quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

quote:

Originally posted by lgarner:

And those that are "rich" are providing more for the country and in turn government by owning or investing in a business that will be able to provide jobs and services to the less fortunate. Go and ask that guy making 10k to invest in a business and get laughed at. Go and ask the guy making 100mil and he just might invest a million into it. That would provide jobs to more people and more income and therefore more tax revenues.

But aren't the rich also benefiting from the society that provides them the infrastructure that they need to get rich and to remain rich?

It just seems simplistic, to me, to think of taxes as being merely a wealth transfer, which is what mhward said in his response calling me a socialist.

And back to the original point of the thread, the rich pay more $$ in taxes than the poor. So what?

The rich benefited more from tax cuts too, dollarwise and yet if someone says that Bush's tax cuts were aimed to benefit the rich, that's class warfare.

By the way, I just noticed in your sig that you're from Hayden. Do you know of a road called Oakhalla road, or something like that? I'm pretty sure it's not Oakhollow. When I lived in Alabama, back in the late 80's/early 90's, I worked with a guy from Hayden who lived on that road. I was thinking about him the other day and it struck me that it's been almost 20 years since I worked there. My mental image of all my co-workers from back then is frozen at 20 years ago. It's kind of weird being old.

Not familiar with that road Groove. We moved to Hayden about 10 years ago and I still don't know all of the roads around here. Most of my time is spent traveling back and forth to B'ham to work. And yes it is weird getting old.

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:
Where does this idea that all of your tax dollars are just used as handouts to the poor and undeserving come from?

I think a little more than half of it pays for the military. Big chunks pay for keeping your country safe in other ways, FTA, FDA, FBI, CIA etc. Billions of dollars go to local state and city governments to help pay for projects ranging from sewage, to roadways to housing.

I'd guess that far more of your tax money ends up in the bank account of unethical overcharging contractors than poor people.

And social security? Don't go there, most of the greatest generation depends on that just to get by living miserably.

I find it interestng and hard to believe that being the military supporter that you are, you would support a democratic candidate. Democrats cut military spending, depriving the troops of the equipment and technology needed that tax money you speak of is "paying for"

I'm referring to where our tax dollars actually get used. The current administration, with a republican congress, failed to properly fund the troops during the first few years of this war. Billions of dollars were thrown at shady contractors who failed to produce what they were paid for. Money that should have been used to provide proper equipment for our troops.

Bush Sr. enacted the largest cuts to the military in my lifetime. If Clinton's administration had not rescinded many of those cuts the Marine Corps would have been reduced in number so drastically it would have no longer been a viable fighting force.

I lived on a base filled with housing that would fit right into any ghetto, all that changed during the Clinton years. They tore down all the housing and built new. They built new commisaries and post exchanges. The quality of life for the military improved a great deal during 90's. This was done with a Democrat president and a Republican congress working together to do what was right.

Yes we were lacking what we needed the first part of the war, but it was found b/c this is a different kind of war. That was soon rectified.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush Sr. made military cuts? So you are saying that Clinton was not responsible for the anorexic military he left behind? Clinton did not offer early retirement to military members in order to downsize? I could be wrong, but I believe you have presidents mixed up.

The housing on Fort Bragg is better now that it ever has been, for both families and single soldiers. So nothing has changed there. That is a result of military garrison commanders budgeting their money into housing efforts. And military funding is extremely high right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:
The rich benefited more from tax cuts too, dollarwise and yet if someone says that Bush's tax cuts were aimed to benefit the rich, that's class warfare.

That's a selective view. You're looking in terms of dollars when others are looking in terms of percentage.

How can you say the rich received a greater benefit than those who were completely removed from the income tax rolls? Poor people went to paying practically 0% in income taxes. The numbers say this.

The fact is that a chunk of Obama's plan is rooted in class warfare. For example, he wants to give an add'l $1000 credit to offset payroll taxes. But it equates to only the first $8000 of income.

So if a person earns only $20k/yr, then they're only paying payroll taxes on $12k. Where would Obama make up the shortfall? By raising (or eliminating) the income ceiling on payroll taxes.

Poor people aren't going to get less benefits when they don't pay taxes on their first $8k. They'll get the same benefits, courtesy of the rich people who are forced to pay those taxes on much more of their income, which will greatly exceed any monetary amount they plan to get in return for their payroll "contributions."

This is a class warfare tactic.

Also, I appreciate someone who can admit they were wrong & apologize. Consider it accepted.

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:
Where does this idea that all of your tax dollars are just used as handouts to the poor and undeserving come from?

I think a little more than half of it pays for the military. Big chunks pay for keeping your country safe in other ways, FTA, FDA, FBI, CIA etc. Billions of dollars go to local state and city governments to help pay for projects ranging from sewage, to roadways to housing.

I'd guess that far more of your tax money ends up in the bank account of unethical overcharging contractors than poor people.

And social security? Don't go there, most of the greatest generation depends on that just to get by living miserably.

I find it interestng and hard to believe that being the military supporter that you are, you would support a democratic candidate. Democrats cut military spending, depriving the troops of the equipment and technology needed that tax money you speak of is "paying for"

I'm referring to where our tax dollars actually get used. The current administration, with a republican congress, failed to properly fund the troops during the first few years of this war. Billions of dollars were thrown at shady contractors who failed to produce what they were paid for. Money that should have been used to provide proper equipment for our troops.

Bush Sr. enacted the largest cuts to the military in my lifetime. If Clinton's administration had not rescinded many of those cuts the Marine Corps would have been reduced in number so drastically it would have no longer been a viable fighting force.

I lived on a base filled with housing that would fit right into any ghetto, all that changed during the Clinton years. They tore down all the housing and built new. They built new commisaries and post exchanges. The quality of life for the military improved a great deal during 90's. This was done with a Democrat president and a Republican congress working together to do what was right.

Yes we were lacking what we needed the first part of the war, but it was found b/c this is a different kind of war. That was soon rectified.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush Sr. made military cuts? So you are saying that Clinton was not responsible for the anorexic military he left behind? Clinton did not offer early retirement to military members in order to downsize? I could be wrong, but I believe you have presidents mixed up.

The housing on Fort Bragg is better now that it ever has been, for both families and single soldiers. So nothing has changed there. That is a result of military garrison commanders budgeting their money into housing efforts. And military funding is extremely high right now.

Dude, I just typed the long answer only to have my cable drop out and lost the post. I frikking hate TimeWarner!

So you get the short answer. Yes Bush Sr. enacted cuts.

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:
Where does this idea that all of your tax dollars are just used as handouts to the poor and undeserving come from?

I think a little more than half of it pays for the military. Big chunks pay for keeping your country safe in other ways, FTA, FDA, FBI, CIA etc. Billions of dollars go to local state and city governments to help pay for projects ranging from sewage, to roadways to housing.

I'd guess that far more of your tax money ends up in the bank account of unethical overcharging contractors than poor people.

And social security? Don't go there, most of the greatest generation depends on that just to get by living miserably.

I find it interestng and hard to believe that being the military supporter that you are, you would support a democratic candidate. Democrats cut military spending, depriving the troops of the equipment and technology needed that tax money you speak of is "paying for"

I'm referring to where our tax dollars actually get used. The current administration, with a republican congress, failed to properly fund the troops during the first few years of this war. Billions of dollars were thrown at shady contractors who failed to produce what they were paid for. Money that should have been used to provide proper equipment for our troops.

Bush Sr. enacted the largest cuts to the military in my lifetime. If Clinton's administration had not rescinded many of those cuts the Marine Corps would have been reduced in number so drastically it would have no longer been a viable fighting force.

I lived on a base filled with housing that would fit right into any ghetto, all that changed during the Clinton years. They tore down all the housing and built new. They built new commisaries and post exchanges. The quality of life for the military improved a great deal during 90's. This was done with a Democrat president and a Republican congress working together to do what was right.

Yes we were lacking what we needed the first part of the war, but it was found b/c this is a different kind of war. That was soon rectified.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush Sr. made military cuts? So you are saying that Clinton was not responsible for the anorexic military he left behind? Clinton did not offer early retirement to military members in order to downsize? I could be wrong, but I believe you have presidents mixed up.

