 earner can afford $20-30 paid to the government in tax revenue. Ok so you disagree. Please make a good case why the person who made $10 should pay $3 and have $7 left, while the high wage earner has $70 left? He's got 10x to live on. That's not reward enough for a job well done?

 

[Alien Allen]

Minor will never understand because he is a died in the wool socialist where the concept of money and assets are to be shared. In the socialists world the govt owns the money to start with and doles it out as seen fit.

And this has proven to be an abysmal failure unless you want everybody to be basically dumbed down for example like Cuba.

Even then there are still winners and losers.

 

[Tangerine]

The stock market is not the basis/yard stick for tax policy.

I have never made any assertion that it is.

So do you deny that A)Wealthy people invest in the stock market heavily, and B) active and ongoing investment in the stock market is one of the most vital pieces of the global economy?

 

[darkcgi]

minor you need to watch
v for vendetta and if you already watched it
watch it again
then watch inglorious bastards again
then watch red dawn

 

[darkcgi]

do not base your thoughts on money
base it on freedom

 

[Accountable]

And how many billions are pumped into the system on "first release?"

And you're saying that the billions and billions of dollars moving through investment banks are never used as funding sources for capital and operating expense financing that keep most all business in America moving on a daily basis?

No, I'm saying that the $100K that Minor invests in the stock market doesn't become the operating capital of the company who sells the shares unless he is buying an IPO or another offering, as you claimed. That's a purchase that an investor has to specify to the broker, otherwise that $100K buys common stock and goes into the pocket of any number of large or small investors exactly like him as capital gains.

Only jobs such transactions create might be the occasional accounting position.

 

[Accountable]

Sounds good to me. The problem with GOP proposals is that the tax break is given as a gift, with no requirements at all. And remember we need good paying jobs, not just min-wage jobs. Hell, if they could, the GOP would get rid of min wage.http://www.businessinsider.com/22-s...are-in-the-hands-of-1-percent-of-the-people-1

:nod: You are correct. No finger-pointing at the dems; no caveats.

Whaddayaknow?

 

[Accountable]

Stating issues in extremes does not help your arguments.

I didn't help Tim's, either. Don't you agree?

Progressive tax policy which has been around since at least WWII (acknowledged, the GOP is fighting to kill) says that if you make $100 and someone less fortunate makes $10, they can afford $1 or a free ride, while the $100 earner can afford $20-30 paid to the government in tax revenue. Ok so you disagree. Please make a good case why the person who made $10 should pay $3 and have $7 left, while the high wage earner has $70 left? He's got 10x to live on. That's nor reward enough for a job well done?

Stating issues in extremes doesn't help your arguments, either. Noting that someone still has money left over at the end of the tax rape is not justification to raise his taxes.

Here's something you and I might be able to agree on: Tax capital gains at exactly the same rate as traditional income. Set a personal deduction (you pick the number) then (here's where we'll disagree) tax all income over that amount at the same rate, no matter what it is.

 

[Minor Axis]

Minor will never understand because he is a died in the wool socialist where the concept of money and assets are to be shared. In the socialists world the govt owns the money to start with and doles it out as seen fit.

And this has proven to be an abysmal failure unless you want everybody to be basically dumbed down for example like Cuba.

Even then there are still winners and losers.

You are using my example of the guy making $10 versus $100 and a progressive tax policy to call me socialist? It's a convenient boogie man to demonize the limiting of extremes at both ends of the economic spectrum. I would expect no less from you. Is there any tax rate and any amount of government that would make you happy?

Honestly I'm beginning to believe that the U.S. iteration of Capitalism is becoming a failed economic system. The fact is no system works for the majority if corruption and greedy bastards are pulling the strings.

Here's something you and I might be able to agree on: Tax capital gains at exactly the same rate as traditional income. Set a personal deduction (you pick the number) then (here's where we'll disagree) tax all income over that amount at the same rate, no matter what it is.

I agree with tax on capital gains. I disagree with the same tax rate regardless of how much you make. It always boils down to, how much do you need to live a productive happy life? No matter how good you are, do you deserve to live like a King? Is it moral to be a glutton? That is exactly where we are headed, a small % of the population living like Kings and the rest scraping by. It's not equitable and I understand you disagree. There really is no point continuing this debate with you on this subject. I say that, but I'll be here tomorrow typing out replies.

 

[Accountable]

I agree with tax on capital gains. I disagree with the same tax rate regardless of how much you make. It always boils down to, how much do you need to live a productive happy life?

I disagree. It boils down to, how much does the government need? Can it provide adequate service on that amount of taxes (whatever it turns out to be)? If so, then it shouldn't matter if people have extra.

No matter how good you are, do you deserve to live like a King?

Yes, absolutely. Doesn't everybody deserve to live like a king? I think they do. We can't all get what we deserve, but pointing to a person who lives like a king and using that as justification to take what he owns is wrong.

Is it moral to be a glutton?

I'm not sure that's even relevant.

That is exactly where we are headed, a small % of the population living like Kings and the rest scraping by. It's not equitable and I understand you disagree. There really is no point continuing this debate with you on this subject. I say that, but I'll be here tomorrow typing out replies.

'kay.

 

[Tangerine]

It always boils down to, how much do you need to live a productive happy life? No matter how good you are, do you deserve to live like a King?

Living like a King is extremely relative. Might I ask exactly how much of YOUR income you gladly hand over to those less fortunate than you? Because if someone is desperate and homeless in your town (as I am sure there are some) they probably think that YOU live like a King. Have you ever handed over $1000 or so to someone on the street to make them more comfortable?

How much money do you make annually, exactly?

 

[Minor Axis]

Living like a King is extremely relative. Might I ask exactly how much of YOUR income you gladly hand over to those less fortunate than you? Because if someone is desperate and homeless in your town (as I am sure there are some) they probably think that YOU live like a King. Have you ever handed over $1000 or so to someone on the street to make them more comfortable?

How much money do you make annually, exactly?

You can answer these questions first then I'll have to decide if I believe you. As far as living like a King, it's not relative. I'm comfortable, but not rich. No one would look at me and say I'm living like a king, not if they understand the spectrum of wealth that exists in this world. However by my estimate I'm in the top 85-90% of income as compared to the average, but you might agree there is a huge spectrum from $100k-100m (or more?) per annum near the top in a narrow band of percentages.

 

[Minor Axis]

Huffington Post News 27July2011:

Boehner's Plan= $915B Saving

Reid's Plan=$2.2T Savings

Now I'm waiting for conservatives in forum to denounce Huffington. Please meet my expectations.