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.

 

Wouldn't Federal Tax Cuts to the wealthy really be a welfare benefit aimed at the wrong demographic

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
... and the bottom 47% pay nothing at all.


Of all the blatant misinformation in your post, this is the most easily disproven using common sense.

Everybody pays sales tax. Even if you are an illegal making $200 cash under the table a week, you are giving at least $10 of that to the government, depending where you live. Everything is taxed from cell phones to apples.

In addition to that, the lowest 47% are giving the federal government an interest free loan with their payroll taxes.
edit on 11-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon
To the OP from the title on down:

Your premise is seriously bent at such an early stage of this argument that it's no wonder you don't get it.

1. An extension of the current (and decade old) tax rate is NOT a CUT!
2. TAXES are dollars you EARN that the government TAKES.
3. WELFARE is DOLLARS you DIDN'T EARN that the government GIVES.
4. As for the "demographic", are you reintroducing class warfare or want redistribution based on frivolous spending?

Until you understand the definition of the terms you're using, reason will not work with you.

Once you think you got it start here: When the government runs out of our money it's because they spent too much, not because they didn't take enough!


This needs to be on a billboard every half mile across the united states.




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

On Thursday, the Republicans refused to sponsor funding for 9/11 first responders, many of whom are sick and dying. They refused to give them the aid they need until the Democrats allowed the tax cuts for the top 2%. Not the tax cuts for EVERYBODY, but just for the top 2%

www.silive.com...


First, I despise the use of one piece of legislation against the next. I do not condone any such actions. Sadly though, it is a practice that both the Republican and Democratic parties engage in. It is a shrewd form of compromise that isn't all that great.


So you support this? You agree with this? If not, how can you suport Republicans? Werent the Republicans the ones saying "Youre either with us or youre against us?" Republicans repeatedly prove themselves to be against us, and if you cant see that, then you are brainwashed.


You have projected an assumption upon me in attempts to prove that because I do not think like you, then I must be brainwashed. I trust no politician in any party. I reserve respect for those that choose and default towards liberty.

So one, I never laid claim that I am a Republican. Two, never said I agree with your above quotes and tactics.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 


I agree with you lostviking (into games?). The only problem with a VAT (Value Added Tax), or national sales tax, is that once it goes through the wringer of Washington and the army of lobby(ers?) it will look like swiss cheese.

There would be so many loopholes and exemptions it would loes its value. What we need is a way AROUND the useless politics.

We need a National Referendum.

Prop 1: Should we continue our current tax system, or simplify with VAT. There will be no exeptions allowed. None. You even gota pay tax on your casket. Well okay, maybe food, but thats it. Maybe food and medical. and maybe school stuff......sarcasm.......

It would be cool to get a check without any taxes taken out! Thats an extra $150 a week! $600 a month, $7800 a year.

Would be a bummer not to get the EIC though, it usually allows me to buy a car!



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


A little bit from someone who has alot, to someone who has very little, would mean more to that person than if the the person with very little were to give HALF his pittance to the people that are SWIMMING in it.

Not sure if you were being sarcastic, if so.....Peace.

If not......Peace.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Try owning a business. You'll be lucky if the government only takes away HALF of everything you make. Now try hiring new people with what you have left. It just doesn't work.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BobbinHood
 


That's right!

I think they used to teach this stuff in school, then they stopped. Bunch of marxists in the class room spreading blatant stupidity to the next generation.

Your name reminded me of another old story that's been stolen by the big gov't types...Robbin Hood.

Nowadays he "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" but in the real story the people were over taxed and couldn't survive. Robbin Hood banded together with like minded men and reclaimed the ill gotten gold from the greedy Tax Collectors to give it back to the people!



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

You have projected an assumption upon me in attempts to prove that because I do not think like you, then I must be brainwashed. I trust no politician in any party. I reserve respect for those that choose and default towards liberty.

So one, I never laid claim that I am a Republican. Two, never said I agree with your above quotes and tactics.


I see....so you are a Democrat that wants the top 2% to have a tax cut then? Because only one party takes ALL of their support from the "anti-tax" crowd, and from this thread, it looks like they are doing a good job pulling hte wool over everyones eyes.

How about attacking the meat of my other post as started to do previously when asking where i got my numbers, instead of telling us how non-partisan you are....
edit on 11-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobbinHood
Try owning a business. You'll be lucky if the government only takes away HALF of everything you make. Now try hiring new people with what you have left. It just doesn't work.


No one in America pays 50% of their money to taxes, so stop exaggerating. In fact, the richest pay about 35%...1/3 does not equal 1/2. If you are this bad at math, no wonder you cant grasp this concept.

So in the past 10 years of Bush tax cuts how many jobs has your business created? It had better be alot, if you expect us to give you more cuts now.

If you own a business, you are lightyears ahead of most americans. if owning a business sucks so bad, go back to joining the zombie work force.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I am sorry but as much as you just wish I were a Republican it just isn't true. I asked you about where the numbers came from because usually when people post statistics they provide a source of their conclusions. I wasn't attacking, just wanting to know so I have a baseline of where you are coming from.

Unfortunately you have decided to make this a Repub/Demo argument. So be it, but it looks like you are the one that is brainwashed and not I sir.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I am sorry but as much as you just wish I were a Republican it just isn't true. I asked you about where the numbers came from because usually when people post statistics they provide a source of their conclusions. I wasn't attacking, just wanting to know so I have a baseline of where you are coming from.

Unfortunately you have decided to make this a Repub/Demo argument. So be it, but it looks like you are the one that is brainwashed and not I sir.


I see. I am sorry for assuming.

Whom did you vote for this past election? Which party would you say best represents your views on taxes?
Is the source I posted good enough for you?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Please prove these 2 assertions using specific examples and citing Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitionality of social programs.



You want me to prove a negative?

There is no need to search SCOTUS cases, as I, just like you ( I assume) are perfectly capable of reading the Constitution on your own.

Article 1 Section 8 says nothing about Congress having the authority to waste taxpayer money on social assistance programs, or healthcare for that matter.

Do you really need someone to interpret something you are able to read and presumably understand?

Cutting enough (completely eradicating social programs and the like) would provide the funds to solve the financial problem these 2 idiotic wars have gotten us in to.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Please prove these 2 assertions using specific examples and citing Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitionality of social programs.



You want me to prove a negative?

There is no need to search SCOTUS cases, as I, just like you ( I assume) are perfectly capable of reading the Constitution on your own.

Article 1 Section 8 says nothing about Congress having the authority to waste taxpayer money on social assistance programs, or healthcare for that matter.

Do you really need someone to interpret something you are able to read and presumably understand?

Cutting enough (completely eradicating social programs and the like) would provide the funds to solve the financial problem these 2 idiotic wars have gotten us in to.



Actually, Im wondering if you actually read the Constitution, as in the preamble it calls on the Federal Government to "promote general welfare". It is known as "The General Welfare" clause. It gives Congress the power to levy taxes for things which all of society benefits.

en.wikipedia.org...


Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[13] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[14] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.


So are you able to read and presumably understand that? Whether you like it or not, you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I am unsure why you have taken such a hostile tone. We are discussing and debating the the pros/cons of the mislabeled 'tax cuts'; which they are not, it is an extension of current tax law.

Since I asked where the numbers came from, you have been throwing up straw-men and I am unsure why you have gone to this tactic. My best guess is you have a deep rooted animosity towards anyone that has been smart and wise with their choices and have accumulated savings, wealth and a skill that is in demand.

If you want background you can ask but just assuming because you feel people who are in favor of something you are not are brainwashed or wealthy.

The problem here is this is an attempt to continue to fund unsustainable debt spending. There are no major cuts in spending other than cutting the automatic budget increases. The politicians on both sides show no slowing down in reducing the size of Government so until then I am vehemently against any raises in taxes.

