Republicans Opposed to Tax Cuts

[J.T]

Tax cuts have become the panacea of conservative economic thinking, but curiously, the AP reports Republicans are now lining up to raise taxes on nearly half of all Americans. In his radio address this weekend, President Obama called for an extension to the payroll tax holiday he signed into law last year, which benefits every working American, lowering the 6.2 percent tax that funds Social Security to 4.2 percent. The tax cut will expire in January, and many of the same Republican lawmakers who fought tooth and nail to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are now coming out against an extension of the payroll tax holiday. Why? Social Security payroll taxes mainly benefit middle- and working-class Americans
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/22/300832/republicans-to-oppose-tax-cut-for-working-people/


More Republican class war

[fj1200]

Why? Social Security payroll taxes mainly benefit middle- and working-class Americans
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/22/300832/republicans-to-oppose-tax-cut-for-working-people/


More Republican class war

Not really, those tax cuts are economically pointless plus they take away the revenue source from their own safety net.

[J.T]

Letting working people (the demand side) keep more of their money (which they spend, creating demand), is pointless?

:laugh:

[Gunny]

Tax cuts have become the panacea of conservative economic thinking, but curiously, the AP reports Republicans are now lining up to raise taxes on nearly half of all Americans. In his radio address this weekend, President Obama called for an extension to the payroll tax holiday he signed into law last year, which benefits every working American, lowering the 6.2 percent tax that funds Social Security to 4.2 percent. The tax cut will expire in January, and many of the same Republican lawmakers who fought tooth and nail to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are now coming out against an extension of the payroll tax holiday. Why? Social Security payroll taxes mainly benefit middle- and working-class Americans
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/22/300832/republicans-to-oppose-tax-cut-for-working-people/



More Republican class war

I'm sure if you ask, one of the admins can change your ID to something more suiting your stature. Like: "National Enquirer Boy" or "The Fountain of Misinformation".

[fj1200]

Letting working people (the demand side) keep more of their money (which they spend, creating demand), is pointless?

:laugh:

I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand but it hasn't worked has it? Demand side = fail.

[J.T]

I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand but it hasn't worked has it? Demand side = fail.

:lol:

Hasn't worked? It hasn't been tried in decades. It worked wonderfully when we actually did it.

2384


2385

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlhttp://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

[fj1200]

:lol:

Hasn't worked? It hasn't been tried in decades. It worked wonderfully when we actually did it.

Are you kidding? Man you're dense. Do you not remember Great Depression and its inherent economic uncertainty that led to the rise of the fascist states and Hitler... Oh, now I see.

You somehow have this idiotic belief that relative income equality somehow automatically equates to good times.

[logroller]

Are you kidding? Man you're dense. Do you not remember Great Depression and its inherent economic uncertainty that led to the rise of the fascist states and Hitler... Oh, now I see.

You somehow have this idiotic belief that relative income equality somehow automatically equates to good times.

That's the jews' doing!!!:laugh2:

Income equality isnt the issue, its distribution of wealth. Do you think the concentration of wealth is linked to the opportunities/ liberty to affect change for the one's own betterment?

[fj1200]

Income equality isnt the issue, its distribution of wealth. Do you think the concentration of wealth is linked to the opportunities/ liberty to affect change for the one's own betterment?

No, I think they are interchangeable as far as a scapegoat to blame for ills. If we had free and transparent capital markets where capital flows to those with the ideas there would be plenty of opportunity for one to better themselves. Don't forget that we also have a system that taxes the first dollar of wages and pays it in the form of Social Security to a third party thereby limiting the chances for that person to start to build their own wealth. That on top of the moral hazard that removes responsibility from the individual and would you be surprised that the bottom rungs of the ladder are not building wealth? The rich are also able to pass on their wealth whereas the poor have whatever "wealth" taken from them as soon as they die, some may go to a spouse or minor child but a check is completely different than wealth which can change a life.

[KartRacerBoy]

No, I think they are interchangeable as far as a scapegoat to blame for ills. If we had free and transparent capital markets where capital flows to those with the ideas there would be plenty of opportunity for one to better themselves. Don't forget that we also have a system that taxes the first dollar of wages and pays it in the form of Social Security to a third party thereby limiting the chances for that person to start to build their own wealth. That on top of the moral hazard that removes responsibility from the individual and would you be surprised that the bottom rungs of the ladder are not building wealth? The rich are also able to pass on their wealth whereas the poor have whatever "wealth" taken from them as soon as they die, some may go to a spouse or minor child but a check is completely different than wealth which can change a life.

Oh dear lord.

If the link is correct, I think JT has something for once. It is rather odd that through the whole debt ceiling debate the Republican leadership demanded tax cuts. And now they oppose continuing the tax holiday on SS? Hmmmmmm. What is the income ceiling on SS again? Hmmmmmmmm.

[ConHog]

Oh dear lord.

If the link is correct, I think JT has something for once. It is rather odd that through the whole debt ceiling debate the Republican leadership demanded tax cuts. And now they oppose continuing the tax holiday on SS? Hmmmmmm. What is the income ceiling on SS again? Hmmmmmmmm.

They did not demand tax cuts. I know you'recapable of more honesty than that KRB. What they DID demand was that Obama not raise taxes yet again.

[KartRacerBoy]

They did not demand tax cuts. I know you'recapable of more honesty than that KRB. What they DID demand was that Obama not raise taxes yet again.


I could be wrong. I seem to recall demands for tax cuts, too. But even if I am wrong on that point, it doesn't change the basic point that IF this story is true, Republicans are ok with a tax hike on this group (is the cap on SS taxes at $80k/yr now?), but not for those over $250k. Spin it how you want, but that would be the black and white of it.

[ConHog]

I could be wrong. I seem to recall demands for tax cuts, too. But even if I am wrong on that point, it doesn't change the basic point that IF this story is true, Republicans are ok with a tax hike on this group (is the cap on SS taxes at $80k/yr now?), but not for those over $250k. Spin it how you want, but that would be the black and white of it.

Here's how I spin it, BOTH sides are liars and will say anything and then do the exact opposite. pretty sure that's a requirement to be a politician.

[fj1200]

Oh dear lord.

If the link is correct, I think JT has something for once. It is rather odd that through the whole debt ceiling debate the Republican leadership demanded tax cuts. And now they oppose continuing the tax holiday on SS? Hmmmmmm. What is the income ceiling on SS again? Hmmmmmmmm.

No he doesn't as I pointed out.


I could be wrong. I seem to recall demands for tax cuts, too. But even if I am wrong on that point, it doesn't change the basic point that IF this story is true, Republicans are ok with a tax hike on this group (is the cap on SS taxes at $80k/yr now?), but not for those over $250k. Spin it how you want, but that would be the black and white of it.

The income limit is ~$106,800 iirc. I don't think their demands went anywhere the Bush cuts extension is the best that they got. Why do you want to further burden future SS liabilities for zero economic benefit?

[logroller]

No, I think they are interchangeable as far as a scapegoat to blame for ills. If we had free and transparent capital markets where capital flows to those with the ideas there would be plenty of opportunity for one to better themselves. Don't forget that we also have a system that taxes the first dollar of wages and pays it in the form of Social Security to a third party thereby limiting the chances for that person to start to build their own wealth. That on top of the moral hazard that removes responsibility from the individual and would you be surprised that the bottom rungs of the ladder are not building wealth? The rich are also able to pass on their wealth whereas the poor have whatever "wealth" taken from them as soon as they die, some may go to a spouse or minor child but a check is completely different than wealth which can change a life.


Duly noted, but their respective causes and effects differ. I'm not saying there isn't a behavioral connection to where the taxes are spent, but dropping social security wouldn't append wealth or income distribution.--in that respect they are both scapegoats. You keep talking about transparency as though those with privileged information will give it up by govt mandate. Never gonna happen.

To continue you metaphor on climbing the wealth ladder, you needn't grease the lower rungs- and that's what is accomplished when cap gains are less than income tax.

i don't see the legitimate purpose of government in considering tax liability based on source. Taxing profits differently than wage compensation is neither a free market or free society; it's so against freedom that I believe it qualifies as unconstitutional. The poor should be poor because they spend and/or invest poorly. And people should be wealthy because they spend and invest wisely(& luck never hurts). That's what a free-market delivers right? Nowhere in there did I say because you get a tax break.

[fj1200]

Duly noted, but their respective causes and effects differ. I'm not saying there isn't a behavioral connection to where the taxes are spent, but dropping social security wouldn't append wealth or income distribution.--in that respect they are both scapegoats. You keep talking about transparency as though those with privileged information will give it up by govt mandate. Never gonna happen.

