Tax away? Did Bill Clinton tax away jobs? Did Bush II tax away jobs as they've been bleeding away since 2004 in an era of historically low US income and capital gains taxes.
The tax incentives of the Bush admin has awarded Wal Street excess and not innovation. A new paridigm is needed.
I was sure I read that if one has no tax liability then they can't have a tax cut....it's welfare. So in that instance then a tax cut for lower income people would be welfare..to those who subscribe to that idea. Correct? That is what I was asking.
The childless couple's taxes are not retroactively paying for their own education. Their parents would have been the ones whose tax dollars paid for their education at that time, right? Now that the childless couples are the ones paying, they have no children who are benefiting from it. So the point is an interesting one. . .
The childless couple's taxes are not retroactively paying for their own education. Their parents would have been the ones whose tax dollars paid for their education at that time, right?
Pages
Tax away? Did Bill Clinton tax away jobs? Did Bush II tax away jobs as they've been bleeding away since 2004 in an era of historically low US income and capital gains taxes.
The tax incentives of the Bush admin has awarded Wal Street excess and not innovation. A new paridigm is needed.
When you were referring to calculations
How is it not relevent? Where is the difference in tax and spend policies?
Because BUSH isn't running...
Hmm - Doesn't the tax policy center project McCain's tax and spend policies as more deficit producing than Obama's?
No, all the projections I've seen are that Obama's promises (even offset by his higher taxes) will generate larger deficits than McCain.
Aren't many economists predicting (or wishfully thinking) that the bailout will almost break even for the taxpayer if the economy turns around?
The emphasis is on "wishful thinking"
Give money to the people who need it, spend it, and stimulate the economy, Jobs will follow
Unfortunately not so.
As noted - if you receive more back in "tax cuts" than you pay in taxes, it is welfare.
If your taxes are cut to zero, but you don't receive back more than you paid, no it isn't welfare.
But the school system isn't used by people who don't have kids, or by seniors, so does that make it a form of welfare?
Where did those childless couples or seniors get their own education if they didn't use the school system?
Powered by CGISpy.com
Thank you Spencer, Lindsay, and Pamela for my awesome siggys
<>
The childless couple's taxes are not retroactively paying for their own education. Their parents would have been the ones whose tax dollars paid for their education at that time, right? Now that the childless couples are the ones paying, they have no children who are benefiting from it. So the point is an interesting one. . .
The childless couple's taxes are not retroactively paying for their own education. Their parents would have been the ones whose tax dollars paid for their education at that time, right?
Maybe.
Pages