Mike Luckovich for July 30, 2010

Perfect!!!

The “trickle down” theory never worked and still won’t. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. When 1 or 2% of the country has 83% of all the wealth - doesn’t leave much for the rest of us.

^ Why do you advocate class warfare?! Everything is obviously doing just fine. Just stay the course, the rich will eventually want to hire people. Just give them more tax cuts. *

Absolutely correct, because it is a zero sum game!!!

let the tax cuts lapse, that’s how they were written by the mastodons…

You all must have missed the latest Democratic party PR campaign. The “Bush” tax cuts included a provision that allowed millions of middle class Americans from not having to pay increased taxes because of the AMT.

If the Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire these millions of Americans, including many many blue state liberals, will pay extra taxes. So the campaign is the GOP wants to raise your taxes and we won’t let them. We will continue parts of the Bush tax cuts.

That doesn’t fit in very well with what some of you have been writing above. Better change your tactics.

The farmer feeds his stock from the “perfect storm” trough, low pressure, low IQ, low ethics, and a low regulatory environment, and the fence gate remains open.

When the Bush tax cuts for the “rich” expire, the middle class will be reminded that everyone who works is part of the “rich”!

“That’s Some Pig!”

^ 1.8 Trillion.

So about 2x the failed stimulus package… which also was about 50% tax cuts, by the way.

Overspending is indeed a major concern, though. For example, from Clinton to Bush to Obama the DoD budgets, for example, are: ~< $280Billion –> $670 Billion –> $550 Billion.

So Obama’s reigned it in some, but not much.

Here you go, Libertarian: I am absolutely willing to pay more in taxes (I make well into six figures), because I believe the Bush tax cuts – during a war at that – were a reprehensible step against all that Americans supposedly believe in, and a giveaway to the rich, at a time when we needed to support our government’s efforts. No one would have said a thing in WWII. Let me say it again: I’m all for it. The amount I will have to pay is trivial compared to my total income and will not cost me anything significant in terms of my standard of living, but will help balance the budget – something Republicans claim to believe in, but have sabotaged repeatedly when actually in charge.

mm- (not really aimed at you, but YOU know who you are) I’ve never earned close to 6 figures, but my brother did, working on “defense contracts” his entire career for “private corporations”– sucking the government teat. I worked FOR “government”, protecting resources, saving people’s lives- I paid higher taxes than he did. Granted, he croaked last year with lots of toys and debt for his widow, and I get a pension and benefits for getting blown up by the weapons he designed, but MY pride comes from the “taxpayers” whose lives I saved.

Taxes? We don’t need no stinking taxes! Save your own property and life- we people paid to protect you have had enough of your tax cheat insults.

(oooooh, I AM in a bad mood!)

So if you cut taxes the people who earn money get to keep what they earned but if you raise taxes the parasites in government get to confiscate money from the people who earned the money. How did the huge debt arise? It wasn’t from no one paying taxes but stupids who spent money they didn’t have, to pander to voters and stay in office.

You’re missing the point, Dale. Why should rich people not have to pay taxes – even on inherited money they did nothing for but be born – but working people do? For that matter, why should corporations – who can now be treated as people for vote-buying purposes – be able to dodge taxes just by rearranging their official cash flow across several companies?

MM

I think this is a difference that will never be reconciled.

Many libs believe that every penny I earn in reality belongs to the government - every penny and if they let me keep any of it, it is a gift from them to me equivalent to welfare for the poor. So to them a tax cut or an increase in welfare is exactly the same thing. If they cut the rate from 90% to 50% it is criminal because why should one person actually have more money than another. You may deny that but read here over and over- wistfully “remember when tax rates were 90%” confiscatory

To me every single penny I earn belongs to me- every penny. If we have taxes I should pay at exactly the same rate as everyone else. If I have more I will pay more but graduated is socialistic. It goes along with the philosophy that any money the government lets me keep is a gift from them to me.

I work and my corporation earns money and we pay taxes on it. What is left over I take home and pay more taxes on it. I take what is left over and invest and pay more taxes. I then take money that has already been triple taxed and want to give it to my children and you say another 60% should be taxed. In reality you think every penny I have earned should belong to the government.

The GOP is not the solution the GOP is the problem.

No matter what they tell you the GOP believes in big government with lots of power over the States and our lives, and they don’t worry about the costs of government, which they always increase, because they will just borrow the money from China.

“Many libs believe that every penny I earn in reality belongs to the government - every penny and if they let me keep any of it, it is a gift from them to me equivalent to welfare for the poor. ”

Really? I’ve talked to a couple of socialists (actual socialists, thank you very much, not what passes for socialists on the internet nowadays), and not all of them would say that.

“If they cut the rate from 90% to 50% it is criminal because why should one person actually have more money than another.”

Not necessarily. Seriously, rate along the lines was very rare even historically, and then only for the highest class. The reason for it is that the rich can afford to give more money without suffering a meaningful decrease in their lifestyle.

Look at it from the other direction - the government needs an amount of X for its expenses - everything from military to garbage disposal. Taxes provide most of the money it gets - so it is a matter of who can give what . A left-wing view is that the rich can both afford to give more and get more by the state - as they benefit more from services such as law, defense, or infrastructure. Also, it is a commonly held view that there are many services the government is either more efficient or more reliable at providing.

I doubt many people on the left “hate” the rich - hatred is a strong emotion, and one prompting a lot more action than we normally see. However, the opinion that the rich do not deserve their lifestyle is quite common. It is pretty obvious that a financier who gets 100 times what a bus driver gets does not do 100 times the work, and it’s quite dubious if he provides 100 times the value.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

4uk4ata, Your socialists didn’t tell yuo the truth. Everyone keeps forgetting several things:

Large companies don’t pay tax, people do. ALL taxes are passed on to the customer (people).

Small business creates most jobs. Raise their taxes and they hire fewer people.

50% of the public pay no income tax now. The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes. EVERYONE should pay tax if they have income. PERIOD! We need a flat tax with no deductions.

Others have mentioned, but it is worth repeating, the problem with the debt is SPENDING, not low taxes.

I agree that liberals don’t hate the rich. They ARE the rich. But they know ways around paying taxes (see John Kerry).

There is a difference between liberals and people who vote for liberals. The 50% who don’t pay income tax will vote for anyone who promises more “free” stuff. I don’t have the stats to prove this, but my guess is that the “true” liberals have more income than “true” conservatives. I make about $60k per year and I’m very conservative. MM makes $100k+ and is liberal. He either feels guilt, knows a way to beat the system or is not very bright.

Don’t you libs understand that our current unemployment problem is people are afraid to spend and companies are afraid to hire. Bush started spending like a drunken sailor and Obama has perfected it. The change we needed after Bush was less spending, not more.

One more time, the problem is SPENDING.

Libertarian said, “Many libs believe that every penny I earn in reality belongs to the government - every penny and if they let me keep any of it, it is a gift from them to me equivalent to welfare for the poor.”

Can a serious discussion continue after a comment like that?

Please, let’s not forget the Reagan years. That’s when our current mess really started. The twelve years of Reagan and Bush I quadrupled the national debt; the Bush II years doubled it again. The last Republican president to produce a balanced budget was Eisenhower.

It is my belief that since 1980 this has been done on purpose in a strategy known as “starve the beast”. Republicans have just about got us to the point where they can start cutting social programs because of the national debt–that they created.

Libertarian, you are once again making up stuff about “Libs.” I never said anything as ludicrous as believing all my money belongs to the government, and if you read my earlier post it is patently obvious that I believe my money is my own. Therefore the rest of your post is based on a false initial premise. Your “reality” is clearly not mine. Sorry about that. Let me put it in simple terms: Government supplies services on behalf of all the people that cannot be supplied by individuals or independent organizations, libertarian dreams notwithstanding, e.g., a highway system, a modern military, etc. If we want to live in an industrialized nation, we have to pay for that. The current method is taxes. Saying “every penny I earn is mine” is a nice statement, but are you planning to move to the jungle somewhere and build your own house? You take advantage of living in the US - how do you expect to pay for the benefits you get? The question then becomes how to distribute the costs of living in THIS society equitably. My point above is that it is not fair for those who get a great benefit (the wealthy, corporations) to be able to dodge taxes, and force the poorest to pay more. That’s all. This should not be a difficult concept.

