This is no surprise. The tinfoil hat people will have a field day with this information, However, this is mostly true. I could argue bias, however it just feels like a broken record that somebody needs to nudge the needle. Just like miracle Max. I offer to solve your problems with you paying me money.
You people act surprised to see that suddenly the rich are richer! Well they pay less taxes so of course they are richer! This is the whole point behind the tax cuts for the rich!
What did you people think would happen? That the rich would actually start spending because you gave them alittle more money?
Let me give you a little illustration about your so-called tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats proposed a new solution to taxes to solve the "problem" of tax-cuts for the rich. This illustration is borrowed from someone on the radio (can't remember who). Also please keep in mind that these numbers are fictional and just for illustration purposes.
Ok, so 50,000 people buy tickets to a baseball game. 1,000 of those people bought box seats for $300. 9,000 of those people bought really good seats right near the dugout for $150. 15,000 people bought average tickets for $75. 25,000 people bought nosebleed tickets for $25.
Well, wouldn't ya know it, the game gets cancelled. The owners of the stadium are Democrats and pass out refunds the same way Democrats want to hand out tax cuts: The 25,000 people get a refund of $50. $25 more than they actually payed for a ticket. Awesome eh? The 15,000 people get a refund of $100. Hey, they get $25 more too... The 9,000 people get a refund of only $125. What? They don't get all of their money back? The 1,000 people? Well, they don't get a refund. Instead, they pay $475 apiece.
That folks, is the math of democrats. Yes, its overexaggerating and silly, but its also a bit serious. Of course the rich are going to get more money back out of a tax cut. They paid more in the first place.
I think the point of giving the middle and lower-class a larger portion of the tax cuts is the fact that the money they get back could make the difference in sending their children to college, or improving their standard of living.
The money will most likely make no immediate difference in the lifestyle of the upper-class.
But those tax cuts come out of the pockets of those who are better off. Since when is that fair? This is America. We aren't (or shouldn't be at least) a communistic society. That's the whole point of capitalism.
I wish some of you would learn what the hell communism is before you start bandying the term around. Communism is NOT 'anything which prevents anyone from spending all their money exactly how they like'.
what about 'anything that takes away the money from some people who worked for it and gives it to other people who did absolutely nothing to earn it'?? Does that sound better?
That word you keep using, I do not believe it means what you think it means.
As to the point of fair, it most certainly is. The rich benefit _far_ more from everything from trade policies to custom loopholes in tax codes to the basic protections of civilization than the middle and lower classes do. Taxes are an attempt to redress the inherent inequalities of our current laws surrounding real and intellectual property, labor rights, and the inexpensive use of public land for corporate profit.
It's fair because higher taxes on the rich ensure that those who have benefited the most from the current social structure pay the most for it. If the US was conquered by another country, the rich would lose the most. If our economy collapsed and the US dollar underwent hyperinflation the rich would lose the most. If social order broke down and everyone was free to loot and murder the rich would lose the most.
Since the rich have the most to lose, it is only fair that they pay more to ensure the safety of
If our economy collapsed and the US dollar underwent hyperinflation the rich would lose the most.
Oh man.
Look, do you think people with a billion dollars are just like you? They don't have a billion dollars worth of wealth in say, a bank account, like you have your savings. They own a company. Land. Assets. If the dollar undergoes hyper-inflation, your kids college fund is wiped out, their mansion and 50 acres is still right there, as is the inventory of amazon.com.
Look, do you think people with a billion dollars are just like you?
No, i don't but because they have so much more money than i do it doesn't matter if they don't invest it in the same way i do.
It depends on what definition of "more" that you use. The rich will lose more measured in a dollar amount, the middle class and poor will lose more measured in a "lifestyle" sense.
Let's say i have $10,000 invested in a college fund, and hyperinflation cuts the effective value of that amount in half. A millionair
If the goal of the government (or at least one of them) is to redistribute income (or to help the less fortunate), then they should institute a program designed to meet this goal, instead of using the tax code (i.e. the revenue-generating part of the government). I would think that if the government really cared about helping individuals with need, it would increase the standard deduction for individuals to somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K-20K (so that the government doesn't tax those in need at *al
I think the point of giving the middle and lower-class a larger portion of the tax cuts is the fact that the money they get back could make the difference in sending their children to college, or improving their standard of living.
But doing the hand-outs so arbitrarily does nothing to guarantee their success. Do people in government really think they have mastered economics so well that they can change the face of society with a poiticially-motivated tax system? The current tax system is insane and is s
Its almost as bad as subsidizing housing for people who would be much better off moving to a different city with a lower cost of living.
Like Bangalore. You might not want to go there, but that's where the jobs are going. For some odd reason there are a few people on slashdot who disapprove of that.
For some odd reason there are a few people on slashdot who disapprove of that.
No one has to go to Bangalore. Only people who are so rigidly entrenched in the idea that nothing exists outside of Information Technology are so naive. If a person finds themselve priced out of a city, there is the whole Earth to choose from. Perhaps opportuniy is merely the next town over...perhaps it's Indiana. Whichever, there will be a place where a person can find a sustainable cost of living while figuring out where t
Because otherwise there won't be anyone living close enough to actually work at said grocery store.
The grocer would find that out pretty quick and raise their wages, due to there being no choice. We have to let the prices in cities work themselves out properly. Ultimately, that'll help keep the apartments from getting to $900/month in the first place, when fewer people are willing to relocate there, when many other expenses, such as groceries, go up in price. Eventually, the people who can truly live a
The issue with these tax cuts is rather simple. No one is arguing that these tax cuts are an attempt to remedy the unjust taxing of people. The purpose behind these tax cuts as advocated by Republicans is that they will spur economic growth.
The problem is that by definition, rich people are rich because they can buy whatever they want. Reducing their taxes is thus NOT going to have any impact on the economy because these people have no real incentive to spend more, the extra little bit of money is not going to have any impact.
Also, the earned income tax credit was originally a Republican proposal if my memory serves me correctly. The idea behind it is also based on the above logic. Poor people are deemed poor because they DON'T have the money to purchase what they want. By giving them back money (or just giving them money) you are pretty much guaranteed they are going to spend it. If you give $1000 to a person who makes $20,000 a year, they will spend it. GIve $1000 to a person who makes $200,000 a year and has $1.5 million in assets, they might not even cash the check mailed to them by the government.
Now, I will be the first to admit that none of this solves the problem of a consumer driven economy. But, I am struggling as much as the next man. I would much rather improve our currently corrupt economy so I can pay the rent than plan for the future. Once we get things under control, then we can talk about changing the way our society works.
The problem is that by definition, rich people are rich because they can buy whatever they want. Reducing their taxes is thus NOT going to have any impact on the economy because these people have no real incentive to spend more, the extra little bit of money is not going to have any impact.
No, they won't spend more but they will invest it which is MUCH better for the economy than mere consumer spending. It's the taxes on that additional money they might or might not *make* above and beyond what they alre
No one is arguing that these tax cuts are an attempt to remedy the unjust taxing of people.
I am.
Reducing their taxes is thus NOT going to have any impact on the economy because these people have no real incentive to spend more, the extra little bit of money is not going to have any impact.
Really? Huh. I suppose you think we should just wait for the poor to invest in the companies that employ us. Good plan!
By giving them back money (or just giving them money) you are pretty much guaranteed they are
Do you really think that because YOU are posing an argument it has any bearing upon national policy? I think not. We are discussing tax policy currently being put forth by both parties, none of them are claiming taxataion is and of itself, unjust.
Really? Huh. I suppose you think we should just wait for the poor to invest in the companies that employ us. Good plan!
The problem with plutocracies is that their motivations are generally not in the best interest of the people. Today, we have the unequal we
First of all, the analogy sucks. But you're using it incorrectly - the game didn't get cancelled, and no one is getting a refund - the ticket prices were lowered. What's wrong with lowering the prices of the cheap seats more than those of the expensive seats?
Making shit up to confuse the American public - that folks, is the MO of the republicans.
Someone mod this up! i knew there was something wrong with the analogy, but I couldn't figure out exactly what. You've summed it up perfectly.
From the parent (grandparent?) post: This illustration is borrowed from someone on the radio (can't remember who).
Can't remember? Or don't want to say because any mention of Rush Limbaugh or any other of the right-wing zealots who populate talk radio will rightly earn you a "-1, flamebait" mod?
Also please keep in mind that these numbers are fictional... overexag
But you're missing the point. Thats not what the Democrats were proposing. They were proposing not that the cheap seats get cheaper, but that the people sitting in the box seats pay to have people sit in them.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Here we go. (Score:1)
Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:0, Flamebait)
You people act surprised to see that suddenly the rich are richer! Well they pay less taxes so of course they are richer! This is the whole point behind the tax cuts for the rich!
What did you people think would happen? That the rich would actually start spending because you gave them alittle more money?
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, so 50,000 people buy tickets to a baseball game.
1,000 of those people bought box seats for $300.
9,000 of those people bought really good seats right near the dugout for $150.
15,000 people bought average tickets for $75.
25,000 people bought nosebleed tickets for $25.
Well, wouldn't ya know it, the game gets cancelled. The owners of the stadium are Democrats and pass out refunds the same way Democrats want to hand out tax cuts:
The 25,000 people get a refund of $50. $25 more than they actually payed for a ticket. Awesome eh?
The 15,000 people get a refund of $100. Hey, they get $25 more too...
The 9,000 people get a refund of only $125. What? They don't get all of their money back?
The 1,000 people? Well, they don't get a refund. Instead, they pay $475 apiece.
That folks, is the math of democrats.
Yes, its overexaggerating and silly, but its also a bit serious. Of course the rich are going to get more money back out of a tax cut. They paid more in the first place.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:3, Insightful)
The money will most likely make no immediate difference in the lifestyle of the upper-class.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:1)
"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability."
Or something like that.
Jaysyn
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:0)
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2)
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:1, Flamebait)
That word you keep using, I do not believe it means what you think it means.
As to the point of fair, it most certainly is. The rich benefit _far_ more from everything from trade policies to custom loopholes in tax codes to the basic protections of civilization than the middle and lower classes do. Taxes are an attempt to redress the inherent inequalities of our current laws surrounding real and intellectual property, labor rights, and the inexpensive use of public land for corporate profit.
It's fair (Score:2)
Since the rich have the most to lose, it is only fair that they pay more to ensure the safety of
Re:It's fair (Score:0)
Oh man.
Look, do you think people with a billion dollars are just like you? They don't have a billion dollars worth of wealth in say, a bank account, like you have your savings. They own a company. Land. Assets. If the dollar undergoes hyper-inflation, your kids college fund is wiped out, their mansion and 50 acres is still right there, as is the inventory of amazon.com.
So, thanks for attaching your thou
Re:It's fair (Score:2)
No, i don't but because they have so much more money than i do it doesn't matter if they don't invest it in the same way i do.
It depends on what definition of "more" that you use. The rich will lose more measured in a dollar amount, the middle class and poor will lose more measured in a "lifestyle" sense.
Let's say i have $10,000 invested in a college fund, and hyperinflation cuts the effective value of that amount in half. A millionair
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:1)
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:3, Insightful)
But doing the hand-outs so arbitrarily does nothing to guarantee their success. Do people in government really think they have mastered economics so well that they can change the face of society with a poiticially-motivated tax system? The current tax system is insane and is s
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:0)
Like Bangalore. You might not want to go there, but that's where the jobs are going. For some odd reason there are a few people on slashdot who disapprove of that.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2)
No one has to go to Bangalore. Only people who are so rigidly entrenched in the idea that nothing exists outside of Information Technology are so naive. If a person finds themselve priced out of a city, there is the whole Earth to choose from. Perhaps opportuniy is merely the next town over...perhaps it's Indiana. Whichever, there will be a place where a person can find a sustainable cost of living while figuring out where t
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:0)
Because otherwise there won't be anyone living close enough to actually work at said grocery store.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2)
The grocer would find that out pretty quick and raise their wages, due to there being no choice. We have to let the prices in cities work themselves out properly. Ultimately, that'll help keep the apartments from getting to $900/month in the first place, when fewer people are willing to relocate there, when many other expenses, such as groceries, go up in price. Eventually, the people who can truly live a
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that by definition, rich people are rich because they can buy whatever they want. Reducing their taxes is thus NOT going to have any impact on the economy because these people have no real incentive to spend more, the extra little bit of money is not going to have any impact.
Also, the earned income tax credit was originally a Republican proposal if my memory serves me correctly. The idea behind it is also based on the above logic. Poor people are deemed poor because they DON'T have the money to purchase what they want. By giving them back money (or just giving them money) you are pretty much guaranteed they are going to spend it. If you give $1000 to a person who makes $20,000 a year, they will spend it. GIve $1000 to a person who makes $200,000 a year and has $1.5 million in assets, they might not even cash the check mailed to them by the government.
Now, I will be the first to admit that none of this solves the problem of a consumer driven economy. But, I am struggling as much as the next man. I would much rather improve our currently corrupt economy so I can pay the rent than plan for the future. Once we get things under control, then we can talk about changing the way our society works.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2)
No, they won't spend more but they will invest it which is MUCH better for the economy than mere consumer spending. It's the taxes on that additional money they might or might not *make* above and beyond what they alre
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2)
I am.
Reducing their taxes is thus NOT going to have any impact on the economy because these people have no real incentive to spend more, the extra little bit of money is not going to have any impact.
Really? Huh. I suppose you think we should just wait for the poor to invest in the companies that employ us. Good plan!
By giving them back money (or just giving them money) you are pretty much guaranteed they are
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2)
Really? Huh. I suppose you think we should just wait for the poor to invest in the companies that employ us. Good plan!
The problem with plutocracies is that their motivations are generally not in the best interest of the people. Today, we have the unequal we
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:1)
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:2)
Making shit up to confuse the American public - that folks, is the MO of the republicans.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:1)
From the parent (grandparent?) post: This illustration is borrowed from someone on the radio (can't remember who).
Can't remember? Or don't want to say because any mention of Rush Limbaugh or any other of the right-wing zealots who populate talk radio will rightly earn you a "-1, flamebait" mod?
Also please keep in mind that these numbers are fictional
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:1)