Tax cuts yes or no?

[roofeditor]

Leaving out (D) or (R) please!!!

1. Question: Is getting money back on your tax return even if you didn't pay taxes really a tax cut, or is it basically a hand out?

2. Question: are you for or against tax cuts as a stimulus.

Scott Rasmussen did a poll and asked people if they thought a tax cut would help or hurt the economy.

Here are the results.

57% thought a tax cut would HELP the economy.

17% thought a tax cut would HURT the economy.

26% didn't know.

Interesting BUT my question is, how many of the 17% that are against tax cuts actually pay taxes. hmmmm Well so people that don't pay any taxes at all might be against tax cuts. See a pattern there?

3. Do you really believe that 95% of Americans are going to get a tax cut as promised?

[roofeditor]

Here is an idea (don't tell my (R) friends)

15 million illegals by best estimates.

1. Charge/fine them all $5,000 each put them on probation for 5 years and give them a temporary green card which will be upgraded to a full green card if they don't get arrested and pay their taxes.

15mil X $5,000 = 75 Billion dollars.

2. Say 1/2 of the illegals are of working age? Say between construction and other jobs $500 a week is earned? Say of that $500 $100 goes to payroll and income taxes?

$100 a week times 52 weeks x 8 million = $41 billion a year.

Hey I know $116 billion is only chump change lately but what the heck it's a start!

[AK_Gandy]

Although a certain "side" spouts it like it's gospel, I would like to see some definitive studies that show tax cuts have ever helped the economy.

And when those are found I can find some that say it doesn't help.

Bottom line for me, a few bucks back from taxes ain't gonna change my spending habits.

The more I think about it, what might make the biggest difference to get the economy going is a moratorium on the Capital Gains Tax.

I don't however favor lowering the tax on business' substantially because as far as I'm concerned, it will just lead to the same thing we have seen with the financial industry, ie: pad the pockets of those who need it the least.

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by roofeditor

3. Do you really believe that 95% of Americans are going to get a tax cut as promised?

The bigger question is do you really believe that if they did get it...........would they run out and start buying things that they can't afford just to jump start the economy.

I don't.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

Although a certain "side" spouts it like it's gospel, I would like to see some definitive studies that show tax cuts have ever helped the economy.

And when those are found I can find some that say it doesn't help.

Bottom line for me, a few bucks back from taxes ain't gonna change my spending habits.

The more I think about it, what might make the biggest difference to get the economy going is a moratorium on the Capital Gains Tax.

I don't however favor lowering the tax on business' substantially because as far as I'm concerned, it will just lead to the same thing we have seen with the financial industry, ie: pad the pockets of those who need it the least.

open to civil discussion leaving out the (D) and (R).

Pad the pockets of those that need it least? Well most companies are sucking pond water so they might need it the most? I'm not so simple minded to think a simple blanket tax cut is the cure but generally tax cuts and more important long term capital gains reductions prompt people sitting on money to take it out of CD's and put it in the market!

Think now: What would you suggest as an incentive to get people to invest in the market and the economy? Call it a bride if you wish but I can think of no other incentive.

[roofeditor]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

The bigger question is do you really believe that if they did get it...........would they run out and start buying things that they can't afford just to jump start the economy.

I don't.

I do. I know what you are saying but people have short memories, give them a few extra bucks and they will spend rather than save it for a rainy day. Most people get exactly what they deserve.

Larry Winglet wrote a book "you're broke because you want to be" too funny but true.

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by roofeditor

... Think now: What would you suggest as an incentive to get people to invest in the market and the economy? Call it a [bribe?] if you wish but I can think of no other incentive.

How about confidence in the market and the economy? Knowing that if you put money in, it's not going to be sucked down a vortex of some Ponzi scheme the SEC didn't have the manpower to investigate? That investments are going to be worth something next year because the crashing value of the US dollar has been stabilized? That the federal debt and trade deficit are finally under control?

Then, once you instill some confidence in the economy, how about making sure there's something left over at the end of the month? The price of just about everything's been going up for the last 20-30 years - everything but wages.

Tax cuts are not the answer. They've been tried numerous and didn't work. Looking at recent history, you find the most prosperous years are the same ones we had the highest income tax brackets and federal spending.

You could cut my taxes to zero and it wouldn't materially change anything. My mortgage interest (just interest, not payment) is four times my property taxes and probably more than all the sum total of all the taxes I pay. And I get something in return for my taxes. What do I get in return for paying mortgage interest?

[Super_Dave]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Tax cuts are not the answer. They've been tried numerous and didn't work. Looking at recent history, you find the most prosperous years are the same ones we had the highest income tax brackets and federal spending.

No. That's completely false.

The crash of 1929 resulted in dramatic increases in income taxes. Higher than we have today. Add the New Deal onto that. Before WWII, unemployment was at 25%, and during WWII it was at 15%. Incredible government spending too. The economy didn't recover until about 1948 when income taxes and government spending were reduced.


Taxation... It's a simple stance. If its for alturistic ideology of giving it to help people and others, go away. I can make that decision on my own if I wish. Forcing me to give my work away to a government under the threat of taking my property or even jail is immoral, period. It's called theft under any other opportunity.

