GOP Budget Proposal: Massive Tax Cut For Wealthy

Just one person's opinion(s)...

Why do people call it a "tax cut for the wealthy" when the tax percentage is higher for the wealthy than for the non-wealthy? Does it really make more sense to give the biggest percentage tax break for those making the least? I understand that the more money you make, the more money you should pay in taxes...agreed. However, why make it that the harder you work...the more educated you are...the more you employee other people...the larger you are penalized for your efforts?

Aren't we supposed to encourage the betterment of oneself, encourage the desire and reason for education and "hard work" rather than penalize those people? Maybe (at some level) it would be better to give the encouragement, tax-wise, to do better.

Example: I have two children. If one does more work around the house (chores) and therefore gets a bigger allowance, should I take a bigger percentage of "tax" from her than her sister? And...the big question...how do I verbally justify that?

I support an equal, across the board tax rate/percentage.

Why can't people REALIZE that the only way to pay for wars and economic crisis is to tax the people who are making more money to pay for it ?

How can you expect that the taxes from the lower income population is going to be able to pay for what our government needs to run without major support from the upper class who lives VERY comfortably?

If you look back through the history of the USA, you will see that every time, that the USA was in dire straights, the wealthiest in the US were taxed a lot more heavily than the people in lower tax brackets!

This is how we got through the hard times in the past, and this is how I think is the ONLY way that we will get through what we are going through now.

U.S. Tax System History 1900 to the End of WWII Read more: "U.S. Tax System History 1900 to the End of WWII: How the 16th Amendment Created a Permanent Income Tax Program" - modern-us-history.suite101.com...

Income Taxes and World War I
******SKIP******
The War Revenue Act of 1917 lowered exemptions and further increased tax rates. Taxpayers with $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and for individuals with income of $1.5 million, the tax rate was raised to 67 percent.

In 1918, tax rates were raised again with a bottom rate of 6 percent and a top rate of 77 percent. Although only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes at that time, the income was able to fund one-third of the cost of World War I.

Is it right, maybe NOT, but who can AFFORD it the most!

Come on now, somebody has to pay, and just because somebody doesn't make as much as somebody else doesn't make them "lazy", it just means they "maybe", they haven't had the same opportunities as somebody else!

To call somebody lazy, or to say that they don't work as much (hours) or as hard as somebobody who is making a lot more money is just BS!

The people who have the money, bottom line, are the ones who have to pay the most to keep our government going, you can't expect to take money from somebody who is only making $18,000 a year and expect HIM to pay the bills our government is running up!

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Keyhole]

Why not tax cuts for all be the slogan? TAX CUTS FOR ALL. no more government garbage, real change finally.

reply to post by drwizardphd


If you think this is what brought this country to its problems you are fairly mistaken...

I think "liberal" or "conservative" ideas could BOTH make a government wealthy, but each one needs the CORRECT type of government oversight, which the last administration failed miserably with.

But, if anything, I am on the middle of the scale and think an extreme of whatever is bad.

Still looking for numbers and details. I heard they didn't even number the pages! Why are the GOP so afraid of numbers? I mean come on they have a pretty picture of a windmill, but no numbers!

In other words this wasn't a budget plan just BS.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


At one time the Republicans honorably stood up for the shop keeper on Main street before Wall street started buying feed for its elephant...

At one time the Democrats honorably stood up for the worker laboring on farm or factory before Wall street started buying feed for its jackass...

Now both parties are little more than whores... still while I have no faith in the Democrats, I have less faith in the Republicans.

Originally posted by grover

Other than the tax proposal, however, the plan was absent any details.

More proof if any further was needed that the GOP has become totally clueless.

When are they going to realize that people just don't buy it anymore? Its the average Joe... the you and me that is hurting and needs tax relief... for someone for whom it would actually mean something as opposed to giving it to someone who probably wouldn't notice one way or the other... and still they expect us to buy the old, tired lie called tricked down economics.

You can only slash income i.e. taxes so far before the system begins to break down...

... Where the hell do these fools think the money for their earmarks and their favorite hobby, war comes from?

The Easter bunny?

