Fox News Sunday: Britt and Juan duke it out over tax cuts for rich - make everyone poor

[Welsh77]

what recessions and bad economic periods don't make the middle and lower class worse off? the only thing i can infer from your statement is that wealth and income should be spread completely evenly so that everyone bears the burden equally. that's socialism, and we know from countless examples that it doesn't work. obviously the rich will be hit less in ANY economic downturn, but that's not a reason to redistribute wealth or income.

[megarational]

Fox Fiction- GOP-TV.

The GOP propaganda arm 24/7.

Anyone want examples? Google "list of Fox News lies".

One good example "the health care reforms are a government takeover of the health care system" - That one rated Politifacts "lie of the year" for 2010.

[megarational]

Alan Greenspan:

"I am very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. The problem we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, and tax cuts with borrowed money and at the end of the day that proves disasterous."

Interviewer:

"So you do not agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?"

Greenspan: "No I do not."

[Welsh77]

@megarational no one agrees with them, they're manipulating arthur laffer's original points and misrepresenting supply-side econ. tax cuts CAN pay for themselves, they don't always. bush's did not, but immense evidence suggests that if you look the cap gains cut it did after 2003. so just because they dont always doesn't mean we should ignore its possibility, and the converse that tax hikes could decrease revenue! wake up 70% on 1,000,000^ is going to lose revenue! common sense!

[megarational]

@Welsh77 Lets not talk about "tax cuts" as a generality, since the tax cuts for the higher income earners is the only issue in contention.

I can cite economists (both Dem & Rep), CBO analysis, & non-partisan experts who say that tax cuts for the rich especially don't pay for themselves.

Even further, if for arguments sake they did, the unanimous (or nearly so) opinion of economists & other experts is that they are not the best use of funds to create jobs.

[Welsh77]

@megarational no sane economist, or any economist that i know of, says that tax cuts can never pay for themselves, that simply is not true. there are almost no economists that argue that JFK's tax cuts did not substantially increase revenue and contribute to his surpluses. sorry, but the keynesians have gone insane, you actually think you know how to spend someone else's money better than they do. if you're online now i'd be interested in a live chat, if you've got yahoo or something like that

[megarational]

@Welsh77 Then, I said that there is no argument that tax cuts provide a stimulus effect, but that tax cuts for the rich don`t give the best ``bang for the buck`` either in stimulus or in job creation. As for borrowing money to give tax cuts - that is in effect a borrowing money for a tax cut stimulus - & borrowing money for tax cuts for the rich does not give the best `bang for the buck` in creating jobs.

[Welsh77]

@megarational by the way, the CBO is notoriously terrible at making predictions for tax revenues. i usually just laugh when people cite their tax stats, if you look at their predictions for capital gains revenue after 2003 they're off by more than 40% for that 4 year period. not even close. bush's income tax cuts did not pay for themselves, but his capital gains tax cut certainly did. there is a reason why he chose cap gains: business investment was down in that recession, consumption was not!

[megarational]

@Welsh77 In addition to the non-partisan experts & economists I quoted, here is one part of the logical argument: Give an extra $ to the rich & some will be saved, invested overseas, used to play the stock market or speculate in real estate - none of which has much effect on demand or jobs.

Give an extra $ to someone living paycheck to paycheck & they will spend it entirely, immediately, & domestically - which has a greater effect on demand & jobs.

(By "give" I include direct jobs programs)

[megarational]

@Welsh77 Egad. You actually admitted that the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves. I guess you may actually be worth discussing issues with.

As for whether the capital gains tax cuts paid for itself, you must be able to support what portion of the increased revenues came from that tax cut, as opposed to the overall stimulus effect of injecting a massive amount of money (& therefor demand) obtained by massive & unsustainable borrowing by both government and consumers during that period.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 Once again, you said Bushes cap gains tax cuts paid for themselves. In order to support that you would have to determine what portion of the revenue increase was due to the massive stimulus of unsustainable borrowing during that period. Then you would have to support that cap gains tax had a greater stimulus effect than alternatives such as tax cuts for the middle class or direct jobs programs.

Also, cap gains tax cuts increase the rich poor gap, leading to more problems.