The housing on Fort Bragg is better now that it ever has been, for both families and single soldiers. So nothing has changed there. That is a result of military garrison commanders budgeting their money into housing efforts. And military funding is extremely high right now.

Dude, I just typed the long answer only to have my cable drop out and lost the post. I frikking hate TimeWarner!

So you get the short answer. Yes Bush Sr. enacted cuts.

There is one big difference that you are forgetting to make. Bush Sr.'s planned drawdown was because the cold war was over and both sides of congress agreed that we needed a small reduction. Clinton's drawdown on the other hand was damaging to national security as base after base was closed.

quote:

Originally posted by rankincooter01:

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:
The rich benefited more from tax cuts too, dollarwise and yet if someone says that Bush's tax cuts were aimed to benefit the rich, that's class warfare.

That's a selective view. You're looking in terms of dollars when others are looking in terms of percentage.

I don't think it's any more selective than the article referenced in the 1st post in this thread that talks about how the upper income bracket pays the majority of the tax dollars that are taken in.

quote:

How can you say the rich received a greater benefit than those who were completely removed from the income tax rolls? Poor people went to paying practically 0% in income taxes. The numbers say this.

I don't say that the rich received a greater benefit but I don't think it's fair to say that the poor receive a larger benefit than the rich, unless you're only talking about things that only benefit the poor, such as welfare, aid to dependent children, foodstamps, etc. There are tons of other things that are paid for with tax revenues that benefit everyone, society in general. There are other things that tend to benefit the rich (such as the tax subsidy you can get for buying a yacht, such as being able to depreciate the value of thoroughbred race horses, etc.)

quote:

The fact is that a chunk of Obama's plan is rooted in class warfare. For example, he wants to give an add'l $1000 credit to offset payroll taxes. But it equates to only the first $8000 of income.

First, whenever anyone uses a buzz word like "class warfare," it immediately raises red flags, to me, that the person using such a word has a definite axe to grind and their opinion is going to be extremely biased. Your class warfare may vary depending on which class you're in or the biased glasses through which you view the world.

Second, Obama's tax plan will result in lower taxes for everyone earning less than $250k per year. For those earning above that, their taxes will rise some amount that doesn't seem draconian to me.

quote:

Also, I appreciate someone who can admit they were wrong & apologize. Consider it accepted.

Thanks. I thought I edited it before you could've seen it. I didn't want to throw gas on the fire.

quote:

Originally posted by curtiss1:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:

quote:

Originally posted by Barn Burner:

quote:

Originally posted by Fan-in-Paradise:
Where does this idea that all of your tax dollars are just used as handouts to the poor and undeserving come from?

I think a little more than half of it pays for the military. Big chunks pay for keeping your country safe in other ways, FTA, FDA, FBI, CIA etc. Billions of dollars go to local state and city governments to help pay for projects ranging from sewage, to roadways to housing.

I'd guess that far more of your tax money ends up in the bank account of unethical overcharging contractors than poor people.

And social security? Don't go there, most of the greatest generation depends on that just to get by living miserably.

I find it interestng and hard to believe that being the military supporter that you are, you would support a democratic candidate. Democrats cut military spending, depriving the troops of the equipment and technology needed that tax money you speak of is "paying for"

I'm referring to where our tax dollars actually get used. The current administration, with a republican congress, failed to properly fund the troops during the first few years of this war. Billions of dollars were thrown at shady contractors who failed to produce what they were paid for. Money that should have been used to provide proper equipment for our troops.

Bush Sr. enacted the largest cuts to the military in my lifetime. If Clinton's administration had not rescinded many of those cuts the Marine Corps would have been reduced in number so drastically it would have no longer been a viable fighting force.

I lived on a base filled with housing that would fit right into any ghetto, all that changed during the Clinton years. They tore down all the housing and built new. They built new commisaries and post exchanges. The quality of life for the military improved a great deal during 90's. This was done with a Democrat president and a Republican congress working together to do what was right.

Yes we were lacking what we needed the first part of the war, but it was found b/c this is a different kind of war. That was soon rectified.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush Sr. made military cuts? So you are saying that Clinton was not responsible for the anorexic military he left behind? Clinton did not offer early retirement to military members in order to downsize? I could be wrong, but I believe you have presidents mixed up.