To answer your question. I abstained from voting. Everyone in my district and state senator candidates were all about maintaining political power and not about maximizing liberty. I casted a silent vote of no confidence.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


It's awful funny how your corporations become "fictional entities" when it comes to their responsibility to contribute their fair share of taxes but when it comes to political contributions, they instantly become "people" with all of their inalienable rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Adding It Up: How Much Tax Does A Taxpayer Pay?

Well actually it goes like this,

We pay payroll taxes that accounts for about 18.7% of income and all other taxes accounts for 5.4% of income.

Grant total, 24.0% or close to it.

www.npr.org...



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Well perhaps I was mistaken in my previous post when I assumed you would understand the Constitution by at least having a rudimentary knowledge of it.



Actually, Im wondering if you actually read the Constitution, as in the preamble it calls on the Federal Government to "promote general welfare". It is known as "The General Welfare" clause. It gives Congress the power to levy taxes for things which all of society benefits.


I assumed you would know (just like anyone with an actual understanding of the Constitution would) that the preamble is basically an introduction and does not convey any powers whatsoever to the federal government.

The text you should be arguing is the general welfare clause in Article 1 Section 8. Time after time, nitwits throw out the GW clause whenever they mistakenly believe it backs up their position. You are just another one on the list.

You obviously are incapable of discerning the difference between general vs individual.

General = benefits the nation as a whole.

Sending out a welfare check to someone doesnt benefit the nation, it alleviates individual suffering.

Whether you like it or not, I am correct. The founding fathers back up my argument.



If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison




"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson



Now, pay particular attention to the quote by Jefferson.

Do you see any specifically enumerated powers dealing with sending out public funds to people in the form of welfare? Healthcare?

No, you dont.

Whether you like it or not, you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by MMPI2
 


It's awful funny how your corporations become "fictional entities" when it comes to their responsibility to contribute their fair share of taxes but when it comes to political contributions, they instantly become "people" with all of their inalienable rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


i didn't say you had to like it.




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater


You obviously are incapable of discerning the difference between general vs individual.

General = benefits the nation as a whole.

Sending out a welfare check to someone doesnt benefit the nation, it alleviates individual suffering.

Whether you like it or not, I am correct. The founding fathers back up my argument.


Uh, well I linked you to a Supreme Court decision that decided that not only are social programs not unconstitutional, but that congress has the authority to levy taxes for the general welfare. As much as you dont like it, the view you raise has already been raised and defeated in the Supreme Court. Whatever Jefferson may have said or wanted, it is not law in the US.

See this is the problem with you people. You cant ever look at facts. Whenever facts are presented that thoroughly show that your beliefs are just plain dead wrong, you start obfuscating. Its like arguing with someone who believes and will argue to the death that the sky is green and grass is blue. Just keep making facts up and living in your fantasy world.
edit on 12-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I am unsure why you have taken such a hostile tone. We are discussing and debating the the pros/cons of the mislabeled 'tax cuts'; which they are not, it is an extension of current tax law.

Since I asked where the numbers came from, you have been throwing up straw-men and I am unsure why you have gone to this tactic. My best guess is you have a deep rooted animosity towards anyone that has been smart and wise with their choices and have accumulated savings, wealth and a skill that is in demand.


I have taken such a hostile tone because the people on this thread who approve of tax cuts to the rich continually lie, obfuscate, and alter facts to fit their agenda.

I have taken such a hostile tone because over and over i prove that the republicans care nothing about normal people. Then when I do that, all I hear about is how both parties are bad, and we should be working in a non-partisan way.

I have taken a hostile tone because in your post, you took an accustatory tone asking me to provide numbers. It was almost as if you couldnt believe the facts I posted and were just waiting to rip up whatever link I gave you.

I am taking a hostile tone because you accuse ME of putting up a straw man? After reading this thread, that is truly hilarious.

I have taken a hostile tone because you have the balls to feign indignance when I label you a republican, but you have no problem labeling me with "a deep rooted animosity towards anyone that has been smart and wise with their choices and have accumulated savings, wealth and a skill that is in demand."

Are you #ing kidding? Maybe think before wondering why someone is acting hostile to you when you treat people the way you do.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join