Forum Thread

Trumps tax cut buy votes???

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 21 of 21 Prev 1 2
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Yes Chet, indeed if you have mismanagement, like what is also happening here i.e. all the corruption and no "real laws" to prevent such, then you may get the same situation as in any dictatorial country. I you create an lobsided economy which only caters to a few, then things will happen as in Venezuela.
    People are expected to endure early death and suffering because Bill Gates says "life is not fair, get used to it". It is apparently blasphemous to say mismanagement of economies is wrong. People demand and deserve clean air and clean water and polluters are criticized. But polluters of financial systems are rewarded with spectacular wealth. They get spectacular wealth with tactics no different than damming rivers turning fertile lands into deserts. The massive worldwide uncontrolled derivative market if the huge economic dam. It is not mismanagement of finances, it is criminal diversion of money.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Venezuela exported oil and imported real stuff. Basic, important stuff. And the govt didn’t invest in trying to diversify the economy during the boom years of oil pricing.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    According to Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren has a bold plan to raise taxes on the top 1% (or less) of our population who have net worth in excess of $50,000,000. I think it's a good idea, but it likely would not get signed into law until we have a Democratic president.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/opinion/elizabeth-warren-tax-plan.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    Ironically, the highest marginal taxes we have ever had as a country during peacetime (92%) were in place when a Republican (Eisenhower) was in office in 1953 (they peaked at 94% in 1944 and 1945) - and our country was doing very well.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/190499803/Fed-U-S-Federal-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-History-1862-2013#fullscreen&from_embed

    Eisenhower, incidentally, was the last Republican president to balance the budget, which he did in 1956 and 1957. The last president before Clinton was LBJ in 1969.

    http://www.answers.com/Q/Which_republican_president_balanced_a_budget

    Both parties have raised and lowered taxes. Here is a brief history of the new and prior rate:

    2018 - 37% (39.6%)

    2013 - 39.65 (35%)

    2003 - 35% (38.6%)

    2002 - 38.6% (39.1%)

    2001 - 39.1% (39.6%) *

    1992 - 39.6% (31%)

    1991 - 31% (28%)

    1986 - 50% (70%)

    1968 - 70% (77%)

    1964 - 77% (91%)

    1963 - 91% (92%)

    1953 - 92% (91%)

    * If the Clinton era rates had been left in place, our national debt would have been eliminated entirely by 2011. The last time that our budget had a surplus were the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, when Clinton was in office.

    Then we got George W. Bush, who cut taxes three times.

    In contrast, the tax cuts under Reagan TRIPLED the national debt when he was in office. When George Bush raised taxes in 1992, it cost him a chance at a second term (remember "read my lips?")

    Trump's tax cuts have already caused a deficit of $1 trillion THIS YEAR.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There are no negatives to a high progressive tax rates on high incomes. Contrary to right wing propaganda high tax rates lead to prosperity.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Simply focusing on the top marginal tax rate without considering the entire system of taxation and revenue at the federal, state and local levels would not be responsible. The era of low marginal tax rates for upper income earners begin mostly with the Reagan tax cuts, and since then budget spending at all levels (federal, state, local) has been adjusted accordingly to compensate for the loss of federal revenue and cuts in spending programs. There is no question that the outcome of all Republican administrations' tax legislation starting with Reagan has disproportionately benefitted the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

    However, I would be wary of "making campaign promises" on taxation legislation to fix the inequity problems overnight when we have Republicans (the Party of No under Obama) still controlling the Senate and ready to use the 60 vote filibuster on anything that rolls back the Republican tax cuts for the rich.

    Obama was crucified by fickle liberal voters in 2010 for not being able to quickly deliver on his campaign promises ignoring the fact that Boehner and McConnell were undermining him at his every move to try bail us out of the Great Recession and create jobs.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Simply focusing on the top marginal tax rate without considering the entire system of taxation and revenue at the federal, state and local levels would not be responsible. The era of low marginal tax rates for upper income earners begin mostly with the Reagan tax cuts, and since then budget spending at all levels (federal, state, local) has been adjusted accordingly to compensate for the loss of federal revenue and cuts in spending programs. There is no question that the outcome of all Republican administrations' tax legislation starting with Reagan has disproportionately benefitted the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

    However, I would be wary of "making campaign promises" on taxation legislation to fix the inequity problems overnight when we have Republicans (the Party of No under Obama) still controlling the Senate and ready to use the 60 vote filibuster on anything that rolls back the Republican tax cuts for the rich.

    Obama was crucified by fickle liberal voters in 2010 for not being able to quickly deliver on his campaign promises ignoring the fact that Boehner and McConnell were undermining him at his every move to try bail us out of the Great Recession and create jobs.

    Again Chet and Schmidt an correct analyses ; like I said in another thread it is rather stupid to have the candidates talk in this early phase about raising taxes; do it only once you have the majority and have an solid plan for it, which will pass the voting test.

    At such proper time, it should be made clear to the voter that money gained from tax increases on the rich indeed do flow back into the society to improve life's for everyone, like better healthcare, infrastructure and social benefits improvements.

    Also it would be wise to introduce an "level" of income/wealth ( above"x" million) in which they can not participate to get social security etc. In Europe they are therefore required to get "private" insurance.