Are you for or against the Obama middle class tax cuts?

[cawacko]

I don't think that's really a fair assessment. What is aggravating is that even though our taxation system is at historically low levels for the wealthy and is becoming more and more regressive while at the same time income disparities are becoming larger and larger we here the same old lame shit from those of the far right.

We have a budget deficit, how do we fix it? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
We are in a recession, how do we stimulate the economy? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
Unemployment is high, how to we stimulate jobs growth? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
We have a huge trade deficit, how do we balance it? "tax cuts for the wealthy"
Aunt Petunia has inflammed hemaroids, how do we cure them? "tax cuts for the wealthy"

It's become a brain dead religious mantra from the right, particularly in the light of the evidence from nearly 30 years of regressive tax cuts for higher income Americans that the tax cuts have not accomplished what they have claimed they would. What they have done is created a huge income disparity between the mega wealthy and the working classes who struggle to maintain a middle class life style and combined with the grossly irresponsible military spending, have created a vast amount of public debt.

Now I'm no partisan democrat but between the blatant economic class warfare of the right wing combined with it's alliance to brain dead reactionary social conservatives I'm not only convinced that the Republican party is incapable of governing affectively but does so dangerously.

Now that doesn't mean I'm giving welfare state liberals of the Demoractic party a pass. Fuck them, they need to get their hands out of my pockets.

But that doesn't change the fact at how appalled I am at the cancer that is destroying the Republican party.

Well considering that almost all Republicans and a good handful of Democrats would like all the 2001 tax cuts extended I'm don't know that it is only a 'far right' position to hold those beliefs unless of course one comes from the far left where even conservative Democrats look far right.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

My daughter has decided to delay her management advancement to help her current boss through the tough times. I was very proud of her for her decision. I think it will be s decision that will benefit her in the long run. I know her boss is very grateful.

Unfortunately my experience in being a team player like that has been negative. They love you if will you selflessly help them. As soon as they turn the corner it's "Fuck you!". Don't be surprised if that happens. I did what she did once. I didn't make the same mistake a second time. The next time an employer gave me a song and dance to help them through the tough times I took a job with another company. The company I left subsequently went belly up owing half their employees about a months wages.

 

[Phantasmal]

Unfortunately my experience in being a team player like that has been negative. They love you if will you selflessly help them. As soon as they turn the corner it's "Fuck you!". Don't be surprised if that happens. I did what she did once. I didn't make the same mistake a second time. The next time an employer gave me a song and dance to help them through the tough times I took a job with another company. The company I left subsequently went belly up owing half their employees about a months wages.

Oh, I hope for her it works out, but I worried about this, too! I just have hope for her and she also loves her job! I think that is what helped her make the decision. She has a sure thing now and can always advance, later.

 

[Good Luck]

That is correct but with the increase in taxes were talking about, even at the highest income brackets, you're talking less then 1% of operating cost. As Apple pointed out, it's not going to be the most important of the factors considered, though you to are right that it is certainly a factor, though a very small one.

WHOOSH! Right over their heads.

It's not an operating cost factor. It's a "Will other people buy enough from us to justify more employees" factor. Higher taxes means less spendable capital. Less spendable capital means businesses sell less - to each other and to JQ Public. When businesses sell less, they are not going to hire anyone because there is no reason to. Businesses, no matter what the type, hire more people when they anticipate needing those people to produce MORE of whatever type product the business is selling. Conversely, if the business is NOT anticipating increased sales, they are NOT going to hire anyone because there is no need for expanded capability. And on the back end, if a business is experiencing falling sales, they will let people go according to the decreased demand for labor.

It has NOTHING to do with how much more the taxes will cost the business. It has EVERYTHING to do with how much the business is expecting to sell next month. And when taxes take money out of people's pockets, the people buy less, which means businesses SELL less, and thus they HIRE less.

 

[Good Luck]

I don't think that's really a fair assessment. What is aggravating is that even though our taxation system is at historically low levels for the wealthy and is becoming more and more regressive while at the same time income disparities are becoming larger and larger we here the same old lame shit from those of the far right.

