Gain the senate?

[posthuman]

How is it not accurate, I gave you an article that showed, in period where they focus taxes mainly on the rich the standard of living dropped.

it is not accurate to say "taxing the rich results in higher taxes on the poor" because the poor's taxes do not increase.

the percentage of total tax revenue from the poor may increase, but that's because the total tax revenue decreases, and the tax revenue of the rich brackets decreases at a faster rate than the tax rate of the poor. this happens because the rich either find loopholes to hide and preserve their income (e.g. putting their money into investment funds that aren't taxed like regular income, a thing the poor cannot do), or stop growing their business because their profit margins - while still positive - would either decrease or remain level instead of increasing.

the article did not show that increasing the taxes on the rich increases the taxes of the poor. it showed that when you raise the taxes on the rich, they stop paying taxes altogether to whatever degree they can manage, so the percentage - not the amount - of taxes paid by the poor increases.

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

 

[posthuman]

if you make him share his cake, he will just take the whole cake home with him and then no one will eat.

 

[T_Laurich]

it is not accurate to say "taxing the rich results in higher taxes on the poor" because the poor's taxes do not increase.

the percentage of total tax revenue from the poor may increase, but that's because the total tax revenue decreases, and the tax revenue of the rich brackets decreases at a faster rate than the tax rate of the poor. this happens because the rich either find loopholes to hide and preserve their income (e.g. putting their money into investment funds that aren't taxed like regular income, a thing the poor cannot do), or stop growing their business because their profit margins - while still positive - would either decrease or remain level instead of increasing.

the article did not show that increasing the taxes on the rich increases the taxes of the poor. it showed that when you raise the taxes on the rich, they stop paying taxes altogether to whatever degree they can manage, so the percentage - not the amount - of taxes paid by the poor increases.

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

So let me get this strait, you are saying, The percentage of total tax revenue from the poor increases but the taxes on the poor does not increase?

How is this possible if the standard of living has not increased but decreased during these periods? (Cost of living increases)

 

[kennethcadwell]

You assume Christ was talking about taxes only as a way of helping the poor. I would argue and say Christ was talking about YOU PERSONALLY helping the poor, not relying on a non-human interaction means in order to help them.

Taxes are not the only way to help the poor.

I would agree with that, but in order to fix the deficit and make the economy easier to live in for people. It would be easier and better to take it from those who can afford it, then to keep taking away from those who can't.

I do help the poor, by what means I have. I have given them clothes, food, place to stay, and shown them God's love for them.

We are called to help all that are in need, but you have some so called Christians out there that are rich that will not lend one dime or hand to help out the poor. The only way to get them to not only do their Christian duty, but also civic duty would be to take it in taxes and put it to use so that the poor, lower, middle class person does not have to pay more to make up for their lack of showing love and care for fellow countrymen.

 

[kennethcadwell]

So let me get this strait, you are saying, The percentage of total tax revenue from the poor increases but the taxes on the poor does not increase?

How is this possible if the standard of living has not increased but decreased during these periods? (Cost of living increases)

Who said the cost of living has decreased?
The cost of living has always and has been increasing for the longest time now.
Which is why we no longer live in a family orinated society. ( Family first )
We now live in a society that is job orinated that forces people to work two to even three jobs just to survive. The cost of this is the sacrifice of family time which is not proper.

Past governmental policies have put us in this situation.
The economy was bad under Regan and the Bush sr., it got better under Clinton, and then Bush jr and Obama have taken it and run it right down to terrible again.
The only thing Obama can show for improvement is lower unemployment rate, and lower gas prices under his presidency.

 

[T_Laurich]

Taxes are not the only way to help the poor.

I would agree with that, but in order to fix the deficit and make the economy easier to live in for people. It would be easier and better to take it from those who can afford it, then to keep taking away from those who can't.

... The only way to get them to not only do their Christian duty, but also civic duty would be to take it in taxes and put it to use so that the poor, lower, middle class person does not have to pay more to make up for their lack of showing love and care for fellow countrymen.

That is not a christian stance. You are saying that because we deem this as correct you must do it whether it is against your will or not.

 

[posthuman]

So let me get this strait, you are saying, The percentage of total tax revenue from the poor increases but the taxes on the poor does not increase?

How is this possible if the standard of living has not increased but decreased during these periods? (Cost of living increases)

let's say the total tax revenue before any change in taxes is $100.
the top 10% pay $50 and the bottom 90% account for the other $50

you increase the tax rate on the top 10% and leave every other tax rate exactly the same, hoping to generate a total revenue of $110

what happens instead is that the top 10% move their income into tax shelters, and reduce their total amount of paid taxes to $30

now instead of the bottom 90% paying half of the total tax revenue, the bottom 90% are paying 5/8 of the total tax revenue - because the total revenue decreased, but their actual paid taxes remain exactly the same. instead of $100 in total tax revenue, we have $80, and the poor are still paying the same $50 of it. the ratio increases but the amount stays the same.

the standard of living of those in poverty decreases because of socio-economic factors of the rich withdrawing employment opportunities, raising the prices of their merchandise to make up for profits lost to taxes, and because the government with less total tax revenue makes cuts to social safety-net programs. the standard of living of the rich continually increases, and when faced with a higher tax burden, it increases at the expense of the cost of living of the poor.

it's not that the poor have seen their taxes increase, but that their opportunity for economic growth decreases. like at wal-mart -- the government imposed an economic burden on the employer with the intent of bettering the position of the employees, but the way it played out instead was that the employees got their wages and hours cut to maintain the profit growth of the employer. if anything, the tax rates of wal-mart's employees went down, because their actual paychecks decreased when they went from 40hrs a week to 30, and many of them fell into a working-poverty tax bracket where they were no longer liable for whatever taxes they did pay.

 

[T_Laurich]

Who said the cost of living has decreased?
The cost of living has always and has been increasing for the longest time now.
Which is why we no longer live in a family orinated society. ( Family first )
We now live in a society that is job orinated that forces people to work two to even three jobs just to survive. The cost of this is the sacrifice of family time which is not proper.

Past governmental policies have put us in this situation.
The economy was bad under Regan and the Bush sr., it got better under Clinton, and then Bush jr and Obama have taken it and run it right down to terrible again.
The only thing Obama can show for improvement is lower unemployment rate, and lower gas prices under his presidency.

Did you read the article? I am arguing based off the findings of the article.

 

[T_Laurich]

let's say the total tax revenue before any change in taxes is $100.
the top 10% pay $50 and the bottom 90% account for the other $50

you increase the tax rate on the top 10% and leave every other tax rate exactly the same, hoping to generate a total revenue of $110

what happens instead is that the top 10% move their income into tax shelters, and reduce their total amount of paid taxes to $30

now instead of the bottom 90% paying half of the total tax revenue, the bottom 90% are paying 5/8 of the total tax revenue - because the total revenue decreased, but their actual paid taxes remain exactly the same. instead of $100 in total tax revenue, we have $80, and the poor are still paying the same $50 of it. the ratio increases but the amount stays the same.

the standard of living of those in poverty decreases because of socio-economic factors of the rich withdrawing employment opportunities, raising the prices of their merchandise to make up for profits lost to taxes, and because the government with less total tax revenue makes cuts to social safety-net programs. the standard of living of the rich continually increases, and when faced with a higher tax burden, it increases at the expense of the cost of living of the poor.

it's not that the poor have seen their taxes increase, but that their opportunity for economic growth decreases. like at wal-mart -- the government imposed an economic burden on the employer with the intent of bettering the position of the employees, but the way it played out instead was that the employees got their wages and hours cut to maintain the profit growth of the employer. if anything, the tax rates of wal-mart's employees went down, because their actual paychecks decreased when they went from 40hrs a week to 30, and many of them fell into a working-poverty tax bracket where they were no longer liable for whatever taxes they did pay.

This is a good argument.

But you are arguing for the short term. When the poor become 5/8ths of the tax revenue what happens in the long term?

As you said, the cost of living increases, and the standard of living decreases, making the overall available income for saving and investing for the poor less, making in all more of their income go to taxes.

Thus only taxing the poor.

 

[posthuman]

This is a good argument.

But you are arguing for the short term. When the poor become 5/8ths of the tax revenue what happens in the long term?

As you said, the cost of living increases, and the standard of living decreases, making the overall available income for saving and investing for the poor less, making in all more of their income go to taxes.

Thus only taxing the poor.

i agree with all of that except for calling it "taxing the poor" -- because their actual tax rate in this case either decreases or stays the same. it might have the same net effect in the long run of taxing the poor, but it's not exactly the same thing, that's all. essentially i think we're on the same page, just quibbling over words.

i guess the best way to put it is that "trickle down economics" actually does work,
it's just that the only thing that "trickles down" is debt, never profit.



like i said before i think it's really greed and covetousness in men's hearts at the bottom of all this. if we cut all taxes and depended on the generosity of the rich... well then we would have the dark ages.
there's a spiritual problem that's bigger than the economic one -- God said to the Israelites they would "always have the poor with them" even though He gave laws for them to help the poor out of their poverty. the lesson to me is that human laws trying to enforce charity don't work - charity has to come from the heart. we won't have any kind of idyllic government and economy on the earth until Christ returns & reigns on it

 

[T_Laurich]

i agree with all of that except for calling it "taxing the poor" -- because their actual tax rate in this case either decreases or stays the same. it might have the same net effect in the long run of taxing the poor, but it's not exactly the same thing, that's all. essentially i think we're on the same page, just quibbling over words.

i guess the best way to put it is that "trickle down economics" actually does work,
it's just that the only thing that "trickles down" is debt, never profit.



like i said before i think it's really greed and covetousness in men's hearts at the bottom of all this. if we cut all taxes and depended on the generosity of the rich... well then we would have the dark ages.
there's a spiritual problem that's bigger than the economic one -- God said to the Israelites they would "always have the poor with them" even though He gave laws for them to help the poor out of their poverty. the lesson to me is that human laws trying to enforce charity don't work - charity has to come from the heart. we won't have any kind of idyllic government and economy on the earth until Christ returns & reigns on it

I agree with the proposition that "trickle down economics" actually does work, it's just that the only thing that "trickles down" is debt, never profit.

