Republicans can't hide it: tax cuts for the wealthy, screw everyone else - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 04:03 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
^ My post was edited for brevity - there's at *least* one CFO I know who disagrees with you on this point.
Qubes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 06:19 PM
Will Moderate For Cigars
 
cmitch's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: 2002 ML320, 2005 S430 4MATIC, 2010 F150 Crew Cab
Location: City on the TN River
Posts: 10,691
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove View Post
The thread is not about raising taxes, it is about shifting the tax burden off the backs of the middle class on to the backs of the rich cunts who have had a free ride for seven years. Why is the Republian Party opposing the elimination of the AMT? Explain that to us. Your idea that the rich, the people who have the money, should not pay taxes, is assinine.
That's about one of the stupidest statements I've heard. How do you propose to 'shift' this burden without the possibility those tax increases will NOT be passed on to the consumer? The vast majority of these 'Rich cunts' are business owners who employ people, produce products or run our service industries. Are you really stupid enough to think that if you increase the 'Rich cunt's' taxes by, say, 4%, he'll just say, "Well, okay Uncle Sammy, you the daddy. I'll just take less next payday". Bullshit! He's going to go up on his prices or fees to make up for it and you and I will be the middle class chumps who pay for it. That's why I've always said rich people don't pay taxes. They charge enough for what they do to pay for them. If he made $1,000 after taxes before, he's going to make $1,000 after taxes after the increase. Not $960. It is the middle class who is going to pay the tax increase, in reality. Get off your feelgoodism and think for a change.

2005 S430 4Matic 'Morton' W220.183 • 722.671 Rest in Peace

Bells and whistles are thorns and thistles.
cmitch is offline  
post #23 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 07:17 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
^ My post was edited for brevity - there's at *least* one CFO I know who disagrees with you on this point.
Which post, which CFO, which point?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #24 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 07:26 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
From Vanity Fair

When you start reading this attachment you will naturally assume it is from a Liberal Economist who just doesn't like W. Well, he doesn't like W but he is far from a Liberal Economist, TWICE fired by the Clinton Administration because he shot very specific rounds across the bow of their policies.

So, read it, research the Nobel Laureate and then draw conclusions. The bold highlights are mine. [and yes, his numbers are accurate.]
__________________________________________________ _________

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy.

A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Vanity Fair, December 2007

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.

I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance.

And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply dependent on both.

Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
Remember the Surplus?

The world was a very different place, economically speaking, when George W. Bush took office, in January 2001. During the Roaring 90s, many had believed that the Internet would transform everything. Productivity gains, which had averaged about 1.5 percent a year from the early 1970s through the early 90s, now approached 3 percent. During Bill Clinton’s second term, gains in manufacturing productivity sometimes even surpassed 6 percent. The Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, spoke of a New Economy marked by continued productivity gains as the Internet buried the old ways of doing business. Others went so far as to predict an end to the business cycle. Greenspan worried aloud about how he’d ever be able to manage monetary policy once the nation’s debt was fully paid off.

This tremendous confidence took the Dow Jones index higher and higher. The rich did well, but so did the not-so-rich and even the downright poor. The Clinton years were not an economic Nirvana; as chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers during part of this time, I’m all too aware of mistakes and lost opportunities. The global-trade agreements we pushed through were often unfair to developing countries. We should have invested more in infrastructure, tightened regulation of the securities markets, and taken additional steps to promote energy conservation. We fell short because of politics and lack of money—and also, frankly, because special interests sometimes shaped the agenda more than they should have. But these boom years were the first time since Jimmy Carter that the deficit was under control. And they were the first time since the 1970s that incomes at the bottom grew faster than those at the top—a benchmark worth celebrating.

By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.

But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #25 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 07:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmitch View Post
That's about one of the stupidest statements I've heard. How do you propose to 'shift' this burden without the possibility those tax increases will NOT be passed on to the consumer? The vast majority of these 'Rich cunts' are business owners who employ people, produce products or run our service industries. Are you really stupid enough to think that if you increase the 'Rich cunt's' taxes by, say, 4%, he'll just say, "Well, okay Uncle Sammy, you the daddy. I'll just take less next payday". Bullshit! He's going to go up on his prices or fees to make up for it and you and I will be the middle class chumps who pay for it. That's why I've always said rich people don't pay taxes. They charge enough for what they do to pay for them. If he made $1,000 after taxes before, he's going to make $1,000 after taxes after the increase. Not $960. It is the middle class who is going to pay the tax increase, in reality. Get off your feelgoodism and think for a change.
Of course the small businessman that gets the personal tax increase can raise his business's prices to make up the difference [if the market forces allow], however there are many more people that are addressed in the segment of the economy [$300,000+] that don't have that "price increase" decision making position. Many types of impact other than small business income are either payroll, contract, salary, bonus, dividend, capgains, etc. The general taxpayer does not always have the leverage to bump up on a 4-5% tax increase on those incomes.

