Originally Posted by BR
Do you disagree? Do you feel that broadening the base isn't code for raising taxes on the poor? What else could it mean, if not that? This is a rather pathetic and obvious dodge.
So, must I what? Present facts and logical arguments, debunking the whole notion that Republicans oppose raising taxes? Sorry that's so inconvenient for you.
This from the man who accused me of "spin" in the other thread. BR, the fact is that you've presented one view of what broadening the base means. One view. Sure, one can look at it as "a tax increase." One could try to make the argument that Republicans don't really oppose tax increases. But that would be spin. Considering you just accused me of it earlier...isn't that...wait for it....HYPOCRISY?
Originally Posted by BRussell
Romney and the Rs want to raise taxes on the "parasites" (by expiring Obama's payroll tax cuts), but they want to cut taxes for the "job creators" even further than Bush's tax cuts.
Don't get into that....you're better than this. Let's discuss the real issues:
1. Do you think it's a problem that only 53% of Americans pay income taxes?
2. Do you think that doubling capital gains on "the rich" makes sense economically and fiscally?
3. Do you think that our tax system needs to be revised to ensure everyone (or nearly everyone) pays something? Should it be simpler and encourage production rather than discourage it?
Originally Posted by Northgate
When it comes to ME paying, the rich and powerful always say, "Tough shit! **** you, pay me!"
So my attitude about the rich and powerful bitching and moaning and paying taxes, my response is, "Tough shit!"
Is that class warfare? You bet your ass it is!!!
Spoken (written) by someone who truly won't let the logical part of him get past the emotional part. It's easy to picture some guy with Romney's money or more sitting around getting pissed off that he has to pay $5,000,000 in taxes instead of $3,000,000. Screw them, you say! But these people are not the problem when we're discussing "the rich" paying more. We're talking about a lot of small businesses, for one thing. Many report on personal returns, so this affects those employers big time. Secondly, what does raising taxes on the rich (the Buffett rule) actually accomplish? Answer...nothing. It raises $4.7 billion a year at most. That's enough to fund the government for about three hours. And what effect will raising taxes on the rich (by whatever amount) have on economic growth? There choices are "net positive" or "net negative." Hint: It can't be the first one.
You see, "eat the rich" sounds great and feel great to we middle class slobs. But it makes no fiscal or economic sense.
Originally Posted by BR
It's very simple math, folks. 45% allegedly pay zero dollars. Eric Cantor says they should pay at least something, at least $1.
You tell me, SDW...Is $1 bigger than $0? Here, have a multiple choice question:
Bob pays $0 in federal income taxes in 2012. The Republicans want him to pay $1 in federal income taxes in 2013. Bob's income taxes from 2012 to 2013...
C) Stayed the same
D) Must you do this whole pointing out facts things again? I hate facts.
Here's a hint: while D may be true, it doesn't answer the question--so don't pick it.
Yes, BR, we get it. I've already stated that one could view that as a "tax increase." But the only purpose in one doing that would be to beat Conservatives over the head for "wanting to raise taxes." One would only do that to avoid having a real discussion of what tax policy should be. Ahem.