We have a budget deficit, how do we fix it? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
We are in a recession, how do we stimulate the economy? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
Unemployment is high, how to we stimulate jobs growth? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
We have a huge trade deficit, how do we balance it? "tax cuts for the wealthy"
Aunt Petunia has inflammed hemaroids, how do we cure them? "tax cuts for the wealthy"

It's become a brain dead religious mantra from the right, particularly in the light of the evidence from nearly 30 years of regressive tax cuts for higher income Americans that the tax cuts have not accomplished what they have claimed they would. What they have done is created a huge income disparity between the mega wealthy and the working classes who struggle to maintain a middle class life style and combined with the grossly irresponsible military spending, have created a vast amount of public debt.

Now I'm no partisan democrat but between the blatant economic class warfare of the right wing combined with it's alliance to brain dead reactionary social conservatives I'm not only convinced that the Republican party is incapable of governing affectively but does so dangerously.

Now that doesn't mean I'm giving welfare state liberals of the Demoractic party a pass. Fuck them, they need to get their hands out of my pockets.

But that doesn't change the fact at how appalled I am at the cancer that is destroying the Republican party.

You might have appoint if you were not stuck in the liberal democrat lie that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy. For instance, once the 2nd round of tax cuts were passed in 2002, the total cuts for a family of 4 making 45,000 was 72%. That's right. A family of 4 making 45K paid 72% LESS taxes in 2002 than they did on the same income in 2000. Figures across the board were similar, with literally everyone paying fewer taxes, and the larger percentage drops in overall tax burdens occurred at the lower income brackets. The whole "tax cuts for the rich" lie came about because when someone pays 10MM in taxes, a 1% cut means they pay 100K less taxes, which is more than a lot of people even make, let along pay in taxes.

Now, do tax cuts solve every possible economic difficulty? No. But it DOES put more spendable cash in people's hands which boosts a flagging economy. Of course when other factors such as runaway government spending continues to drag things down, the effect is greatly diminished, as we saw under Bush.

OTOH, Tax hikes - even if limited to the wealthy - do NOTHING to help a flagging economy, and if other economic factors, like runaway government spending are not carefully accounted for, can put a screeching halt on a growing economy - especially if said growth is sluggish to begin with.

 

[apple0154]

Your first comment is ridiculous. You are really going to argue that a business is never going to hire someone it would have to train and show the ropes to? They would only hire someone who can hit the ground running from Day 1 as if they had been working at the company for months or even years?

The point is the additional tax would not make a difference. Either the business had the money available for training or they didn't. The 5 or 6 percent additional tax would not be the qualifying factor.In other words a business would not cut it that close.

 

[Cypress]

You do what I did in my field. You take a shit job with the same company and pay your dues. My first job in the environmental field (and I did have a degree in Biology at the time) was literally shovelling shit as a utility worker. It was 3 years before I did anything more then manual labor (though by then I was a shift supervisor). It was humbling and hard work but I learned a lot that was of value.

Outstanding! I dig the shit shoveling story! That's awesome, I love little tales like that!

I never had to shovel shit, but in that recession in the early 90s, I was driving a bakery truck with freshly minted graduate degree in hand. No worries though, it was pretty fun!

Yeah man, it really just takes years and years to get to where you want to be. I spent like eight years trying to get the current career I have. You just have to keep showing your face, and being a Nazi about achieving your dreams and goals.

And back in the day I think I spent like three years interviewing before I landed my first dream gig as an oil explorer with the oil robber barons.

I imagine today really sucks for college grads though, even if we compared our shit shoveling and bakery truck jobs....it just seems extra super crappy today for a college punk!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Outstanding! I dig the shit shoveling story! That's awesome, I love little tales like that!

I never had to shovel shit, but in that recession in the early 90s, I was driving a bakery truck with freshly minted graduate degree in hand. No worries though, it was pretty fun!

Yeah man, it really just takes years and years to get to where you want to be. I spent like eight years trying to get the current career I have. You just have to keep showing your face, and being a Nazi about achieving your dreams and goals.

And back in the day I think I spent like three years interviewing before I landed my first dream gig as an oil explorer with the oil robber barons.

I imagine today really sucks for college grads though, even if we compared our shit shoveling and bakery truck jobs....it just seems extra super crappy today for a college punk!

My heart pumps piss for them!

 

[apple0154]

WHOOSH! Right over their heads.

