why are the democrats so against keeping the lower taxes? why the **** do they want to raise taxes in the middle of a recession? raising taxes is what is gonna put one more nail in the coffin. i can't understand their reaction to the President's announcement. can you guys?

 

Ummm.....the tax hike only raises the taxing on the upper tier.

They make too much ******* money as it is, and it just sits in their bank accounts, so why the **** not.

 

the people with money is what hires the middle class. if you tax the rich more and more, they stop hiring people in the middle class. the middle class loses jobs. middle class losing jobs equals a slowing of the economy. as you see now. and have seen for the past 2 years.

 

The dems want to get rid of the tax cuts because the government is broke. That's what happens when congress passes expensive bill after expensive bill.

I personally wouldn't mind a little tax bump (I know people disagree) if there was even a shred of fiscal responsibility anywhere in congress but there's not. As it stands congress is less fiscally responsible then a 16 year old girl with daddys credit card.

The only way this mess can get sorted out is to cut spending and since any spending that gets cut is going to cost a politician somewhere some green that's not going to happen.

 

Dem's wanted to increase the tax on the 200K+ single income teir and 250K+ household teir by 4%. I dont see how personal incomes hire people? Business tax should and is handled on a different scale, I'm not sure so I wont go into something I'm unfamiliar with. Small businesses would of got the tax break that middle class will get but that is an assumption on my part, forgive my ignorance if I am in fact wrong. But, the Republicans wouldnt vote on ANYTHING until they had a guarantee that the tax cuts would be extended for the wealthy along with the lower and middle class. Middle class run the economy not the rich. And with the current economy strength, raising taxes on the lower and middle class incomes would just crush them financially...people living paycheck to paycheck would have to stretch their money even more thin to cover the 3 grand increase. This is all a big deal thanks to the media and Obama showing his frustration on camera in his speeches. I wonder when he will flip his lid on a reporter...Patiently waiting.

 

If I understand it correctly the democrats wanted to cut taxes on your first 250k but republicans said no unless we cut taxes for the wealthiest 2% as well.

 

I'm young, and also know nothing about politics, but if taxes are based on %s, then aren't the rich already paying more than the not-so rich?

 

No tax cuts are happening. Currently we are still under Bush tax cuts. This is a vote to extend the Bush era tax cuts. The Dems just wanted to end the tax cut extension for the people that make over 250K a year. That was all.

 

Ah gotcha. I didn't realize it was a vote on an extension. Thanks for the clarification.

 

fact of the matter is that the modern democratic party seems to believe in the "redistribution of wealth". Apparently it's unfair for someone to work hard, be successful and then be rich from it. As you make more and more the taxation becomes retarded.

I make a very high salary compared to the national average. I pay more in income taxes than most of you will make in a year (not bragging, that makes me sad actually). Cost of living around here is what makes my salary so high (and I'm a big ol' pimp with a job that pays well and 15 years working my way up the pay ladder) but, since I make so much and even though I live paycheck to paycheck the modern democratic party seems to think that I can afford to give money to them to redistribute to cronies and ethnic slurs that live on welfare generation to generation.

Don't punish success.
Redistribution of success is also called socialism.
Class warfare is warned of in the 10 commandments (I don't believe but they are mostly good rules)
"If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they MUST become happy." Thomas Jefferson
"That is not a just government ... where the property which a man in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary siezures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." James Madison
Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” Samuel Adams

The founders of the country were escaping in part the mandated redistribution of wealth imposed by an unjust taxation system. Whether that wealth be redistributed to poor or rich, powerful or weak matters not. The fact of the matter is that it denies the fruits of a mans labor to that man for the sake of slaking the jealously of the lazy, weak, timid and unsuccessful. It degrades the gene pool by assuring the procreation of the least desirable elements of our biology.



EDIT: For those of you that don't read dictionaries, slaking, pronounced slay-king is defined as quenching.

 

And this is where it gets complicated.

See I agree with your situation, and obviously you're being truthful about it. We don't see you rolling up in here like Spinz with fourteen different cars every week.

This is the problem I have. We just went through a corrupt era of time, to where CEOs were letting their companies fall as they took millions in bonuses right before they fell. THAT is the problem I have. Don't have enough time to go into it, but thats my feeling.

 

thank you Red. i agree with you 100%. this is what i am talking about. redistrobution if wealth is indeed socialism. we need to get away from that.

 

The culture of corruption that's permeating business has never not been there. It's only in the last 50 years or so as regulatory laws have been so complex as to allow and even encourage the sort of rampant misbehavior that we see wide scale ramifications. It used to be that you'd be crooked as far as you could without going to jail. But now, rich people don't go to jail unless you make a headline and even then it's a resort so they don't worry about it and we see more abuses. When they start getting out of control, congress steps in to legitimize and mandate what they were doing so it's no longer unethical, it's regulatory compliance.

One hand washes the other. They cannot be un-entwined. They are periodically (if you look at history) purged en mass.