It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to Middle Class tax cuts

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Your failure to answer my question, simply by asking one of your own clearly suggests your lack of knowledge on the topic. Did you fail math? If the top 1% of the rich as you claim, pay the most of the nations taxes, how is it a burden to give a tax break for that contribution?

As an example to come down to your learning level:
If you someone pays a tough guy 10 bucks to beat the crap out of you, and i pay only 2 bucks for the same service, don't you think the guy who paid 10 bucks is gonna want some type of compensation?

Can you answer that simple question? A yes or no will suffice~




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
One last time, I will repeat that it is completely unfair to tax one American at a higher rate than another.


Why? Because you feel it is unfair? I feel it is not unfair.

I feel it is unfair for the richest segment of society to live the life of a king (literally) while 90% of our country is toiling to survive one more day. I feel that is very unfair. To get "rich", one must generally look for loopholes, and take advantage of the tax code. Its not like the richest among us are so intellectually or morally superior to anyone, they just manipulated the system the correct way at the correct time. So why should someone, as a manipulator of currencies, be allowed to use the tax code to their benefit for their business, then find a way to pay as little taxes as possible personally as well? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And before you say "OMG All business owners arent rich, they cant find loopholes, etc etc" we are talking about the top 2% here. The Wall St. bankers, the guys who own companies that keep sending jobs overseas. We (the taxpayer) just gave the bankers so much money in bailouts, that it literally dwarfs UE compensation. The banks were not going to fail...and if they were, thats capitalism, right? And now, you want these bankers to pay nothing, saying it is unfair for them to pay more. WTF is wrong with you?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Your failure to answer my question, simply by asking one of your own clearly suggests your lack of knowledge on the topic. Did you fail math? If the top 1% of the rich as you claim, pay the most of the nations taxes, how is it a burden to give a tax break for that contribution?

As an example to come down to your learning level:
If you someone pays a tough guy 10 bucks to beat the crap out of you, and i pay only 2 bucks for the same service, don't you think the guy who paid 10 bucks is gonna want some type of compensation?

Can you answer that simple question? A yes or no will suffice~


What happened, apples werent a good enough analogy, you have to resort to violence now? Very telling.

What sort of compensation? More crap kicked out of me? Each guy gets what they want. Maybe the guy only charges you $2 because he knows you cant afford $3, and making $2 is better than $0.

You make little sense to anyone except yourself, and maybe the one guy in this thread that agrees with you. Ive already answered your question multiple times, now you answer mine:

IF YOU WANT THE TOP 2% TO PAY LESS IN TAXES, WHO ARE YOU EXPECTING TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Since the "wealthy" pay the lions share of the taxes, they should be the first ones on the receiving end of any tax cuts.

Taxing someone more than others just because "they can afford it" is an offense to liberty.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


You do know the top 2% of the richest people in the US pay over 37% of the nations annual taxes grossed right?


Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Since the "wealthy" pay the lions share of the taxes, they should be the first ones on the receiving end of any tax cuts.

Taxing someone more than others just because "they can afford it" is an offense to liberty.


I want to show you how terrible this line of thinking is. In terms of financial wealth:

Top 1% own 42.9%. The top 20% (including that 1%) own 93% of the financial wealth in America. The bottom 80% (which most likely includes you and WTFOver) own 7% of all wealth in America...literally, the table scraps. This is not democracy, or capitalism, this is a runaway business train.

Let me put it an example you can understand:
Yourself, WTFOver, and MrBanker all work together. The total payroll for eveyone is $100. MrBanker gets paid $90. You and WTFOver each make $5. You pay 20% tax, you have $4 left, as does WTFOver. MrBanker pays 35%, so he has a little over $60 left over. I might add that you and WTFOver worked much harder, more physically demanding jobs than MrBanker. When you get home, all you can hear on FOXNEWS is about how great MrBanker is, and why you should help him pay less in taxes, but you pay more. You start to believe it, then argue that position. Welcome to your life.