[Welsh77]

@megarational lol i guess you don't know what capital gains are. they're gains from the sale of assets, even the CBO has written numerous studies on how cutting the rate encourages people to sell their assets to get a higher rate of return. its common sense, borrowing had very very little to do with increased capital gains revenues. i can just turn your retarded logic back on you: when taxes were raised in the early 90s, we didnt get more revenue because of higher rates, people borrowed more.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 I will give you another common eg of capital gains. A rich person tells his realtor to purchase an apartment. He tells his business manager to convert it to condo's and evict all the tenants, some of who have been paying rent in that building for decades.

His then sells the condos for a profit of, say, $500K. Total rich persons time invested - 1 week. Profit - half a million $. To tax that at a lower rate than the people buying those condos had to pay on their wages is absurd.

[Welsh77]

@megarational capital gains taxes also have nothing to do with the gap between the rich and the poor. the only reason we have a lower cap gains rate is to encourage investment, it would be stupid not to have one. you need to get out of the mindset that tax cuts give people money, they don't, they let them keep more of what they earned. fallacies about the rich stealing money from the middle class feed your point of view, yet no one has explained to me exactly how this theft occurs.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 "Capital gains tax (at a low rate) has nothing to do with the rich poor gap"?

How can you be so obtuse?

Capital gains & dividends are the main sources of income for the rich and especially the super rich. If you say that giving them a low tax or no tax on their primary sources of income, while ordinary workers pay a higher rate on their wages, doesn't increase the rich-poor gap - then stop polluting my in basket because it's a waste of time covering any issue with you.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 The "own money" of the rich comes from ordinary workers spending their hard earned paychecks. It makes no sense to tax the primary income sources of the rich at lower rates than ordinary workers have to pay on their wages.

That is idiocy - and it's also why the GOP are rightly recognized as the party that fights for the rich, in spite of the fact that the rich are the only class that has done very very very well the last 30 years and have no need of anyone fighting for them.

[Welsh77]

@megarational don't you understand that rich people getting richer doesn't hurt anyone else? them owning more wealth doesn't hurt your chances of getting wealthy yourself. you're just making dumb arguments, a lower capital gains rate isn't feeding the growing gap in incomes (the gap in wealth has barely changed over the last 30 years.) the problem is our government's couterfeit monetary policy, where printed money goes to banks that the rich get. it has nothing to do with taxes or fiscal policy

[megarational]

@Welsh77 Don't YOU understand that when too much of the income, wealth, & increases in GDP go the top end, it deprives the middle & lower class of income necessary to keep demand & the economy going, not to mention siphoning off much of the revenue necessary to maintain essential programs like Medicare?

Not to mention the social unrest that comes about when the rich poor gap continues to widen.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 Put it another way, if instead of tax cuts for the rich you gave tax cuts to those making under $250K, that would not only slow the pace of the every widening rich-poor gap, but also be a greater stimulus to demand & jobs since those at the lower incomes spend a greater portion of each additional dollar.

The rich, by contrast, save some, invest overseas, play the stock market, & speculate in real estate - none of which does much for demand or jobs.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 Furthermore, when much of the cost of extending tax cuts for the rich comes from borrowing (eg: the Bush tax cuts), the rich get the benefit of the cut but all taxpayers are then on the hook for the principle & interest.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 "The gap in wealth has barely changed in the last 30 years"?????

Economist Edward N. Wolff - (2010) - dist of wealth and total financial assets in the U.S.

Between 1983 and 2007 the proportion of nations wealth held by the top 1% increased from 33.8% to 42.7%, while the portion of the nations’ total wealth held by the bottom 60% decreased from 18.7% to 7.0%.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 "The gap in wealth has barely changed in the last 30 yrs"?????

Cut and paste from US census: the long-term trend has been toward increasing inc inequality. Since 1969, the share of aggregate income controlled by the lowest quintile has decreased from 4.1% to 3.6% in 1997, while the share to the highest quintile increased from 43.0% to 49.4%. Most noticeably, the share of income controlled by the top 5 percent of households has increased from 16.6 percent to 21.7 percent.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 "The gap in wealth has barely changed"?