But I think you hit the nail when you said its a sin problem not a tax problem.

 

[kennethcadwell]

That is not a christian stance. You are saying that because we deem this as correct you must do it whether it is against your will or not.

I am not saying to force anybody to do anything for that would not be proper.

But if you tell them the reason their taxes are being raised is so that they don't have to raise the taxes on those who are barely making it, or take away costly programs the less fortunate need to help them survive. And they fight it, and refuse to pay higher taxes then they are not acting Christian-like either.

Refusing to do something that would make the economy better, and make life easier to live for the less fortunate is not Christian-like either.

This is the reasoning why the Lord Jesus said it is hard for a rich man to go to heaven, some tend to care more about their own financial growth then use what the Lord gave them to help others with it.

 

[G4JC]

...In order for this nation to succeed long-term, the GOP must be FULLY ideologically reformed and the irreparable ideology of the Democratic party scuttled into the waste bin of history. And, what are the odds that's going to happen in our lifetimes?

Not highly likely since it took the socialists YEARS to destory the country with their Agenda. It'll take some time to get it back; but we won't get there by throwing our hands up in the air and forsaking all the people who came before us and died to keep the nation free.

People should start thinking long-term, not election-to-election. The most important thing you can do is educate the youth and get them out of public school in anyway possible. If you do not: MOST WILL FALL away from their faith in God, Country, and Morals. The humanists have long been in the education system and now we have Common Core APUSH history revisionists removing the Found Fathers altogether. It's literally Indoctrination. Then you have to go through College, some of the best anti-Americans and Athiests lurk there to grind down anyone who survives public school. Alas many of my peers have become athiests or agnostics after getting their degree.

So for those of us trying, don't give up and keep telling people the good news and educate others!

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

- II Timothy 4:2-5

 

[kennethcadwell]

Did you read the article? I am arguing based off the findings of the article.

That would be an issue to.
A lot of articles written, as well as media reports are all controlled or at least maybe written by a bias person who only uses things they have found to fit their agenda.
I use multiple sources, not just one, plus I also go by personal experience and what I have seen.

So my debate back would be don't believe everything you read, or see on news reports.
The bible even says to question and test all things, and not to take them at face value.

We have a president in Obama who has a lame duck policy like Bush had to, and then you also have a do nothing congress that refuses to vote on agenda's that have been up for vote for awhile now. We will see what happens now.

 

[T_Laurich]

That would be an issue to.
A lot of articles written, as well as media reports are all controlled or at least maybe written by a bias person who only uses things they have found to fit their agenda.
I use multiple sources, not just one, plus I also go by personal experience and what I have seen.

So my debate back would be don't believe everything you read, or see on news reports.
The bible even says to question and test all things, and not to take them at face value.

We have a president in Obama who has a lame duck policy like Bush had to, and then you also have a do nothing congress that refuses to vote on agenda's that have been up for vote for awhile now. We will see what happens now.

So no you have not read the article, but you already assume it to be biased and false.

 

[PennEd]

it is not accurate to say "taxing the rich results in higher taxes on the poor" because the poor's taxes do not increase.

the percentage of total tax revenue from the poor may increase, but that's because the total tax revenue decreases, and the tax revenue of the rich brackets decreases at a faster rate than the tax rate of the poor. this happens because the rich either find loopholes to hide and preserve their income (e.g. putting their money into investment funds that aren't taxed like regular income, a thing the poor cannot do), or stop growing their business because their profit margins - while still positive - would either decrease or remain level instead of increasing.

the article did not show that increasing the taxes on the rich increases the taxes of the poor. it showed that when you raise the taxes on the rich, they stop paying taxes altogether to whatever degree they can manage, so the percentage - not the amount - of taxes paid by the poor increases.

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

It is silly to claim the poor (those households defined as earning less than $34388 in 2011) will be taxed less or more since they pay virtually NO TAXES AT ALL to begin with!




By raising taxes on middle and upper class, you are in effect HURTING the poor the most as small businesses will lay-off and reduce lower wage workforce AND OR raise prices to make up for the higher taxation on themselves. Same principle applies to raising the minimum wage.

 

[kennethcadwell]

So no you have not read the article, but you already assume it to be biased and false.

No I read it, and it talked about tax cuts during Reagan.
Tax cuts during Reagan, that's funny because my parents and the parents of my friends who where all from middle class families paid higher tax rates when Reagan was in office. Then they paid even higher taxes under Bush.