Life is Golden
The Sage
I campaigned for that dumbass, Romney, in 2012. What a disaster that was, but I'm glad he lost now or we would have never gotten Trump.
Romney delivers powerful message.
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
Not so. With each tax cut: Bush-Obama, Trump, and before that, the top quintile has paid an increasingly larger percentage of all federal income taxes and the amount paid by the bottom 40% has declined to the current -106% because they owe no federal income taxes and get back up to about $5,000 in Earned Income Tax Credit.
That is because they make an increasing share of the income---which is exactly the way progressive taxation is supposed to work.
Into the Night
Verified User
What crimes? What dilemma?
Then why didn't he do the right thing?
Irrelevant.
It was ruined when he was revealed to be the turncoat that he is.
I turned on him a long time ago. He's a turncoat.
No. He's a turncoat.
Into the Night
Verified User
Conservatives are not lamenting the fact the more people end up not paying taxes. YOU are.
Ummm...that's what I said...prior to the tax cuts, the tax burden was more equitable. Then Conservatives started cutting taxes in the 1980's, and the tax burden on the top increased as it declined elsewhere.
So tax cuts caused the inequitable tax burden.
What Bush-Obama tax cut? Are you talking about Obama letting the tax cuts for the rich expire at the end of 2012? Yeah, I remember back then all Conservatives said it would be the end of the economy, create massive deficits, and cause the sky to fall. The actual result? The economy grew faster, the deficit shrank significantly, and the sky didn't fall.
So maybe we should stop listening to Conservatives when they make their predictions of taxation; they were wrong about them in 2001, again in 2003, again in 2012, again in 2017-18. They've never been right about them at all. Every single promise they make is broken.
You are saying the tax burden became inequitable because the top pay an increasing share of federal income taxes? I agree, but that is because they make an increasing share of the income. As your income increases so do your share of the taxes.
The Bush-Obama tax cuts refer to the tax cut which virtually eliminated federal income taxes for the bottom 50%. Obama thought those cuts were such a wonderful thing he extended them (and because increasing taxes on the middle-lower class would not be politically popular).
Right, so even though they are paying a majority of the taxes, they are taking an even greater majority of the income gains.
So their tax burden is not equitable with their share of income growth.
So the argument that they should be taxed less is kinda dumb once you consider that, no?
Well, if you're not going to raise people's wages, then this is how you go about increasing their ability to participate in the economy...I agree that tax cuts are stupid and dumb, and that we should go back to the tax rates pre-1980. For all the bluster about Obama extending the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone but the rich, that was followed by sharp economic growth and sharp deficit reduction. Two things Conservatives and BoThSiDeRiStS insisted the opposite would happen. They were wrong. Again.
I haven't heard anybody argue they should be taxed less than they are. Current rates are fair for everybody. The top are the only ones who pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than their share of the income. All others pay less than their share of the income.
Which BoThSiDeRiSts said higher taxes would not result in economic growth and deficit reduction?
Deficit reduction is always a positive for the economy.
Are you kidding? Mnuchin was on TV this last weekend saying that there should be another tax cut. The entire point of the 2017 Russia Tax Cut was to tax rich people less. It's been Conservative orthodoxy since at least 1980. Stop.
According to what metric?
But they don't pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than their income. Particularly those at the top. Their income gains since 1980 far surpass their share of the tax burden.
At the end of 2012? ALL OF THEM.
Ah, but at the end of 2012, Conservatives and BoThSiDeRiStS said that by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top, the result would be an increase in the deficit to go along with a decrease in economic activity.
They were wrong, of course.
Not additional tax cuts for the rich. Please show me proposals to give additional tax cuts for the wealthy.
"The president has asked us to start working on what we call 'tax 2.0,' and that will be additional tax cuts," Mnuchin told CNBC during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "They'll be tax cuts for the middle class, and we'll also be looking at other incentives to stimulate economic growth."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/whi...of-tax-cuts-to-boost-growth-mnuchin-says.html
When they are paying the overwhelming share of federal income taxes and their percentage of taxes is higher than their percentage of income.
Yes they do. They pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than their percentage of income.
Percentage of Total Gross Adjusted Income/Percentage of federal individual income taxes:
Top 1%: 19.72% of income and 37.32% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 5%: 35.20% of income and 58.23% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 10%: 46.56% of income and 69.47% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 25%: 68.43% of income and 85.97% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 50%: 88.41% of income and 96.96% of all federal individual income taxes
Top 1% paid a greater share of federal individual income taxes (37.3%) than the bottom 90% combined (30.5%).
My statement was that: "Deficit reduction is always a positive for the economy."
Nothing that conservatives and Bothsiderists said is relevant to that statement.
Couple questions:
1) Wasn't the first tax cut supposed to do that? Wasn't it supposed to lead to growth of at least 3%? Wasn't it supposed to raise wages by $4,000? Wasn't it supposed to lead to business investment? You have been here arguing constantly that the Russia Tax Cut that took effect in 2018 cut taxes for the middle class. Unless you're now going to admit you've been BSing this whole time? Have you?
2) It's adorable how you think Mnuchin is serious when he says he wants to cut taxes for the middle class. He already did that in 2018, supposedly. Those tax cuts are set to expire by 2024. So he already cut taxes for the middle class, and it didn't work. So why do you think he intends to cut them again for the middle class and not lie about it, like he did in 2017-18?
Is it, though? Because it's not just their percentage of income, it's the fact that their share of income growth has outpaced their share of the tax burden.
Anyone voting for a Democrat AND pays taxes is. Those that vote Democrat but don't contribute to society are voting for the government to take more of our money.
But again, you are narrowly focusing on their income as a whole while ignoring the fact that their share of the income gains has outpaced their share of the tax burden. Meaning, the amount of income they take in is a larger share than that share of which they pay in taxes.
It's an inconvenient thing you are deliberately ignoring to try and suck up to the 1%, who don't give a shit about you at all.
^^^^Has no problem when those that have no income tax burden getying handouts through social welfare funded by those he chastises.
How much of the tax burden do social welfare recipients pay?
LV chastises those that pay a portion of the overall tax burden because he claims they benefit at a greater rate than their contribution. He has no problem with social welfare leeches that provide 0% to the pot that funds their handouts.
Yet, they have taken a greater share of the income gains than the share of federal taxes they paid.
So the wealthy have taken 50%+ of the income gains, yet only pay a 37% of the tax burden. How is that fair?
Is it, though? Because the economy isn't dependent on the federal deficit. Interest rates for federal borrowing are. If you reduce the deficit by cutting spending, you're not positively impacting the economy because you're cutting spending. If you are reducing the deficit by raising taxes, you aren't negatively impacting the economy because the tax revenue is being spent.
It's an important distinction to make.
If you say so, but that song was way different 7 years ago.