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.
According to our new analysis, the economic plan offered yesterday by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would deliver a massive $6.6 trillion tax cut that would primarily benefit the very wealthy and corporations. After accounting for the added interest costs that we’ll have to pay, the total cost of Romney’s plan grows to $7.8 trillion over the next 10 years
Do you people ever think for yourselves? The article actually goes on to claim that the $6.6 trillion tax cuts for "very wealthy and corporations" would actually be $7.8 trillion over ten years.
Who do you think these people are? Do you think they are the top 5% of income earners? Or would the "very wealthy" be the top 1%?
How much on the federal income taxes do you think the top 5% paid? The top 5% pay 40% of total income taxes. We bring in about $1 trillion a year in total federal income taxes. If the top 5% paid 40% of that, then that equals $400 billion a year. How are we going to give the top 5% a $660 billion a year tax break, if they are only paying $400 billion a year, much less give them a $780 billion a year tax break.
According to our new analysis, the economic plan offered yesterday by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would deliver a massive $6.6 trillion tax cut that would primarily benefit the very wealthy and corporations. After accounting for the added interest costs that we’ll have to pay, the total cost of Romney’s plan grows to $7.8 trillion over the next 10 years
Do you people ever think for yourselves? The article actually goes on to claim that the $6.6 trillion tax cuts for "very wealthy and corporations" would actually be $7.8 trillion over ten years.
Who do you think these people are? Do you think they are the top 5% of income earners? Or would the "very wealthy" be the top 1%?
How much on the federal income taxes do you think the top 5% paid? The top 5% pay 40% of total income taxes. We bring in about $1 trillion a year in total federal income taxes. If the top 5% paid 40% of that, then that equals $400 billion a year. How are we going to give the top 5% a $660 billion a year tax break, if they are only paying $400 billion a year, much less give them a $780 billion a year tax break.
I presently don't have the time, to respond to your post.
But as Fox news and Rush radio says "the rich made all the right choices."
I presently don't have the time, to respond to you supply side boys.
But as Fox news and Rush radio say "the rich made all the right choices."
I'll see you supply siders later,
Chad.
What the **** are you talking about? I was discussing simple math; how can a group paying $400 billion in income taxes get a $660 billion tax cut? ...and from that you come away with supply side economics?
What the **** are you talking about? I was discussing simple math; how can a group paying $400 billion in income taxes get a $660 billion tax cut? ...and from that you come away with supply side economics?
Since you appear to be very good at math, please answer this question,
How big of a tax cut was Mitt Romney, (actually) going to give to America's rich ??
Since you appear to be so good at math, please answer this question,
How much was Mitt Romney actually going to cut rich people's taxes ??
You posted the link, so don't ask me to explain the crap you believe in.
Define "the rich." The article says Romney would have cut taxes for "the rich" by $6.6 trillion.
The author of the article actually can't define who we are talking about here. He refers to them "the very wealthy" and "the extremely wealthy" and "the very rich" and "the very biggest, richest" and "the extremely wealthy." However, since he mentions "the extremely wealthy" twice, I guess he must be talking about them, so who are they, the top 0.1%?
Obama supporters don't have the financial education to understand the difference between wealth and high income. When Obama went after "the rich" he went after people who are high income, people who are unable to make moves like the rich. These are typically doctors, small business owners, etc while yes, they make more money they are not wealthy.
The truly rich (wealthy) understand that taxes will make you poor and they will adjust accordingly and that is why you hear of them paying less in taxes than a secretary.
Obama lied to the American people and grouped high income earners in with bankers and big corporations then used people who are not financially educated. He also used people who are jealous of others who are doing better. He used the financial illiterates and jealous for his class warfare to get more in tax revenue. He is still doing it.
By doing this, he hurt the little guy. He also made it harder for someone in the middle class to move up and achieve the American dream. The truly rich are getting richer under Obama.
You posted the link, so don't ask me to explain the crap you believe in.
Define "the rich." The article says Romney would have cut taxes for "the rich" by $6.6 trillion.
The author of the article actually can't define who we are talking about here. He refers to them "the very wealthy" and "the extremely wealthy" and "the very rich" and "the very biggest, richest" and "the extremely wealthy." However, since he mentions "the extremely wealthy" twice, I guess he must be talking about them, so who are they, the top 0.1%?
The following link gives some information about Romney's tax cuts.
A little perspective is in order, 0bama has shown us what "huge deficits and debt" look like, Reagan's debt was minor by comparison. Reagan's policies created wealth and prosperity, 0bama's policies are causing debt, despair and poverty.
It's always curious to me that progs and dems always play that "Clinton surpluses" card, as if they think responsible federal spending is vital, while at the same time reelecting 0bama, and doing all they can to ignore his wild and reckless spending. You can't have it both ways, unless you are a politically partisan hack with no principles.
Who did Obama inherit his deficits from ??
Clinton had surpluses, and he was paying down Americas national debt.
GW Bush turned Clintons surpluses into deficits and debt (with supply side tax cuts, and a unneeded Iraq war.)
Obama inherited GW Bush's deficits.
But today Obama is slowing down the debt growth caused by GW Bush. (See "Growth Rate, YoY" in the following source.)
You said "Reagan's policies created wealth and prosperity."
I concede that Reagan created prosperity for America's rich, by lowering their tax rates.
But can you explain how Reagan created wealth and prosperity, for poor and middle class Americans?
Then you speak of Obama's wild and reckless spending.
Can you explain Obama's spending, like I explain republican spending below ??
GW Bush added $2.5 trillion dollars to our national debt (with supply side tax cuts.)
GW Bush attacked Iraq in the name of Sept 11, when Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11.
(GW Bush wasted $800 billion dollars attacking Iraq for nothing.)
The above clearly shows $3.3 trillion dollars spent by GW bush.
Can you explain Obama's wild and reckless spending ??
The highest percentages of people on welfare and the groups with the highest consumption of social services money also just happen to be the same groups that make up Democrat voting blocks.
Blacks and Hispanics increasingly consume money from our welfare programs at higher rates than any other group in this country when you look at what percentage of the population they make up. Those same 2 groups continually vote for Democrat politicians who welcome their votes and promise them more social program money in return.
So lets agree on a few things, Do you agree that Blacks and Hispanics consume more social program money than any other groups based on percentage of population?
I have asked you to prove your point and you have yet to do so.
The majority of people on welfare are white women and white children, not blacks or Hispanics. whites overwhelmingly vote Republican, especially in the states with the highest percentage( and raw numbers) of welfare recipients.
So no, we cant agree on a few things because the few things you are saying are untrue.
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.