I'm not sure what you're saying, eliminating Social Security? With a plan that would let workers keep and invest their own dollars for future retirement and a possible inheritance to pass on would certainly affect those numbers. A SS tax on first dollars earned also is a drag on employment for those least able to make it up; the poor again. My SS reform plan is for the employee to have their portion of the SS tax invested into an IRA type account that would be owned by the employee while the employer portion would fund traditional SS type programs (with much lower benefits made up by their own money of course). The employer portion wouldn't kick in until say $10-20,000 to remove the tax drag on job creation.

We're probably talking about two different things with transparency.


To continue you metaphor on climbing the wealth ladder, you needn't grease the lower rungs- and that's what is accomplished when cap gains are less than income tax.

:confused: Reducing capital gains taxes increases capital available. It's a non-issue in wealth creation IMO but is a large one in job creation; and you pretty much need a job to have dollars available to create wealth.


i don't see the legitimate purpose of government in considering tax liability based on source. Taxing profits differently than wage compensation is neither a free market or free society; it's so against freedom that I believe it qualifies as unconstitutional. The poor should be poor because they spend and/or invest poorly. And people should be wealthy because they spend and invest wisely(& luck never hurts). That's what a free-market delivers right? Nowhere in there did I say because you get a tax break.

There are benefits to a lower CG rate not to mention that the source of those funds have already been taxed at the individual level and are also likely taxed at the corporate level. Besides there is a rate advantage on CG but there is an inflation DISadvantage; gains are not indexed to inflation so you may be paying taxes on phantom gains. I would create a straight 20-25% rate on capital gains and dividends but then also index gains to the rate of inflation. I would also make mutual fund taxes be paid at the individual level rather than the fund level so you would be taxed based on your investment decisions rather than the fund managers.*

*sorry, that last one was a bit arcane.

[logroller]

:confused: Reducing capital gains taxes increases capital available. It's a non-issue in wealth creation IMO but is a large one in job creation; and you pretty much need a job to have dollars available to create wealth.

You mentioned a leap in my logic earlier. You're saying more capital in the market makes jobs. What happened with those TARP funds, lots of jobs?????????
Lower income tax rates for all people would make make more capital available too; to all people, not just the wealthy.


There are benefits to a lower CG rate not to mention that the source of those funds have already been taxed at the individual level and are also likely taxed at the corporate level. Besides there is a rate advantage on CG but there is an inflation DISadvantage; gains are not indexed to inflation so you may be paying taxes on phantom gains. I would create a straight 20-25% rate on capital gains and dividends but then also index gains to the rate of inflation. I would also make mutual fund taxes be paid at the individual level rather than the fund level so you would be taxed based on your investment decisions rather than the fund managers.*

*sorry, that last one was a bit arcane.
Well the source a all funds have been taxed at the individual level at some point. The money you pay a gardener has been taxed at your individual rate, does that mean he shouldn't pay taxes on his profits???

I don't think corporations should be taxed, or have person-hood; but that's a different discussion.

*My mutual funds are all pre-tax, so cap gains aren't really something I concern myself with, yet. But I'll mull it over.

[fj1200]

You mentioned a leap in my logic earlier. You're saying more capital in the market makes jobs. What happened with those TARP funds, lots of jobs?????????
Lower income tax rates for all people would make make more capital available too; to all people, not just the wealthy.

TARP funds didn't go into the market besides I didn't say there was a direct line. If you're trying to get me to support lower rates you don't have to try very hard nevertheless if you want there to be more of something (capital) lower the taxes on it. :)


Well the source a all funds have been taxed at the individual level at some point. The money you pay a gardener has been taxed at your individual rate, does that mean he shouldn't pay taxes on his profits???

I don't think corporations should be taxed, or have person-hood; but that's a different discussion.

*My mutual funds are all pre-tax, so cap gains aren't really something I concern myself with, yet. But I'll mull it over.

You're income has already been taxed, your gardener's income hasn't. But we're not going to eliminate CG taxes so the least we can do is make our taxation policy more rational. Eliminating corporate taxes are the best plan right now, it's a backdoor tax on capital, labor, and the consumer; we could even raise, slightly, other rates to compensate. BTW, personhood is fine IMO and unrelated to taxation even though many try to tie the two together.

*Mutual fund taxation is a side issue but it would make the tax code more efficient.