Republican priorities: (1) cut taxes on the rich; (2) raise taxes on the poor
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:40:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Republican priorities: (1) cut taxes on the rich; (2) raise taxes on the poor
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Republican priorities: (1) cut taxes on the rich; (2) raise taxes on the poor  (Read 1784 times)
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:52:42 PM »


snip:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://theweek.com/article/index/272922/the-republican-partys-top-priority-is-to-raise-taxes-on-the-poor-literally

Joke Party.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2014, 03:54:16 PM »

Yep, that's the FairTax idea in a nutshell. Pay for your own foodstamps.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2014, 03:57:21 PM »

but but but paul ryan is so serious about conservative solutions to poverty, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and AP told me so Sad
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2014, 03:59:08 PM »

This article was literally written by an idiot with a political axe to grind. If for no other reason than because Paul Ryan's office worked jointly with the White House to draft the most recent iteration of EITC changes.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2014, 04:02:26 PM »

Another important takeaway is that the Republicans and Democrats had the workings of a deal, but after Obama's immigration executive order the Republicans threw a hissy fit and that's why they're doing this.

The article actually sums it up perfectly:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2014, 04:18:59 PM »

No, I refuse to believe this. I truly think their sudden deficit epiphany on January 20th, 2009 was completely genuine. The media told me so.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2014, 04:20:59 PM »

Yep, that's the FairTax idea in a nutshell. Pay for your own foodstamps.
Not really:

Logged
KCDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,928


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2014, 04:41:54 PM »

This article was literally written by an idiot with a political axe to grind.

Pot meet kettle.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2014, 04:49:14 PM »

Republicans have ideas for addressing poverty and cutting corporate welfare but somehow they never seem to survive the sausage factory.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2014, 05:01:37 PM »


The author seems to think that the key indicator of effective medical treatment is the number of pills federal physicians prescribe. The physician that has his patients addicted to dozens of pills is the best physician.

In theory, the goal of social policy is to eliminate the need for transfer payments, which means that success is measured by massive cuts to social entitlements as the number of claimants declines. For reasons no one can understand, Democrats are 100% dedicated to the opposite outcome. It has become increasingly clear that Democrats don't want to get better, they just want to power associated with dispensing pills.

Besides the obvious failure to reason through the basic structure of social spending, the author is too partisan to support flatter marginal tax rates, which would be a major step towards eliminating the separate-but-"equal" tax system we have today.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2014, 05:12:15 PM »

Besides the obvious failure to reason through the basic structure of social spending, the author is too partisan to support flatter marginal tax rates, which would be a major step towards eliminating the separate-but-"equal" tax system we have today.

In the same way you're too partisan to support progressive tax rates, I guess.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2014, 05:39:08 PM »

In the same way you're too partisan to support progressive tax rates, I guess.

You don't even know enough about taxes to be wrong. Your post is just irrelevant.

I oppose graduated statutory rates and support progressive effective/average rates. Progressive effective rates are best achieved with a flat marginal statutory rate which gives all citizens the same marginal propensity to work, and eliminates the need for the federal government to segregate the people into adversarial demographics like single, married, head of household, married filing separately, qualifying widow/er, etc. Flat marginal rate also curbs class warfare by poor raising statutory rates on the riches and riches raising statutory rates on the poors. Whatever you do to your neighbor, changes for you as well.

Flat marginal rate is the only humane way to tax.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2014, 06:01:27 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reading into the first paragraph, we can clearly tell this is a trusty source.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2014, 06:42:33 PM »

Republicans have ideas for addressing poverty and cutting corporate welfare but somehow they never seem to survive the sausage factory.

These ARE our party's proposals, Shua. Don't blame political compromises with Democrats for this.
Logged
Nutmeg
thepolitic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,914
United States Minor Outlying Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2014, 07:52:21 PM »

Yep, that's the FairTax idea in a nutshell. Pay for your own foodstamps.
Not really:


Hmm. So taxes decrease for literally everyone (well, who's married)?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2014, 07:56:58 PM »

Yep, that's the FairTax idea in a nutshell. Pay for your own foodstamps.
Not really:


Hmm. So taxes decrease for literally everyone (well, who's married)?

Actually, the very economists who DESIGNED the Flat/Fair Tax ACKNOWLEDGE it would generally raise taxes on the large majority of taxpayers.

But Deus found this spiffy graph on Wikipedia, so the authors must be wrong.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2014, 08:04:04 PM »

Yep, that's the FairTax idea in a nutshell. Pay for your own foodstamps.
Not really:


Hmm. So taxes decrease for literally everyone (well, who's married)?

Actually, the very economists who DESIGNED the Flat/Fair Tax ACKNOWLEDGE it would generally raise taxes on the large majority of taxpayers.
1. The Flat Tax and Fair Tax are two completely different things.

2. Are you going to substantiate your claim with a cite or just expect people to take it at face value?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2014, 08:25:52 PM »

Yep, that's the FairTax idea in a nutshell. Pay for your own foodstamps.
Not really:


Hmm. So taxes decrease for literally everyone (well, who's married)?

Actually, the very economists who DESIGNED the Flat/Fair Tax ACKNOWLEDGE it would generally raise taxes on the large majority of taxpayers.
1. The Flat Tax and Fair Tax are two completely different things.

2. Are you going to substantiate your claim with a cite or just expect people to take it at face value?


1) The "Fair Tax" is the Flat Tax with a corporate focus group rebranding campaign, and nothing more. They are "completely different" the same way 'the death tax' and 'the estate tax' are.

2) Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rashbushka, "Low Tax, Simple Tax, Flat Tax" (McGraw-Hill, 1983), p. 58. A taste:

"It is anobvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people."
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2014, 08:31:57 PM »

Republicans have ideas for addressing poverty and cutting corporate welfare but somehow they never seem to survive the sausage factory.
You see, Congressional Republicans now equal the entire Republican Party, apparently.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2014, 08:38:42 PM »
« Edited: December 05, 2014, 11:05:25 PM by AggregateDemand »

1) The "Fair Tax" is the Flat Tax with a corporate focus group rebranding campaign, and nothing more. They are "completely different" the same way 'the death tax' and 'the estate tax' are.

2) Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rashbushka, "Low Tax, Simple Tax, Flat Tax" (McGraw-Hill, 1983), p. 58. A taste:

"It is anobvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people."

Corporate tax reform is about allowing companies to repatriate profits into the US. Though some lobbyists will surely try to sneak gifts in for themselves, it isn't a conspiracy to reduce the tax burden on corporations, rather to exempt the US from the unintended consequences of dumb tax laws from a bygone era when American companies made virtually all of their money in the US.

Quoting economic regressives isn't particularly persuasive, either. It's a group of people who've staked their claim on the idea that economic functions can never be parabolic. Basically, they've never passed a semester of Calc I, but we'll roll their wheelchairs into the spotlight so they can flap their gums when it suits the flat earth perspective.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2014, 10:37:44 PM »
« Edited: December 05, 2014, 10:41:00 PM by shua »

Republicans have ideas for addressing poverty and cutting corporate welfare but somehow they never seem to survive the sausage factory.

These ARE our party's proposals, Shua. Don't blame political compromises with Democrats for this.

I thought this article was talking about what had been negotiated between the House and the Senate?  In any case, generally speaking there's often been a disconnect between what someone like Paul Ryan or Dave Camp puts forward as a policy proposal and what we actually see in a bill that comes out of their committees.  And that has been true whether or not it is a bipartisan bill.

btw the "Fair Tax" is a national sales tax whereas the "Flat Tax" is an income tax, so they're not at all the same.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2014, 11:45:16 PM »


This was... Hilarious.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2014, 02:44:30 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reading into the first paragraph, we can clearly tell this is a trusty source.


lolz ... thank you. I was getting tempted to quote Free Republic or some other horrid Republican source to make the point. I'm surprised Alan Grayson isn't on the byline.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2014, 02:37:56 PM »
« Edited: December 06, 2014, 10:18:50 PM by Deus Naturae »

1) The "Fair Tax" is the Flat Tax with a corporate focus group rebranding campaign, and nothing more. They are "completely different" the same way 'the death tax' and 'the estate tax' are.

2) Robert E. Hall and Alvin Rashbushka, "Low Tax, Simple Tax, Flat Tax" (McGraw-Hill, 1983), p. 58. A taste:

"It is anobvious mathematical law that lower taxes on the successful will have to be made up by higher taxes on average people."
No...the Flat Tax is a single-bracket income tax that exempts investment income. The Fair Tax is a retail consumption tax with a monthly rebate. Those are two different things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall%E2%80%93Rabushka_flat_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Also, the Flat Tax would just be a replacement for the current income tax system. The Fair Tax would replace more or less all major taxes, other than duties and excises.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2014, 03:10:51 PM »

Well EITC will have to be included in the renewal of tax breaks because Republicans have no choice or else Obama will veto the bill. The fact that Harry Reid almost went along with the deal makes the Dems look just as clueless.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.