Obamas 250K tax line? protests make no sense?

Quote from Maverick74:

I repeat. You are not seeing the forest through the trees. Very few Americans make over 250k a year. But many small businesses do.

If I gave you a choice, would you rather pay more in taxes or lose your job, I would say 100% of the people on this board would rather pay more in taxes. Nobody wants to lose their job. When you raise the costs for small business, people lose their jobs. Most small business are operating on very thin margins. When you raise their operating costs, they cut labor.

It has nothing to do with someone having to pay another $300 on a marginal tax increase. Most people would love to pay 1k more in taxes to keep their 50k a year job. Do the math.
More...

The exact same arguments were made in 1993 and 1994. Didn't work out that way, did it? How many times would you have to get a dull (Bush the first) or outright disastrous (Bush the second) economy as compared to a prosperous one before you finally decide the evidence doesn't even begin to back your contention?
As for the forest, this is the forest: deficit spending was needed to prevent total disaster. From here, we have to gradually work back to balance. That will keep interest rates from going through the roof once the banks ease up and lend (which is starting to happen).
 
If the middle fifth's effective tax rate dropped from 5% to 2.9%, that's a 42% reduction in effective tax rate ((5-2.9)/5= 42%)).

The highest group's tax rates dropped from 24.2 to 19.6, that's a 19% effective tax rate reduction ((24.2-19.6)/24.2 = 19%).

As a percentage drop, the lower income peoples' effective tax rate reductions (42%) were more than twice as high as the wealthiest peoples' tax rate reductions (19%).

Based on the numbers you're giving, poorer peoples' effective tax rates went down more than twice as much as wealthy people.


Quote from Gabfly1:

Nice try with the old saw. Except that when Bush was in office he lavished the largest income earners with the biggest tax cuts, and disproportionately so. Who was standing up for the little guy then? Certainly not the people who want the little guy to stand up for them now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

...Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000...


And this after their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years. I think it's a fascinating marvel of propaganda to be able to maneuver the very people who only got the leftovers at the dinner table to now wave the flag on behalf of those who have gorged themselves and are now awaiting their dessert between burps.
More...
 
Quote from noob_trad3r:

If the Majority of americans make 250K and less, so the tax cut should not effect them. So how come so many people making much less than 250K seem to protest this? You see people coming out from trailer parks who obviously make minimum wage going to these rallies by Glen beck protesting the tax cuts.

I understand why Glenn beck is protesting since he makes in the double digit millions but I do not understand why the custodian making 6 bucks an hour leaving the trailer park going to protest the tax increase.

Wont they actually pay less taxes?
More...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When the politician use their religion often, then this people maybe not think about anything except agree with their prophet /Beck/Palin. FEAR.
 
Quote from Maverick74:


Most small business are operating on very thin margins. When you raise their operating costs, they cut labor.

More...

yet they are able to make 250k net a year. not so thin i would say.

business hires to meet demand. it has almost nothing to do with personal tax rates.
 
Quote from trefoil:

The exact same arguments were made in 1993 and 1994. Didn't work out that way, did it? How many times would you have to get a dull (Bush the first) or outright disastrous (Bush the second) economy as compared to a prosperous one before you finally decide the evidence doesn't even begin to back your contention?
As for the forest, this is the forest: deficit spending was needed to prevent total disaster. From here, we have to gradually work back to balance. That will keep interest rates from going through the roof once the banks ease up and lend (which is starting to happen).
More...

Don't even get me started on the 90's. That entire bubble was created by Greenspan and the printing of money. I hope I never see the day again where a pencil necked geek can make 500 million a year by taking pets.com public.

Come on Trefoil. That was a house of cards. Clinton created NAFTA, started importing the real jobs (actually making stuff) overseas and replaced it with the dot com silicon valley bubble. Sure, it sent tax revenue soaring and created a short term budget surplus but it was built on paper money. Once that paper money vanished we looked around for the real jobs (making stuff) and discovered those jobs were long gone.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Clinton created NAFTA
More...

"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch."
 
There were also two major techologies, computers and cell phones, that began to simmer in the 1980s and exploded in the 1990s, creating millions jobs. Unfortunately, there are no such technologies on the horizon today.


Quote from Maverick74:

Don't even get me started on the 90's. That entire bubble was created by Greenspan and the printing of money. I hope I never see the day again where a pencil necked geek can make 500 million a year by taking pets.com public.

Come on Trefoil. That was a house of cards. Clinton created NAFTA, started importing the real jobs (actually making stuff) overseas and replaced it with the dot com silicon valley bubble. Sure, it sent tax revenue soaring and created a short term budget surplus but it was built on paper money. Once that paper money vanished we looked around for the real jobs (making stuff) and discovered those jobs were long gone.
More...
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

yet they are able to make 250k net a year. not so thin i would say.

business hires to meet demand. it has almost nothing to do with personal tax rates.
More...

Then why are small businesses hiring all these illegals to work for $10 a day and no bathroom breaks if they are not sensitive to labor costs? Come on, you live in South Dakota, who is doing all the cheap labor on those farms?
 
Therefore they should cough up more tax $ to be redistributed by the socialist welfare state?!?
Quote from Free Thinker:

yet they are able to make 250k net a year. not so thin i would say.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top