It's not an operating cost factor. It's a "Will other people buy enough from us to justify more employees" factor. Higher taxes means less spendable capital. Less spendable capital means businesses sell less - to each other and to JQ Public. When businesses sell less, they are not going to hire anyone because there is no reason to. Businesses, no matter what the type, hire more people when they anticipate needing those people to produce MORE of whatever type product the business is selling. Conversely, if the business is NOT anticipating increased sales, they are NOT going to hire anyone because there is no need for expanded capability. And on the back end, if a business is experiencing falling sales, they will let people go according to the decreased demand for labor.

It has NOTHING to do with how much more the taxes will cost the business. It has EVERYTHING to do with how much the business is expecting to sell next month. And when taxes take money out of people's pockets, the people buy less, which means businesses SELL less, and thus they HIRE less.

During a recession or the way the economy currently is there is a huge difference from whose pocket the tax dollars come.

For example, take two people: one earning $250,000/yr and the other earning $75,000/yr. In a "normal" economy both are in the market for a new car. The difference is the person earning $250,000/yr is probably driving a relatively new car compared to the person earning $75,000/yr. Because of the way the economy is both people are going to be somewhat more conservative when to comes to purchases. The person earning $250,000 doesn't really need a new car, however, the person earning $75,000 is probably driving a lower quality car and the car is probably older. Who is more likely to buy a new car?

The further we go down the economic scale the more things people need as opposed to simply wanting which means the tax breaks/refunds those at the lower economic level receive the more likely that money will be spent resulting in economic activity. Stated another way everyone is going to try and save a bit and be more cautious so they will restrict purchases to "needs" rather than "wants".

The same principal applies to the small business person. In this economy they are more likely to sit on their tax savings rather than take a chance and hire someone.

 

[Good Luck]

During a recession or the way the economy currently is there is a huge difference from whose pocket the tax dollars come.

For example, take two people: one earning $250,000/yr and the other earning $75,000/yr. In a "normal" economy both are in the market for a new car. The difference is the person earning $250,000/yr is probably driving a relatively new car compared to the person earning $75,000/yr. Because of the way the economy is both people are going to be somewhat more conservative when to comes to purchases. The person earning $250,000 doesn't really need a new car, however, the person earning $75,000 is probably driving a lower quality car and the car is probably older. Who is more likely to buy a new car?

The further we go down the economic scale the more things people need as opposed to simply wanting which means the tax breaks/refunds those at the lower economic level receive the more likely that money will be spent resulting in economic activity. Stated another way everyone is going to try and save a bit and be more cautious so they will restrict purchases to "needs" rather than "wants".

The same principal applies to the small business person. In this economy they are more likely to sit on their tax savings rather than take a chance and hire someone.

Actually the person making 75K is more likely to forego the new auto purchase and sink a little more into spiffing up what they are driving now. The idea that a person making 75K, during an economic downturn, is going to say "I'd better get that new car now, just in case I lose my job, too." is ludicrous. They'll put it off. The person making 250K has more leeway to make optional purchases, and is therefore more likely to do so despite any downturns.

You also fail to account for the fact that we have been living in a credit economy for the last several decades. In good times, when people are confident in the economy and their likelyhood to have a job next week, will accumulate debt, from mortgages to personal property loans to revolving credit. In tougher times people are far more disposed to cut back purchases as much as possible and concentrate on reducing their debt. They no longer trust having their job next week, and act accordingly: get out from under debt as much as possible and save anything left over, just in case the worst does happen. Why do you think the Bush tax cuts fizzled? NOT because it was for the rich only, as the democrats love to lie about. It was because people in general were skittish about the economy and were not spending their tax savings as was anticipated as a large part was used to pay down debt and saved.


Aside: Which IMO is a damned good thing to do. Anyone with debt should cut spending until they get rid of all debt except their mortgages, and once clear of other debt, refinance those to be paid off as rapidly as they can. That is the only REAL way to arrive at a genuine healthy, growing and stable economy - a paygo economy. (everyone wants the government to use paygo, but think nothing of buying that 54" plasma screen on credit, ending up paying twice its price when interest charges are added up. Imagine all the interest paid to maintain revolving credit accounts going to buying real goods instead!)

But from political POV it doesn't do much for short term stimulus, and as such the government will never actually promote the people doing what we really need to do.

 

[klaatu]

Lets have another round of debating whether a 10 year old Tax schedule is a Tax cut if extended or a tax hike if rolled back to the schedule from 11 years ago ...