The housing on Fort Bragg is better now that it ever has been, for both families and single soldiers. So nothing has changed there. That is a result of military garrison commanders budgeting their money into housing efforts. And military funding is extremely high right now.

Dude, I just typed the long answer only to have my cable drop out and lost the post. I frikking hate TimeWarner!

So you get the short answer. Yes Bush Sr. enacted cuts.

There is one big difference that you are forgetting to make. Bush Sr.'s planned drawdown was because the cold war was over and both sides of congress agreed that we needed a small reduction. Clinton's drawdown on the other hand was damaging to national security as base after base was closed.

All addressed in the now lost "long answer". After the Gulf War, coupled with the end of the Cold War, there were no imminent threats to our national security. The Bush administration enacted drastic force reductions, base closings and spending cuts. Clinton actually reversed many of the cuts when he took office. The base closings you referred to were initiated by Bush Sr.

This was discussed at length in a couple of threads last year.

I had more regarding the military wizard Donald Rumsfield and the damage he did to our military prior to the beginning of this war but I blew my wad typing all that crap the first time. Frikking TimeWarner....

quote:

Originally posted by TaterSalad:
Because of the tax breaks, the rich got richer. That's why they paid more in taxes (not percentage, but actual dollars).

i do apologize however i could not let a comment from the first page go without a clarification... or perhaps a question in general...

is it the goal of the average person to become richer (monetarily) or to get to a comfortable income level and stop the climb up the income ladder?

i for one would love to become richer despite our inverse social situation where we punish those who wish to work for more and reward those that do not want to work at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

1. I don't think it's any more selective than the article referenced...that talks about how the upper income bracket pays the majority of the tax dollars that are taken in...

2...I don't say that the rich received a greater benefit but I don't think it's fair to say that the poor receive a larger benefit...There are tons of other things that are paid for with tax revenues that benefit everyone...There are other things that tend to benefit the rich...such as being able to depreciate the value of thoroughbred race horses, etc...

3...whenever anyone uses a buzz word like "class warfare,"...the person...has a definite axe to grind and...Your class warfare may vary depending on...the biased glasses through which you view the world...

4...Obama's tax plan will result in lower taxes for everyone earning less than $250k per year. For those earning above that, their taxes will rise some amount that doesn't seem draconian to me

I edited your comments because it's a lot to digest & long posts tend to go unread. I'll try to be succinct.

1. It's not selective when it's a statistical fact. I've posted the CBO facts before. The rich pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than they make. Hypothetical example: They make 20% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes. That's not fair.

2. You said the rich received a greater benefit when you said, "The rich benefited more from tax cuts too" Now, I know the context in which you meant it, but it's what you typed. Since the tax cuts became law, the lowest 50% have paid less of the income taxes while they've received more "back" annually in the form of EITC, for example. I can show you gov't sources to prove this if you don't believe me.

3. Class warfare is real. If you've ever read Frederic Bastiat's work then you'd know it's been around for a while. Rousseau, though on your side of the spectrum, said the same thing.

4. We're in economic hardship, & I'll argue with any Bush lover who denies that. But raising taxes on the rich will hurt in the form of jobs available. The rich are going to get theirs anyway. What matters is whether they get it in the form of earning more money, or in cutting already established expenses. If there's less money coming in, there won't be more money.

About your yachts/horses/deductions comment. I agree. I hate the way the tax code is beng used to socially engineer society. You can, in part, thank a lobbyist for that one.

quote:

Originally posted by rankincooter01:

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

1. I don't think it's any more selective than the article referenced...that talks about how the upper income bracket pays the majority of the tax dollars that are taken in...

2...I don't say that the rich received a greater benefit but I don't think it's fair to say that the poor receive a larger benefit...There are tons of other things that are paid for with tax revenues that benefit everyone...There are other things that tend to benefit the rich...such as being able to depreciate the value of thoroughbred race horses, etc...

3...whenever anyone uses a buzz word like "class warfare,"...the person...has a definite axe to grind and...Your class warfare may vary depending on...the biased glasses through which you view the world...

4...Obama's tax plan will result in lower taxes for everyone earning less than $250k per year. For those earning above that, their taxes will rise some amount that doesn't seem draconian to me

I edited your comments because it's a lot to digest & long posts tend to go unread. I'll try to be succinct.

1. It's not selective when it's a statistical fact. I've posted the CBO facts before. The rich pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than they make. Hypothetical example: They make 20% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes. That's not fair.

2. You said the rich received a greater benefit when you said, "The rich benefited more from tax cuts too" Now, I know the context in which you meant it, but it's what you typed. Since the tax cuts became law, the lowest 50% have paid less of the income taxes while they've received more "back" annually in the form of EITC, for example. I can show you gov't sources to prove this if you don't believe me.

3. Class warfare is real. If you've ever read Frederic Bastiat's work then you'd know it's been around for a while. Rousseau, though on your side of the spectrum, said the same thing.

4. We're in economic hardship, & I'll argue with any Bush lover who denies that. But raising taxes on the rich will hurt in the form of jobs available. The rich are going to get theirs anyway. What matters is whether they get it in the form of earning more money, or in cutting already established expenses. If there's less money coming in, there won't be more money.

About your yachts/horses/deductions comment. I agree. I hate the way the tax code is beng used to socially engineer society. You can, in part, thank a lobbyist for that one.

1. The rich make the majority of the income and pay the majority of the taxes. Even if we had a flat tax rate, this would still be true. That's the gist of the article at the top of the thread, that the rich pay more dollars in taxes. They do. No one disputes this.

2. When I said "the rich benefited more from tax cuts..." I meant they got more dollars back, since that's what we're talking about. If you pay the majority of the taxes and taxes are cut across the board, then you will get back the majority of the dollars.

When the benefits the poor get is brought up vs. the benefit the rich get, people only consider programs that are geared to the poor such as foodstamps and things of that nature. But taxes also go to pay for other things that benefit the society as a whole, that benefit us all. It's class warfare to only consider one side of the equation without also considering other sides.

3. I don't believe class warfare of poor vs. rich is any more real than the class warfare of rich vs. poor. I think democrats tend to play the poor vs. rich card, but republicans tend to play the rich vs. poor card. It's a wash. Class warfare doesn't have just the 1 meaning that you think it has. It can cut both ways. I think Republicans and tax cutters play class warfare when they push for tax cuts all the time, over everything, even at the expense of saddling us with ruinous debt that we'll all pay higher taxes forever to pay off. That's just class warfare just as much as it is to say "soak the rich."

quote:

Originally posted by Groove Thing:

1. The rich make the majority of the income and pay the majority of the taxes...No one disputes this...

2. When I said "the rich benefited more from tax cuts..." I meant they got more dollars back...

...benefits the poor get...people only consider programs that are geared to the poor...But taxes also go to pay for other things that benefit the society as a whole...It's class warfare to only consider one side of the equation without also considering other sides.

3. I think democrats tend to play the poor vs. rich card, but republicans tend to play the rich vs. poor card. It's a wash. Class warfare doesn't have just the 1 meaning that you think it has...I think Republicans and tax cutters play class warfare when they push for tax cuts all the time, over everything, even at the expense of saddling us with ruinous debt..."

1. But what you're not recognizing is that the rich are paying a disporportionate amount in taxes as it relates to their income. The top 1% made about 20% of the money. But they paid about 40% of the taxes. That lies my problem.

2. Your logic is a little flawed. It's not that the tax cuts mean they get "more dollars back," it means they don't get as much taken from them. There's a difference. The worker earns the money, the gov't just takes its cut. In this case, a lower one.

It's class warfare on the rich's part because it's their money that is being redistributed to those who are less accomplished. It's class warfare by the poor because they want to use the power of gov't to use the law to take property from someone who earned it & give it to them. If you're a supporter of such a process, then you're in favor of legal plunder as I stated earlier.

3. "Ruinous debt" you say? We don't have debt because of tax cuts. The gov't is $9 trillion in debt because it kept charging up the credit card. All taxes aren't redistributive. But if you look at the budget of the HHR Dept, & its projected responsibilities, it's going to get worse. I don't view taxes as a dollar amount of your income, rather, I think it should be a consistent percentage of your income.

Oh, & Obama's cutting taxes? Read about his capital gains plan. We have too many taxes that hinder saving.