http://readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com/2012/08/sen-lindsey-graham-raising-taxes-on.html
Video at the link.
And you people say Republicans aren't for tax increases.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Republican senator says if the wealthy don't get tax cuts, nobody else will either
- Thread starter Oblivion
- Start date
- Status
http://readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com/2012/08/sen-lindsey-graham-raising-taxes-on.html
Video at the link.
And you people say Republicans aren't for tax increases.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Its about time someone took up the banner for rich people everywhere. They've been oppressed enough.
Zero Hero
Member
Oh Lindsey. You so cray
http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/08/sen-lindsey-graham-calls-for.html
http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/08/sen-lindsey-graham-calls-for.html
metalslimer
Member
Flatten the tax code sounds like code for screwing over poorer people
AstroNut325
Member
I have a better solution. Just let the tax cuts expire for the 99%. And use that extra money to buy all the poor people bigger, stronger, made-in-China bootstraps.
phosphor112
Banned
I want to personally give him a swirley.
astroturfing
Member
"the common man".. you mean parasites, right?
ReBurn
Gold Member
Most likely Democrats will cave and keep all of the Bush cuts in place before they let taxes go up on lower and middle class incomes. They know that they can try to spin it as Republicans caused it, but lots of people back home would see it as them not doing enough to prevent it.
Princess Carl
Member
humor me (us)
NathanMcMahon
Banned
why even come in here and post anything then?
You should know better than to argue politics period.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Maybe I'm an idiot. I'm not a government economics wiz. But isn't the problem not just raising or lower taxes but government spending period?
.Ghost_Protocol
Member
THIS RIGHT HERE NEEDS TO BE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. If you cut taxes for everyone making under 250,000/year, you're also cutting taxes on the first $250,000 for everyone making over that amount. Unbelievable.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'll light the Empty Vessel signal
metalslimer
Member
No government spending is not as bad as its overblown to be
phosphor112
Banned
Supply side economics promotes lower taxes, less spending.
Austerity promotes higher taxes, less spending.
I THINK according to some economists (including a Nobel Peace Prize winning economist) says we need to higher taxes for the rich, and then spend money as a government.
It's kind of like when a company tries to save itself, you drop off the fat, and then invest on things with potential. In a governments case, it's increase taxes (to cut fat) and then invest in the middle class.
The thing is, a major reason why we're in deficits is cause there are still millions of people out of a job. And the revenues lost from the Bush tax cuts is the next biggest factor.
Though we could definitely use some fat trimming in certain areas *cough*pentagon*cough*
Pai Pai Master
Banned
But they want more.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
However its worth noting that the majority of government spending is on Medicare, Social Security, and the military. Government spending in other areas is pretty small compared to those three. We can probably make some significant cuts to the military, but good luck trying to significantly cut the other two
I had a response posted, but edited.
Its just isn't worth it. We will post round and round...making good points...but it ultimately wont change anything, and we get all worked up for nothing.
TacticalFox88
Banned
They've been blowing that dog whistle for the past four years now.
Well, the problem is that there is a vast difference between the level of taxation that is politically feasible and the level of services that the American public and its elected representatives feel is appropriate and ideal for the government to provide. Either taxes need to go up significantly, especially on higher incomes (because they actually have the ability-to-pay), or the United States government needs to decide to either take a step back in its involvement in society. It all depends on what you feel is best of course, libertarians will argue that the social safety net is what needs to be reduced as well as several other major components of US spending and that taxes could then be lowered as well, social democrats will feel that that a significant tax increase on higher and middle incomes is appropriate and that the government needs to invest more in certain areas and reduce in others (military in particular).
AstroNut325
Member
But this is a discussion board. You know... to discuss.
Don't businesses hire as needed or as need is projected to grow? If they can do the work with less they'll cut people, if they need more or business is expected to increase they'll hire more, if they're fine for the time being then they won't hire. Do tax cuts on businesses really have such a huge effect on their hiring practices so as to be the go to reason?
I want to say the actually word, they been doing everything but. It's coming, I can feel it.
There's a question of marginal cost, because there's a reasonably large space where a business can be doing well, but have the potential to do better by expanding -- but you don't necessarily know how much better, and you'll have to pay for the new employee, which is always a huge cost for a small business. It's also worth remembering that, well, small businesses are generally run by individual businesspeople who aren't necessary as economically savvy as corporations, and they don't always make the economically optimum decisions.
But in this PARTICULAR case, since we're ostensibly in a liquidity trap (meaning that everybody's keeping their cash under the mattress for fear that the economy will crash again, which is causing the economy to stall because there's no money being spent), anything that will motivate people to start expanding (which means more money being spent by employed people, more benefits for enabling businesses, and more credit being sought and granted) will have a disproportionately large effect on the economy. Theoretically, anyway.
not psycho
Member
The vast majority of small business owners do not even make 1 million a year, so they wouldn't benefit much from the Romney plan to cut taxes on the million-plus bracket and raise them for the 200k-or-under bracket.
And conversely, they wouldn't be hurt by Obama raising taxes on the million-plus bracket.
And conversely, they wouldn't be hurt by Obama raising taxes on the million-plus bracket.
But they will eventually, someday... just you wait.
Devolution
Member
I'm tired of politicians basically being paid sociopaths.
speculawyer
Member
There is this very misleading aspect about this. Taxes only effect profits. Salaries are deductible. So if you want to avoid paying taxes . . . hire someone & grow your businesses. To some degree . . . raising taxes gives businesses an incentive to hire people. Better to grow your business than pay more taxes, right? Those capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.
I'm curious, is this what is considered a productive post these days?
It's true though.
ill hold his legs.
Since when has anything been productive on this forum? NeoGaf is the anti-productivity engine.
Devolution
Member
Forums in general are unless you're particularly good at changing opinions with your words.
Omegasquash
Member
These past few years have been like a big game of chicken. No one budges until the last second. It's like the GOP is willing to put progress on hold in order to make Obama a one term president.
Sort of sad that I started out as a registered Republican.
Sort of sad that I started out as a registered Republican.
Here is an explanation about where some views are coming from, it is a matter of philosophy to them than principle alone.
Many left wingers that when it comes to who they represent in political parties their views will be quite less found in a party like a democrat but more so in forums such as neogaf in although not totally like higher taxes on everyone and higher goverment spending.
some of them pretend to gain allies that they want higher taxes on the rich alone.
Debt not matter people and some leftists might be in the above category and lying about their views or want low taxes for not rich and high spending similar to democrats and republicans only they want extremely high taxes on the rich and extremely high spending.
Pro austerity people want higher taxes and lower spending
Republicans want more lower taxes for everyone than others, especially for the rich and higher spending on the military and cuts in spending elsewhere. But not to the extend that the system will be unrecognisable. They also want to reverse precisely the plans that Democrats support because Republicans are partisan.
Democrats and people who empathise with them (I am not saying that gaf belongs in one of the above group alone, just that more are found in that group than it is found in American politics) want lower taxes for everyone who is not the rich (also not revenue neutral tax cuts but less costly than republican ones) and higher spending and higher taxes for the rich. Overall I would not call their viewpoints as clearly leftist. To me it s a clearly centrist party.
You will find also some Libertarians (who can also be found in republicans) who are absolutely extreme about raising taxes or debt ceiling to the points of absurdity and have other views about how their nation should be run that are unique in comparison to how other nations are run.
Some more centrist libertarians should also exist which are cut spending including military and lower taxes including on the rich but less in favor of the same extreme reforms as the above.
True but I was banned once and was told my comment added nothing to the discussion and was unnecessary so just wondering how that one escapes.
Is this Gamefaqs or is this fantasy...
I'm sure that's the Republican way of thought, yes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked