http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm Sure, there are some wealthy people who don't pay their taxes. But that percentage is small and it wasn't your initial premise. The point is that a "non-rich" tax cut doesn't really even make sense, considering half of the population doesn't pay federal income tax in the first place.
I'm not a republican, but when taxes are lower for the "wealthy" they tend to pay more in taxes as they place more of their "wealth" into taxable arenas. As for me, I support a flat tax.
That is just incorrect. the vast majority of small businesses do not net over $250,000. This has almost nothing to do with small business.
I own a small business. I don't really see how the tax cut helps my business much. I also think it's idiotic to say I "create" jobs. I don't. Customers create jobs. I could have access to a trillion dollars in interest free loans, I could have 100% tax-free income, and if I don't have any customers I'm not going to create any jobs. In the end, my company hires or fires because there are consumers out there (mostly $45-$85k/year in household income) who have money to spend (or don't) on my products. The tax rate of people making $250k/year have as much to do with my business (and I'll venture a ton of small businesses) as the price of tea in China. I do think extending unemployment benefits helps me sell more product, though, in the near-term. But I'm kind of conflicted about that. At some point we have to stop paying people not to work.
First, deficit spending isn't the only reason I vote for something. Either is candidate intelligence, or how I've been represented, or abortion, or any other one issue. That said, you can't tell me that someone who voted for the stimulus package and ObamaCare (and the WAY that Obama was passed) should still be in office. Maybe if someone would've run a non-incumbent Democrat there would be better results for the liberal-minded. But those who had their chance followed the President and Pelosi into things that are not only repugnant to me personally, but also damaging to the country as a whole. AFAIK Rand Paul and Dino Rossi, etc., etc. haven't done that. And if they tried to, they would be voted out the next time.
My business is a B2B service, where most of the clients are making over 250k a year (doctors). I've noticed more doctors are paying later and later and some just kind of avoid invoices until I threaten to cut off their service. The thing is that when those individuals make less money, they likely start prioritizing bills to pay when they have less money in the bank, and it causes a cascade effect. For many small businesses like these docs, increases in their taxes = less money that they pay not only employees, but vendors as well. Then the vendors have less money. Its all connected.
This line of reasoning is like believing in a perpetual motion machine. It is like when Obama, in his campaign, claimed that "every $1 spent on childhood development results in a $10 return to the economy". Right. The government should just print endless money and give it to those that can't create, just consume, and our economy will be amazing. I also have a perpetual motion machine I would like to sell you.
I imagine they vote for them for the same reason that Democrats vote for their crappy politicians..... as long as the person has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they get the vote. Isn't voting party lines wonderful?
I don't know if that's what he said, but it sort of makes sense, and perhaps underestimates the impact. If by "child development" you mean "grade school," I think tax payers 35 years ago have received an excellent return on the investment they made in me to attend public education. I've generated far more wealth with the foundation created on that grade school education than the tax payers spent on me. I think that's generally (although maybe not universally) true. That's as silly as saying that the government should just cut taxes forever until they collect not a penny and no government services are rendered. If only we all lived in the libertarian utopia of Somalia!
I actually chatted with a friend (who works for a progressive political organization, but is about as reasonable as anyone gets in terms of political discussion) and I answered the question the OP posted (I think). Allow me to paste: her: I have to say that I find the Republicans refusal to pass an unemployment benefits extension by itselfunless other spending cuts are made somewhat disingenuous given that they're willing to pass/extend tax cuts across the board with an unemployment extension that is going to be solely financed by adding to the debt and creating a bigger deficit me: well there are two factors at play, philosophically the first is deficit reduction the second (in no order) is stopping the expansion of the role of the state giving tax breaks helps people who are earning money giving unemployment extensions helps people who are not earning money if the state wants to help those who aren't working then the state should tighten its belt elsewhere so it's a zero-sum game (I would argue this is their logic) if the state is going to help working people/people earning money then that's a benefit and the state therefore can extend benefits of course, that doesn't address the deficit issue There's your answer. Of course, I don't vote for the GOP. I think voting is a waste of time. Ed O.
This resolution by the congress is like a bad divorce . . . it is costing tons of money and nobody is happy. I don't want to see the tax cuts extended for anybody and I don't want to see unemployment benfits extended ( I think). This country and it's citizens have dug quite the hole for itself and it is flat out going to hurt to come back from all this. Time to get the hurt on.
And like I said, I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you. You don't keep throwing money at those that can't create, only consume, and hope that the economy will proper and move forward technologically. Yet believing that the government can create $10 for every $1 they spend is an even sillier concept. Still interested in my perpetual motion machine? It only violates one law of thermodynamics.
The debate is framed poorly, and by populist standards. Since the govt. has a gun and authority to pull the trigger if you don't pay taxes, it's too easy for them to just take from us what they want to spend, without consideration for the amount they want to spend. Taxing $0 wouldn't mean the govt. is adding $.01 to the debt or has to run a deficit. Once you get this, the rest is quite clear. The Bush Tax Cuts (tm) have nothing to do with the size of the deficits, it's the spending stupid. Even at $0 taxes, the govt. would have revenue and thus money to spend. It did all along before there was an income tax. The point is that they need to prioritize what they want to spend money on, given the money they take in, period. Anything else is a bunch of spoiled politicians whining about having their allowance cut.
So your definition of a mythical perpetual motion machine is taxpayers paying to educate kids. Ok....
In advance, sorry for derailing this thread and will keep my story short. Had a guy that I graduated Navy Nuclear Power "A" School with and among some of the strange beliefs he had was that the government was against the guy that came up with the "perpetual motion" machine. He only joined the program to finance building his car that ran on nothing. He made it no secret and put on his course critic of basic electronics that the instructor had "gross misconceptions" about electricity. His grades were still there, so he made it past the first major step of training on the path to being trusted with a nuclear reactor. He had other strange beliefs, like that the human body did not need sleep and experimenting with shocking yourself was healthy. The one that proved his downfall ended up being that Einstien was Christian. Another guy said he was an athiest and apparently this was worthy of a punch to the mouth that required multiple stiches.
So you're building strawmen? ok... If you believe the garbage like "$1 in government spending returns $10" then you should be all for 100% taxation, and the government printing as much money as they possibly can. The idea that those who can only consume will eventually create if you just keep spending money on them is pretty flawed. I'm all for taxpayers paying to educate kids. But there is no way you'll convince me that if we double the amount we give the schools, we will see a 1000% increase in their production. It is just plain silly to believe that.
