U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2019, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,226 posts, read 7,875,657 times
Reputation: 5833

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Again tax cuts by themselves do not increase revenue. Revenue wasn't up because of tax cuts.
I said the tax cuts did not decrease revenue, which they did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Respond to this next sentence and don't deflect. If I save 100 in taxes and spend it, it is impossible to get more than 100 from it.
I will participate in your pseudo lecture when you learn how to comprehend the written word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Explain why revenue increases when we have tax cuts and when we have tax increases.
You’re the one trying to lecture the board on economics. Enjoy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2019, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
1,400 posts, read 634,638 times
Reputation: 1868
Stupid thread.

The middle class paid less taxes last year. Our refund was literally triple from last year. (And we've adjusted our withholdings)

There are people who live in tax haven states it may not have worked out that well for them bc there's a cap on property tax writeoffs, but that's not my problem. If you're legit middle class and paying more than 10k a year on property taxes, you need to move to a cheaper state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,208 posts, read 14,400,629 times
Reputation: 16417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
So the whole premise of Trickle Down Economics,....
Really, it's hard to take people like you seriously.

If you don't understand the phrase was co-opted for political propaganda, well, that explains it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Florida
3,651 posts, read 991,246 times
Reputation: 2876
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
We need Government to do this so it goes to the right people......those who already have money.
LMAO! The government is just as corrupt as a CEO of a fortune 500 company. The fact that a large group of the government wants my tax money to pay for free healthcare and welfare for illegals who never paid a dime into the system troubles me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Florida
3,651 posts, read 991,246 times
Reputation: 2876
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Your presumption that people's money is first the property of the government, and not their own, is deeply flawed.


The government does not "give" anything- it takes. Individuals earn money, only to have it taken by the feds and used for purposes other than for the benefit of that individual.


Only a lib would assume that all wealth and money is the property of the government and that they let us "keep" some of it.
More like, this is the kind of thing they are teaching kids in schools these days, indoctrinating them young that they belong to the US government and must ask permission to do anything. From speaking your mind, to drinking a glass of water, to deciding how much of an allowance you will be permitted to have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 08:48 PM
 
32,668 posts, read 26,683,019 times
Reputation: 19303
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohioaninsc View Post
It absolutely needs to be redistributed from the wealthy to the middle class and lower classes.
The wealthy either got wealthy because of inheritance or because the infrastructure and economy allowed them to.
Their is no reason in hades that the wealthiest 1% should possess 50% of the nation's wealth.

you are deluded. granted there are rich people that got their wealth through inheritance, but they are a small percentage. the vast majority of the wealthy EARNED their money. they went out and put in the 80 hours per week, and took the risks to make money and make themselves wealthy.


but lets put you in the shoes of the wealthy, you put in the 80 hours per week, and took the big risks, do you think you should have to pay a huge amount more in taxes than everyone else?


before reagan took off ice, the top 10% paid about 35% of the taxes, ad the top 50% paid about 75% of the taxes collected by the IRS. after reagan those number changed rather dramatically. the top 10% paid 50% of the taxes, and the top 50% paid 97% of the taxes collected. so the tax burden went UP on the rich, and that has happened EVERY TIME taxes were cut.


and by the way, when tax rates are cut, the biggest reductions monetary wise are always going to be at the top, its just number thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
1,400 posts, read 634,638 times
Reputation: 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you are deluded. granted there are rich people that got their wealth through inheritance, but they are a small percentage. the vast majority of the wealthy EARNED their money. they went out and put in the 80 hours per week, and took the risks to make money and make themselves wealthy.


but lets put you in the shoes of the wealthy, you put in the 80 hours per week, and took the big risks, do you think you should have to pay a huge amount more in taxes than everyone else?


before reagan took off ice, the top 10% paid about 35% of the taxes, ad the top 50% paid about 75% of the taxes collected by the IRS. after reagan those number changed rather dramatically. the top 10% paid 50% of the taxes, and the top 50% paid 97% of the taxes collected. so the tax burden went UP on the rich, and that has happened EVERY TIME taxes were cut.


and by the way, when tax rates are cut, the biggest reductions monetary wise are always going to be at the top, its just number thing.
I'm not saying you do (we are on the same page), but I don't begrudge people for being rich from inheritances.

Their mother or father, etc., somebody worked their azz off and earned it, and all that money was taxed a plenty.

It's stupid for people to be mad and act like people with big inheritances aren't entitled to them.

I think it comes down to jealousy, honestly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:03 AM
 
Location: NC
7,215 posts, read 5,058,511 times
Reputation: 7967
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut View Post
Who told you this OP? AOC? Lol
LMAO, I was an Econ major when Reagan was still in office (barely, I started in 86). My professor was a Reagan supporter, but even he could not avoid showing us the income disparity, which was much less pronounced back then, as it was really just starting to diverge.

I don't think AOC was even born yet (how old is she?).

It's all nice and good that you can evoke AOC's name to try to discredit the point, but how about arguing with facts. Others have made some legit challenges to my premise, and the discussion is interesting. Yours comes off as a shallow "trump-style verbal ambush" with very little substance.

Answer: No, AOC didn't tell me this. As I stated upthread, documented statistics show, without much room to debate, that the income inequality gap really went into hyperdrive around the early 80's. Others have debated the reason (that is legit), but shaking off the facts and blaming it on AOC, who wasn't born yet ain't going to cut it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:09 AM
 
Location: NC
7,215 posts, read 5,058,511 times
Reputation: 7967
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Your presumption that people's money is first the property of the government, and not their own, is deeply flawed.


The government does not "give" anything- it takes. Individuals earn money, only to have it taken by the feds and used for purposes other than for the benefit of that individual.


Only a lib would assume that all wealth and money is the property of the government and that they let us "keep" some of it.
I did not state that, you are making stuff up, or reading into it.

I DO believe that certain roles of government require funding (infrastructure, defense, etc.). we can argue about how much and for what, but if you are going to play the projection game and try to tell me what I think, then I can do that too (it's not productive).

YOUR presumption that nobody should pay any taxes, EVER, and that infrastructure and defense should be privately funded would cripple our country, and really the world.

In all honesty, I don't think you are saying that, and I hope you don't think I'm saying that our earnings are the government's money. what I AM saying is that Reagan and Trump tax plans shift more of the burden away from the ultra-rich, and ultimately we all pay for it. Their justification for this has been that if you free up the money (funny, it's OK with you when it goes that direction, but not the other?) for the wealthy, that they will buy more and hire more, thus stimulating the economy. As an econ major, I can see how this would work in THEORY. It makes perfect sense. The problem is that it does not happen in PRACTICE. We have 4-decades of data to prove it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:12 AM
 
Location: NC
7,215 posts, read 5,058,511 times
Reputation: 7967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_N_1962 View Post
how was money taken from the middle class? what planet are you on?
About 28% for me. How much did Amazon pay? (I'm not hating on Amazon, I am pointing out the flaw in the tax code)

And yes, redistribute. When the government subsidizes big oil (I also am a fan of big oil, I like my car, and I make my living in the oil industry) while taxing me, that is redistribution. Instead of the government controlling and supressing prices, how about we let the market choose. Oil will be around for a while, but it will be around a lot longer as long as the gov't keeps taking MY MONEY to subsidize them with infrastructure, military protection, waging of oil wars, and tax breaks.

Surely you can see this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top