Where is the US economy headed?

@parados,

parados wrote:

The argument is whether the rich get more benefit from the government than the poor. Okie claimed they both get the same benefit when it comes to protecting assets.

To clarify what you do not seem to understand from my posts, here is what I claim.
I believe the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. In terms of life and liberty, the value of them should be equal, whether we are rich or poor, and I believe the rich pays far more than they should need to pay, if they were taxed proportionately according to the services rendered.

Besides life and liberty, the government has the role of protecting property. I have rightly pointed out that even though the higher income people usually own more property, it is also likely that they also pay at least that much more in taxes than they would need to pay if the tax was apportioned according to property. For example, the poor always own some property, but many pay absolutely no income tax, with some even being net tax recipients by receiving tax money back that they did not even pay in. I have also pointed out the obvious that the poor receive many benefits that the wealthy do not, in terms of property. I have pointed out so many obvious things, such as higher crime in low income areas, also the fact that the wealthy often live in gated communities with their own security, and even if they do not, they still often pay for their own security. It is not unusual for business owners, such as shopping malls, to pay for their own security service to protect their property, even though they already pay huge sums of tax for police protection.

Even though all of these points are totally logical, they all seem to fall on deaf ears here, in regard to any liberal actually being able to comprehend it.

2 Replies

@parados,

As a matter of fact, Obama signed a tax cut for the middle class in the stim bill. Waterboy doesn't even know current legislation when he makes his stupid, ignorant, statements.

1 Reply

@okie,

The just released draft document on the commission studying the deficit has an interesting chart.

It is the benefit on after tax income from tax expenditures.
The top 1% see a 14% INCREASE in their after tax income due to government spending. That is more than any other group. The bottom 20%, even with all their tax credits, only see a 7% increase in their income.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

CI, you're drowning in that blue Kool-Aid.

1 Reply

@parados,

Hey P, the entire health deform bill is a tax increase.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Your hallucinations must be caused from your medication that you took. Maybe it was just kool aide, who knows?

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Oh? And who paid more in taxes this year because of it?

0 Replies

@parados,

Do you consider him breaking a promise to lower or eliminate taxes any way equivalent to raising taxes?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/

Quote:

President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar.

It wasn't part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it's not part of any proposed legislation that we can find.

Today, on Tax Day, Obama gave a speech in which he talked about his other tax promises and how he wants to reshape the tax code to make it simple and more efficient. But he never mentioned his promise of curtailing the income tax for seniors.

The Obama administration has done other things for seniors. Thanks to the stimulus bill, for example, everyone who gets Social Security benefits will receive a $250 check from the government in May. But the bold promise to end taxes for seniors if they make less than $50,000 seems to be forgotten.

We asked the White House about it, but got no response. If this promise is ever revived, we'll revisit our ruling. But for now, this is a Promise Broken.

And here is one where he DID raise taxes, and broke his promise to not raise them...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/

Quote:

We were willing to give President Barack Obama a Compromise rating on this promise when a new cigarette tax went into effect. But the latest health care bill includes more broad-based taxes that are pushing us toward Promise Broken.

We should state at the outset that if you think Obama only meant he would not raise income taxes on people making less than $250,000, then you might think Obama is keeping his promise. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, and Obama said he would extend those tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. We still have that promise rated In the Works. People who make more than $250,000 will likely see their taxes go up, just as Obama promised during the campaign.

But Obama's campaign rhetoric took him beyond just income taxes. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama said. It's that "not any of your taxes" that is the sticking point.

1 Reply

CI and parasite have been trading meds again

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I don't see anything that has to do with the health care bill raising taxes MM.

2 Replies

@parados,

You didnt say the health care bill, at least not in the comment I was responding to.
You said...

Quote:

What Obama tax increase?
Please cite the legislation Obama signed that will raise taxes.

The example I posted was an example of him raising taxes, and of him refusing to eliminate taxes AFTER he promised to do so.

BTW, this is from the second link I posted, so you must not have read it...

Quote:

The health care law that Obama signed on March 23, 2010, raises taxes on some things regardless of income. Two taxes in particular stand out. A tax on indoor tanning services begins this year. And in 2014, people will have to pay a fine, levied through their income taxes, if they don't have health insurance. Neither of these taxes are pegged to income.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

It would be far better for the Dems, it is argued, to introduce legislation in the lame duck session to adopt tax cuts for those earning less than $250K.

rjb, I have a question for you, and for anyone for that matter, in regard to this whole matter of tax cuts. To set up the question, we know that low earners can receive money back as a net tax rebate, over and above any amount that they may have paid into the IRS. For example, a family of four that earns around 20 to 25K receives several thousand from the government each year. In fact, it has gotten to the point that about 40% or approaching 50% now, of the people of this country now pay absolutely no income tax at all. As already pointed out, many of those receive money back from the government.

