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.
What about the working poor? Should burger flippers and janitors be taxed higher also? I once worked two jobs to pay the rent so that my landlord could work zero jobs. Should he be taxed higher or lower?
Conservatives can't make up their mind. One argument for Bush's tax-cuts that lowered rates on low incomes was to encourage the working poor to work -- the theory being that taxes discourage work. Now, they're all crowing about poor people not having "skin in the game."
The bottom line is conservative arguments all have agendas.
Conservatives can't make up their mind. One argument for Bush's tax-cuts that lowered rates on low incomes was to encourage the working poor to work -- the theory being that taxes discourage work. Now, they're all crowing about poor people not having "skin in the game."
The bottom line is conservative arguments all have agendas.
At least conservatives have a mind to make up.
Look at your own post here.
Bush LOWERED taxes. Notice it does NOT say ELIMINATE as you try to make one the same as the other.
If you look at your own source, revenue fell from 2001 to 2004. In inflation adjusted terms, it took the height of the housing bubble, 2006, to reach 2001 income. That is ordinarily astounding, considering that the population grew during those years....
The dot.com bust happened in early 2000, and then there was the 9/11 attack in 2001, neither of which helped federal revenue growth. If you factor in population growth, it makes a little difference but not nearly enough to make your case.
Bottom line, as I stated before, total fed revenue was fairly flat during the Bush years. If you want to explain why deficits exploded, look at the spending side, not the 'Bush tax cuts.'
Economist Mark J Perry found this interesting factoid. According to 2009 IRS data, the 400 top taxpayers in 2009 shelled out $16.1 billion, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers totaled $19.5 billion in taxes, or less than 25% more.
But, but, but, Obama says they need to pay more..... surely he is correct... surely they could pay another 16 billion and still have enough left over to eat.
Those of you who defend these exorbitantly wealthy, what do you expect to gain from it? How has that "trickle down economics" or "job creation" going for you?
The dot.com bust happened in early 2000, and then there was the 9/11 attack in 2001, neither of which helped federal revenue growth. If you factor in population growth, it makes a little difference but not nearly enough to make your case.
Bottom line, as I stated before, total fed revenue was fairly flat during the Bush years. If you want to explain why deficits exploded, look at the spending side, not the 'Bush tax cuts.'
Be careful. Don't confuse the Krugman lemmings with the facts.
Those of you who defend these exorbitantly wealthy, what do you expect to gain from it? How has that "trickle down economics" or "job creation" going for you?
Quite well, thank you for asking.
So how is that "trickle up poverty" working for you?
Those of you who defend these exorbitantly wealthy, what do you expect to gain from it? How has that "trickle down economics" or "job creation" going for you?
No one but this administration said those rich were going to "create jobs".
And "this administration" includes those GOP in Congress.
The government cannot force anyone to create jobs. The government can only create government jobs.
Demand creates jobs in the private sector. If there is no demand then there is no need for more jobs than what there is today.
If anything, demand is down, including global demand, and there are job layoffs happening.
Wake up and stop sitting around waiting for someone to "create a job" for you.
Tax cuts enable people to SPEND money. That was the purpose of the Bush cuts..put more money in peoples pockets to spend.
How this turned around to become "create jobs" was manufactured by this administration.
As many who have studied statistics or are into math know, what Mr. Levin says is meaningless because we don't have all the terms of the equation. We don't know what the total earnings are of the top earners. We don't know what percentage of their income they paid in taxes. We don't know what is meant by "taxes". Are deductions for paid foreign taxes included in the federal taxes? Are state, local, property and payroll taxes included? We also have no information on the bottom 50%, who they are, what their income is, what percentage of their income they paid in taxes: federal, state, local, school, property, payroll.
Mark Levin is intellectually disingenuous, in my opinion. You can make statistics say anything you want them to say when you don't give complete information.
You're expected to do some modicum of your own research like for example:
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.