The U.S. now has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-inc nation, & it continues to grow. Prominent economists incl'd AlanGreenspan warned that the widening U.S. rich-poor gap is a prob that could undermine and destabilize the U.S. economy & std of living stating: "The inc gap between the rich and the rest of the US pop. has become so wide, & is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism.

[Welsh77]

@megarational you don't know your facts, wealth not income. income disparity had grown massively, wealth disparity has not. in 1983, the top 1% owned 33.8% of the wealth, in 2007 they owned 34.6%. in '83 the top 20% owned 81% of the wealth, in '07 they owned 85%. there isn't a huge shift there, not in wealth. as far as income goes, ironically greenspan is massively to blame, his easy money policies have shoveled trillions of printed cash into the richest citizens' hands.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 You mention 1983. I already gave you the figures that include the period 1983. Again, US census cut and paste: the long-term trend has been toward increasing inc inequality. Since 1969, the share of aggregate inc controlled by the lowest quintile has decreased from 4.1% to 3.6% in 1997, while the share to the highest quintile increased from 43.0% to 49.4%. Most noticeably, the share of income controlled by the top 5 percent of households has increased from 16.6 percent to 21.7 percent.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 The situation is even worse now, because the costs of the recession, including millions more unemployed, has been born by the middle & lower class. The rich are the only ones who have done very well in the recession & continue to increase their share of the nations total wealth.

[Welsh77]

@megarational also, those "prominent economists" you talk about are just pushing wealth redistribution. you'll notice they never cite stats before 1975, because they don't line up with their agenda. in 1912 the top 1% owned 54% of the wealth, like i said in 07 it was 34%. wealth has always been unevenly distributed, and it's been worse, much worse. it's only now that you hear complaints about it, as socialists pose as democrats and influence the minds of the jealous masses. wake up

[megarational]

@Welsh77 So just how inequitable is the wealth distribution in the US?

In 2010, the Central Intelligence Agency indicated that the U.S. actually sits 93rd in the world for wealth distribution equality. That is right between Iran and Mexico, to give some perspective.

You can make all the excuses you want, that fact is still the fact. You and the rest of the fucking Republicans might be OK with that.

[megarational]

@Welsh77 So your argument for accepting the huge inequality of wealth distribution in the US is "well it was worse in 1912?

[megarational]

@Welsh77 The "prominent economists" I quoted was Alan Greenspan, Alan Wolfe, the CBO, and the CIA.

Like any good Republican you just dismiss facts. You really think all those sources are just deceiving you to "push a liberal agenda"?

I guess you would. It's the standard way for GOP & GOP-TV fans to ignore reality.

[megarational]

The last census, like the one before it, confirms that the portion of the nations wealth in the hands of the families at the top end increased and the portion of the nations wealth in the hands of the middle and lower class continues to decrease.

In other words, system based redistribution of the wealth has been occurring on a seemingly unstoppable course for many years.

Right now in America the top 1% controls more wealth than the bottom 95% percent combined.

read next comment

[megarational]

The U.S. has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation, & it continues to grow. Prominent economists includingAlan Greenspan warned that the widening U.S. rich-poor gap is a prob. that could undermine and destabilize the U.S. economy and standard of living stating: "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US pop. has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself".

[olivemike81]

It's also dishonest to say it's a redistrubtion of wealth.

[HowardOfOz3565]

Brit nails it. The so called "rich" earn only about 18 % of the income yet pay 40% of the taxes. Have they hit their fair share yet? And the top 50% of income earners (those above roughly 31,900 a yr, pay 95% of all the taxes. So I guess it's time to bleed them some more...

[jplumads]

They won't be in this country for long. Thanks for destroying us, Obama and Juan. Great clip.

[edwardjames81]

these F... rich people! TAX THEM EVEN MORE! thats what he should do! they had 8 yrs of glory and its time for the poor to get a brake!!

[reevaluate2008]

shut up and make your own money.

[edwardjames81]

lol. who's making my money? are you rich, stupid or Both?

[reevaluate2008]

obviously smarter than you, not begging for money like you

[edwardjames81]

Begging for money? HAHAHA lol. I'm in SWITZERLAND! one tday you'll make it here than you'll see how much we people here need to beg for money lol. "i'm begging for money" I really laugh hard at that one! just give my opinion about the poor people in america and I STAND BY IT! they need a brake!!!!!

