"Tax cuts pay for themselves" DEBUNKED (by Bush Sr.)

reply to post by Xtrozero

Actually no, you don't have to pay taxes to get a tax credit. People with no taxable income can receive tax credits.

But you don't get tax credits for new cars, and homes, or business expenses . Interest payed on a mortgage for a home is a deductible expense and depreciation expense can be claimed on business property. But those are not tax credits.

[edit on 7/21/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Actually no, you don't have to pay taxes to get a tax credit. People with no taxable income can receive tax credits.

But you don't get tax credits for new cars, and homes, or business expenses . Interest payed on a mortgage for a home is a deductible expense and depreciation expense can be claimed on business property. But those are not tax credits.

[edit on 7/21/2010 by Phage]

True, I was thinking of the 8k people were getting for buying a house, but I'm assuming the reply to my post was assuming deductions as a credit since he was suggesting that people with a higher income get tax credits that lower income do not get, and I could only think of deductions that may fit that bill.

reply to post by Xtrozero

The 8K credit was for first home buyers (6.5 for others). I forgot about that but it's expired and really wasn't aimed at the upper crust anyway.


[edit on 7/21/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Xtrozero


You may be far from rich as you claim, but, what I would give to have the honor of paying 50 to 75k a year in taxes. That tax bill alone is more than 71.9% of the country earn all year. Don't even try to play the "Oh woe is me and my tax burden" crap. If you are paying that much in taxes, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out what you take home. You are living the good life many times over and so I trust you won't be complaining, yea?

[edit on 21-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip


You may be far from rich as you claim, but, what I would give to have the honor of paying 50 to 75k a year in taxes. That tax bill alone is more than 71.9% of the country earn all year. Don't even try to play the "Oh woe is me and my tax burden" crap. If you are paying that much in taxes, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out what you take home. You are living the good life many times over and so I trust you won't be complaining, yea?

[edit on 21-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

To be honest I live in a bigger house than most, and drive a 35k car. My other two cars are 10 years old. When I go shopping for food I buy what I want to eat and shop at Ross and other like stores for my clothing and stuff. I'm able to take my family on vacation about once a year. (just got back from FL), and my two kids are able to play any sport they want or join any club, but they go to a good public school.

Most likely my advantage is I'm able to build my retirement fund and save for my kids college. These two things alone is really what separates me from what you conceder the masses. You would be amazed though how some retirement saving, college and taxes can easily eat up 140k of my earnings in a blink of an eye.

The other thing that separates me from most is I have little worries without CC credit building up like many do, oh I also smoke nice cigars and drink good scotch.

All in all I'm doing fine, but not really noticeable from your average Joe.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

The 8K credit was for first home buyers (6.5 for others). I forgot about that but it's expired and really wasn't aimed at the upper crust anyway.


[edit on 7/21/2010 by Phage]

Yep just moved into a new house and I didn't qualifiy for either, but I did get 4.5% 30 year fixed, hehe...

I'm still trying to figure out all these tax credits the upper 20% get so I can get mine.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
by the way, from the Yahoo article:


The economist writing the Yahoo article is a Keynesian, so he doesn't get the resource allocation problem.

Keynesians get the resource allocation problem.

The worst resource allocation problem on the planet is unemployment: humans eating food and consuming fuel and NOT producing anything valuable.

Actual authentic Keynesian economists favor deficit spending in recessionary periods and surpluses in expansionary periods. It's the 2nd part which is the problem, no politician wants to do that.

In expansionary times then yes government spending is usually less wise than private spending when there is competition for resources and employment. But in the present situation----with 10% nominal (and more like 15-20% real) unemployment, that isn't the issue in the slightest.

Human activity and the products thereof are more important than money.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
If you progressively stopped taxing the wealthy — the more you earn, the less tax you pay — it would reinvigorate the economy like nothing that has gone before. People wouldn't FEAR becoming wealthy and would strive to climb the economic ladder to tax-free status.

What? You say that would wreck America? Why?

Oh, because you're acknowledging that the wealthy ALREADY carry the overwhelming burden of income tax in America, and that they are ALREADY supporting the Middle and Lower classes, which is undeniable FACT. The wealthy are the economic engine of America.

Tax cuts and rebates do work, providing a much needed influx of cash back into the economy — because the Middle and Lower classes spend their rebates immediately.

— Doc Velocity

I don't think that would lead to reinvigorating the economy like nothing we have seen before. I also don't think that anyone is afraid to be wealthier, or to earn more because this means that they will have to pay increased taxes.

There is a problem with tax cuts and rebates in times of economic uncertainty. People receiving these (who don't need to spend it immediately on needs) tend to save the money received in order to have extra security in the future. Just curious, but would you be opposed to another form of injecting cash into the economy--increasing government expenditure?