I know that if I get a 4-5% tax increase I can't just look at marking up my consulting rate as I have to look at market forces that are pushing back from the other side, both in competition of other consultants and hiring corporations that also have higher expenses and won't add addition lift on the consultant side.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #26 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 08:01 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
I've read a lot of fairly heady stuff from Vanity Fair lately...I might actually be able to get behind that magazine.

Wow...I'm almost at 4k.
Qubes is offline  
post #27 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 08:04 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
There's a simple fact about our national economy that liberals have never understood, and never will.

When you raise taxes, the government brings in less tax revenue.

When you cut taxes, the government brings in more tax revenue.

It's counter-intuitive, which is where liberals always get thrown off the scent. Rather than study something, they just rely on their "feelings" to be their guide. It's pure idiocy. It happened with the minimum wage, and it will continue happening as long as they're able.

Fortunately, they're so poorly led, that it's unlikely they'll really have a chance to screw anything up.

Back when I was naive enough to think a republican congress needed a republican president, so we could get some stuff done, this precept wasn't as clear. Nowadays, I want the president and the congress to be of opposite parties, so that only the really important stuff on which everyone agrees will get any traction. Gridlock is far better than a runaway legislative & executive.
I agree with your last paragraph but find the proclamations on the consequences of raising and lowering taxes a bit simplistic. The conditions at the time actions are taken have a significant influence on the outcome. And, when you reduce taxes for the wealthy, while running up deficits at record levels in our history, I think the benefit of your precept is so distorted it is lost.

I also agree the most important and effective tool to balance the budget is to reduce spending. The next most important tool is to reduce spending too. But to increase spending and then increase spending and follow that with more increased spending while cutting taxes hoping the revenues that might generate will catch you up, is, a mcbear noted, just bad fiscal policy. Don't spend what you don't have. And don't give tax money back to the wealthy while you run the deficits up to the point where the middle class, the source of all the rich people's money, begins to collapse under the pressure. Jim

Last edited by JimSmith; 11-11-2007 at 08:09 PM.
JimSmith is offline  
post #28 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 08:23 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Look, balancing the budget is just freakin Econ 101. I don't consider that a republican/democrat thing...everyone needs to balance the budget.

Here's the thing I was playing at, and this proves out. When you reduce income tax, you grease the skids of the economy. Corporations (and the uber-rich) don't pay taxes, they collect them. So to tax them, is to tax the lower and middle classes doubly. This means that when taxes go up, the people most affected are the lower and middle classes - meaning their dollar doesn't go as far, meaning they cut back on discressionary and big-ticket purchases as long as they can stand it, meaning overall tax revenues go down. It's like the old game "Lemonade Stand", on an unimaginably large scale. You can often make more by charging less.

The only fair way to tax corporations is flatly. The only fair way to tax individuals is at the point of sale. We shouldn't distinguish anyone from anyone else (as far as occupation, etc. goes). I can't believe that what you do governs how much or little you're taxed. That's nuts.

The immediate simplifcation and elimination of vast swaths of the tax code would generate vast savings - not just in real dollars spent by the government, but also in efficiency and productivity at every corporation in the country.

Wow, some of the San Diego cheerleaders are hot.
Qubes is offline  
post #29 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 08:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
Look, balancing the budget is just freakin Econ 101. I don't consider that a republican/democrat thing...everyone needs to balance the budget.

Here's the thing I was playing at, and this proves out. When you reduce income tax, you grease the skids of the economy. Corporations (and the uber-rich) don't pay taxes, they collect them. So to tax them, is to tax the lower and middle classes doubly. This means that when taxes go up, the people most affected are the lower and middle classes - meaning their dollar doesn't go as far, meaning they cut back on discressionary and big-ticket purchases as long as they can stand it, meaning overall tax revenues go down. It's like the old game "Lemonade Stand", on an unimaginably large scale. You can often make more by charging less.