Hmmm

Also... maybe someone can define Middle Class for me ... just what is a Middle Class Tax Cut .... is it making more than a certain amount and less than another amount? If so...does this mean that the under group gets rolled back to the schedule from 11 years ago?

How about we do the sane thing.... DONT EFFIN RAISE TAXES DURING A NEAR DEPRESSION!!!!

RANA says: I don't think the rich are having a depression, the stock market is performing, somewhat...so I guess you would have to define depression and who is depressed, too.

The point isnt whether the rich can afford it.. the point is whether the money is better left in the Peoples hands rather than the Governments hands. At this juncture ...when we are smack middle in an economic climate that is near Depression... we want more money left on the streets ...doesnt matter what St... Wall St or Main St ... , we want it circulating rather than stuck in the Hands of a Bureaucracy ...

We want those people who make over 250,000 out there buying Big Screen TV's, New Cars, The Latest Appliances, increasing their insurance, investing more money ..etc ... these items moving out of inventory puts people back to work.

Increasing Taxes stifles growth ... why this is so hard to understand I will never know ....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The point isnt whether the rich can afford it.. the point is whether the money is better left in the Peoples hands rather than the Governments hands. At this juncture ...when we are smack middle in an economic climate that is near Depression... we want more money left on the streets ...doesnt matter what St... Wall St or Main St ... , we want it circulating rather than stuck in the Hands of a Bureaucracy ...

We want those people who make over 250,000 out there buying Big Screen TV's, New Cars, The Latest Appliances, increasing their insurance, investing more money ..etc ... these items moving out of inventory puts people back to work.

Increasing Taxes stifles growth ... why this is so hard to understand I will never know ....

That's the problem with you trickle downers and true believing reich wingnuts. First you believe what you want to believe then you fill in the facts to support what you believe. The false premise your resting your belief that all tax cuts are economic stimulus, and this has been explained to you about 30 times, so like a third grader we'll explain it to you again. It's only an economic stimulus if that money retained from the tax break is spent and that's you're false assumption, as has been clearly demonstrated, that those at the top usually don't spend that money.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't think that's really a fair assessment. What is aggravating is that even though our taxation system is at historically low levels for the wealthy and is becoming more and more regressive while at the same time income disparities are becoming larger and larger we here the same old lame shit from those of the far right.

We have a budget deficit, how do we fix it? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
We are in a recession, how do we stimulate the economy? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
Unemployment is high, how to we stimulate jobs growth? "Tax cuts for the wealthy"
We have a huge trade deficit, how do we balance it? "tax cuts for the wealthy"
Aunt Petunia has inflammed hemaroids, how do we cure them? "tax cuts for the wealthy"

It's become a brain dead religious mantra from the right, particularly in the light of the evidence from nearly 30 years of regressive tax cuts for higher income Americans that the tax cuts have not accomplished what they have claimed they would. What they have done is created a huge income disparity between the mega wealthy and the working classes who struggle to maintain a middle class life style and combined with the grossly irresponsible military spending, have created a vast amount of public debt.

Now I'm no partisan democrat but between the blatant economic class warfare of the right wing combined with it's alliance to brain dead reactionary social conservatives I'm not only convinced that the Republican party is incapable of governing affectively but does so dangerously.

Now that doesn't mean I'm giving welfare state liberals of the Demoractic party a pass. Fuck them, they need to get their hands out of my pockets.

But that doesn't change the fact at how appalled I am at the cancer that is destroying the Republican party.

except that is NOT what you hear from the right....

that is what you hear from the LEFT who is describing THEIR interpretation of the right.

You pretend that the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy because it makes you feel warm and cozy. The tax cuts INCREASED the tax burden on the top half. When more and more people end up paying NO income tax, they are of course not going to see money coming back into their pockets when their are INCOME tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts put more people in the category of not paying income taxes. (note... this is NOT to say they don't pay any taxes)

That said, our current system IS regressive due to the loopholes and deductions that have been added to the 70k page tax code over the decades by both parties. Again, increasing the TOP bracket is NOT going to affect the super wealthy. They are STILL going to be able to use the tax code to get their effective tax rates down in the 17-19% range. It is the small business owners that are going to take the brunt of the increase as most of them are not going to be able to afford the high priced accountants.

Again... increasing taxes in a time of recession or very very slow growth is NOT a good idea. It will retard growth. It will HURT the economic recovery attempt. It will HURT the employment situation. whether you loons on the left want to continue pretending small business owners don't care much about taxes when deciding to hire a new employee or not is your choice. It won't change the fact that ANY added cost to them is going to adversely affect their desire to hire.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's the problem with you trickle downers and true believing reich wingnuts. First you believe what you want to believe then you fill in the facts to support what you believe. The false premise your resting your belief that all tax cuts are economic stimulus, and this has been explained to you about 30 times, so like a third grader we'll explain it to you again. It's only an economic stimulus if that money retained from the tax break is spent and that's you're false assumption, as has been clearly demonstrated, that those at the top usually don't spend that money.

The above is nothing more than left wingnut talking points.

1) If the wealthy DID stick all the savings into a bank... that provides capital for the bank to loan out to others. Banks only require 10% capital be held. The rest can be loaned out. Given the state of the credit market, extra savings in the banks would not be a bad thing.

2) The wealthy DO NOT save it all... in fact in this environment, most do not put the money into banks. They INVEST it. ESPECIALLY SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

3) The last time our idiots in DC cut Federal Spending in a fiscal year was 1965.

4) The last time our idiots in DC actually lowered the nations debt in a fiscal year was 1960.

So Klattu is right... pretending the solution is to tax tax tax those wealthy bastards is nothing short of absurd. Lorax will tell you the same and has.

There are times when you run a deficit for the benefit of the country and there are times when you increase federal spending year over year. But to do BOTH each and every year since 1965 shows you that more money in the hands of the idiots in DC is a very very bad idea.

The money is better spent in the hands of the individuals. The money is better invested when in the hands of the individuals. This is not to say we should eliminate all federal spending or eliminate all taxes as some emos are going to try and spin this. But bottom line, we ARE overtaxed as a society and there IS too much waste in DC.

You pretend that because it isn't 'easy for the politicians' to fix the problem that somehow means we should continue with the status quo. That is absurd.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

except that is NOT what you hear from the right....

that is what you hear from the LEFT who is describing THEIR interpretation of the right.

You pretend that the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy because it makes you feel warm and cozy. The tax cuts INCREASED the tax burden on the top half. When more and more people end up paying NO income tax, they are of course not going to see money coming back into their pockets when their are INCOME tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts put more people in the category of not paying income taxes. (note... this is NOT to say they don't pay any taxes)

That said, our current system IS regressive due to the loopholes and deductions that have been added to the 70k page tax code over the decades by both parties. Again, increasing the TOP bracket is NOT going to affect the super wealthy. They are STILL going to be able to use the tax code to get their effective tax rates down in the 17-19% range. It is the small business owners that are going to take the brunt of the increase as most of them are not going to be able to afford the high priced accountants.

Again... increasing taxes in a time of recession or very very slow growth is NOT a good idea. It will retard growth. It will HURT the economic recovery attempt. It will HURT the employment situation. whether you loons on the left want to continue pretending small business owners don't care much about taxes when deciding to hire a new employee or not is your choice. It won't change the fact that ANY added cost to them is going to adversely affect their desire to hire.

That's true if your talking about a tax increase across the board for everyone but that's not what the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts is proposing. As main stream economist have proposed and supported that maintaining the middle class tax cuts to assure adequate levels of spending while allowing the top two rates to expire back to the 35 and 39% levels so as to increase revenue needed to service our national debt is the best approach for economic stimulus.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The above is nothing more than left wingnut talking points.

1) If the wealthy DID stick all the savings into a bank... that provides capital for the bank to loan out to others. Banks only require 10% capital be held. The rest can be loaned out. Given the state of the credit market, extra savings in the banks would not be a bad thing.

2) The wealthy DO NOT save it all... in fact in this environment, most do not put the money into banks. They INVEST it. ESPECIALLY SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

3) The last time our idiots in DC cut Federal Spending in a fiscal year was 1965.

4) The last time our idiots in DC actually lowered the nations debt in a fiscal year was 1960.

So Klattu is right... pretending the solution is to tax tax tax those wealthy bastards is nothing short of absurd. Lorax will tell you the same and has.

There are times when you run a deficit for the benefit of the country and there are times when you increase federal spending year over year. But to do BOTH each and every year since 1965 shows you that more money in the hands of the idiots in DC is a very very bad idea.

