Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you explain when Cinton was taxing the hell out the wealthy the country was thriving?
Thriving? Not exactly. The dotcom bubble's false economy wasn't "thriving" any more than the housing bubble's false economy was "thriving." There were serious economic consequences to the burst of each because they artificially inflated the economy.
Furthermore...
Quote:
Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts. In fact, Mr. Obama could learn an important lesson for his own economic plan by studying Mr. Bush’s two very different attempts at tax-cutting. As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption. By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms. But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Read and educate yourself. "Freeloader Myth," from the National Review, no less:
Quote:
According to the Tax Policy Center, provisions of the tax code that exempt subsistence levels of income from income taxes — the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption — are the reason for about half of the tax filers who owe no income tax. Another large group of filers pays no income tax because its members are elderly and benefit from such features of the code as the non-taxation of some Social Security benefits. The tax credit for children and the earned-income tax credit, an effort to boost the pay of low-income workers, wipe out income-tax liability for other taxpayers. Those credits are “refundable,” meaning that beneficiaries can get money on top of paying no income tax. Other provisions of the code account for the rest of the 47 percent: education credits, the non-taxation of welfare payments, itemized deductions, and so on.
Good grief! The uninformed liberals strike, again.
The vast majority of those depicted in that ridiculous cartoon are NOT included in the 47% (which is actually 51%) who pay no federal income taxes because they are NOT tax units, meaning they do not file tax returns and their status as paying or not paying federal income tax is not tabulated.
The Tax Policy Center gives a clear definition of "tax unit" as any single, married filing jointly, married filing separately, single or married head of household individual who files a tax return:
Quote:
What is a tax unit...?
A tax unit is an individual, or a married couple who file a tax return jointly, along with all dependents of that individual or married couple. A tax unit is therefore different than a family or a household in certain situations. For example, two persons cohabiting would be considered one household but if they were not legally married, they would file separate tax returns and thus be considered two tax units. A family could consist of a married couple and the wife's elderly mother who lives with them. That family would be considered two tax units since, if the elderly mother had a large enough income, she would be required to file a federal income tax return on her own.
Who doesn't have to file a tax return and is therefore not counted in the percentage of those who do or do not pay any federal income tax? Anyone with an income below the following:
Source: IRS
Don't you liberals ever get tired of trotting out and parroting the ridiculously uninformed propaganda memes and exposing yourselves as the easily manipulated ignorant cheerleaders for which the Democrats use you?
Good grief! The uninformed liberals strike, again.
The vast majority of those depicted in that ridiculous cartoon are NOT included in the 47% (which is actually 51%) who pay no federal income taxes because they are NOT tax units, meaning they do not file tax returns and their status as paying or not paying federal income tax is not tabulated.
The Tax Policy Center gives a clear definition of "tax unit" as any single, married filing jointly, married filing separately, single or married head of household individual who files a tax return:Tax Model FAQ
Who doesn't have to file a tax return and is therefore not counted in the percentage of those who do or do not pay any federal income tax? Anyone with an income below the following:
Source: IRS
Don't you liberals ever get tired of trotting out and parroting the ridiculously uninformed propaganda memes and exposing yourselves as the easily manipulated ignorant cheerleaders for which the Democrats use you?
That is not what he said, you are trying to defend what you assumed that meant and not what he said and to whom. If he believed anything that you said why did he say it in the privacy of his wealthy donors and not to the general masses?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