So, although you and WTFover "only' paid $1 each, and MrBankers taxes paid dwarfs yours, that $1 meant ALOT to you and WTFOver. If MrBanker had to pay your dollar too, could he afford to live, and yet still allow you to have prosperity as well? Of course he could. If you have to pay more than that $1, how do you eat? What is "fair"?

edit on 9-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: clarity



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I never suggested that the top 2% should pay less....I'm simply suggesting that allowing the rich to keep some type of compensation, also known as a " tax break " is logical. And is fair. Especially when they supply the most to our nations taxes/burden.

What part of that concept don't you understand?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Since the "wealthy" pay the lions share of the taxes, they should be the first ones on the receiving end of any tax cuts.

Taxing someone more than others just because "they can afford it" is an offense to liberty.


Telling someone to pay more when they CANT afford it, and moreover cant afford it due to policies set by those who can afford it (outsourcing, bad pay rates), is a bigger affront to liberty in my book. See my above post.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I never suggested that the top 2% should pay less....I'm simply suggesting that allowing the rich to keep some type of compensation, also known as a " tax break " is logical. And is fair. Especially when they supply the most to our nations taxes/burden.

What part of that concept don't you understand?


What part of this dont YOU understand?

WE ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY.
SOMEONE HAS TO PAY.
IF THE RICHEST PAY LESS, THE LESS RICH PAY MORE. SIMPLE MATHEMATICS.

What part of this cant you grasp? The rich repeatedly reap "tax breaks" that the average person cannot get, and you are talking about fair?? /foreheadslap



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Which would further suggest tax breaks cuts across the board would it not?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Which would further suggest tax breaks cuts across the board would it not?


I think you mean budget cuts, not tax cuts. But then how is that fair? Our fathers got to live a nicer life with more government help than us, and paid less for it. Thats not fair.

In the 80s, Reagan (Yes, RONALD REAGAN, the Great Conservative) extended unemployment to 3 years because the economy sucked so bad and it eventually got back on track (although in a more business friendly envrionment than the previous 50 years, which continues to this day).

What are you going to cut? The military? Aid to Pakistan or Israel? Or do you want social cuts? Shut down Yellowstone and Mt Rushmore maybe? We can afford ALL of it, if we can get bankers and big business to stop ass ramming us for 2 minutes. Or as I mentioned before, if they didnt even stop but just used a little lube so it wouldnt hurt so bad.....
edit on 9-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


How about we cut everything not specifically authorized by the Constitution? No more foreign aid, no more ridiculous social assistance programs, end the laughable war on drugs, etc etc. End all that BS, and we can cut taxes across the board for everyone who actually pays them. (that would not include the low earners since they do not pay an income tax as it is. )



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


How about we cut everything not specifically authorized by the Constitution? No more foreign aid, no more ridiculous social assistance programs, end the laughable war on drugs, etc etc. End all that BS, and we can cut taxes across the board for everyone who actually pays them. (that would not include the low earners since they do not pay an income tax as it is. )


See, I agree with you here. We are starting to come to an area we can meet.
The problem with this is that we cant go back to 1776. It is just not possible. First off, the government is the largest employer in the nation. You are just going to cut everything, then no one has jobs? How is that going to work?

I approve of social programs...I would rather pay some money for people to be healthy and fed, rather then having hungry predatory eyes on my wallet, or having to risk contracting some black death ass disease if there was no public health or CDC.

So its not feasible to do what you are suggesting. As I said before, we have to find ways to work within the shackles of the system, because there is not going to be an overthrow, and there will be no revolution.
edit on 9-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 

There is no need to go back to the founding days.

Instead of supporting policies that force others to take part in those programs you support under the threat of violence, why not just send in extra come tax time? That way you can feel like you are helping people and I can still support the Constitution and not have a single dime of my money redistributed in the name of unconstitutional expenditures?