Here is my question. If the government increases the rebates to low earners, should that be considered a "tax cut?" Do you consider it a tax cut? After all, nothing is being cut, it actually amounts to an increase in their rebates from the IRS. My point is that perhaps we need to re-define the terminology that is going on in the political world about taxes. In large part, I blame the mainstream media for not accurately reporting what is really going on with taxes. We desperately need a more accurate and honest media. Currently, the only place I get any details about this kind of stuff is in the alternate media. Anyway, what do you think, as a reasonable and honest Democrat?

I happen to think that we have now essentially used the IRS to become involved in a welfare program. Instead of collecting tax revenue, the IRS is now heavily involved in giving out money to low wage earners. I do not blame the Democrats entirely for this, in fact I think the Bush administration expanded this practice. That is what irritated me so highly about the libs accusing Bush of giving tax breaks for the rich, when in fact he was heavily involved with expanding tax credits for low wage earners, especially those with children. I haven't made up my mind whether I support this practice or not. In principle, it should not be a function of the IRS, but I also have relatives that benefit from this, and I also think people should be rewarded for working. At the same time, I recognize that this practice skews the natural wage scale competition out there in the market. I think there should be better ways to improve peoples financial situations.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, The IRS has no power to do anything on its own; they are legislated by congress with approval by the president. Whatever happens to the tax code up to now have been developed by both parties, and that includes the republicans.

What's your point?

1 Reply

@parados,

Being fined for non-compliance is the same as being taxed.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

You didnt say the health care bill, at least not in the comment I was responding to.
You said...

Quote:
What Obama tax increase?
Please cite the legislation Obama signed that will raise taxes.

My statement was directed to H20man about his comment. In context it was about his claim that the health care bill raised taxes.

1 Reply

@parados,

And I posted a link to Politifact that showed that the health care bill DID raise taxes on some things.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

That's a given; nobody can add 32 million more patients without raising taxes - unless you are a miracle worker.

However, it's not a good idea to just look at the tax increase; we already spend the most on health care - twice what other countries pay for universal health care - and we don't. The bigger issue is that health care costs are increasing while more people in our country goes without health insurance. If we don't increase taxes, that will only end up increasing our national debt that is already threatening our economy.

Doing nothing is not an option.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, The IRS has no power to do anything on its own; they are legislated by congress with approval by the president. Whatever happens to the tax code up to now have been developed by both parties, and that includes the republicans.
What's your point?

My point is that issues like taxes are not accurately and fully reported in the main stream media. My example was the low wage earners being reported as getting a tax cut, when in reality they perhaps did not pay any tax to begin with. In other words, how can you and why should you receive a tax cut when you pay no tax anyway?

I think the mainstream press has been guilty of mis-reporting budget decisions in the past. For example, if the Republicans froze spending of some bureaucracies, the Democrats and the press would call it a spending cut. They would use the "cut" terminology to try to convince people that children, old people, or the programs would suffer or starve, whatever. It would not even have to be a freeze, but raising spending less than they would like to raise them for some programs, they would call it a cut. I blame the press for not accurately portraying what was being done or debated in Congress. Terrible reporting in my opinion.

I think the same principle applies to the Democrat mantra of "tax breaks for the rich." Sure, anytime you lower tax rates slightly, it will be the people already paying most of the taxes that will more often receive the tax breaks. Unless you simply continue to use the IRS to give people money as sort of a welfare program, but that is not reducing the tax on low earners, it is actually giving them more money. I guess you could call it a negative tax? I do not think this is accurately reported or adequately explained by the mainstream press.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Why is that your brain always looks at the negative/criminal side of everything? That's the reason we have laws against them. There's not much more governments can do, unless you want them involved in your private life 100% of the time. If you want a police state to feel secure, you're living in the wrong country. Try North Korea.

Tax laws, as I've said before, have been developed through both republican and democratic administrations and congress; how or why the media fails is another issue, but you are using your personal, subjective, view in saying what you do.

You admire and listen to FOX News all the time; why don't you tell them they're not reporting everything you wish them to report?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Why is that your brain always looks at the negative/criminal side of everything?

I stated facts, ci, so quit your whinin about it. If you have evidence to refute what I said, go ahead. For example, if some people pay no tax or get a net tax rebate, is it accurate to say that they would receive a tax cut if we give them a bigger rebate? Yes or No? What is your opinion about this? I am genuinely curious. How would you report this in the press if you were an honest journalist?

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know