[Dustinbehn]

who are you to talk! you know nothing about how hard some of us work and who may fall a little above the $250K yr mark, work hard to give more money for those who sit on their asses!! F you dummy!

[larsattack]

@Dustinbehn Who are you to say you work harder than anyone else? Some of the poorest people in the country work harder and earn much less! Maybe you got the proper education and could afford college? There are millions that can not. All I'm saying is, it's not far to assume the people who aren't rich don't work hard.

[Dustinbehn]

@larsattack i didnt post that...must of left my account logged on or sumthin. lol sry. havent even watched the vid...

[Welsh77]

@larsattack it may not be fair, but if you want to call saving a part of working hard, you're simply wrong: it is true. our middle class and poorest citizens dont save a penny, more people are living paycheck to paycheck each year, and it's not because they're real incomes are going down. they don't save their money, the richest among us have lived below their means and saved their money. they have no incentive to save, ask them about retirement, you hear "probably social security and medicare"

[megarational]

@Dustinbehn So anyone making less than $250K is "sitting on their asses".

That's such idiotic disgusting piece of bullshit you disgust me.

[larsattack]

@reevaluate2008 shut up and let the government take your money.

Fixed.

[HowardOfOz3565]

the bottom 50 percent in this country only pay like 3 to 5 percent of the taxes, so how much more of a break do you want?????

[McGriff99]

Is there any evidence-based indication to suggest the options are either equally poor or unequally rich, as Brit suggests? Certainly unequally rich is true, we're experiencing that right now; the income inequality in the U.S. has grown to an all-time high under the Bush admin per independent estimates by the CIA and UN.

[HowardOfOz3565]

please explain to me what income equality is? If you stop and think about it, there is no such thing as "income equality" and the thought that there should be is ludicrous. Do you really believe that people should make the same??

[schradersl2]

The point is, "so what?"

The top 1% in America earn about 20% of all wages, but contribute 40% of all federal income tax. The top 5% contribute 62%, top 25% contribute 86%, and top 50% contribute 97% of all federal income taxes. The poorest 50% in the US only contribute 3% of federal income tax while earning 13% of all wages in the US.  The richest are paying twice what they've earned while the poorest half pays less than a quarter what they earn.

The rich are already supporting this country

[megarational]

@schradersl2 You begin your "argument" with the statement that "The top 1% in America earn about 20% of all wages....."

By that beginning you are already ignoring the critical fact that makes the rest of what you say pointless.

That critical fact is : The rich get only about 17% of their income from WAGES. Their primary sources of income are dividends and capital gains, on which they pay a lower tax than an ordinary worker pays on wages.

Why did you ignore that?

[megarational]

@schradersl2

The bottom 45% hold 2.5% of the nations wealth. You want them to share their 2.5%?

What about asking those who hold the other 97.5%?

Especially what about asking the top 1% who hold more than 1/3 of the nations total wealth?

[megarational]

@schradersl2 If the Bush tax cuts for the rich expired, the top incremental rate would increase by 4% (the lower rates would still apply on their income up to that level) & it would result in $700B extra rev over 10 yrs. The rich would not have to give up even up even one Porsche, mansion, or villa in Spain.

The bottom 50% hold only 2.5% of the nations total wealth, about $1,3 trillion and you would have to take half of everything the bottom 50% own to make up the same $700B of revenue.

[megarational]

@schradersl2 You have faithfully repeated "rich pay more taxes" talking point. To save you time, here’s some more Fox/GOP sound bites they always use to keep heaping more tax cuts & benefits on the rich:

- America doesn't have a revenue problem - it has a spending problem.

- It’s the rich’s money. They earned it.

- I was never hired by a poor person.

- The rich are the “job creators”.

- the gov't took in more rev after the Bush tax cuts..

- “you just hate/are envious of the rich”

[megarational]

@schradersl2 It is no surprise that growing income inequality results in the top 1% paying a larger share of income tax. The median income has barely kept pace with inflation since 1980. If workers shared in economic growth according to their contribution to economic growth, the top 1% would pay a much smaller percentage of the individual income tax but they would also earn a lot less as well. You dope.

[alwayswilling1232000]

What an idiot