Never said they will be impacted, Col.

Using your logic, it's OK to steal $100 off the table of a rich man, but not a poor man because they won't miss it. Just because they won't miss it doesn't make it any less theft.

22,500 dollars above what they are paying now.

that will cost one job.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007
Never said they will be impacted, Col.

“Using your logic, it's OK to steal $100 off the table of a rich man, but not a poor man because they won't miss it. Just because they won't miss it doesn't make it any less theft.”


Changing the tax laws is not stealing. You fail to address the economic impact of the added disposable income to the 91 Million from the tax cuts paid from the surplus of the wealthy. The issue is what will help more-- Allowing 1.5 Million to keep more of the significant wealth or cut taxes with that money to people who will spend it and stimulate the economy. Demand not Supply is the bigger driver and that is why this plan will help while making the lives of the middle income working families better. At the same time the wealthy will not be harmed a bit!

Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007
Please explain how the poor soles with income over $500,000 per year will be impacted by a 4.5% tax increase:


22,500 dollars above what they are paying now.

That will cost one job.


WRONG. So long as the demand increases by the middle income spending that tax cut the benefit will be far greater then the loss to a wealthy person from that $22,500. The jobs will increase because of increased economic activity caused by the added spending! In addition the lives of the middle income family will be better.

So you finally admit you are for income redistribution.  Well done comrade.

 

 

 

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007

“The tax cuts for the 91 Million will be paid for by the 4.5% tax on the 1.5 million making over $500,000 per year.

So you finally admit you are for income redistribution. Well done comrade.”


Bush with his tax cuts has engaged in income redistribution. I believe looking at what is best for the VAST MAJORITY we need to reverse the Bush policies and make wealth distribution less skewed to the wealthy and very wealthy. That will both benefit the overall economy and help the lives of the majority without causing ANY hardship on the wealthy.

no you idiot.


one group of people going to be effected by the job loses are going to be medical because all or almost all of them make more than 500,000. and insurance companies are cutting what they will pay for now. what happens when they can only make so much money.


you see with just one government program and one tax increase. you have affected every industry in the country. the non medical non insurance companies will have to cut jobs to pay for the tax or increase prices or both. the medical industries will have to cut jobs to pay for the tax hike. and the insurance companies will cut what and how much they will pay for medical claims. not to mention cut jobs to pay for the tax hike.

If voters understand that the Democrats are more likely to make policy changes that will benefit the middle income working families then the GOP, they will vote to have the Democrats take control of the White House and increase their control of BOTH houses of Congress! All people have to do is look at who got the BIG benefits over the past 7 years.

this is what has me scared about the democrats.

come on gene tell us all what big benefits did the rich get over the past 7 years. the only one i know of is that they got to keep more of the money that they earned without the governments help. usually.

Gene wants a nanny state where the government provides for your every needs.  Notice he still ignores the other tax thread which shows how tax increases will harm American workers.  He cannot face those truths from people who actually do the hiring.

Who should we believe here.....

Gene, who has an obsessive hatred for the rich or....

A successful business owner.

 

I believe Gideon is quite correct about Gene being a fascist - he'd be much happier if the rich could be taxed by decree of the monarch. It's no accident that the greatest sustained period of economic growth, increase in real incomes and increased tax revenues in the US has come since tax rates were decreased. The fact that our government has chosen to spend it faster than it's come in is a different matter.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Democrats take control




This is what has me scared about the democrats.


Given what the GOP has done you should not be scared. Nothing could be worse then the past 7 years!

Right, Col. No nation has ever suffered as much as we have the past seven years.

Not Russia during 40 years of Communist oppression.

Not China, where millions died directly at the hand of Mao Tse Tung's government.

Not Cambodia, during the "killing fields"

Not Germany, during the reign of the Nazi regime.

In other words "Col", you are full of crap. If the country was as bad as you say it is, you would have long since been executed for treason.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007
All people have to do is look at who got the BIG benefits over the past 7 years.


Come on gene tell us all what big benefits did the rich get over the past 7 years. The only one I know of is that they got to keep more of the money that they earned without the governments help. usually.


The shift in wealth and the huge increase in the AFTER tax income for the top 10% is clear. 70 % of the tax cuts went to the top 10% in 2005 and that percent going to the top 10% will increase even further as more tax cuts for the wealthy take effect. The largest boost will come in 2010 when the Federal Estate Tax ends. That will benefit LESS then the TOP 1%. Only the top 1/3 of the middle income saw any real improvement. The balance of the working families has LESS after inflation and taxes today then in 2001.

There was a lot of speculation when Bush proposed his tax cuts as to which income group would benefit. There is no longer any speculation. We have hard data through 2005 and 2006 data should be available soon. The first year Most of the tax cuts went to the middle income. That changed starting in 2003 and has shifted more and more to the top 10% every year. I have seen some projections that show when the Estate Tax ends in 2010, as much as 90% of the total tax cuts will be flowing to the top 10%!!!!!The Bush tax cut was a Trojan Horse.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007
Gene wants a nanny state where the government provides for your every needs. Notice he still ignores the other tax thread which shows how tax increases will harm American workers. He cannot face those truths from people who actually do the hiring.

