Korean Job Discussion Forums

[HyperPatriot]

I specifically point out that he doesn't.


Republicans are all Socialists today.

And Ron Paul is the only Libertarian up there, who deliberately registered himself a Republican candidate in order to even have any kind of chance at bringing Libertarian values, whatsoever, to the table.


This all fits into the conversation, because Tax Cuts are a virtual tax on others the way current Politics works -- since Republicans spend MORE than Democrats (both in gross, and in pork barrel), they actually count on Democratics to tax.

By forcing Tax Cuts for certain classes, they subsidize one class at the expense of another (this is all Socialism -- it doesn't matter if you are rooting for the poor or the landed class).


Ron Paul is noted in order to show what a Libertarian looks like compared to the Socialists.


[HyperPatriot]

[mack4289]

Where do those investments go, though? To corporations that can grow and create more jobs because of those investments.

Also, are we sure that, proportionally, these tax cuts benefited the rich more than the poor?

http://slate.com/id/2108201/

" But what about capital gains, dividends, and inheritance�the cuts that supposedly skew the gains in favor of the rich? Well, let's throw all those changes in, and while we're at it let's include changes in the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the alternative minimum tax, and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut�about 17.6 percent�went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

Moreover, if you break that top quintile down into finer pieces, you discover that the super-rich weren't treated much better than the near-super-rich�and certainly no better than the middle class. If you were in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, your tax cut was about 11 percent. If you were in the top 1 percent, your tax cut was still about 11 percent. And if you were in the top one-tenth of 1 percent? Then you got about a 12.7 percent cut�almost exactly the same as the median taxpayer.

Well, you might say, at least everyone got a tax cut. But that's true only under a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term "tax cut." In fact, federal spending has increased dramatically under President Bush (with only a small fraction of that spending attributable to the war). Sooner or later, somebody's going to have to pay for all that spending, which means that just as the president's been cutting the taxes of today, he's been raising the taxes of tomorrow.

And who's going to pay those taxes? The "cuts" of the past few years have established a precedent that in the future the rich will bear a larger share of the burden than they bore in the past. Thanks to the president, the tax code is more progressive now than it's been in recent memory, and that's a hard sort of change to undo. We got where we are by cutting taxes mostly for the poor and the middle class; to reverse that, you'd have to raise taxes mostly on the poor and the middle class�and think of the outcry that would cause.

So in the not too distant future, most of us will be paying higher taxes, but the rich will be paying a larger share of those taxes than anyone would have expected before the Republicans came to town."

[thepeel]

It isn't tax cuts that will eventually cause major problems but the irresponsible monetary expansion. The "investor class" is drunk on liquidity, but sobreity is just around the corner. Inflation is too.