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26-3-2009 by grover]

You're an absolute fool, if you think the average joe is going to get tax relief that is really going to fix things you have another thing coming. When someone is wealthy and they have more money to invest in their business or a company it does trickle down to the worker, they higher more people, give raises, ect. You make these people out to be horders and that couldl not be further from the truth. You're an idiot and have no entrepreneurial spirit, you're just an YES MAN who feels they have been picked on their whole life by rich people. During the BUSH tax cuts a guy invested in my business because he had extra cash and we went from 2 employees to 6 in less then a year!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate to call people names but some of your responses are just ridiculous.

reply to post by epete22


For someone who hates to call people names... you certainly went for it.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by grover]

I honestly hope this kicks the people who are busy bickering over party politics in the ass and wakes them up to the fact arguing one party to be better or worse is simply ridiculous. The country is lapsing into shock and they're trying to save their political careers, and I include good swaths of either party in there.

Given the responses here it seems that almost everyone is brainwashed with basic communist dogma with regards to class envy. Taxes all across the board for both the rich and the poor are way too high. High taxes are the real reason the common worker can not save and prosper.

In the 1950's a single wage earner could work at a factory or even a gas station and afford housing food and even a car for his family. The republican proposal moves in the right direction but not enough. The income tax should be repealed, tariffs increased, government dramatically decreased in size and possibly a modest sales tax introduced. We'd see a real economic boost if corporations and small businesses did not have to pay income tax. More jobs and higher wages would result.

Yes trickle down works! When Ronald Reagan lowered tax rates, the government ended up making an additional 1/2 a trillion dollars in tax revenue. How you may ask? The tax breaks created a booming economy that increased tax revenue. However the psycho-lib.s and the government educated socialists would prefer that the rich be taxed more even if it reduces government income and social programs. To them it is wrong for some people to have more than others, thus it is better for more to suffer as long as the wealthy are taken down a peg.

Originally posted by SevenThunders

Yes trickle down works! When Ronald Reagan lowered tax rates, the government ended up making an additional 1/2 a trillion dollars in tax revenue. How you may ask? The tax breaks created a booming economy that increased tax revenue. However the psycho-lib.s and the government educated socialists would prefer that the rich be taxed more even if it reduces government income and social programs. To them it is wrong for some people to have more than others, thus it is better for more to suffer as long as the wealthy are taken down a peg.

If trickle down works then why was the average Executive to Peon wages at a typical fortune 500 company 40:1 in 1980 but now is 500:1? Where was the trickle down? Why are all the jobs being sent over seas if trickle down works? The answer is trickle down doesnt work but innovation does. My answer is no income taxes for all but to say focusing tax breaks on one group is good then I say "Hahaha" and keep in mind Regan started this precedent of big deficit spending which we now live with today so I wouldnt be to quick to call him a saint.......

[edit on 29-3-2009 by mybigunit]

Anyone over 100k a year will get taxed more. There should be a tax bracket: r

lower than 100k
100k to 200k
200k to 500k
500k to 1m
1m to 10m
And anyone over 10m I believe should be taxed at least 50%.

This way it won't be as harming to small and growing business. Once you reach 10m forget it, you got ENOUGH! The only other thing you want after 10m a year is power.

reply to post by mybigunit


Trickle down works by improving the economic climate so that the rising tide lifts all boats. Yes the rich get richer but so what as long as the majority are prospering? Why are you so burning with envy?

It is actually in crappy heavy handed socialist and third world countries that you have big disparities between the rich and the poor. The poor are getting poorer because of government intervention and do not benefit from the current policies.

Finally Ronald Reagan did not create deficit spending. It was the democrats doing that since they controlled the house. In the same way it was not Clinton that gave us a budget surplus, it was house republicans working from the contract with America guidelines.

Eventually they were replaced by neo-cons, former democratic operatives who pretended to be conservatives and destroyed the Republican party from the inside. Yes most of the people you love to hate like Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle etc. were all LBJ spawned democratic operatives. This in part explains why Bush adopted all of the failed policies of LBJ including massive government debt and foreign intervention.

It is very discouraging and disappointing the sheer number of people who don't know basic economics.

They much rather chant the mantra of the evil of wealth, the ability of the wealthy to afford higher tax rates, and don't understand how the economics work.

For every dollar that is put into the economy, that same dollar will be spent several times in a fair economic condition. So to insert into the economy a trillion dollars, will actually have a seven or eight trillion dollar effect.

You can do this two ways. Increase the money supply, which makes all the dollars worth even less, due to inflation, or you can cut taxes, where each dollar holds its strength and yet is also now churning the economy be being spent several times.

Wealth is defined by the ability of a nation to accumulate capital. Russia, though large, advanced, with many natural resources is and will be unable to become a major financial group because they lack one thing: capital.