The money is better spent in the hands of the individuals. The money is better invested when in the hands of the individuals. This is not to say we should eliminate all federal spending or eliminate all taxes as some emos are going to try and spin this. But bottom line, we ARE overtaxed as a society and there IS too much waste in DC.

You pretend that because it isn't 'easy for the politicians' to fix the problem that somehow means we should continue with the status quo. That is absurd.

It's not a talking point. Please provide me the factual data of when the regressive tax cuts of past Republican administrations have performed as promised? Show me the data. I've only ever seen data from one year that showed marginal improvements. That's it.

I hear a bunch of talk from the right wing...if you give us regressive tax cuts, this, this and this will happen to improve the economy but when you ask them to provide the data to demonstrate this on a factual basis they keep rehashing the same old promises and don't provide the data and when you do the homework your self you find out that their promises were just that. Promises and not much more.

Regressive tax policies disproporionately benefit those at the very top and does very little for anyon else.

We need sound economic policy that lifts all boats, not just the biggest yachts. Trickle down economic policy is just as much a failed policy as social welfare state liberalism is.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's true if your talking about a tax increase across the board for everyone but that's not what the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts is proposing. As main stream economist have proposed and supported that maintaining the middle class tax cuts to assure adequate levels of spending while allowing the top two rates to expire back to the 35 and 39% levels so as to increase revenue needed to service our national debt is the best approach for economic stimulus.

Again... the above is nothing more than left wing nut bullshit.

THERE ARE NO MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS.... THE TAX RATES WOULD STAY THE SAME.

ANY tax increase in a recessionary time frame is ABSURD.

Adequate levels of spending??? Do we have adequate levels of spending right NOW Mott? No, we do not.... and MAINTAINING the current tax rates for the low and middle income families is NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT. But RAISING taxes on the upper income WILL REDUCE SPENDING. It WILL REDUCE HIRING. It WILL PROLONG THE DOWNTURN.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's not a talking point. Please provide me the factual data of when the regressive tax cuts of past Republican administrations have performed as promised? Show me the data. I've only ever seen data from one year that showed marginal improvements. That's it.

I hear a bunch of talk from the right wing...if you give us regressive tax cuts, this, this and this will happen to improve the economy but when you ask them to provide the data to demonstrate this on a factual basis they keep rehashing the same old promises and don't provide the data and when you do the homework your self you find out that their promises were just that. Promises and not much more.

Regressive tax policies disproporionately benefit those at the very top and does very little for anyon else.

We need sound economic policy that lifts all boats, not just the biggest yachts. Trickle down economic policy is just as much a failed policy as social welfare state liberalism is.

Look to Reagan Mott if you want an example of what needs to be done. you continue ignoring everything I post. Reagan LOWERED the income tax brackets and eliminated a lot of the loopholes and deductions for the uber wealthy. THAT is how you raise revenues on the ultra rich WITHOUT damaging small businesses.

As I have stated 1000 times on this site. Tax cuts are great in the SHORT term, but the ONLY way they work in the long term is to have corresponding cuts in spending. THAT is where the Reps failed and where the Dems won't even pretend to go. That doesn't mean the ONLY solution is to keep jacking up taxes on 'the wealthy'. That is equally absurd and disastrous.

YOUR interpretation of trickle down may not work, but you have to be kidding if you think that all boats weren't lifted since 1982.

You lefties always harp on the 'income gap'. If everyone goes up the exact same 10%.... does the gap widen, stay the same or narrow?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's not a talking point. Please provide me the factual data of when the regressive tax cuts of past Republican administrations have performed as promised? Show me the data. I've only ever seen data from one year that showed marginal improvements. That's it.

I hear a bunch of talk from the right wing...if you give us regressive tax cuts, this, this and this will happen to improve the economy but when you ask them to provide the data to demonstrate this on a factual basis they keep rehashing the same old promises and don't provide the data and when you do the homework your self you find out that their promises were just that. Promises and not much more.

Regressive tax policies disproporionately benefit those at the very top and does very little for anyon else.

We need sound economic policy that lifts all boats, not just the biggest yachts. Trickle down economic policy is just as much a failed policy as social welfare state liberalism is.

and yes... it IS left wing talking points... every one of those points I made are accurate

 

[Bonestorm]

I love that self-proclaimed deficit hawk SF is all about blowing up the debt because he thinks it an abomination that high income earners experience taxation levels they experienced in the 1990s.

Hilarious.