Are Republicans Holding Tax Cuts Hostage?

[Riidii]

What are you talking about?

Meaning, there has been no mention of the millions upon millions of people who should be paying taxes, who are not, as a way to increase revenue.

[obdigore]

Meaning, there has been no mention of the millions upon millions of people who should be paying taxes, who are not, as a way to increase revenue.

You mean the people who don't have jobs because of idiotic 'trickle down economics'? Or are you going to go off into tinfoil land and start foaming at the mouth ranting about welfare queens and obama phones?

[Riidii]

You mean the people who don't have jobs because of idiotic 'trickle down economics'? Or are you going to go off into tinfoil land and start foaming at the mouth ranting about welfare queens and obama phones?

I'll just pretend I never read that.

[Wells]

Meaning, there has been no mention of the millions upon millions of people who should be paying taxes, who are not, as a way to increase revenue.

Who should be paying taxes who isn't?

[Riidii]

Who should be paying taxes who isn't?

The people that would be working under normal economic conditions.

Like with unemployment around 5%.

[Fugus]

The people that would be working under normal economic conditions.

Like with unemployment around 5%.

He means like me. I work but do not make enough to pay taxes. I have no problem with paying if I could afford to but my current pay is so low I can't even live on my own and are stuck relying on family or room mates to make ends meet.

Once the jobs start paying people what they are worth and allowing them to support themselves with livable wages. Then they could afford to pay them taxes and the problem would be removed.

But what do you think we should do about them people bringing in millions or even billions in income and pay little to nothing Riidii? If my friend making less than $80,000 is paying about 40% in taxes, why is it that we have people like Mitt Romney who makes millions but actually has to skip deductions just so he could get his tax rate as HIGH as 13.9%? Or we have companies like GE who made 5.1 billion dollars in the US in 2010 and not only paid no taxes but got money back.

[ewhenn]

I love how liberals can't make the connection between revenue and unemployment.

Are you implying that if we give tax breaks to the "Job Creators" more people will be employed?

If so, that's such a lame fallacy. If you give a corporation tax breaks they don't go out and hire people just because they now have some money burning a hole in their pocket. All they do is give it to the investors (through higher stock prices or dividends)

What is the goal of a Business? To make money. The goal of a business is NOT to make jobs. Jobs just happen along the way.

If hiring more people would let them make more money, they would do it, tax break or not, so the idea that a tax break for corporations makes more jobs is stretching it at best.

[obdigore]

I'll just pretend I never read that.

Of course you do, because you have no response and no point, just like always.

[Riidii]

Of course you do, because you have no response and no point, just like always.

No, because it was juvenile and completely off point. I wasn't talking about welfare.

[Fugus]

Are you implying that if we give tax breaks to the "Job Creators" more people will be employed?.

I REALLY hope he didn't mean that. That thought goes against anything any business man would ever think.

Say I am a multi-millionaire or even billionaire running a business. You give me a tax cut, thanks. You think I am going to use that to hire more people? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What dumb fuck would do that without a good reason? You just gave me more money. No way in hell I would spend it hiring more people unless I needed them and they were going to bring in more cash than I put out to get them. Sorry, but giving more money is just giving me more money. If I was going to hire more people, I would have done that anyways as my taxes are paid out of my profits and that isn't taken into account till after I paid my employees anyways.

Ewhenn, sorry if I came across as a dick and did not mean to insult so please don't take it that way. Was just trying to show the mentality and thought processes of a upper level businessman. They don't think of what is best for the nation or it's people, they think about what makes ME the most money.

[Riidii]

Are you implying that if we give tax breaks to the "Job Creators" more people will be employed?

If so, that's such a lame fallacy. If you give a corporation tax breaks they don't go out and hire people just because they now have some money burning a hole in their pocket. All they do is give it to the investors (through higher stock prices or dividends)

What is the goal of a Business? To make money. The goal of a business is NOT to make jobs. Jobs just happen along the way.

If hiring more people would let them make more money, they would do it, tax break or not, so the idea that a tax break for corporations makes more jobs is stretching it at best.

I'm saying, people need to get back to work if we want to balance the budget.

Minimally raising rates isn't going to do jack shit.

[Fugus]

No, because it was juvenile and completely off point. I wasn't talking about welfare.

Then please be more specific please. Not trying to bash someone over a misunderstanding. Not much point in using facts against an argument that was never made in the first place.

[Riidii]

Then please be more specific please. Not trying to bash someone over a misunderstanding. Not much point in using facts against an argument that was never made in the first place.

I'm not talking about the lazy welfare fuckers.

I'm talking about the people looking for work, who can't find it. And there are millions.

Hence the 7.9% unemployment rate.

[obdigore]

I'm not talking about the lazy welfare fuckers.

I'm talking about the people looking for work, who can't find it. And there are millions.

Ok Riidii, and how would you fix the issue?

[Wells]

The people that would be working under normal economic conditions.

Like with unemployment around 5%.

I'm not sure how you're making the assumption that no one is making that connection.

[Fugus]

I'm saying, people need to get back to work if we want to balance the budget.

Minimally raising rates isn't going to do jack shit.

Ah, that makes more sense. We do need to get people back to work but the business refuse to hire and if they do, they do for part time jobs and won't pay adequately so they can even afford to pay taxes. In order to do that, we have to raise minimum wage to livable standards and mandate that companies can only have a certain percentage of part time jobs. If they can afford to hire 300 part timers than they can afford to hire 100 full timers instead.

Also have to get more companies to manufacture out here. I would say a tariff on foreign made goods would do it. Make it more expensive to make the goods in china and sell them here than to make them here and sell them here without actually lowering our wages or standard of living.

Also, legalizing weed and would open up a whole new growing base for US Based companies. FYI: A non-smoker here, just thinking of what would financially benefit the people best and it would lower costs of the weed down to probably about $8 for something the size of cigarettes while bringing in billions in tax revenue and cripple organized crime while reducing the need for prisons and lowering our low enforcement costs by billions per year.

[Riidii]

I'm not sure how you're making the assumption that no one is making that connection.

All I hear from the left, ad nauseum, is that we need to raise rates.

With no acknowledgment at all of the real revenue problem.

[obdigore]

All I hear, ad nauseum, from the left is that we need to raise rates.

With no acknowledgment at all of the real revenue problem.

Really? You don't hear that the 'left' was willing to cut revenue at a 10:1 rate to loophole reductions or tax increases, and the right refused because of their pledge to Grover Norquist?

You need to stop watching Fox News as your only news source. Change your homepage away from theblaze.com.

[Wells]

All I hear from the left, ad nauseum, is that we need to raise rates.

With no acknowledgment at all of the real revenue problem.

So because you don't hear it (confirmation bias ho!) that means they aren't aware?

By this reasoning how can you not be aware the sky is blue?

[Riidii]

Really? You don't hear that the 'left' was willing to cut revenue at a 10:1 rate to loophole reductions or tax increases, and the right refused because of their pledge to Grover Norquist?

You need to stop watching Fox News as your only news source. Change your homepage away from theblaze.com.

I don't watch TV news and I've never heard of that website.

I do know they are willing to cut spending, but that needs to happen either way.

I'm talking specifically about their reasons for a "revenue problem."