BS: Rich tax cuts?

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 05:20 AM

Can't have the poor being left out, the tracksuit bottomed, baby buggy pushing hoards would be the first to moan!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Lox
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 04:50 AM

Its the same here in the UK.

"Save the bankers!" - was the war cry ...

Now its - "the poor wil just have to tighten their belts like the rest of us ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: GUEST,marks(on the road)
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:58 AM

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. What really is at issue is a tax rate increase over the rates in place today, so I guess we ought to really debate the virtue of taking more money away from the affected taxpayers.

Oh, and how is it a cost to the nation if government decides to not take more of some peoples money away from them?

I'm not affected one way or the other (wish I was!) Just trying to understand the positions of some of the folks here.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 10:28 PM

Just to point out that someone earning $1M would NOT have his entire earned income taxed at a higher rate. S/he'd get a break on the first quarter million, pay 33% on the next $125,000 and be hit with the highest rate on the last $625,000.

Obviously this could wreck the economy.....look at what happened under Clinton. Or Eisenhower. Or Truman.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 05:46 PM

What you want to do is check the tax rates during the Eisenhower administration, when the economy of the ol' U S of A experienced the greatest growth in its history.

Gimmie a fu$king break.

No facts need apply in the current political climate.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 05:13 PM

Erm........Caesar!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 11:37 AM

This recent article by NPR on the history of tax rates for the wealthy was quite enlightening: Taxing The Wealthy: A Historian's Perspective. The wartime (WWII) tax rates of over 90% carried on to the early 60s... makes the current possible increase look puny:

"If the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans is allowed to expire, those households making over $250,000 would see their income tax rate rise from 33 percent to 36 percent and those making upwards of $375,000 would go from a 35 percent rate to 39.6 percent."

People who worry about the effect on "small business" are showing they don't have the accounting skills to talk about it. A business with an adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 is not a business with any worries (except that maybe they're not tracking expenses properly).

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 09:36 AM

Trickle down economics is when the rich piss down our leg and tell us it's lemonade. The problem is that too many people really think it is lemonade...or tea.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: kendall
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 06:52 AM

Definition of Trickle down:

To feed the birds you simply feed the horses.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 01:22 AM

Master, should we pay taxes to Ceaser?

Whose head is on this coin?

Ceaser.

Render unto Ceaser, that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's.

No more, no less.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 01:15 AM

Those who have been screwed know exactly what the 'trickle down effect' is ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 10:43 PM

The top 1% went from owning 8% of the nation's wealth in 1980 to owning 25% now. Nothing trickled down; it trickled up. Let's get rid of the lie of trickle-down economics. As Bush père said quite accurately, it's voodoo economics.

We need to tax the rich MORE not LESS. Reagan and subsequent Republican administrations (and Republican-lite™ administrations like Clinton's) have progressively shifted the tax burden to the lower income levels. Why? Well, the reason given was that it would trickle down and everybody else's boat would be raised as well. We now see that this was a lie, and it didn't happen. Why do they still pretend it will?

And why doesn't their oh-so-precious concern about the deficit not kick into gear when considering the multi gazillion dollars that is lost every year by not taxing the rich properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 10:27 PM

Q- nobody's arguing about the cut for under-$250,000 earners; the GOP is insisting that this can't happen without continuing the cut for the over-$250,000 ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 04:39 PM

The tax break included all below $250,000 in income, and it was very helpful for those making $50-100,000 as well. Thus important to small business.
It should be retained.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 12:15 PM

The average income of the rich is in the the 6 to 8 million dollars a year.
The average tax break fo this 3% of the population amounts roughly to $100,000.

The cost to the nation is $700 BILLION over 10 years - but since it will be paid with borrowed money the interest brings this amount to well over a trillion.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 12:10 PM

The odd thing is that the much-discussed repeal of tax cuts for those earning over a quarter million per year would amount to a staggering increase of the tax rate (of earnings over $250,000) from 34% to 38%.

Subject: RE: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 07:14 AM

What trick?

Subject: BS: Rich tax cuts?
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 12:48 AM

http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/don/please-help.jpg

Is this Trick all down theory again?