Liberal Left is mad as hell at Obama for supporting Bush tax cuts

[sirs]

LOL...................................not


Debunking the Millionaires and Billionaires Tax Cut Rhetoric

I am amazed when I hear not just liberal Democrats but also some Republicans being suckered into the belief that "the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers, these millionaires and billionaires" should see their tax rates rise. It is class warfare, yes. More importantly, it is not true!

According to Bloomberg News, an overwhelming percentage of the people being called "the ultra rich" come nowhere near to earning $1 million dollars a year. Of this so-called "privileged class," 3.8 million of those filing taxes who the liberal wing of the Democratic party believes to be "the very wealthy" are earning somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 a year. Only 608,000 taxpayers earn between $500,000 and $1 million a year. That leaves a grand total of 315,000 individuals or families that earn more than $1 million a year. And if you separate out from that number the Oprah Winfreys of the world -- megastar celebrities, professional athletes, and the true, few elites of the business and finance worlds -- the percentage of "ultra rich" is even lower.

But let's get back to that overwhelming majority of the highest tax bracket that liberals are so eager to see punished, even to the point of turning on their own president, who already has earned the reputation with many Americans of being the most liberal president since FDR. This tax class is made up of the small business owners, doctors, and small retail and manufacturing entrepreneurs who collectively employ nearly half of the nation's workforce.

While every big corporation and bank was getting a bailout during the economic collapse, and while those on welfare were seeing extension after extension of their benefits, this small group of Americans -- who already carry the brunt of the nation's tax burden -- struggled. And they are still struggling to keep their businesses and practices going. They are trying to avoid layoffs. They are cutting every possible expense.

These are the nation's most frustrated workers. Even while they have been balancing the economic viability of their enterprises on their own backs and out of their own pockets, they have had to watch as the bailed-out banks have made fortunes. And yet these same banks continue in their unwillingness and inability to lend money to the so-called "super wealthy" owners of small businesses so that they can keep their companies alive.

I have been a frequent critic of President Obama, but I must note that despite his clear left-of-center agenda, he was smart enough to realize that these 3.8 million non-millionaires, attacked as they have been by a mindless left wing, are the only hope he has for an economic recovery. Increase their taxes and inevitably they will have to cut back more in their own spending and, likely, on the number of people they hire and the services they use. Of course the president will never admit to this, but it is undeniable.

Now some conservatives are ready to sink the extension of the "Bush tax cuts" because of the extension of unemployment benefits that comes as a trade-off to get this deal done. Believe me, I want to see welfare reform back in place, just as it was passed by Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s. But if conservatives kill the extension of the George W. Bush tax rates over the cost of the additional extension in unemployment benefits, they will be cutting their off their noses to spite their faces. The failure to extend the cuts would lead to a significant rise in unemployment and to the spending of more big money on a fresh new crop of unemployed Americans. And the "super wealthy" wouldn't be putting much back into the economy.

It seems that too few recognize what a critical moment we face on this tax issue. Increasing taxes on these so-called "wealthy" would be a guarantee of a new round of economic disasters. Let those who want to make a point about class warfare risk such a situation at their own peril.

Regardless, the next time you hear someone talk about taxing the "millionaires and billionaires," you will have these facts and can make clear to them that their desire to "spread the wealth" would only guarantee years more of economic misery. Maybe that's what they want.


So, when's the last time a poor person hired people, again?

[Brassmask]

LOL...................................not

Way.

[sirs]

See above debunkment

[Brassmask]

Trickle down never works.  The rich don't create jobs.  They sit on their wealth.  They buy old houses and land and play the stock market like a roulette wheel.

[Amianthus]

The rich don't create jobs.

Which companies have you worked for that were owned by poor people?

[BT]

Unless they are fixing the old houses themselves, they are paying someone else to do the work, thereby creating jobs. And even if they do the work themselves they are keeping sawyers and paint factories and sheetrock manufacturers busy manufacturing the materials necessary for the home improvement.

[Brassmask]

The rich don't create jobs.

Which companies have you worked for that were owned by poor people?

My mother started her own business and sold it for a profit.  She started it in her living room and used child labor (i.e. my sister and me).  At the time she started said business, we all three lived in a two bedroom duplex and I distinctly remember having beans and loaf bread for dinner more than once.

Years later, I was her warehouse manager for a year and a half. 

Does this meet your standard of working for a business owned by "poor people"?

And she created LOTS of jobs.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The idea that rich people need a tax break as an incentive to start or expand businesses is largely bogus.

Does anyone actually believe that the highest paid NBA pros or other pros will start companies or expand companies only if they are taxed 4.6% less on income over 250K? Both LeBron and Wade of the Miami Heat bought megamillion dollar mansions recently. Are we to believe that they would have started selling muffins or producing their own brand of cologne if they had just been give that incentive?

I find the idea that people pay $15 to smell like any athlete both amusing and illogical, by the way. I do not associate athletes with elegant smells.

[BT]

The core of the debate is whether the income tax system should be progressive or not.

Targeted tax cuts or increases is just another wedge that keeps people divided, and as a way to curry favor and opens the door to corruption.

It is no more our business what the rich do with their money than it is what the poor do with their money.

What is our business is what the government does with our money.

If the government needs the money to advance a common good, then everyone should be expected to contribute to that common good at the same rate, regardless of what they have left over after the tax man takes the bite.

[R.R.]

Actually, the fact that Florida has no state income tax was a reason that Wade and James decided to play in Miami.

[Xavier_Onassis]

But does anyone actually believe that lowering the tax 4.6% on their income above $200K (assuming that they are not married) will actually cause them to create jobs?

I do not see this happening at all.

[BT]

But does anyone actually believe that lowering the tax 4.6% on their income above $200K (assuming that they are not married) will actually cause them to create jobs?

The debate isn't about lowering taxes 4.6%. The debate is whether raising the taxes 4.6% on a particular income segment will hinder the economic recovery.

And the only way to know that is by having a clear picture of who these people are.

And that might be a topic worth exploring.

[Plane]

Reganomics was a complete lie and has been demonstrably proven to only benefit the wealthy.  10 years of it and the top ten percent or so DOUBLED their income.  Everyone else saw barely a 3% increase.  The deficit ballooned out of control and homelessness skyrocketed.  You guys keep backing the millionaires in hopes you'll hit the lottery one day and you're just not.

Tax the shit out of the rich and watch life get better.  It always works.

If increaseing taxes on the wealthy were increaseing the depth of poverty on the poor would you still favor it?

Why do you think it doesnt?

As a thought experiment, think of Unkle Sam as an individual, the richest one on earth, he eats 30% of the GDP himself on a good year and worse in a bad year.

Why make Unkle Sam so wealthy and then moreso ad infinitum?

[R.R.]

And the only way to know that is by having a clear picture of who these people are.

And that might be a topic worth exploring.

What kind of ventures are they involved in, XO? Are they owners of restaurants or nightclubs? You asked if they would be effected, but didn't provide any information about them. 

[Plane]

But does anyone actually believe that lowering the tax 4.6% on their income above $200K (assuming that they are not married) will actually cause them to create jobs?

The debate isn't about lowering taxes 4.6%. The debate is whether raising the taxes 4.6% on a particular income segment will hinder the economic recovery.

And the only way to know that is by having a clear picture of who these people are.

And that might be a topic worth exploring.

THe tax in question is an Income tax right?

So it isn't a tax on people who have property it is a tax on people who make the property productive, not a tax on people who have money but a tax on people who earn or create the money.