"Bush tax cuts" - why do people care?
know1
Posts: 6,794
I can't understand why people have so much contempt and emotion over a tax cut for someone else.
Who cares if some group of people are paying lower taxes or not? Why does it bother people so much? The rich are still paying more than their fair share, but that's not my point.
Personally, I don't care who gets a tax cut as long as people are getting them.
I think it's pretty petty to wish higher taxes on some group that you're not in, but even worse it's pretty bad to get so mad that they might be paying less than they used to.
If it's not you who is paying more, why should you even care?
Who cares if some group of people are paying lower taxes or not? Why does it bother people so much? The rich are still paying more than their fair share, but that's not my point.
Personally, I don't care who gets a tax cut as long as people are getting them.
I think it's pretty petty to wish higher taxes on some group that you're not in, but even worse it's pretty bad to get so mad that they might be paying less than they used to.
If it's not you who is paying more, why should you even care?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
www.someofuslookatthebiggerpictureandit ... boutme.com
1) Lower-income and middle-income voters were not properly represented in this tax cut. It benefits a miniscule portion of the population while leaving others out in the cold. If you were making 50,000 a year, you saw you're income tax percentage decrease 2%, if you were making 500,000 dollars, you saw it decrease nearly 4%.
2) Many of us believe in a 'progressive' income tax.
3) The tax cuts, followed by Bush fighting two wars and never cutting spending is leading our country further into debt.
I could go on, but those are three right there.
lmao!
amen!
I like the way you think!
LOL!
I was watching fox news last night (yeah i know) and one of the democrat talking heads discussing this issue hit it right on the head.
paraphrasing: frankly, there are a lot more votes in the lower income levels.
heapin' helping of pandering, anyone?
But isn't it exactly all about you if you're worried about someone else getting a tax cut?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
1. So why don't we just make the tax cuts properly representative across the board rather than worry about increasing taxes for some other group?
2. Even with those cuts, our tax is still progressive.
3. Let's require the government to only spend what it takes in rather than call for higher taxes on some other group of people to fund something we all oppose.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
But still - I don't understand why anyone would call for higher taxes on a different group of people. Is it just for spite? Unless you have a specific allotment for those exact increased dollars, then is there any other reason for it?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I believe it's less spite than an oppourtunity to put a little coin in one's pocket. From a realist point of view, I'm gonna do what I gotta do. I think people are also fed up with the corporate cheaters.
That is in my view short-sighted, as your post "Taxes on Corporations and Business Owners (the rich)" appropiately argues. But it's awefully hard to make that case to an economically uneducated puclic, one which accurately sees the concetration of wealth today. In my view.
I, frankly, can just imagine thousands of well paid accountants vigorously pusruing the loophole to the Obama plan as we speak. over-active imagination.
I heard a great quote from a radio caller: "the only way to create MASSIVE amounts of wealth, and sustain it, is capitalism."
They are?? :eek:
I'm not even sure what your "fair share" would be if you made $100 million as a hedge fund manager. True, I couldn't manage a hedge fund but it can't be bust ass work.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
well put
If your talking in terms appropriate regulation and enforcement, rather than taxes, I agree.
and to turn it around, welfare recipients....
Because the burden of taxation is then on the middle class when we pay back our debt.
No it's not. The rich are still paying higher taxes.
Point is - you don't really hear any reasons - just the masses chanting "repeal the Bush tax cuts".
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Which institutions need regulation? Banks and finance companies. How will the government pay for increased regulation and enforcement? Taxes.
Welfare: According to this site welfare cost $354.3 billion in 2006 while this year's rescue plan topped $700 billion.
Apparently corporate welfare is a better use of money.
That bailout was the ultimate example of the politicians in Washington thumbing their noses at America.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
As well they should, they are benefitting more. In addition it makes for a sounder economy.
until spending is put under control it doesnt matter anyway.
And the problem with the ending of the tax cuts is that it affects everyone. Low-income taxpayers will lose the 10% tax brackett & will have to start paying at the 15% tax rate.
And when you cut taxes and increase spending, this happens:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/2008-presidential-election/21040d1212792152-what-will-you-give-up-pay-national_debt.jpg
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
1. Because then, if spending is not decreased, then we would go further into debt. And I think we need a strong defense, and strong social programs that do work, and taxes are worth that.
2. And? You asked, and received an answer. The tax cuts of 2003 indisputably benefitted those in the higher tax brackets more than those in the bottom three or four quintiles. We're not talk the poorest of the poor here; most people received a minisu
3. Well, where were you in 2003? I was calling not to go into Iraq when we could have been spending that money on things that mattered, or if the situation demanded, called for more tax cuts. I feel that these calls are too little, too late.
Look, when it comes to spending, it's not that we need less spending or more spending. Those are blanket absolutes that are meaningless; we need smart spending. We need to invest in early childhood education because it works and is necessary, and we need to get rid of those programs that have been proven not to work. We need to stop funding that bullshit Pentagon pet project they've been nursing since the 70's that is meaningless in our current day and age, and start funding more human intelligence in the Middle East and port security. We just need a Congress and a President not idiotic enough to be stupid spenders. Bush was a stupid spender, and he cut taxes on top of that which left the country further in debt. Congress, by nature of so many politicians Democrats and Republicans alike in one place, will tend to be a stupid spender. Luckily, we will hopefully vote in a President on Nov. 4th that would not be a stupid spender.