Giving the government more of our money has never proven beneficial, nor will it ever.
edit on 9-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
The economic ignorance here is appalling. I expect it among the government educated masses, but to see it here is disheartening. First of all the desire to soak the rich is immoral and basic class envy, promulgated by the communists and socialists who control the thought processes via media and education.

Second, historically tax cuts have tended to stimulate the economy resulting in INCREASED government revenue. That's right folks read it again. Tax cuts can INCREASE government revenue. Both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts caused the US government to take in more revenue due to increased economic activity. Look up the Laffer curve for the economic theory behind it.

Guess what happened when they increased capital gains taxes in order to punish the successful "rich" folks? Tax revenue decreased. Folks pulled their assets overseas and reduced investment here. This may come as a shock to you hopeless liberals, but we want people to get rich in America. That's right, it's good when people get rich, because they invest in local businesses and create jobs.

By the way the capital gains tax increase "anomaly" was explained to a campaigning Obama. What was his response? He didn't care if it reduced government income, he just wanted to make the rich suffer! That's the marxist mentality that destroys nations. That's the thinking that caused the socialists in Argentina to seize everyone's savings, a proposal that the psychotic democrats have been entertaining here in the US. How'd that turn out for Argentina? They went from one the worlds most prosperous nations to a banana republic. Unfortunately we have a critical mass of leftist stupidity here, that has probably doomed our nation and will eventually result in it's destruction.

By the way the proposed tax bill is not about reducing taxes at all. It will simply keep them the same. Without it we will see a HUGE tax increase that will further erode and destroy our economy. But that was the plan all along wasn't it?


ST~



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Actually, the unemployment numbers were relatively steady for the first eight years, following the tax cuts.

2001 4.7 %
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 www.bls.gov...

Then, in 2008, the political climate changed. It became apparent the Democrats would take control of the executive branch, in addition to the already controlled Congress. Also apparent, was the intent of the Democrats to enact legislation that would be extremely detrimental to the job creators; namely, "health care" reform and tax increases. The result,

2009 9.3 %
2010 9.8

I know there were other contributing factors, but I believe those circumstances to have had the greatest negative effect.


I was just skimming through the thread, and when I read this I couldn't believe it. Is this guy actually claiming that the primary cause of the dramatic 2009 increase in unemployment was the threat of Democratic legislation? That the whole recession thing was just a "contributing factor" to the job loss? The Dems hadn't even passed anything yet, but their intent to do so caused an immediate doubling in unemployment? Forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but is that really what this says here? I must be mistaken.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded

....
ST~


Who is ST~ and where did you copy that from? Because it sounds nothing like what you have written so far. Are you just searching the internet to copy and paste stuff you think sounds smart?

You talk about economic ignorance...but you dont have an answer for me still.

Nor have you commented on the fact that the top 20% owns 93% of all the wealth.

I dont expect you to.
edit on 9-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Is that all you got out of that? You lack the ability to conjure up a productive response so you identify something you know nothing about? how lame are you...you have just proven to other readers, you lack the intellect to carry on a debate. Go back to re-runs of sesame street, leave the important stuff for us big boys~



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Is that all you got out of that? You lack the ability to conjure up a productive response so you identify something you know nothing about? how lame are you...you have just proven to other readers, you lack the intellect to carry on a debate. Go back to re-runs of sesame street, leave the important stuff for us big boys~


Im done arguing with you...you are either a troll, or you cannot do anything other than post the same stuff over and over, and act shocked when I call you out on it.

And you still dont have the balls to answer my question.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Apparently ignorance is bliss for ya~



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Why? Because you feel it is unfair? I feel it is not unfair.


How I "feel" about anything makes no difference. Liberals, on the other hand, can't leave emotions out of anything.

As far as your question, which you have repeated ad nauseum and I have answered multiple times (and I fully expect you to ignore, once again)...... The answer is to cut spending.


WTF is wrong with you?


Thanks for playing, but since you chose to take this path, I will leave you to your little fantasy class war, eat the rich, pity party.

Happy ATSing!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join