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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
How many members feel that the brokers and bankers that bought and sold sub-prime mortgages, and made a fortune, and left the taxpaying holding the bill to "bail them out", deserve to keep the same tax rate as a small business owner, whose business makes $250,000, and works 90 hours a week?

The tax rate should go up for that first category that did not create a real product, did not add to the real GNP, but merely bled others dry.
The tax rate for those in the second category should not go up.

It is a very simple concept, and quite simple to implement.Unfortunately, those in the first category have the excess wealth to bribe Congress (excuse me, contribute to their campaigns and favorite "charities), while the second category are having a hard time paying the payrolls). Give tax breaks to small businesses that invest in equipment, and new employees, and soak the second category(or better yet, convict them of their crimes, and send them to jail).



I agree man, there is a sector that adds nothing a value to this country; schemes based upon slight of hand.
Unfortunately it appears that people cannot distinguish between business that is bad for the Economic health of America. Then the question is who are we to say what is a good business practice? Then we also need to ask how much of this will we take?

I just wish this redistribution motif would be examined - clearly it is working the opposite way it is supposed to




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Steam
Not another one of these threads...

What exactly do you guys consider "rich"???

How much do you have to make a year to be "rich"???

Do you think physicians and surgeons are "rich"???


I would say the over 250k/year definition that the government uses for the top 5% is a fine number. If you make more than 95% of the rest of the country, wouldnt you say that qualifies as "elite"? 250K/Year could buy you 3 nice small homes a year in a decent area and a decent car. Every year. Think about that...most people will never own their own home, or a new car at all.

Just because someone blows money as fast as they can earn does not mean they arent wealthy....it means they are living outside their means, even if their means are extraordinary. If you argue that is their right, well I think it is immoral to pay hundreds of dollars for suits, or buying ANOTHER car, or some more gold jewelry, when it is the second great depression in this country, and alot of people are losing their homes and families for lack of a few dollars.

I gather from your question that you are a physician or a doctor >.<


You are kidding right??

Do you honestly consider a whopping 5% of the population to be "Elite"????

That is about 16 million people!!!!

Are you telling me that anyone who makes over 250k is conspiring with the billionaire bankers to take over the world???

What type of BS is this??

I would call these people upper middle class but definitely NOT "Elite".

I don't know where YOU live but a salary of 250k isn't really that high here in the suburbs.

They will laugh in your face if you said that they where "Rich" let alone "Elite".

You definitely won't be able to buy 3 houses with that salary. Unless you plan on living in a inner city or rural area.

The reason I brought up physicians was that if you honestly think that your greedy doctor is one of the evil "Elites", then maybe next time you get in an accident or you are sick you will try to find someone else to save your life.


Seriously people use your .s for a change.

250k a year does NOT make you a member of the "Elite"

edit on 12-12-2010 by Steam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

You just summed up exactly what I had been trying to say in this thread.


The 'rich', according to Congress, are those making over either $250K or $1M a year for married couples, depending on which Democrat you choose to listen to. I fully support continued tax cuts for anyone below either of those categories. And remember that this is household income, not corporate taxes. I am not talking about corporate tax cuts... there should be none because there shouldn't be any taxes on domestic corporations! We can debate about multinationals... anyone who wants to reap the benefits of doing business in the USA without giving something back (jobs, economic benefits, etc.) should be taxed out of existence IMO... but that's another debate.

What I do not support is continuing tax cuts for those who are so wealthy that they have no concern for the country... and the reason I do not is simply because they have not stepped up to the plate to help out in recent years. Instead, these few individuals have moved their companies overseas, made poor investments through their companies and then asked for taxpayers to make it all better, profited by importing foreign products at slave-labor prices that have driven US companies out of business and created this lack of jobs, and generally created the very problem so many people are facing now. To provide them with any form of relief is to pat them on the . and say, "We won't hold you responsible for your actions."

That goes against the conservative ideal of personal responsibility, and the bailouts themselves went against not only the US Constitution, but every American ideal I can think of.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Yes indeed. But it is a much greater assumption that those that have none will spend it than those who already will. After all, give the poor coins, do they spend it. I don't think so. Perhaps the uneducated, but there are more middle class with money problems today. The rich who already have it, and are not saving and not investing due to the depression are more likely to invest. The greatest utility are rich uneducated people, for whom such people often put their money back in. Actors, etc.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



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


Yes.

Absolutely.

No doubt about it.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 

For those at the deepest end of the depression yes. For people like me, barely affected by it but putting away so that I continue to be barely affected by it, if I had just 10% more income, I would happily invest it. It's sad you are affected by it, this I assume by your statement, but I am not, I have not been affected by that which I was not part of.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
The Obama administration considers anyone who makes over 250,000/yr rich and does not want to give them a tax break right?
The problem with this logic is that these 'rich' people are running small businesses which employ most americans.
These people don't have 250,000/yr profits. It's all tied up into the business. If you don't reduce the tax burden either the price of the products which you buy will increase or they must fire people from the payroll.

Most of you here must stop with this class warfare garbage. Rich people are not the enemy. Have you ever got a job from a poor person? Large portions of rich people were once poor and sacrificed everything to start their own business. Now that they have been successful and employing people, you want to ruin everything by taxing them to death. Your logic is totally backwards.


Exactly, couldn't have said it any better.




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91

But it is a much greater assumption that those that have none will spend it than those who already will. After all, give the poor coins, do they spend it. I don't think so.

Please tell me I read this wrong...

Do you really believe there are people living in poverty, people in cold, dilapidated houses, people who are hungry, who would continue to live as such if they had a choice? No, they wouldn't! They will buy food, they will buy heaters, maybe they will even be able to repair their home... the last thing on someone's mind when they are in need is saving money!

The ones who will not return the benefit of a tax cut will be those who are not in need of anything. They will save the money, because they have everything they want already.

Yeah, I had to have read that wrong...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





To provide them with any form of relief is to pat them on the . and say, "We won't hold you responsible for your actions."

Yes, my good friend, and that is EXACTLY what the 2008-2009 bailouts did.
Excellent points in all of your posts on this thread. As usual, you have a perfect understanding of what should be done, and what is being done, and should not have been. We have been bailing out the wrong people. It started with NAFTA, the greatest betrayal of the American worker, in the history of this great country. That treaty was nothing short of TREASON.
Our government should bring those jobs back, or clear out, and make way for those of us who WILL bring those jobs back. We need to return to manufacturing goods in this country, decent goods, free of lead, contaminants, and free of Chinese slave labor. Congress has committed treason, and continues to commit treason, along with there corporate lobbyists, and corporate executives, who have bled this country and the American worker DRY. This treason has been committed by both parties. They are, in reality, co-conspirators in this treasonous act. It is time we take our country and our jobs back.It is TIME that Congress serve US, not the corporations, and their foreign agents.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Buying isn't investing. Also, tax cuts do not change how much you eat. Because if you are in that condition, chances are you don't own a house or something being taxed. Likelihood is that you are homeless.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

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 a. of most americans. if owning a business sucks so bad, go back to joining the zombie work force.


Lol... that isn't an exaggeration. At least not when you consider state tax, social security, medicare, etc. It ends up being a lot. But not having ever owned a business. I wouldn't expect you to know from personal experience.

I guess that's why you had to resort to hostility and making assumptions about my math skills in order to make an argument.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91

If we are talking about the economy, buying is investing.

Let's say you buy a new computer. You just paid money to the manufacturer, who hires people to assemble the unit as well as run customer support and sales. They paid money to the suppliers for the boards and case, both of which employ workers. They in turn pay for the chips, which are manufactured by companies which employ workers. They buy the raw materials (mostly sand in this case
) from companies who employ workers.

Every one of those workers who now has a job will buy food, electricity, items they want, go out once in a while on the town, etc. So they in turn create more business which creates jobs. That money you spent on that computer has helped employ literally hundreds of other people before all is said and done. It's not Wall Street, but it looks like a pretty big investment to me!

The problem we have today is that the people we are employing to make the chips and the boards do not live or buy things in the USA. They work for overseas countries, so their income is used to buy things there, not here. We get no benefit from their employment or their lifestyle spending. Why are all the products produced there instead of here? Because companies have moved there to get away form silly regulations that drive the cost of manufacturing so high they can't compete with those who do move!

Who made the decision to move these jobs overseas? Of course the Congress is to blame for making overseas companies so darn attractive, but the people who made the decision are the same people who you now say are the USA's best investment. The same people who received trillions of dollars from the taxpayers in the bailouts. The same people who, instead of allowing the US economy to benefit from their endeavors, are stripping the country of it's economic base and laying off thousands upon thousands of workers.

And you think they deserve a tax break? Really?

As to everyone not homeless having enough... open your eyes. Mortgage foreclosures are at an all-time high. Unemployment is through the roof. Where exactly are these people being unemployed and foreclosed upon getting their income to do all this spending? I personally know quite a few people who are changing their buying habits... buying less food, cheaper food, not eating out, using that old TV a few more years before buying a new one, even some having to cancel telephone service and cut back on heating! Few people are making repairs to their homes, meaning fewer contractors are staying afloat. That's fewer construction jobs. Fewer people are buying a new car, meaning fewer auto worker jobs. More people are making repairs at home, meaning less mechanic jobs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's happening with this pattern!

Put them back into a livable job and you will see them do the same thing they have already done... eat out more, buy a new car more often, fix their homes or even add onto them... they already did those things once, when they had money... but the money is gone now, and they simply can't. The people making more than $250K a year aren't affected like that... they still go out to eat, still buy new cars, still keep their homes repaired., and they will continue to do so even if the tax breaks are removed.

I suggest you take a couple of steps back and look around you... that bed of roses you seem to be seeing just got eaten by Japanese Beetles and all that's left is a bunch of dead stumps.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Investing insures innovation. Buying does not necessarily promote innovation. The product is produced until it is dead. And then the profits are used to innovate, as opposed to investment, which is a statement of... assurance that the people want you to continue.

tl;dr to the rest of your post. if you want the poor to be fed, than tax everyone the same percent, give tax breaks for innovative people, and the government should invest in companies that innovate more. It's as simple as that. It promotes more jobs and more money.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





than tax everyone the same percent,

That flat tax idea would be the death of the poor and lower middle class. The poor and lower middle class would be left with less disposable income, and end up paying much more than they pay now. The flat tax idea is being pushed by the very wealthy, as they would be the only beneficiaries of such a scheme. What would happen, is a vastly greater concentration of wealth in the very rich, to the point where they could economically choke everyone else to death. My God, people, think this through, before you buy this sick Republican idea!



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Don't see how. 10% of your worth for everyone. if the government needs more, sucks to be them. It stays that way.

Flat taxes makes all equal. 10% of a million is more than 10% of a thousand. 25% of a million is far too much more than 5% of a thousand. The only reason I could see the need for that is desperation by the government. Like I said, if the government needs more than 10%, sucks to be them. Can't see how the rich could try to choke the poor, and I for one would be more than happy to see the end of the lower class' existence and the promotion of just a procumer (producer-consumer) class and an administration class. That's all you need.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Don't see how. 10% of your worth for everyone. if the government needs more, sucks to be them. It stays that way. Flat taxes makes all equal. 10% of a million is more than 10% of a thousand. 25% of a million is far too much more than 5% of a thousand. The only reason I could see the need for that is desperation by the government. Like I said, if the government needs more than 10%, sucks to be them. Can't see how the rich could try to choke the poor, and I for one would be more than happy to see the end of the lower class' existence

I hesitate to even respond because of what you said, especially your comment that you would be more than happy to see the end of the lower class' existence.
Right now, our graduated system gives the lowest income levels a free pass, up to a point. Standard deductions, personal exemptions, and tax credits, such as the child tax credit, and poverty level credits, recognize that those lower income levels are barely making ends meet. Many of those people are hard workers, who just were unfortunate enough, not to be born with a silver spoon up their posterior. To add taxes to those people would be a great cruelty. Furthermore, when people are pushed past their level of endurance, you end up with episodes such as the French Revolution.
Your attitude of "let them eat cake", if it were enacted, might lead to a modern day equivalent of the Guillotine, and quite bluntly, I wouldn't blame them.
My God, have you NO COMPASSION?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Actually, no. I don't have much compassion when it comes to taxes. Set level. Now that said, you are talking about deductions. I am talking about the set level. Giving people a break for their kids getting good grades or a successful business overture is necessary for capitalism to flourish. However, I completely reject this helping mentality when it comes to those deductions. Having too many kids shouldn't be a reason to give a break. However, having kids that are smart should be. And I am willing to say that having mentally retarded kids also should be. Being a loser at managing your life should not be reward. However, a "lower class" business having a successful year should be.

Call it not having compassion, I call it common sense. If you are unwilling the make your life stop failing miserably, the government should not bail you out, except for the most basic rights to food and water.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91

Call it not having compassion, I call it common sense. If you are unwilling the make your life stop failing miserably, the government should not bail you out, except for the most basic rights to food and water.

Personally, I call it confusion.

We are having a discussion about the reality of the economy as it stands now; you are rambling about some sort of Utopian paradise that apparently only exists in your dreams. The moment you made the statement, "if the government needs more than 10%, sucks to be them", you exposed your lack of knowledge of how anything in the world of reality operates.

The government never asks for a donation... they take it. Whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with the amount is irrelevant. The penalties for not paying one's taxes are steep, and the IRS is very very good at getting blood from a turnip. So you can say "it sucks to be them" all you want, but when the government decides you owe more than you think you should... it sucks to be you.

You also appear completely clueless about how a free society works. What you are talking about is essentially a financial mandate to conform to the accepted mold of having 'intelligent' children and being 'innovative'. Please define intelligence. Is it the ability to learn mathematical concepts? The ability to perform intricate tasks? the ability to diagnose and troubleshoot problems? Perhaps a firm grasp of a particular language? Now please define 'innovative'... the dictionary defines innovative as

using or showing new methods, ideas, etc


So does that mean if I decide to try to power a car using gunpowder, an obviously new method of fueling an internal combustion engine, am I innovative and worthy of a tax break? It's a stupid idea, one that is shown as such by a number of engineering principles... but it is a new idea because we don't do it.

Your Utopia certainly appears interesting to say the least. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound very logical or realistic.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 

Yikes you are comparing taxes being stolen at the point of a gun to welfare ? this country is farther down the hole than even I thought no rational thinking individual with an IQ above room temperature would compare welfare to people keeping there own money that they earn .



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Intelligent is above a A in my book. Pretty simple.

If you want to talk about how things are, then F the lot of you and me. Because our desires are bot irrelevant. After all, like you said, we don't matter. This thread should not exist if we go with your definition of relevance.

The fact is that you would rather they do not give the tax cuts. I would rather they completely redesign it. We are both speculating our ideas to be better. If mine are further off than yours, it does not matter, because we are both not getting what we want. What I want is the government to confide to what my life demands, not for my life to confide to what the government defines. And no, its not utopia. It's pretty much Rome's system of ancient times. Worked pretty well, considering the government only worked to better the mob's desire, under a law of course, to control the mob from becoming a cancer. The system worked great until the leaders and people both decayed and it became impossible to get what either wanted. However, this is the modern world. And to memory, Rome was the last time a nation's government actually did what the people wanted and the last time the government was legitimately afraid of what would happen if they failed to do what the people wanted. Thus I feel this is far better than the vice versa that currently exists.

Now if Rome is a utopia, can't wait till I see heaven.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join