Tax breaks are a freebie? Let me get this straight. Some family of 4 pays $200,000 in income taxes last year, and then the rate drops, and they only pay 190k the next year. They just got a "freebie." Meanwhile another family of 4 pays ZERO in income tax, and the next year gets $3500 back (negative taxes). Yet another family of 4 pays $5,000 in income tax, and their tax bill the next year is the same.

The people that shelled out 190k somehow "got something" from the government because they paid 10k less than 40X the last family for the same use of government? (can't even say with the deadbeat family since they paif INFINITELY less tax than either of the taxpaying families)

I think the problem is gov't spending. They're wasting money on so much fluff, it's not even funny. Take the city of Portland (ore-gone). The uber liberal mayor has no money for police, but magically finds $600k for bike paths (taken from the city sewer-water management fund). Now there's not enough money for the big sewer project (surprise), so the answer...raise taxes on water rates.:har:

...and on a side not, Portland doesn't have"police" anymore, they're "peace enforcers."


:har::har::har::har:

Charly Rangel knows all about the tax breaks, so does, Kerry:shifty:.

no, but giving more tax breaks under the guise of "the trickle down" is in my mind.

Who deserves a 1% tax break, a family of 4 paying 200k a year, or a family of 4 paying 5k a year?

All trickle down says is that the higher income family will spend in in ways that more positively impact the economy at large. I tend to agree, since american workers cost more, and hence our local products cost more—a cost the affluent are more able to pay.

depends....what family could use it more? what family would probably put it back into the economy? or use it to pay off their house loan so they don't lose it?

Except it doesn't work that way. Trickle down economics has never ever been shown to increase any measurable aspect of the economy. If you're so confident in your theoretical increase in spending, then prove it by showing a positive correlation between tax cuts and consumer spending, or tax cuts and GDP, or tax cuts and employment, or tax cuts and business investment, or tax cuts and anything.

You keep harping on the same theory without any evidence. Unless you can show any, it's absolute bunk. Theory is just theory until you can show it to be true through data.

:hmmm: Next time i post a link, ill try and pick something not so controversial.

This is GT. You can post "Ghengis Khan was a bad dude" and get arguments. :O:

Why should I care? People being irresponsible isn't my problem. The only question is that if there is to be a tax cut, it should go first to the people overpaying.

A fair share of taxes is the budget divided by the taxpayers. Anyone paying MORE is overpaying. Anyone paying less is underpaying. The people overpaying the MOST need money back first, IMHO. That means drop the top tax rate.

I think anyone arguing in favor of some arbitrarily high marginal rate should have to explain why that rate is fair. Not that it collects X dollars, but why is 39% fair, and not 38.9%. That is what they are doing, they claim that the fair rate on 250,000 is X, and that on 250,001 is X+Y. I've read the Constitution, and I try to deal with people fairly in RL, but I'm not seeing the tax laws as anything but arbitrary.

A flat tax would STILL "soak the rich" (someone making 40k would pay 10X less taxes than someone making 400k even though the lower income guy likely uses MORE government), but at least it feels fair, and is simple, and perfectly predictable making long term planning easy.

no he wasn't

NOW this is the GT forum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Ghengis Khan was not bad, he was just... misunderstood. And I'm personally offended that anyone would imply otherwise. :stare:



Now, John Wayne playing Ghengis Khan... THAT was bad. :nope:

http://pics.livejournal.com/glockgal/pic/001960t9

"We have prepared some special entertainment for your enjoyment, oh mighty one."

"Yes, I see that. My agent, on a spit. Very nice."

:rotfl2: A Glen Beck coin for you!

The problem I have with the whole thing is people discussing who should be taxed at all. The sole purpose of taxation is that government has no means of producing revenues besides taking it from the citizens. This is a necessary evil, no more and no less. The people who want to make the rich pay "their fair share" are misusing the concept of taxation, period. They tend to hate the businessmen and entrepreneurs for what they have, yet won't hear anything bad said about the congressmen who waste money which isn't even their own. If it was possible for the government to survive with no income tax at all they would still insist we needed them just to keep the rich from "getting away with it".

I think you misconscrewed the whole point. :O: