Voting for a candidate who promises to put money into your pocket that you did not earn without regard to the effect the "tax cut" will have on the health of the American economy. Most wealthy Americans are already paying more than their fair share to support our gigantic government bureaucracy.

 

I will gladly accept a tax cut that is part of an across the board reduction, preferably paired with a commensurate reduction in spending. However, I do not want a tax cut at the expense of somebody who is already paying federal income taxes at a far higher rate than me.

 

Those who want to soak the rich to put more money in their own pocket are motivated by class envy and greed, IMO, and that is not a good way to select a president.

 

I wonder if that is how Jesus would define the word "greed"?

If you believe that, you don't understand how a capitalist economy works. Prices are set much more by the demand side than they are by the profit side. I wish I could set prices based on the profit I want. It doesn't work that way. Do taxes limit the capital available for business growth? Absolutely. So does government borrowing. We have kept borrowing rates low by bringing in money from overseas. In effect, we have been keeping the economy going by selling off US assets.

:lol: If you think it will have no effect then you're the one that doesn't understand IMO. The truly wealthy have a variety of tax avoidance strategies in place that protect their assets and put them out of reach of tax increases on the "rich". In other words the billionaires and hundred plus millionaires, the real rich, will pay no more in taxes than they do now regardless of what politicians say or do. Corporations are by definition profit making organizations. They do not absorb an additional tax burden that cuts into the corporate bottom line. Among the variety of strategies they pursue to avoid lost profit relative to taxes are two common outcomes: first is to take the extra tax burden and pass it on to customers via increased prices for goods and services and second is to layoff employees, the working man, thus cutting personnel expenses. As I said, bad for the economy.

I wonder if that is how Jesus would define the word "greed"?

Liberals seem to be conflicted on religious issues. On the one hand, they paint Christian politicians as theocrats, and on the other hand they defend socialist initiatives, the demonizaton of the wealthy, and extreme income redistribution schemes in terms of Christ. Liberals shamelessly exploit Christianity when it suits them and extol the virtues of a secular government when it does not.

Liberals seem to be conflicted on religious issues. On the one hand, they paint Christian politicians as theocrats, and on the other hand they defend socialist initiatives, the demonizaton of the wealthy, and extreme income redistribution schemes in terms of Christ. Liberals shamelessly exploit Christianity when it suits them and extol the virtues of a secular government when it does not.

 

Of course you would make a religious question into a partisan debate. :lol:

Of course you would make a religious question into a partisan debate. :lol:

Obama's appeal to class envy and greed has nothing to do with religion. It is a cynical political ploy motivated by the fact that most people who pay no federal income taxes and have the most to gain by robbing the rich are liberal Democrats.

 

Around 40 percent of American adults pay no taxes, so the taxes of 95 percent of Americans cannot be cut. Obama's promise is an outright lie but calling annual welfare payments a "tax cut" has a better ring to it.

Obama's appeal to class envy and greed has nothing to do with religion. It is a cynical political ploy motivated by the fact that most people who pay no federal income taxes and have the most to gain by robbing the rich are liberal Democrats.

 

Around 40 percent of American adults pay no taxes, so the taxes of 95 percent of Americans cannot be cut. Obama's promise is an outright lie but calling annual welfare payments a "tax cut" has a better ring to it.

 

And it continues...maybe I would do better to ask the question in its own thread.

And it continues...maybe I would do better to ask the question in its own thread.

Maybe you should.

Maybe you should.

 

Already did.

If you believe that, you don't understand how a capitalist economy works. Prices are set much more by the demand side than they are by the profit side. I wish I could set prices based on the profit I want. It doesn't work that way.

Let's say that Obama puts a tax on dairy products (total hypothetical), that amounts to 20 cents/ gallon of milk. Where we are now, the milk company is making 15 cents a gallon, but with the new tax has them losing 5 cents per gallon.

 

You are trying to tell me that at -5 cents per gallon, the milk company will continue to sell gallons of milk, as long as there is still a demand? :confused:

Let's say that Obama puts a tax on dairy products (total hypothetical), that amounts to 20 cents/ gallon of milk. Where we are now, the milk company is making 15 cents a gallon, but with the new tax has them losing 5 cents per gallon.

 

You are trying to tell me that at -5 cents per gallon, the milk company will continue to sell gallons of milk, as long as there is still a demand? :confused:

:lol: Exactly.

:lol: Exactly.

 

 

And you've already pointed out tax shelters, et al to avoid paying taxes. That's a luxury only the top earners have, correct? So, that being said, I feel inclined to throw out the the argument that the economy will be hurt by taxing the highest earners, because they are apparently not paying the most...they're avoiding paying taxes on large portions of their incomes already.

And you've already pointed out tax shelters, et al to avoid paying taxes. That's a luxury only the top earners have, correct? So, that being said, I feel inclined to throw out the the argument that the economy will be hurt by taxing the highest earners, because they are apparently not paying the most...they're avoiding paying taxes on large portions of their incomes already.

Wrong, they just simply wont continue to keep paying more. No one said they aren't paying any taxes, that's a wild assumption by you.

And you've already pointed out tax shelters, et al to avoid paying taxes. That's a luxury only the top earners have, correct? So, that being said, I feel inclined to throw out the the argument that the economy will be hurt by taxing the highest earners, because they are apparently not paying the most[...they're avoiding paying taxes on large portions of their incomes already.

Not true. See table below. The average federal income tax rate paid in 2006 by the bottom 50% of wage earners is only 3% the average rate paid by the top 5% of wager earners (the targets of Obama's tax hikes) was 20.68%.

 

Table 1

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2006

(Updated July 2008)

	Number of Returns with Positive AGI	AGI ($ millions)	Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)	Group's Share of Total AGI	Group's Share of Income Taxes	Income Split Point	Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers	135,719,160	$8,122,040	$1,023,739	100%	100%	-	12.60%
Top 1%	1,357,192	$1,791,886	$408,369	22.06%	39.89%	> $388,806	22.79%
Top 2-5%	5,428,766	$1,185,828	$207,311	14.60%	20.25%		17.48%
Top 5%	6,785,958	$2,977,714	$615,680	36.66%	60.14%	> $153,542	20.68%
Top 6-10%	6,785,958	$865,430	$109,060	10.66%	10.65%		12.60%
Top 10%	13,571,916	$3,843,144	$724,740	47.32%	70.79%	> $108,904	18.86%
Top 11-25%	20,357,874	$1,692,686	$158,413	20.84%	15.47%		9.36%
Top 25%	33,929,790	$5,535,830	$883,153	68.16%	86.27%	> $64,702	15.95%
Top 26-50%	33,929,790	$1,569,769	$110,023	19.33%	10.75%		7.01%
Top 50%	67,859,580	$7,105,599	$993,176	87.49%	97.01%	> $31,987	13.98%
Bottom 50%	67,859,580	$1,016,441	$30,563	12.51%	2.99%		3.01%

Source: Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html (

And you've already pointed out tax shelters, et al to avoid paying taxes. That's a luxury only the top earners have, correct? So, that being said, I feel inclined to throw out the the argument that the economy will be hurt by taxing the highest earners, because they are apparently not paying the most...they're avoiding paying taxes on large portions of their incomes already.

 

:thumb: We are in more desperate need of closing loopholes and reformatting the tax code.

Not true. See table below. The average federal income tax rate paid in 2006 by the bottom 50% of wage earners is only 3% the average rate paid by the top 5% of wager earners (the targets of Obama's tax hikes) was 20.68%.

:thumb: Those rotten richies, how dare them not pay their fair share. :lol: :lol: :lol: