A question for Republicans and other Right Wingers ?

Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

mikecartwright
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

09 Dec 2011, 10:10 pm

A question for Republicans and other Right Wingers I always hear that after the tax cuts for the Wealthy by JFK Reagan and the Bush tax cuts that the Wealthy pay more money in taxes can any Conservative explain the reasons for this ? I don't understand how the Wealthy would pay most of the taxes if they are paying a lower tax rate. I also want to know if the economy is good and the government gets more revenue do the Wealthy pay more taxes ?


A Brief Guide to the Flat TaxBy Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.
July 7, 2005

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Should the rich pay more?

A: Under a flat tax, the rich do pay more than the poor. A wealthy taxpayer with 100 times more taxable income than his neighbor will pay 100 times more in taxes. However, a flat tax does not impose special penalties on those who contribute the most to the nation's prosperity by subjecting them to punitive and discriminatory tax rates. For those who think the "rich" should pay a higher percentage of their income, the generous family allowance effectively creates a modest level of "progressivity." For instance, a family with an annual income of $20,000 faces a tax rate of zero. Wealthy taxpayers also benefit from the family allowance, but the effective tax rate on an income of $1 million will be only a tiny fraction below the statutory tax rate.

This approach is much fairer than the current system, which penalizes investors, entrepreneurs, and others who create wealth for the American economy while simultaneously providing myriad deductions, credits, exemptions, and other preferences that are much more likely to be exploited by upper-income taxpayers. The flat tax eliminates these special-interest loopholes, ensuring that the rich play by the same rules as other taxpayers.

www.heritage.org...



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

09 Dec 2011, 11:11 pm

I have no beef with a flat income tax instead of the idiocy that we have right now, that's one reason why I'm supporting Newt Gingrich.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

09 Dec 2011, 11:11 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I have no beef with a flat income tax instead of the idiocy that we have right now, that's one reason why I'm supporting Newt Gingrich.


That's not why.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

10 Dec 2011, 1:25 am

mikecartwright wrote:
A question for Republicans and other Right Wingers I always hear that after the tax cuts for the Wealthy by JFK Reagan and the Bush tax cuts that the Wealthy pay more money in taxes can any Conservative explain the reasons for this ?


Laffer proposed a theory.

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 10 Dec 2011, 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,959
Location: International House of Paincakes...

10 Dec 2011, 2:56 am

I think Ron Paul explains it best...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQlbesF0zA[/youtube]


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,117
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Dec 2011, 3:02 am

It's been said often enough these days - if Reagan were alive and running for president today, he'd never get the nomination for his views on taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

10 Dec 2011, 11:08 am

mikecartwright wrote:
This approach is much fairer than the current system, which penalizes investors, entrepreneurs, and others who create wealth for the American economy while simultaneously providing myriad deductions, credits, exemptions, and other preferences that are much more likely to be exploited by upper-income taxpayers. The flat tax eliminates these special-interest loopholes, ensuring that the rich play by the same rules as other taxpayers.

Ummm... It's possible to eliminate loopholes without eliminating progressiveness. The two issues are not related. Putting them together as one seems like a propaganda move to me. It looks like a move to pound in the idea that "simpler = better" on simple-minded people. The complexity of the US tax code doesn't come from its progressive brackets. Even places praised for being extremely capitalism-friendly, like Hong Kong and Singapore, now have a tax system that isn't flat.

The right should focus on cutting wasteful spending (caugh... military...) and balancing the budget before proposing massive revenue reducing tax restructuring. Putting the cart before the horse is a recipe for disaster if you care anything about the national debt. My guess though is that right-wing politicians don't actually give a damn about government debt. They simply want to manufacture a debt crisis so they can shove through their ideological goals. They want to manipulate public fear to get their way. That is dishonest bullshit.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

10 Dec 2011, 2:03 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
It's been said often enough these days - if Reagan were alive and running for president today, he'd never get the nomination for his views on taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If John F. Kennedy were running for president today, he'd never get the Democrat Nomination cause he isn't far enough to the wacko left for the Democrat establishment.

As for Reagan, he actually would probably get the Republican nomination.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

10 Dec 2011, 2:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It's been said often enough these days - if Reagan were alive and running for president today, he'd never get the nomination for his views on taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If John F. Kennedy were running for president today, he'd never get the Democrat Nomination cause he isn't far enough to the wacko left for the Democrat establishment.

As for Reagan, he actually would probably get the Republican nomination.


Kennedy wouldn't get the nomination, because he's a corpse.

Reagan probably would, because his corpse is more intelligent than the current field of Repugnican candidates.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

10 Dec 2011, 3:22 pm

pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It's been said often enough these days - if Reagan were alive and running for president today, he'd never get the nomination for his views on taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If John F. Kennedy were running for president today, he'd never get the Democrat Nomination cause he isn't far enough to the wacko left for the Democrat establishment.

As for Reagan, he actually would probably get the Republican nomination.


Kennedy wouldn't get the nomination, because he's a corpse.

Reagan probably would, because his corpse is more intelligent than the current field of Repugnican candidates.


Zombie Reagan 2012 ! !!

I'm sure his handlers could train him to sign the right bills and veto the rest. Public speaking would require a creative interpreter... "Bluuaarrrggh braaains, must eat!" = "Together we can put America back to work!". No no no, don't gnaw on Mr. Putin's arm!! !

One bonus... save taxpayer money by laying off the secret service. You can't assassinate a president who's already dead. They'd just need someone standing by with a fire extinguisher in case someone throws a molotov cocktail.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,117
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Dec 2011, 6:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It's been said often enough these days - if Reagan were alive and running for president today, he'd never get the nomination for his views on taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If John F. Kennedy were running for president today, he'd never get the Democrat Nomination cause he isn't far enough to the wacko left for the Democrat establishment.

As for Reagan, he actually would probably get the Republican nomination.


How do you figure Reagan would get the nomination? Like I said, he wasn't opposed to raising taxes on the rich. And it should be remembered, during his presidency, he was attacked by other conservatives like Grover Norquist for that tax hike. Plus, the amiable Reagan hardly would have called the other half of the country Un-American, unlike Republicans today.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

10 Dec 2011, 6:49 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It's been said often enough these days - if Reagan were alive and running for president today, he'd never get the nomination for his views on taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If John F. Kennedy were running for president today, he'd never get the Democrat Nomination cause he isn't far enough to the wacko left for the Democrat establishment.

As for Reagan, he actually would probably get the Republican nomination.


How do you figure Reagan would get the nomination? Like I said, he wasn't opposed to raising taxes on the rich. And it should be remembered, during his presidency, he was attacked by other conservatives like Grover Norquist for that tax hike. Plus, the amiable Reagan hardly would have called the other half of the country Un-American, unlike Republicans today.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


He would have won the nomination because he campaigned on ideas, not tearing down fellow Republicans. Gingrich is doing well because he is presenting possible solutions and not simply attacking people while presenting no alternatives.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,117
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Dec 2011, 10:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
It's been said often enough these days - if Reagan were alive and running for president today, he'd never get the nomination for his views on taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If John F. Kennedy were running for president today, he'd never get the Democrat Nomination cause he isn't far enough to the wacko left for the Democrat establishment.

As for Reagan, he actually would probably get the Republican nomination.


How do you figure Reagan would get the nomination? Like I said, he wasn't opposed to raising taxes on the rich. And it should be remembered, during his presidency, he was attacked by other conservatives like Grover Norquist for that tax hike. Plus, the amiable Reagan hardly would have called the other half of the country Un-American, unlike Republicans today.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


He would have won the nomination because he campaigned on ideas, not tearing down fellow Republicans. Gingrich is doing well because he is presenting possible solutions and not simply attacking people while presenting no alternatives.


It would have been the other Republicans who would have torn him down for his ideas - like taxing the rich.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer