- comment
Riley - body
- That's what I said in one of my posts yesterday. These are NOT your father's Democrats. (More like your lunatic uncle's.)
- comment ....
- body
- Progressive= Government can Help People, The Modern Democratic Party. Accomplishments- Civil Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, The Income Tax...
Regressive= Government can Help those who Govern get richer. The modern Republican Party.
Accomplishments- Giving tax cuts for millionaires while increasing taxes on working folks.
You know what... I think the Progressives have the edge...
Shaun: You cant be a Catholic and Regressive (or Conservative).
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Well isn't that generalizing and narrow... some might say "regressive"...
Progressives are socialists. Liberals aren't socialists, they just see government has having a role in protecting the rights of the individual. Conservatives believe otherwise, that the free market can do a better job at providing for people than government.
In fact, didn't the Bush Tax Cuts lower taxes on working families? Isn't it the "progressive" wing of the Democrat Party that wants to repeal those tax breaks, effectively raising taxes over $2000 on the average family of four?
That's progress for ya.... :)
- comment ....
- body
- They want to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts on the top 1% and extend REAL tax relief on the middle class. Not a $200 check and then spike in taxes like the Bush tax plan.
- comment ....
- body
- From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html;
Shaun, your too smart to be caught up with the right wing lunatics...
Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- So let me get this straight:
Taxes have been lowered across the spectrum.
Tax cuts on businesses and entrepreneurs spur job creation.
Job creation creates business opportunity, and if successful wealth.
Republicans say: let the cycle continue.
Liberals say: let the cycle continue.
Progressives say: punish success.
That's socialism, James... don't sell out!
- comment ....
- body
- No Democrats and Liberals think that we shouldnt reward the rich for being rich... The middle class is where the jobs and spending is... Grow the economy, cut taxes on them (while Bush has increased their taxes!!!)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Bush hasn't increased taxes on the middle class. That's simply not factual!
As for the well-to-do, they already pay a disproportionate amount in taxes than the rest of the population (that's why we have a progressive tax scale). The more they make, the more money the government gets as a percentage of their income.
There's a reason why we've been able to cut taxes, fight the war on terror, liberate Iraq and Afghanistan, increase education spending by well over 50% (with few results), and halve the federal deficit.
Tax hikes on entrepreneurs and small businesses bring all of that to a screeching halt. There's no need for it, there certainly isn't a demand (unless manufactured by "progressives"), and there certainly is plenty of room to get government out of the private sector and back to doing the basic federalist principles folks like Jefferson would have envisioned.
Punishing entrepreneurs and small businesses for no other reason than being successful is ridiculous. To what ends?
- comment Kevin
- body
- Hey Shaun,
Didn't you challenge an incumbent? So were you the "death knell" of Virginia Conservatism if Orrock was defeated?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Quite a different climate, yes?
- comment James Young
- body
- Maybe more like Ross Perot's aunt?
As for JEM's comment, he strikes me as a monument to the success of government education. After all, who is it that he thinks pays most of the taxes in this country? It ain't the "middle class." Oh, wait, even his own figures show that the wealthiest 20% pay 63.5% of the taxes. How that is healthy for a democracy that the Socialists wish we were, or the republic that we actually are, is a mystery.
- comment Charles
- body
- Hey James --
When more people work, they make more money, and pay more in taxes.
If democrats had their way, nobody would even MAKE more than a million dollars.
If that happened, guess what -- 0% of the taxes would be paid by those making more than a million dollars.
In other words, comparing the total percentage of taxes paid by a group defined by a salary cutoff is meaningless. Compare instead the amount of taxes paid by the average PERSON in those brackets.
Because up until the last year and a half, things looked differently -- but with millions of new workers at the lower end of the scale paying taxes, the tax on the existing people as a percentage of total taxes was bound to fall slightly.
Note that they top 1% of the people are still paying more than 20% of all the taxes in the country.
And if you took out the regressive social security taxes, the rich are paying MORE than ever. But the democrats aren't calling for a repeal of Social Security because it's one of the big three programs used to keep their voters in line and beholden to the government.
- comment Charles
- body
- James, regarding your "reward the rich for being rich", you have it backwards.
Only a liberal would consider it a "reward" to let people keep the money they earn. Right now, the more money you earn, the more you are punished by the government by having your money taken away and given to people who are unproductive anchors on our economy and our nation.
The tax policies adopted in 2003 simply lessened that burden enough to free up the market, leading to unemployment SO LOW THAT the fed has to break the economy, and leading to a large surge in the total taxes paid (unfortunately matched by a surge in government spending, not a DIME of which has been suggested to be CUT by the democrats).
The democrats instead want to raise taxes even MORE, so they can spend even MORE money.
- comment Vivian J. Paige
- body
- A lot of the argument about taxes is just semantics. What, exactly, is "middle class"? Depends on who's talking.
The reason the top earners pay a larger portion of the taxes is, because, well, they earn a larger portion of the income! I saw a stat somewhere that said that the top 20% earns 97% of the income. If that is true, shouldn't they be paying 97% of the taxes?
The top tax bracket has gone from 70% in 1980 to 35% today, capital gains from 28% to 15%. Say again who got the tax cuts?
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Vivian, whose father was a Christian minister, should know that the jealous God of the OT only asked for a 10% flat tax. All other gifts for those who were given more than others was voluntary and not through government. A flat tax is the way to go for government. Otherwise, you are merely punishing success which breaks that darn coveting Commandment.
- comment Vivian J. Paige
- body
- Nope, not punishing. God wants 10%. But remember the "render unto Casesar" part? That was about taxes :)
16 Comments:
Regressive= Government can Help those who Govern get richer. The modern Republican Party.
Accomplishments- Giving tax cuts for millionaires while increasing taxes on working folks.
You know what... I think the Progressives have the edge...
Shaun: You cant be a Catholic and Regressive (or Conservative).
Progressives are socialists. Liberals aren't socialists, they just see government has having a role in protecting the rights of the individual. Conservatives believe otherwise, that the free market can do a better job at providing for people than government.
In fact, didn't the Bush Tax Cuts lower taxes on working families? Isn't it the "progressive" wing of the Democrat Party that wants to repeal those tax breaks, effectively raising taxes over $2000 on the average family of four?
That's progress for ya.... :)
Shaun, your too smart to be caught up with the right wing lunatics...
Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
Taxes have been lowered across the spectrum.
Tax cuts on businesses and entrepreneurs spur job creation.
Job creation creates business opportunity, and if successful wealth.
Republicans say: let the cycle continue.
Liberals say: let the cycle continue.
Progressives say: punish success.
That's socialism, James... don't sell out!
As for the well-to-do, they already pay a disproportionate amount in taxes than the rest of the population (that's why we have a progressive tax scale). The more they make, the more money the government gets as a percentage of their income.
There's a reason why we've been able to cut taxes, fight the war on terror, liberate Iraq and Afghanistan, increase education spending by well over 50% (with few results), and halve the federal deficit.
Tax hikes on entrepreneurs and small businesses bring all of that to a screeching halt. There's no need for it, there certainly isn't a demand (unless manufactured by "progressives"), and there certainly is plenty of room to get government out of the private sector and back to doing the basic federalist principles folks like Jefferson would have envisioned.
Punishing entrepreneurs and small businesses for no other reason than being successful is ridiculous. To what ends?
Didn't you challenge an incumbent? So were you the "death knell" of Virginia Conservatism if Orrock was defeated?
As for JEM's comment, he strikes me as a monument to the success of government education. After all, who is it that he thinks pays most of the taxes in this country? It ain't the "middle class." Oh, wait, even his own figures show that the wealthiest 20% pay 63.5% of the taxes. How that is healthy for a democracy that the Socialists wish we were, or the republic that we actually are, is a mystery.
When more people work, they make more money, and pay more in taxes.
If democrats had their way, nobody would even MAKE more than a million dollars.
If that happened, guess what -- 0% of the taxes would be paid by those making more than a million dollars.
In other words, comparing the total percentage of taxes paid by a group defined by a salary cutoff is meaningless. Compare instead the amount of taxes paid by the average PERSON in those brackets.
Because up until the last year and a half, things looked differently -- but with millions of new workers at the lower end of the scale paying taxes, the tax on the existing people as a percentage of total taxes was bound to fall slightly.
Note that they top 1% of the people are still paying more than 20% of all the taxes in the country.
And if you took out the regressive social security taxes, the rich are paying MORE than ever. But the democrats aren't calling for a repeal of Social Security because it's one of the big three programs used to keep their voters in line and beholden to the government.
Only a liberal would consider it a "reward" to let people keep the money they earn. Right now, the more money you earn, the more you are punished by the government by having your money taken away and given to people who are unproductive anchors on our economy and our nation.
The tax policies adopted in 2003 simply lessened that burden enough to free up the market, leading to unemployment SO LOW THAT the fed has to break the economy, and leading to a large surge in the total taxes paid (unfortunately matched by a surge in government spending, not a DIME of which has been suggested to be CUT by the democrats).
The democrats instead want to raise taxes even MORE, so they can spend even MORE money.
The reason the top earners pay a larger portion of the taxes is, because, well, they earn a larger portion of the income! I saw a stat somewhere that said that the top 20% earns 97% of the income. If that is true, shouldn't they be paying 97% of the taxes?
The top tax bracket has gone from 70% in 1980 to 35% today, capital gains from 28% to 15%. Say again who got the tax cuts?
Post a Comment
Home