Wealthy folks who earn and save, provide capital that builds new industries, new equipment, provides money for loans, on and on.

For every dollar the government taxes, that's seven or eight dollars they just pulled out of the economy.

Wealthy folks make everyone more wealthy. Once you get past the envy part, you can begin to see how it works.

The more taxes you cut, the greater your economy, the more jobs, the higher pay for everyone, and the better and higher the standard of living.

My God.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by mybigunit

 

Trickle down works by improving the economic climate so that the rising tide lifts all boats. Yes the rich get richer but so what as long as the majority are prospering? Why are you so burning with envy?

Like in India or China right? Im sorry but the middle class creates a strong economy not the fact that there are super rich. The welfare that is provided in the form of subsidize and other tax breaks is unfair and really unaffordable for we as a nation are bankrupt. Id rather see more millionaires being created than billionaires and Im not talking the fake wealth we saw from 2003-2007. People like Henry Ford understood this and it was called Fordism which is a belief that if you pay your people hardy those same people would be the ones to come back and buy your products. We dont have that mindset now. The mindset now is get what you can get while you can get it and screw everyone else. There is no envy here just an understanding of history and economics.

Finally Ronald Reagan did not create deficit spending. It was the democrats doing that since they controlled the house. In the same way it was not Clinton that gave us a budget surplus, it was house republicans working from the contract with America guidelines.

Eventually they were replaced by neo-cons, former democratic operatives who pretended to be conservatives and destroyed the Republican party from the inside. Yes most of the people you love to hate like Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle etc. were all LBJ spawned democratic operatives. This in part explains why Bush adopted all of the failed policies of LBJ including massive government debt and foreign intervention.

Hahaha so when the Republicans controlled the congress it was Democrat presidents fault but when the Repbulicans controlled the presidency it was the Democratic house at fault...lol heres a notion for you its BOTH parties who love big government. The only difference is the Democrats dont hide it and make you pay for it with higher taxes. The Republicans including Regan give lower taxes but no smaller government creating large deficits. Example is the budget the Republicans just came out with they give tax breaks (Ok thats fine) but they dont cut any spending. Once again it is a precedent started by Regan see below chart...

www.lafn.org...

So yes it was Regan who started this notion that you can create huge deficits and the notion has been continued every since by both parties democratic and republican in all branches of the government.

reply to post by dooper


How can you cut taxes without cutting spending? This is the problem none of the two party crime family want to cut spending which leads to the huge deficits like we see now.

reply to post by mybigunit


I never suggested that you could cut taxes without cutting spending. The topic was more oriented toward "tax cuts for the wealthy," and so that is the primary portion I addressed.

Ideally, a government wouldn't allocate any funds for any purpose until the previous year's "take" and thus eliminate deficit spending altogether. Thus, we can only spend what we have.

However, all other things being equal, the country with the lowest taxes will not only experience an economic boom, but will draw business from abroad. Which creates more jobs. Which eliminates unemployment, which brings up real wages.

When the central government withdraws dollars from the economy, either through taxation, or borrowing, they kill the economy.

You are absolutely correct. The evil of deficit spending and taxation, for every dollar taxed or borrowed, costs the national economy an additional seven or eight dollars.

And that doesn't even begin to account for government inefficiency once they have the dollars they just pulled from the economy.

reply to post by dooper


And that my friends is the quagmire we find ourselves in. Im for no income taxes and just having excise taxes and small corporate taxes but abolish all individual income taxes. It cant be done when we are spending $2-3 trillion dollars a year however. They keep spending this money because the people arent making a stink about it however. This is why I wish they would raise taxes to 90%. If people actually had to pay for this big government we would see people rioting in the streets which would force government change. Sad thing is the government also knows this which is why it wont be done.....

reply to post by mybigunit

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by dooper

 

How can you cut taxes without cutting spending? This is the problem none of the two party crime family want to cut spending which leads to the huge deficits like we see now.

The paradox is, cutting taxes actually leads to increased tax revenues. That is a proven fact.

Up to a point, when you get diminishing returns. But I don't think we've ever reached that point.

Cutting spending should always be a goal and a priority, in good times or bad.

reply to post by jsobecky


Josbecky I give you a star for 4 words in your post...

up to a point...

Not all conservatives and/or Republicans are honest enough to add that cavaet.

I do fear however that we passed that point quite some time ago.