Socialism and welfare

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
Socialism and welfare
363
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 6:29am

Why is it a tax cut when McCain cuts taxes?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:30pm

<>


Exactly true!

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2001
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:32pm

If you pay income tax, I have no problem at all with you getting a tax cut. I was simply stating that saying anyone who makes more than $7500 a year pays taxes is incorrect. For the record, we did not receive any money from the state of Alaska last year. This year, we will be in a higher tax bracket because of our dividends and will probably end up paying some income tax this year. The dividend sent to each Alaskan resident is not a "kick back". The oil that is sold is, according to the Alaskan constitution, the property of the people of Alaska, and as such, each person is entitled to a share of that profit.

Photobucket
VJ-Sig
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:44pm

reported


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:46pm

Let's just let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's not trickling down, that's for dang sure. Many social programs have been cut while giving more and more to the wealthy and corportaions who have taken jobs overseas. Health Insurance keeps going up and up every year by 7% ot more, yep, let's just shower the wealthy with more and more. they may pay more, the ones at the top, but they own 90% of all the wealth in the USA.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:49pm

<<"Ireland adopted a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate 20 years ago, when it suffered the second-lowest per capita GDP in the European Union (EU). Its economy boomed as a result, and today Ireland enjoys the second highest per-capita GDP in the EU. Ireland, with its 12.5-percent rate, raises 50 percent more corporate-tax revenue as a percent of GDP than the U.S. does with its 35 percent rate.">>


can you show more of a link between the us and ireland to prove what worked for them will work for the US?


in regards to reagan's "success" this is from an earlier post from ashley.


"When Reagan was elected, the wealthy were severely overtaxed - close to 70% - and this *did* stifle the economy. When he lowered taxes (to 28% by the end of his 2nd term), the economy had largely recovered and this was attributed to the lower tax rate of the wealthy. Then George Bush I was elected and promised "no new taxes" - remember? We read his lips and everything! However, he soon realized, under the advisement of the economics experts on his staff that the economy was tanking again, the US was falling farther and farther into debt, and taxes needed to be raised to help correct these things. Of course that pissed everyone off and he was not elected for a 2nd term. However, it is widely recognized that Bush I was more or less screwed by Reagan's tax cuts at the end of his last term. By instating tax increases, the economy started improving and when Bill Clinton was elected, he got most of the credit for this - but he also did some tax increasing of his own. And so the economy flourished for the next eight years. Then, the American people elected George Bush II. Bush II thought that since tax cuts worked for Reagan, they must work again. However what he did not consider is that the wealthy were NOT severely overtaxed when he came into power - so that plan wouldn't work. He did it anyway. You could say he took Reaganomics and ran with it - ran right off a cliff. And here we are eight years later and in a world of hurt."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2007
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:51pm

ok here is my question for you, how is that any different than Sen Obama's plan?

Jess


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-02-2008
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:56pm

"But by all means lets continue to give them preferential treatment so they can continue to buy yachts, mega mansions and have a fleet of 20 cars."


KAREN

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 5:56pm

Comparing apples and oranges, both times you sited we were NOT spending 10 billion a month on a worthless war. China and India weren't booming either!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 6:00pm

<<"Ireland adopted a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate 20 years ago, when it suffered the second-lowest per capita GDP in the European Union (EU). Its economy boomed as a result, and today Ireland enjoys the second highest per-capita GDP in the EU. Ireland, with its 12.5-percent rate, raises 50 percent more corporate-tax revenue as a percent of GDP than the U.S. does with its 35 percent rate.">>


Every time I asked this question, I have never received an answer yet, but who would you prefer to pass the cost to if we lower corporate tax.....the consumer or the employee or both these people?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Tue, 10-21-2008 - 6:02pm

<>


funny you should say that, as obama will give comanies who hire americans tax cuts. i'd call that an incentive. they have had tax cuts in the past, but they have still go overseas. why give them even larger cuts?

Pages