I have to tell you guys... I live in the only Liberal town in Kansas, and when I say Liberal... I mean San Fransisco LIBERAL!!!!!!! I, however, am a very conservative guy and am so happy to get on this site everyday and see that everyone is not falling pray to Obamamania. It is hard for me to have friends in this town because every discussion becomes political and I am the odd ball. Thank you for giving me this avenue of hope that there are others like me out there.

 

 

I was under the impression, as stated in the OP, that he was letting the Bush tax cuts expire for people making over 250k. Do you have some information that says something else?

I didn't say anyone defended the last eight years, just that Republicans weren't complaining about them. Where was the outrage from the right when Bush was expanding government or increasing the deficit? We had a surplus when Bush enacted the tax cuts, that grew into a deficit, and now the Republican answer is, another tax cut.

And again, prove it. By your logic, tax cuts for corporations should have cut prices and increased employment, neither of which happened. When you give the wealthy tax cuts, they don't invest in people, they gamble in the stock market and create a bubble. Stop pretending that taking care of the rich and the corporations will eventually take care of us, it's never happened. The only reason Reagan's cuts helped, after he corrected the ridiculous cut he originally tried, is because his cuts affected everyone. There is a time for tax cuts, and a time for tax increases, no one method works all of the time.

Corporations will charge what the market will bear, and hire as many people as it takes to produce their product, plain and simple. The only failure is if you tax them out of business, three percent isn't going to do that. The only way for corporations to be more successful is if people can buy their products. While I don't believe in overburdening corporations, tax cuts should go to the people first, for the benefit of all.

 

I know for a fact that when I was involved in the bugeting for a corporation, we considered the tax ramifications of our hard good purchases. When there was an investment tax credit for purchasing equipment, we made more major purchases, which in turn created jobs at the companies where we palced orders. It is called growth stimulation. It is not hard to see if you want to see it. Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind nor will you change mine. I've said it all before, and have no idea why I felt compelled to say it again.

It's just a redistribution of tax. The corporations will charge more for goods and services or go out of business. Who will spend more for those goods and services? Obviously, those that have morey money and are already paying more tax.

If you think corporatios really pay tax, let's you and I form a corporation. Let's call it M & B Enterprises. You can own 75%, I will put in enough to own 25%. You are the Pres, I will be the Sec-Treas. Now, lets sit back and watch that sucker produce revenue. Obviously, it won't, not until there are people involved producing something of value. People create goods and services and people pay the tax on what is created, it's just that simple. All the new law will do is rename the tax for most of the same people paying it already.

 

The highest rates previously did not kick in until a good bit higher that 250k.

As shown here.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-20080107.pdf

 

While you would of course consider all aspects of your purchase, you'll buy it if it benefits your company, that is, if it makes money for you. The tax benefit is only one part of the equation. This plan is about your income tax, you still get to write off operating costs, like buying new equipment.

Thank you.

 

But anytime you can reduce the cost ofexpensive equipment by 15%, it is huge is the deciscion making process. It can make or break the decision. If you have been there, you would know that. Looking at a $600,000 laser machine that would now cost a net of $510,000 has a huge impact on profits and cash flow. It can determine whether you buy now or wait.

 

Well said. Let's face it, most of the people that want to "soak the rich", are people that are jealous of the rich. The 'rich' are the ones that own businesses that employ people. In the long run the 'poor' end up footing the bill through inflation of prices. The 'rich' have to maintain profitability regardless of taxes or go out of business.

How do they do this? By raising prices to maintain profit margins.

 

Something else I will add about the "Bush" tax cuts. ALL brackets were lowered, not just the highest. And those bracket amounts were adjusted for inflation, something long overdue in the tax system.

I take it back about adjusting for inflation in the Bush tax cuts. That was done during the Reagan tax cuts.

 

That's very true, what is better or worse for a business, a 15% discount on products, or a 20% increase in business. Most companies are doing a lot less business than they were, with no customers, they aren't buying anything, tax cuts or not.

They weren't adjusted evenly, and had McCain been elected, they wouldn't have been either, both gave larger cuts to the wealthy.

Again, the wealthy have never given you or I jack, either on purpose or by mistake, the middle class and lower class feed the wealthy by purchasing their goods and services.

 

Yes they have. It's called "employment."

Now we will have the government stepping in. Sure, we'll all have a job. But like in the USSR everyone had a job, they were just flat broke.

Working to survive is depressing, hence all the alcoholics in Russia.

 

You're right, it wasn't even. Those in the lowest incomes, got a larger cut, and got larger, by percentage, changes in the brackets.

 

Maybe they would have if their taxes were lower.


Besides paying a large portion of the tax burden and providing jobs, the wealthy actually do donate alot of their money and time for charitable causes. Some of those causes might just help you. Medical research, funding for the arts, supporting schools, etc...

There are lots of fine charitable organizations out there that actually do a lot of good with money donated by the wealthy. When taxes go way up, I'll bet charitable giving goes down. IMO, most charitable organizations will do far more for the poor with $1 than the federal govt. will.

 

Why would you want them to give you anything? I have never wanted anything from anyone other than the opportunity to make a fair wage for what i do and the opportunity to keep my fair share of what I earn.

 

You mean how they "employed" people a hundred years ago? they'd just as soon pay you barely enough to live in a shack, that's how much they "provide". They hire "you" because "we" buy your companies products and services, no more, no less.

No, the largest cuts went mostly to people making over $300k. The results were the same as the eighties, the rich got richer, and the middle class and poor slipped or stayed the same. So much for the argument that less taxes for the rich are good for everyone.

Uhm, they did get lower taxes, six years ago, prices have gone up along with unemployment. Same thing happened in the eighties when they got an even bigger cut from Reagan. Those tax cuts for the rich didn't benefit you and I at all.