tax cuts for the rich, i never quite understood that statement.

bluberryhazebluberryhaze brooklyn, NYMember Posts: 1,702

seriously, i left my job in december to look after my 8 mos. old and havent been out for awhile. I need stimulus.

 

i had a look over http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html  with a reminder from the tax thread.

what was the uproar regarding that snazzy slogan from the blue side? Im not prodding anyone, im bad at the economics of the politics but i do know math.

it seems the top 10% already do pay the bulk of the tax bill. so when a cut was proposed, was it not a percentage of everyones income?

-I will subtlety invade your psyche-

Comments

  • Tax cuts for the rich were done so they would make more jobs.  But when a person is allready rich and gets more money they hord it, so they are pointless. Tax cuts for the low and middle income familys would been more effective becuase when you give them money they spend it. 

  • AwakenedAwakened Titusville, FLMember CommonPosts: 595

    Bush's latest Chinese Financial Stimulus Plan will provide rebates to senior citizens over the age of 65, the unepmloyed, and those making households making $150,000 a year o more.  I think the total number of Americans getting something will be around 60 million.

    The man is a moron.  Income tax itself is a joke.  The best stim package would be one that drasticly reduces government spending, income tax, and business taxes.  As Ron Paul said last night at the debates, it's not the president's job to manage the economy; that responsiblity falls on the people, and if given a true freemarket, the people have more than enough opportunity to prosper.

    What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?

  • GorairGorair Austin, TXMember Posts: 959

    well i think the theory is something along the lines of  the lesson learned from the great depression. The amount of money never went down ever, just that the rich people stopped spending and locked up all their money and that trickes down. So in an effort to prevent the 10% from putting 90% opf the money under their mattress and waiting it out they give them incentives to spend it.

    If my company stopped spending ( using some simple data here im no accountant) that removes about 10-13 mil from my suppliers and they cut their people loose,  and since i didnt buy things to make i dont have work, cutting my employees loose. My employees no longer have money to spend  and my suppliers employess dont have money to spend meaning that they dont buy stuff from walmart, so walmart cuts staff since alot of ppl are buying less , then even more ppl are not spening money and the few who have jobs stop buying anything other than whats absolutely necessary so that means ever more companyies have less to spend and cut more people loose , etc...

    On top of that after seeing your neighbor lose his job , even if you keep yours its natural to think "i need to save my cash just in case" so even ppl who stay at work spend less money.

    so it all rolls downhill not uphill.

    really simple version  but i think thats the theory as i understand it , but im prolly wrong about this or at least part of this , there are some economic types around ehre that could give the real answer way better but i wanted to give it a shot just see how far off i am.

     

     

     

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

  • abbabaabbaba Monroe, WIMember Posts: 1,143

    Originally posted by Awakened


    Bush's latest Chinese Financial Stimulus Plan will provide rebates to senior citizens over the age of 65, the unepmloyed, and those making households making $150,000 a year o more.  I think the total number of Americans getting something will be around 60 million.
    That's not true at all, the way its structured you get less money the higher your income is. If you make more than 75k/year you get nothing at all.

     

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/561779/bush_stimulus_plan_details_released.html

  • GorairGorair Austin, TXMember Posts: 959

    hmm the plan i saw says if you are recieving ANY type of govt assistance at all ( welfare, SSN, etc .. ) you are niot eligible , and anyone with an income ofer 100k or so also gets nothing.

    By the way really no one gets a damn thing ... its a freaking 600$ loan. You have to give it back next year.

     

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

  • Cabe2323Cabe2323 Riverview, FLMember Posts: 2,939

    Originally posted by Awakened


    Bush's latest Chinese Financial Stimulus Plan will provide rebates to senior citizens over the age of 65, the unepmloyed, and those making households making $150,000 a year o more.  I think the total number of Americans getting something will be around 60 million.
    The man is a moron.  Income tax itself is a joke.  The best stim package would be one that drasticly reduces government spending, income tax, and business taxes.  As Ron Paul said last night at the debates, it's not the president's job to manage the economy; that responsiblity falls on the people, and if given a true freemarket, the people have more than enough opportunity to prosper.
    Actually you can thank the Democratic Senators for the Senior Citizens,  Unemployed rebates.  The plan put through the house by Bush had no extra unemployment benefits and only gave rebates to working people and working families that made less then 75K per adult.  It also didn't provide any benefits for anyone who did not pay taxes. 