gbruce wilson said EVERYONE with income should pay taxes. So nice he earns 60,000. I know many who work for minimum wages who can barely put food on the table after paying rent AND they DO pay taxes EVERYTIME they go to the store or buy gas etc. The difference is the ones with lower income to pay more in taxes takes away more in food and clothing and necessities while the wealthier may lose a few luxuries. ALSO tax rates under Reagan were much higher than now. HOW ABOUT CUTTING THE HUMUNGOUS DEFENSE BUDGET FULL OF WASTE. PAYING FOR THINGS WE DON’T USE AND DON’T NEED BUT NOT SUPPLYING THINGS TROOPS ACTUALLY NEED. STOP THE STUPID WARS - HAVE THE MILITARY PATROL OUR OWN BORDERS AND HAVE MORE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN COUNTRY. A smaller military can go after individual terrorists whereever they are. They are all over the world not just Afghanistan or Pakistan. We would be just as safe.

The trouble with republican tax policies, is that you need taxes (what they hate) to finance the army (what they love).

You see, even if we wiped any not-security based government service, I don’t think those guys would have half the money they want to invest in the military.

What does it mean if a tax cut is treated as an expense?

Technically, every penny you earn does belong to the government. The government issues the currency, regulates its value, oversees its transmission from hand-to-hand. Or are you paid on the barter system? In gold bullion? Company scrip? Whatever, if it’s negotiable as dollars and cents the gummint is entitled to its cut, even if the only way it actually exists is as electrons moving from one computer account to another. That’s the whole point of “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (well, not the whole point, but that’s what it hinges on).

The value of what you possess is entirely up to you. The value of what you exchange depends on an agreement between you and another party. Money is a nationwide agreement of exchange, administered for the benefit and convenience of the society as a whole. Money belongs to “the People”, not the person, and the government IS “the People.”

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/yourfreechoice

charlie, don’t be an idiot. I said I was willing to pay this tax increase.

DrCanuck, can I collect my winnings in ceramic dalmatians? (For tax purposes…)

myming is not a right wing nut…

Taxes are what we pay to keep the social engine going. That’s what pays for police and roads and postal service and drains and, yes, defense and, yes, social welfare, and yes, consumer protection, all of those things which are necessary but can’t or shouldn’t be expected to pay for themselves or, much less, “turn a profit.” My concern is not “how little can I pay?” but “how much is it appropriate for me to pay?” My income is in the middle five figures. I pay taxes on my income, and I feel my tax rate is appropriate; I’m not constantly looking for ways to pay less.

Lawyers, upon admittance to the Bar, are “officers of the Court”, and to an extent have a duty to act in accordance with “what is just”, not just “what we can get away with.” In my ideal world, tax planners and financial advisors would be likewise be “officers of the Treasury”, and their duty would be to ensure that their clients pay what it is appropriate for them to pay, not just “as little as we can get away with.”

^ Gosh, a citizen.

Libertarian1 said: “You may deny that but read here over and over- wistfully “remember when tax rates were 90%” confiscatory”

It’s ironic that the Republicans are always fondly remembering the halcyon days of the 1950’s, because that’s when the top tax rate was 91% – under the Republican Eisenhower administration!

For the record, the top tax rate in 2010 is 35%, and when the reckless Bush tax cuts expire it will return to a whopping 39%.

Wow, that’s a pretty abrupt left-hand turn there, but fair enough; I understand. Why don’t you simply pay NO taxes then? It would demonstrate the courage of your convictions. It’s what Emerson might have done.

Then the big bad gummint could throw you in jail, and you could be a martyr to your cause. You could be a tremendous inspiration to those who already agree with you, and the rest of us could just ignore you.

I don’t like everything the government does with MY tax dollars either. Maybe you could arrange a deal where only those who support our overseas military adventurings have to pay for them, and only those who support social programs would likewise foot the bill for those. Your share of the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan would probably run to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and my share of subsidized abortions would be about $20…

^ Nicely done.

By the way, I wanna throw another $20 in to support the National Endowment for the Arts.

I see. Do you also refuse government services and assistance, because they’re paid for with blood money? If so, Bravo!

Ideological purity isn’t for the faint of heart.