Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Uh, isn't October the first month in the new fiscal year? Isn't it the only month that has been counted yet? The last fiscal year did end at the end of September, no?




posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 





Are YOU claiming the US governement adds 120B a month to the deficit?


How do you think we've managed to come up with $1.2 - $1.3 TRILLION DEFICITS each fiscal year for the last four years?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Your 9 year tax increase on the “rich” comes out to 1 trillion dollars total right? Then you say what’s larger 1 trillion or 120 billion. Your 120 billion dollar number comes from the month of Octobers defect. If you divide your 1 trillion extra tax money number by 108, because there is 108 months in 9 years, it comes out to 9.2 billion. Your point is flawed because your comparing 9 years of extra taxes on the rich to one month of defects. Of course 9 years of taxing the “rich” more will be larger than 1 month of defects.

Point in case OP is right as usual!

Your post is not comparing apples to apples.

Its a typical tactic the left uses, they compare 10 years of numbers to make it larger then it really is. So when ever you hear the POTUS talk about taxes, its always in a 10 year time span unless otherwise noted. thats why your wrong lonlostbrother

edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


read through this thread and can say that the OP has lost the argument. Funny, he seems to always lose the argument! Sounding more and more like a GOP plant trying to spread dis-info. Better check in with your sponsors OP, the GOP is shifting its position on this issue and they are moving away from you.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


Do you care to even explain how you figure that the original poster has lost the argument?

I say you automatically lose when you can't even provide an explanation.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by xuenchen
 


read through this thread and can say that the OP has lost the argument. Funny, he seems to always lose the argument! Sounding more and more like a GOP plant trying to spread dis-info. Better check in with your sponsors OP, the GOP is shifting its position on this issue and they are moving away from you.


you must have not read my post above yours then. OP is right based on month to month comparison
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit,


The current administration knoiws this but doesn't care, and those who support it doesn't care the only thing they care about is making those evil rich pay.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Ok, say i am running a business that turns millions in profit and I usually draw most of that as my income. Once the tax cuts expire that income would be taxed at a higher rate after say $2 milion a year. In that case it would make more sense as a business man to not pull those funds as personal income but reinvest it back into my company in order to avoid the additional taxes. That would have the effect of growing my business through research and development, or increased advertising, or maybe I could exploit tax incentives for employee benefits to avoid those taxes. That last one could be better healthcare, or higher wages, you name it. That would in turn put more expendable income in the hands of people who are most likely to spend it. Our economy needs that in order to grow. The ultra rich do not spen any of the money they save on tax cuts, they just move it to oversees bank accounts. That money is removed from our economy and rarely makes it back. Let the rich pay the tax, they use most of the resources. They use our police departments to protect their businesses, our courts to enforce contracts, our military to protect their shipping lanes and international investments. In return for all that and more, they hide their money, avoid taxes, and tell us that it is our fault and it is our patriotic duty to pay our taxes, and die in their wars. .



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by borracho
Ok, say i am running a business that turns millions in profit and I usually draw most of that as my income. Once the tax cuts expire that income would be taxed at a higher rate after say $2 milion a year. In that case it would make more sense as a business man to not pull those funds as personal income but reinvest it back into my company in order to avoid the additional taxes. That would have the effect of growing my business through research and development, or increased advertising, or maybe I could exploit tax incentives for employee benefits to avoid those taxes. That last one could be better healthcare, or higher wages, you name it. That would in turn put more expendable income in the hands of people who are most likely to spend it. Our economy needs that in order to grow. The ultra rich do not spen any of the money they save on tax cuts, they just move it to oversees bank accounts. That money is removed from our economy and rarely makes it back. Let the rich pay the tax, they use most of the resources. They use our police departments to protect their businesses, our courts to enforce contracts, our military to protect their shipping lanes and international investments. In return for all that and more, they hide their money, avoid taxes, and tell us that it is our fault and it is our patriotic duty to pay our taxes, and die in their wars. .


1). Someone making over 250K is not "super rich." or even "rich" and they have to go to work everyday to maintain that 250k, so let's cut the baloney and call it what it really is: taxes on the upper wage earners.

2). Lower taxes equals more disposable income which equals more money in the economy. Taxationactually removes money from the economy. The more taxation, the more money is removed from the economy,.

3). You claim that all of the "wealthy" people do not put the money they save in taxes back into the economy but move it to offshore accounts to save it form taxes. Do you see how circular that arguement is? Think about it.

Regardless, just for the sake of arguement, if all of these wealthy people and companies are fighting hand and tooth to save their money from the government, does it cross a person's mind for a second that the problem might just be with our crappy and unjust tax code? Perhaps, intead of trying to fiscally rape our fellow citizens even more, we should be thinking about removing the income tax alltogether.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

You know what is odd about this? I could have sworn these very forums were pretty well in agreement on things like the general unfair state of our tax code to all and on principle. In fact, I know some of the folks making the loudest arguments today have made arguments in the other direction and more recently than would be polite to remind some.

It only seems to be after taking the class war to open battle became an imperative and making economic war on our fellow individual citizens became the over-riding goal that MUCH of this turned from being things we all agreed had to change to things suddenly protected fiercely and almost fanatically.

It's been something to watch. Obama has managed to make protecting him personally, a mission to cover the ENTIRE Government. I don't know how that happened exactly....but any comments now about almost any area of Federal Government are taken as a direct attack against him personally, as a man and responded to by his fans with all the viciousness that would actually call for, if it HAD been personal. It's the damnedest thing I think I've ever seen play out.
edit on 15-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Increasing taxes to make money is the method of uncreative and dull people. There are many more ways to make money. The Government could invest in real estate and land for instance and rent it out. Or it collect some of the loans its given to other countries. Or it could cut down on foreign intervention. Government itself is always notoriously broke.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I completely agree with removing income tax altogether. Now as far as those earning 250k a year, I never mentioned them, please re read what I posted. I was talking about those that earn 2 million or more a year. What would you recomend in place of income tax as a means of finaces for the government?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Who expects to pay the deficit with expiring the Bush cuts for the wealthy?

Your entire thread is based on a premise that doesn't exist.

Did Obama say that this will erase the deficit and I missed it? Did Harry Reid say it and I missed it?

Perhaps the president would like the cuts to expire for the wealthy so that more of the burden would be taken off the largest consuming group in the country? The group that our economy revolves around. The middle class.
You know, the one's beneathe you because they fly coach. The ones who swing hammers for a living or fix your roof.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Who expects to pay the deficit with expiring the Bush cuts for the wealthy?

Your entire thread is based on a premise that doesn't exist.

Did Obama say that this will erase the deficit and I missed it? Did Harry Reid say it and I missed it?

Perhaps the president would like the cuts to expire for the wealthy so that more of the burden would be taken off the largest consuming group in the country? The group that our economy revolves around. The middle class.
You know, the one's beneathe you because they fly coach. The ones who swing hammers for a living or fix your roof.


hummm ok, so how does taxing the rich make this economy better? And dont give me the better roads and bridges BS because thats all america has been to since late 2008 with the stimulus plan.

How does taxing the "rich" take the burden off the middle class? whats the burden? how is my life better with taxing the rich more? As i see it, if they dont pass anything in the next 6 weeks, all our taxes are going up. best case is the "middle class" taxes stay the same so whats this burden?

These talking points have never really been explained to me yet and how they work.
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The wealthy pay 30%

Now I do not have to pay 35%

Now I can afford to better educate my son and buy more groceries.


The wealthy entitlements have not created jobs. It's been proven non effective. No more debate is even necessary.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by xuenchen
 





Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit,


The current administration knoiws this but doesn't care, and those who support it doesn't care the only thing they care about is making those evil rich pay.


Well yeah. However, it will likely happen just because of what we've see in this thread. What they may try next when that doesn't solve everything will be an interesting question.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The wealthy pay 30%

Now I do not have to pay 35%

Now I can afford to better educate my son and buy more groceries.


The wealthy entitlements have not created jobs. It's been proven non effective. No more debate is even necessary.


um.... top tax braket right now is 35%

if your middle class your tax braket is at 25% or 28% depending on your income. they already pay more then you.

Using your logic, lower the riches tax braket and they too can now buy more groceries and goods..or are they too rich and it doesnt work that way?


edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


What happens next is they keep trying to raise the rates on them.

39% not good enough 49% not good enough 59% still not good enough even tho they are still paying state income taxes, and every other tax,

It is a never ending cycle, each tax hike puts people out of work which means more tax needed more people added to those programs which means more tax needed.

Rinse and repeat until there is no one left.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   


The wealthy entitlements have not created jobs. It's been proven non effective. No more debate is even necessary.


Social programs have not created jobs no debate is necessary taxation is nothing but wealth destruction.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The wealthy pay 30%

Now I do not have to pay 35%

Now I can afford to better educate my son and buy more groceries.


The wealthy entitlements have not created jobs. It's been proven non effective. No more debate is even necessary.


um.... top tax braket right now is 35%

if your middle class your tax braket is at 25% or 28% depending on your income. they already pay more then you.

Using your logic, lower the riches tax braket and they too can now buy more groceries and goods..or are they too rich and it doesnt work that way?


edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Most top 5% hire good lawyers and accounts and get their liability reduced down to around 15-18%





top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join