Who should we believe here.....

Gene, who has an obsessive hatred for the rich or....

A successful business owner.



I do not hate the rich. The truth you do not want to accept is that if you ate truly interested in helping the economy the very best way is to increase spending. The way to do that is with the tax cuts to the 91 Million that has been discussed. Business people will not be lying off workers if the see an increase in their business from 91 million people spending the money from the tax cuts. the problem is we can not afford to cut taxes given the deficit and existing budget deficit and that means the tax cuts to the 91 million must be offset with increased tax revenue from a the people who can afford a little more in taxes. That increase to propel with incomes over $500,000 will not result in any cut in their spending and they will not cut jobs so long as demand increases from the 91 Million increased spending. The issue is not one of economics but the GREED of the wealthy.

Anyone that says this plan will redistribute wealth is correct. It will help return the distribution of wealth back to where it was BEFORE the Bush Tax Cuts.

Reply By: COL Gene

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007
I believe Gideon is quite correct about Gene being a fascist - he'd be much happier if the rich could be taxed by decree of the monarch. It's no accident that the greatest sustained period of economic growth, increase in real incomes and increased tax revenues in the US has come since tax rates were decreased. The fact that our government has chosen to spend it faster than it's come in is a different matter. When Congress sets the spending we MUST set taxes equal to that spending!!!!!


SHOW US WERE the U.S. was a Fascist State during the 1990's when we were in the middle of a BOOM time. The tax rates on the wealthy and the middle income were higher then and the economy was GREAT. The gloom and DOOM if the top 10% have to pay a little more in taxes is a LIE. It is a scare tactic. The GOP is saying if we elect democrats your taxes will go up. NO the taxes for MOST will go DOWN. Taxes will increase on those that got the BIG benefits from the Bush tax Cuts and who can afford to pay a little more to help the MASSES AS WELL AS help SPENDING AND THE OVERALL ECONOMY!

you misunderstood gene which is normal. but i am not scared of democrats being elected. i am scared of them taking control which is what they want to do.

That's the difference between us, Gene.

You say, "When Congress sets the spending we MUST set taxes equal to that spending!!!!!"

I say, "When Congress sets taxes we MUST set spending to equal those taxes."

taxes will go up


taxes will go up


taxes will go up

spending will go up

spending will go up

spending will go up


hillary never say a pork she didn't like.

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2007
That's the difference between us, Gene.

You say, "When Congress sets the spending we MUST set taxes equal to that spending!!!!!"

I say, "When Congress sets taxes we MUST set spending to equal those taxes." NOT TRUE!!!


That is not what takes place. NEEDS not existing tax revenue MUST set spending levels. We have to provide for the security of this country. We have to keep the promises made to the baby boomers to pay their retirement and medical. We also have other programs that the MJORITY WANT (Will of the majority). When we have completed that process we need to determine the COST and MUST Fund that cost. We do not say well the tax revenue will only fund defense and Social Security so we will have to forget Medicare. The answer is we adjust the tax revenue to FULLY FUND what we collectively have decided are the needs of the country. That is what Congress is charged to do under the Constitution. It is not up to the President to set spending. What CAN NOT continue is setting spending ABOVE tax revenue!!!!!!! When Congress establishes the spending, taxes MUST equal those spending choices!

Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2007
NO the taxes for MOST will go DOWN. Taxes will increase on those that got the BIG benefits from the Bush tax Cuts and who can afford to pay a little more to help the MASSES AS WELL AS help SPENDING AND THE OVERALL ECONOMY!




taxes will go up


taxes will go up


taxes will go up

spending will go up

spending will go up

spending will go up


The past 7 years have proven you WRONG.

TAXES HAVE GONE DOWN!

SPENDING HAS GONE UP!

you mean that majority of 30,000 in San Fransisco that protested the war yesterday. the last time i heard there were 800,000 living in that city. of course that was 20 years ago. during the 1989 earth quake.

no it hasn't.


you were talking about the democrats not raising taxes. the democrats live to raise taxes. and spending is always going up even if you do away with pork. the democrats think all of these entitlement programs have to go up 8% every year no matter what. so tell oh grand puppa of crap how long will the schip program stay at 20 billion a year. thats right one year.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, October 28, 2007
“you mean that majority of 30,000 in San Francisco that protested the war yesterday. the last time i heard there were 800,000 living in that city. of course that was 20 years ago. during the 1989 earth quake.”


NO I mean the majority of the Congress who under OUR Constitution is elected by the people and who have the responsibility to set the spending for this country! This is very clear if you READ our Constitution! Neither you nor Bush have must have read it!