     

    The democrats want to give everyone money whether htey work or not.  And whether they pay taxes or not.  It is ridiculous in my opinion.

    Currently playing:
    LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)

    Looking Foward too:
    Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)

  • bluberryhazebluberryhaze brooklyn, NYMember Posts: 1,702

    let me rephrase my question.

     

    back in, i think 2003, there was a big fiasco with the tag phrase, tax cuts for the rich.

    were the taxcuts for the rich? were they a percentage across the board. if so, it would be obvious that a lets just say 10% tax cut  would be more money monetarily, for someone who makes more money. is that how that tax package was done?

    this time I see regarding the rebate, is aimed at low to middle class incomes.

    and it is despicable to just give money away to people who are illegal and/or dont pay taxes.

    -I will subtlety invade your psyche-

  • WikkedbowtieWikkedbowtie Joplin, MOMember Posts: 494

    I believe that the problem is that it is not a set percentage for everyone. It is a percentage up to a certain level. Not sure of the actuall numbers but for example.... Up to $100,000 you pay say 24%. Anything above that is taxed at 19% and anything above $200,000 is taxed around 14%. The problem with that is the more money you make the less taxes you pay, on average. So even though they are paying more total taxes, because they make more money, they pay a lower percentage. Useing my imaginary numbers, someone who makes less then 100k would pay 24%. Someone making 200k would pay 21%, 300k would pay 19%, and someone making 400k would pay 17.75%.

    As for the rebate. It should only be for those that paid income tax last year. Its really pretty simple. I just think it sucks that the states are going to make us claim it as income next year.

  • n25phillyn25philly Holland, PAMember Posts: 1,317
    Originally posted by abbaba


     
    Originally posted by Awakened


    Bush's latest Chinese Financial Stimulus Plan will provide rebates to senior citizens over the age of 65, the unepmloyed, and those making households making $150,000 a year o more.  I think the total number of Americans getting something will be around 60 million.
    That's not true at all, the way its structured you get less money the higher your income is. If you make more than 75k/year you get nothing at all.

     

     

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/561779/bush_stimulus_plan_details_released.html

    I love how $75,000 is apparently now considered rich.  My gross income was $91,000 this year  I took home $54757.76.  All while making $22.50/hr for most of the year.  I don't even mind not getting any money back that much as my attitude is that if I need it I'll just put in some more hours to earn it.  What makes me mad is that this rebate if for "the working people"  Do the math of what it takes to make what I made.  Yeah, I guess I don't work for it...

    member of imminst.org

  • BushMonkeyBushMonkey Iron springs, AZMember Posts: 1,406

    Out of curiosity how many have heard "The rich should pay more in taxes because that's fair" 

    It's certainly not fair to the rich,and could have the effect of causing people to not strive for wealth=self sufficient=no need for a goverment handout. 

     When i was a child i asked a teacher why the rich had to pay more in taxes that was the answer. Ok so who decides whats rich? will we judge by the grinding poverty levels in the third world after all the poorest  westerner is richer than they,so should we tax everyone in every circumstance until we are reduced to an equal poverty level?  Because that would be fair?

     Simple put taxing the rich at higher levels and giving a tax break to the poor is unfair, all should be taxed at the same level if you want to deem taxes "fair.

     

  • MizabMizab provo, UTMember Posts: 149

    Originally posted by BushMonkey


    Out of curiosity how many have heard "The rich should pay more in taxes because that's fair" 

    It's certainly not fair to the rich,and could have the effect of causing people to not strive for wealth=self sufficient=no need for a goverment handout. 

     When i was a child i asked a teacher why the rich had to pay more in taxes that was the answer. Ok so who decides whats rich? will we judge by the grinding poverty levels in the third world after all the poorest  westerner is richer than they,so should we tax everyone in every circumstance until we are reduced to an equal poverty level?  Because that would be fair?

     Simple put taxing the rich at higher levels and giving a tax break to the poor is unfair, all should be taxed at the same level if you want to deem taxes "fair.
     
    I agree 100% with this I mean the rich pay more taxes but do they get more in return. No if anything they get much less I mean if you are poor you can get all sorts of goverment aid and pay very little taxes. The rich can't get any kind of goverment aid and pay the most.

    I always the rich should get a specail lane on the freeway and express lines for all goverment services.

Sign In or Register to comment.