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.
Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period. It’s impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years.
In 2007, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level (17.1 percent) since 1979, while the share going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level during this period (14.1 percent).
Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation — an increase in income of $973,100 per household — compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth.
In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut.
So what if the average income rose 281% for the top 1%? Times were good.. The fact that they were able to leverage their investments, much better than the bottom who leveraged their spending isnt the fault of those on the top, or the tax structure. Its because those on the bottom manage their money so poorly..
Seems like an easy solution. Take one for the team and ****. What do the Democrats have to gain by stalling? Make the tax cuts permanent and they could move on to their favorite issues like gays in the military and the dream act.
Because they want everyones taxes to go up so they can spend more
Why won't Democrats compromise and extend tax cuts for all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zz4guy
Seems like an easy solution. Take one for the team and ****. What do the Democrats have to gain by stalling? Make the tax cuts permanent and they could move on to their favorite issues like gays in the military and the dream act.
Here are a few better questions:
While carping endlessly about deficits, why does the GOP insist on $700 billion in lost revenue when those paying it can do so painlessly?
Are they unaware of the economic straits our country has been left in by their flawed economic policy of the past decade?
Why is the GOP advocating a position that favors a small, ultrawealthy minority instead of acting the nation's best interest?
Interesting how people ae miscontruing statistics for their gain. When you look at a 10 yr time horizon and say...look no jobs created....do you actaully look at the firs few yrs after tax rates were enacted, and then mitigating factors which casued the economy to collapse, such as the housing bubble, etc. It is very naive to look at data in this way.....
Its like give me a break, of course the higher income brackets are going to realize a larger total dollar decreases in taxes...considering they pay most of hte taxes...47% of people don't pay income taxes.
It boils down to your philosophy...
3 Trillion less revenue going to Govt to cover Middle class tax over 10 yrs
700 Bilion less revenue going to Govt. to cover Upper Earner tax over ten yrs
Either all should stay the same or all should increase. No free lunches. What is it going to be?
I prefer to keep more of my money rather than giving to the Govt.
I would prefer to see them expire, rather than see Congress payoff themselves and their buddies. It's that 2% that receives about 60% of the tax money relief. In 8 yrs, that "relief" resulted in how many jobs? Not quite as many as the Stimulus has done in 10 months.
Thats simply not true.. The rich were given an incentive to stop rolling over their investments in tax free investments and were encouraged to cash them out and pay taxes. This is why the capital gains tax revenue DOUBLED. They get relief when taxes are high because they PAY ZERO in taxes. In america we tax PROFITS, and the rich can go decades without cashing in these profits.
Its like many of you have no clue about things like 1031 tax exchanges which allow people to grow wealth tax free Only when taxes are low do people stop rolling these investments over and in high tax markets they are encouraged to roll them over even longer.
When you guys ask for high taxes on the rich, you are actually asking that they pay ZERO because thats what they pay.. They dont cash out their investments and why would they if the profits are going to be taken
While carping endlessly about deficits, why does the GOP insist on $700 billion in lost revenue when those paying it can do so painlessly?
Are they unaware of the economic straits our country has been left in by their flawed economic policy of the past decade?
Why is the GOP advocating a position that favors a small, ultrawealthy minority instead of acting the nation's best interest?
And what about the 3 Trillion in lost revenue for the Middle calss tax cuts, lost revenue? That is much more than the 700 Billion........what does pain have to do with this? This has to do with me not wanting to use my money to subsidize social services for those unwilling to pay for it themselves. I really don't don't think my paying extra in taxes wll go toward the debt, but will allow for politicians to spend more on pet projects.....
I have a better idea. How about the Republicans just agree to make the tax reduction for the middle class permanant and give up on the tax reduction for the wealthy. Take one for the team. Compromise. They could move on to their other issues like putting the 10 comandments in the public schools.
The democrats need to draw a line in the sand on this one.
You havent given us a good reason to only give the middle class a tax cut, especially considering the bottom 47% of this nation pay ZERO.. It sure sounds like most in america are not paying their fair share.. Take one for the tam hotair, call for EVERYONE to pay
While carping endlessly about deficits, why does the GOP insist on $700 billion in lost revenue when those paying it can do so painlessly?
Are they unaware of the economic straits our country has been left in by their flawed economic policy of the past decade?
Why is the GOP advocating a position that favors a small, ultrawealthy minority instead of acting the nation's best interest?
Because there was no $700B in lost revenue...
Cutting taxes RAISED revenues, it DOUBLED capital gains taxes.. Why would you want to lower revenue again and 1/2 the taxes paid by the rich by increasing their tax rate again?
And what about the 3 Trillion in lost revenue for the Middle calss tax cuts, lost revenue? That is much more than the 700 Billion........what does pain have to do with this? This has to do with me not wanting to use my money to subsidize social services for those unwilling to pay for it themselves. I really don't don't think my paying extra in taxes wll go toward the debt, but will allow for politicians to spend more on pet projects.....
Personally, I'm willing to see my federal taxes go up to where they were under Clinton if it'll help America regain some economic strength. So, go ahead and let the Bush tax cuts for me and the rest of the middle class expire. I'm willing to pitch in.
Besides, the ugly truth is that a huge chunk of my taxes (and yours) are going straight to Red China. We have to pay the commies back for all that cash that Bush borrowed to pay for the billionaire tax cuts in the first place.
Cutting taxes RAISED revenues, it DOUBLED capital gains taxes.. Why would you want to lower revenue again and 1/2 the taxes paid by the rich by increasing their tax rate again?
We always hear this line about tax cuts = revenue gains.
Explain the record Bush deficits, then. The continued deterioration of our infrastructure is not the result of Bush spending the budget for public works. If revenue increased as dramatically as you claim and Bush kept his wars off-budget, and he didn't spend on any domestic capital projects, he should have been running surpluses.
He didn't.
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.
Why won't Democrats compromise and extend tax cuts for all?
Only when taxes are low do people stop rolling these investments over and in high tax markets they are encouraged to roll them over even longer.
