Permanent tax breaks for the upper 1% ?!?

[Ducimus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/op...gman.html?_r=1

[Zachstar]

Oh my geez. Ok lets get this straight.

The tax cuts are going to expire. If possible the good parts for middle and lower will be kept but overall if those cant be salvaged the entire thing is going down. Obama isnt sinking the last of his liberal support by keeping it.

It is just a hed herring to keep businesses holding onto their money as long as possible to make things extra bad in the economy to help republicans. That is what the entire meme is about.

[gimpy117]

congress is just a case of the rich robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
it's time the mega rich ponied up to the situation. They used to pay up to 90% in taxes without major complaint. You'll notice that was in a time of great national budget distress (WWII) and when we had to basically outproduce the Russians in the cold war arms race. But now, when a similar distress is evident everybody is kicking and screaming.


picture sourced from Wikipedia

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

It is just a hed herring to keep businesses holding onto their money as long as possible to make things extra bad in the economy to help republicans. That is what the entire meme is about.

I think you give them too much credit. The tax cuts were about votes and political capital, period. That's all they're still about. And if it were up to me, I'd expand them.

Cut state spending drastically, cut taxes drastically (especially on business), and watch the economy grow.

[Zachstar]

Grow in China you mean. Where companies have used the savings from the tax cuts to expand in.

You are laughable if you think expanding the tax cuts will grow business anywhere near the levels investment in technology will.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Businesses invest in technology, ZS. Marketable, usable technology. They also generate the revenue you want to invest in technology. Gotta have a horse to pull the cart, boss

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

congress is just a case of the rich robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
it's time the mega rich ponied up to the situation. They used to pay up to 90% in taxes without major complaint. You'll notice that was in a time of great national budget distress (WWII) and when we had to basically outproduce the Russians in the cold war arms race. But now, when a similar distress is evident everybody is kicking and screaming.

And there used to be no personal income tax at all. That it exists is an example of the government screwing everything up and then needing more money. "I know - let's come up with a system that will make the rich 'pay their fair share'! That'll show 'em!" So somebody comes up with a scheme, and makes it sound good, because getting even is always good. The answer is to tear down the current system, including the income tax, and force the government, not the people (even rich people) to tighten the belt.

[tater]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The top 1% already pays a higher % than ever, AND a far higher % than people below.

How about this, not tax cuts for anyone that doesn't pay at least a fair share.

A fair share is the entire federal budget (including deficit and debt service), divided by the population.

That means a family of 4 must pay 4 shares, or they never see a tax cut, ever.

Right now that's something like 12-13k per family member.

So any family of 4 paying less than 50 grand a year should be happy they are subsidized.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by tater

Sounds like a good idea to me. The top 1% already pays a higher % than ever, AND a far higher % than people below.

How about this, not tax cuts for anyone that doesn't pay at least a fair share.

A fair share is the entire federal budget (including deficit and debt service), divided by the population.

That means a family of 4 must pay 4 shares, or they never see a tax cut, ever.

Right now that's something like 12-13k per family member.

So any family of 4 paying less than 50 grand a year should be happy they are subsidized.

on a few things,but many others may do so when one of these days..

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

Sounds like a good idea to me. The top 1% already pays a higher % than ever, AND a far higher % than people below.

no they don't

in WWII they paid above 90%. the cold war through the 70's it was 90%

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Businesses invest in technology, ZS. Marketable, usable technology. They also generate the revenue you want to invest in technology. Gotta have a horse to pull the cart, boss

I always love it when someone says that companies invest in the future. What was that lovely bush era term... "Trickle-Down" economics.

They generate the revenue for themselves and do it greatly. Holding 1.8 TRILLION dollars hostage to influence the results of the election.

Their investments mostly are on technology they can build in china with labor that gets paid pennies on the dollar. And even then it amounts to little more than who can write the most patents with key technological advancements killed because a company wants to be a troll with its patents.

Oh and FYI they invested in technology for US when their Taxes were MUCH MUCH MUCH greater.

[Tchocky]

Not a great way to watch the economy grow - cutting taxes on people who already have lots of money and aren't likely to spend any more.
Expand the EITC.

[Zachstar]

The economy will grow again even if democrats win big in November. This is just like the other election year stunts corp groups do in order to try to drive turnout for republicans. 1.8 Trillion held while companies say they are suffering. Bah they will spend after the elections.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

no they don't

in WWII they paid above 90%. the cold war through the 70's it was 90%

And in 1913 when the income tax was created they payed a whopping 7%.

The government raised the rates to help pay for wars, but mostly to teach the evil rich a lesson. Just because they did it before and can do it again doesn't make it right. The income tax is wrong - period.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

no they don't

in WWII they paid above 90%. the cold war through the 70's it was 90%

They pay a higher % of taxes collected, not a higher marginal rate. The two are unrelated, particularly given the dodges in the old system.