Road taxes? Fine, I can accept that, as it pays directly for the roads that I use my fuel for. Bigger vehicle, more fuel, more tax to pay for what I use.

Economies are build on the backs of innovation, ideas, inspiration, and perspiration. Income taxes only serve to take that work away from the ones that produce it.

[kvofx]

K.I.S.S system economics=BUY american!!! the job you save mite be yours?.

[350 long rod]

The following is parts of a blog post by Thom Hartman you can read the whole thing here.
Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years | CommonDreams.org

I also heard a great comment from a small business owner."I do not need another republican tax cut I need customers"




In Hoover's world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion. Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys – the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves – who ruled Wall Street and international finance.

Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."

Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."

Which was why the most successful Republican of the 20th century up to that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been quite happy with a top income tax rate on millionaires of 91 percent. As he wrote to his brother Edgar Eisenhower in a personal letter on November 8, 1954:

"[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon 'moderation' in government.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt [you possibly know his background], a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.

By Thom Hartmann

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by Super_Dave

No. That's completely false.

The crash of 1929 resulted in dramatic increases in income taxes. Higher than we have today. Add the New Deal onto that. Before WWII, unemployment was at 25%, and during WWII it was at 15%. Incredible government spending too. The economy didn't recover until about 1948 when income taxes and government spending were reduced.


Taxation... It's a simple stance. If its for alturistic ideology of giving it to help people and others, go away. I can make that decision on my own if I wish. Forcing me to give my work away to a government under the threat of taking my property or even jail is immoral, period. It's called theft under any other opportunity.

Road taxes? Fine, I can accept that, as it pays directly for the roads that I use my fuel for. Bigger vehicle, more fuel, more tax to pay for what I use.

Economies are build on the backs of innovation, ideas, inspiration, and perspiration. Income taxes only serve to take that work away from the ones that produce it.

Companies can already deduct work related expenses and development costs which lowers their effective tax rate. That's how we always did it until Reagan.

Low rates of Taxation on corporate profits that came forth under Reagan make it possible for foreigners to fleece and then liquidate our companies. Of course those factors are ignored in favor of spin calling it "wealth redistribution" or some other such nonsense.

If Unemployment was at 15% during WWII due to high taxes then what made it worthwhile for this greasy, young lass to leave homemaking?

[Brian_C]

Originally Posted by checkthisout

Companies can already deduct work related expenses and development costs which lowers their effective tax rate. That's how we always did it until Reagan.
Are you serious? Income Taxes are always based on profit, not income. Taxes are paid on what's left over after expenses, so the tax rate is the only thing that matters.

Low rates of Taxation on corporate profits that came forth under Reagan make it possible for foreigners to fleece and then liquidate our companies. Of course those factors are ignored in favor of spin calling it "wealth redistribution" or some other such nonsense.
Wow. What planet are you from? BTW, the U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate on this planet.

If Unemployment was at 15% during WWII due to high taxes then what made it worthwhile for this greasy, young lass to leave homemaking?
How about the fact that her father, brother, uncle, cousins, etc. were overseas fighting for the freedom of our country, and she wanted to give her support?

Unbelievable.

[johndeerebones]

Originally Posted by Brian_C

Unbelievable.

Go get em, I'm with you unbelievable. That's exactly right. In those days no one gave a damn who was right or wrong, they loved their country and did what they had to to see it prosper. All the pantywaste complainers from this day and age should have the love of country they all did. All I know is this, yes our gov't is corrupt, lots of times they are dead wrong, but I thank the Good Lord every day that he allowed me to be born in this country.

Back to the subject though. Like it or not Reagenomics WORKS. Trickle down economics makes sense. If people can't see that I really think there is some kind of chemical imbalance in their minds, cause it just does... Trickle up economics is retarded, I'll be danged if my hard earned money or anyone else's should go to the deadbeat down the street that chooses to flip burger's all his life. I don't have a college degree and make almost 20 an hour in mid missouri, so if you apply your self you can make money, some people just don't care too, that's there bag, its fine, just don't look for handouts from the guys that do work their butts off. Obama and his trickle up policies failed when Carter tried them and they will fail again. Illinois produces some of the most corrupt polititians that ever walked on the earth, he may not be corrupt, not the point, my point is that his experience, very little mind you, has been in the Illinois machine, not the experience that needs to be in the White House. He did what he wanted, he made history. Big whoop. Already I am hearing lots of people say they wish they wouldn't have voted for him, give it a bit and lots more will too I bet. God forbid anything happen to him, cause Biden is a MORON and Nancy Pelosi is an idiot too.

Japan's economy was crap in the 90s and they had 8 or 10 "Stimulus Packages", they all flopped, the end result was the country was more in debt than it was and its economy still sucked, the EXACT same thing we are doing. I was anti stimulus when GW did it, now Obamas is even bigger, makes no sense. I don't claim to be or , I would call myself a conservative, the are off their rockers most times, and the has left the conservative people on their own they are slowly leaving what they used to stand for.

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by johndeerebones

Like it or not Reagenomics WORKS. Trickle down economics makes sense. If people can't see that I really think there is some kind of chemical imbalance in their minds, cause it just does...

Why don't you put facts where your mouth is instead of just denigrating anyone who has a different opinion?

In other words.................................prove it.

[Believer45]

See off topic rule 3 top of the forum