Let the good times roll for the upper-class!

[Dinner]

**** yeah. Let the bastards swing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And then the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional and then you'd be really upset .

[MrFun]

Leave it to lawyers with a Harry Potter fetish to crush our own sadistic fantasies in dealing with uber-corrupt elitists.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And then the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional and then you'd be really upset .

They can swing too.

[MrFun]

Ok, I am beginning to worry about Oerdin . . . . .












Make sure he doesn't know where we keep all the weapons in the coffee shop.

[Arrian]

AS an aside, my favorite method for a government to give tax cuts would be to raise the personal exemption. It makes more of the working poor tax free, is simple and applies to all individuals relatively equally.

Yeah, but that doesn't address the "unfairness" of the progressive income tax system that the Republicans hate.

I'd be for that... but again, you gotta reign in spending too and they're not going to do that. So it's tax less, spend more/same = more debt. Ugh.

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Can you do proportional math?

2/20 000=0,0001
5562/1,000,000=0,0056

pwn3d!!!

[Japher]

0.005662!

significant digits man!

[Drake Tungsten]

In spite of all the truthiness on display in this thread, I really don't think we have much to worry about in terms of the progressivity of our income tax system. Payroll taxes, on the other hand...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


You're assuming:

(1) they're investing in this country, not abroad.
(2) they're not using the money to buy out competitors, thus reducing competition, leading to increased prices and decreased services, and...
(3) increased investing results in a greater economic benefit than increased consumer spending.

Buying out competitors can be a great thing for the economy too, as long as there are still enough players to provide competition. Bad / weak / inefficient companies typically get bought out as they don't compete as effectively, so these aren't likely to be the companies who can charge the lowest prices to begin with. Secondly their departure and acquisition by their competitors allows the competitor to increase their scale, which in many if not most endeavors inceases efficiency / productivity. This combined with competition lowers prices, without it it simply raises profits. (Which isn't a bad thing either.)

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

You are absolutely correct however understanding that requires a work and an understanding of basic math. Therefor the average American will not be able to understand it. They're just that lazy and stupid. Instead they'd rather have Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly tell them what to think because thinking hurts.

The numbers are far more misleading in Mr. Fun's DU approved OP screed than the reality depicted in Rufus' numbers would seem to indicate anything Rush says could be.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Which is the Repuks' main goal. To make the tax rates lower on the upper classes (who donate to the GOP) and to push the tax burden upon the poor and middle classes (who don't give much money to the GOP). That's great sense if you are a member of the Republican elite but it is horrible policy for running a nation.

Typically it is the Dems who rely on wealthy donors to a much greater extent than the Repubs. Take a look at the correlation of wealth by state and voting patterns by state for a quick reality check. So this seems a stupid strategy on the part of Republicans and in any event a self-correcting one if you are right.

No one is pushing "the tax burden" on to the lower and middle classes. They pay very little in taxes in comparison to the wealthy, and collectively we aren't paying our way if these huge deficits are any indication. I agree that it's extremely foolish to run up these deficits. Both spending and taxes have to be utilized to bring the budget under control, and we're honestly not likely to see spending handled until the best investment performance in the U.S. is not a campaign contribution in Washington to a Senator from another state.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Economics isn't a zero-sum game.

kinda like religious eh? saving one soul doesnt prevent the salvation of another!



(aight that was kinda uncalled for, but i had to do it )

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
In spite of all the truthiness on display in this thread, I really don't think we have much to worry about in terms of the progressivity of our income tax system. Payroll taxes, on the other hand...

Good link--

So while the tax cut may very slightly reduce the "progressivity" of the system, it remains very highly progressive

[Arrian]

Depending, of course, on how you define "very highly progressive." And, IMO, you can't just look at one tax (even the income tax, which is the biggie)... one must look at the total picture (hence Drake's reference to the payroll tax). The income tax is progressive, yes. Perhaps even "very highly" so. Is the tax system overall "very highly" progressive, though?

-Arrian