The economic reason why tax cuts for the rich are so stupid

Oh for crying out loud, now $100,000 is rich.
What a joke

 

You can't save on your income tax bill if you don't pay any. Your arguments are full on blowhard silliness

 

Exactly

 

They want to turn tax cuts into more welfare

 

Just because you pay the highest percent in taxes doesn't mean you need a tax cut. These people have had soaring incomes and it is not the rich who have trouble affording healthcare, retirement, housing, and education. Tax cuts should depend on financial need not on the percent already paid. We should not put our nation further into debt to pay for tax cuts for people who don't need and often don't even want tax cuts.

 

What does need have to do with removing one's proper inequitably from the next?

 

It really depends on what you define to be inequitability. Is it paying the same amount in taxes? Is it paying the same percent in taxes? Is it the actual impact those taxes have on people's finances and lives? Would you consider any tax that falls on a certain group more than another to be wrong like a sin tax, taxes with tax deductions, taxes on certain products, etc. to be wrong? I define inequity to mean different people being treated different and not by an objective standard. Our tax system is applied to all individuals no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation so there is no discrimination. If a rich person were to become poor then he would get lower taxes, and if a poor person were to become rich he would have higher taxes.

Also I would argue that if your moral standard like equity results in harmful policies then it isn't a very good moral standard. If your moral standard results in tax cuts being given to the people who are getting more and more of the nation's wealth, while not even attempting to help the shrinking middle class that needs it the most while blowing up our deficits then I question your personal moral standard.

 

The cost of running our governments should be applied to ALL equally, and a flat tax rate applied in terms of acquired annual income OR labour hours performed in service of government would in my opinion be the fairest possible.

 

The unit taxed is a dollar of income.
Equal application would tax any dollar of income, earned by any individual, equally.
The type of income and amount of income earned would be irrelevant.

One dollar equals one dollar equals one dollar, period. Doesn't matter who, what, where, when or why.

Anything less is arbitrary and unequal in application

 

You want to raise taxes thousands of dollars on a person struggling to get by on a MW salary so you can give tens of millions in tax cuts to a guy making $100 million?

Your concept of "fairness" is vastly different than mine.

 

Oh for crying out loud, now $100,000 is poor.
What a joke.

 

Great idea. If your goal is to make the richest richer and the poorest poorer.

Which it is, right?

 

Less than 20% have incomes exceeding $100k. That's "middle class" only if you define "middle class" very broadly.

But your point is irrelevant. I never said that no one in the middle could see any tax savings.

What said was, 'f you're middle class, chances are cutting your income taxes in half would amount to peanuts, if anything at all. For the m/billionaires like donald, on the other hand ..."

Nothing you've posted undermines my statement.

 

Except that I am considered middle class and a 50% tax cut would be awesome.

Nothing you've posted undermines my statement.

 

Depends on how you define middle class.

Remember when conservatives pretended they cared about deficits and debt?

Being in the top 20% of income undermines your statement.

 

So you still don't believe Obama's claim that $250K and up are the rich. You calling Obama a liar?

 

Where did I say that? Diverting again, are we?

But sure. Show me the post where Obama says that folks making more than $100,000 are "middle class".

 

Like I said, upper middle class but still middle class. I know you don't want it to be so but hey, facts are facts.

 

Depends on how you define middle class. Good for you. So what?

 

How much tax does the guy making $100 million actually pay in tax today?

 

Depends.

But he's not worrying about how he's going to get his next meal.

 

My goal is simply for government to treat everyone the same, rich and poor allowing each free to pursue the station in life they desire, allowing success or failure to be a result of their own lawful efforts and choices aided only as a result of free choice by others.

 

Would treating everyone the same mean everyone pays the same dollar amount of tax? If your goal is to treat everyone the same, why aren't your promoting that?

 

You obviously didn't look at my example did you?
By treating everyone the same I tried to point out that IF we are to view a 40 hour week as the norm a flat tax rate such as the 23% I used would result in a tax of 23% of the annual income regardless of the number of hours actually consumed in acquiring it OR 23% of a work years labour equivalent to about 480 hours.
In my example, post #73, how many persons could afford to pay the same tax of the ones earning $150,000?

 

did you dream I said that joker?