The only fair way to tax corporations is flatly. The only fair way to tax individuals is at the point of sale. We shouldn't distinguish anyone from anyone else (as far as occupation, etc. goes). I can't believe that what you do governs how much or little you're taxed. That's nuts.

The immediate simplifcation and elimination of vast swaths of the tax code would generate vast savings - not just in real dollars spent by the government, but also in efficiency and productivity at every corporation in the country.

Wow, some of the San Diego cheerleaders are hot.
I think the only two reasons folks have such an aversion to the current "tax cut" is that it 1) was not across the board, leaving out ALL of the middle class and 2) it occurred while at the same time running up high debt. The fundamental idea is great, but the issue is implementation.

Tax at Point of Sale is not a very fair tax. Reason I say that is that to get the appropriate amount of money to run a balanced budget [currently around $3T] the percentage would have to be high enough to generate the bulk.

Since EVERYONE buys staples, commodities, and necessities, at a consistent rate, and that accounts for a bulk of purchases the person with a LOW income would be paying a much greater percentage of their income than a person with a HIGH income. The key words are MUCH GREATER.

The more poor a person is, the higher percentage of their income is in necessary taxes [since all have to by food, gas, insurance, cloths, furniture, etc]

A more balanced approach is to provide a single flat rate for everyone [or a two, three tier if you want to increase revenue by taxing more from those in the $xM income range] with ZERO deductions. Eliminate ALL loopholes, all deductions. If you make $20K a year you pay X% Federal tax, if you make $20M a year you pay X% a year. Same percentage, no deduction for the G5, no deduction for 7 kids, no deduction for the second home mortgage [or first home mortgage].

Just a TAX ON YOUR INCOME. Not a tax on your income except for R,q,7,L1,Z and 29.

Business has to be different in order to allow for investment [to spur a biz to get new equipment or expand or add lines] but remove the incentives to move work offshore, to bring in H1Bs, to give stratospheric bonuses [although with the straight tax on the personal side they might become less appealing].

Once the tax code implemented the KISS method, everyone would be much happier and would be much less likely to complain if everyone pays the same rate.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #30 of 43 (permalink) Old 11-11-2007, 09:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
I think those who enjoy services the most should pay the most, and the rich, by far, enjoy the most of what the government provides for services. I get worked up when I hear people complaining about welfare and other handouts to the poor, citing these "entitlements" as the budget busters. In the end, those are a service to the rich as well. It is a bribe to keep the poor, nasty ghetto dwellers out of the rich people's neighborhoods, schools, stores and lives. And the money they are handed out, all ends up in the hands of rich guys as the poor guys spend the money buying shit the rich guys are selling them.

Then there are the Federal and State Agencies that exist solely to maintain the conditions required to safely conduct all business (oh, except in those aforementioned ghettos) and other massive income generating operations. From railroads, highways, public transportation systems, power utilities, communication utilities, etc., etc. Oh I know we all enjoy the availability of these aspects of our civilization, but most of us just use them. Pay through the nose to use them. While others make money when we do. And those people are the ones who are the biggest beneficiaries of these items existing, from an income perspective. So, they should pay the highest income taxes, as the conditions for them to get so rich are established using the taxes collected.

As far as the rest of the stuff goes, the country needs to pay its debt and to do that means we have to change our ways. We have to be weaned off the idea that it is ok to spend now and pay later, that cheap shit from China or other places where people labor for lower wages is affordable when it is bought with borrowed money. I don't know how you balance the budget now, given the interest payment on the debt is so high, without increasing taxes. Maybe just to the levels they were at when Clinton balanced the budget. What we know is that we are presently spending our way into oblivion. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    MB Star Tac agunjal W220 S-Class 6 02-11-2007 08:26 AM
    Intermittent Tac and Fuel Qty gauge mtt2961 W202 C36 AMG, C43 AMG 0 10-28-2006 02:36 PM
    Star Tac phone activation? jtbenzman1 C208/A208 CLK-Class 1 03-13-2005 01:33 PM
    Star Tac phone operation silver C Audio & Telematics Forum 4 11-05-2003 09:46 PM
    TAC, any pics of your Bullmastiff and the ML? cgeorge430 W163 M-Class 5 01-05-2003 07:12 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome