GOP Plan To Raise Your Taxes, Cut Taxes On Rich

New proposals by Republicans in Congress pretend to raise tax revenue but in fact they cut taxes on the rich and increase them on the working/middle class. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/chart-of-the-day-the-regressive-ta...

Subscribe to The Young Turks: http://bit.ly/eWuu5i

The Largest Online New Show in the World.

Google+: http://www.gplus.to/TheYoungTurks

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tytnation

Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• gop rich
• republicans rich
• rich taxes
• tax
• rich
• middle class taxes
• tax cuts
• revenue
• budget deficit
• federal budget
• tax subsidies
• student loans
• mortgage deduction
• talkingpointsmemo
• pat toomey
• young turks

[megarational]

@luvcheney1 If you pump money, printed or borrowed, into an economy it increases demand which increases jobs and tax rev.s whether that money was pumped in in tax cuts, infrastructure spending, extending unemp benefits etc.

However, 2 questions remain:

1) Was the cost of borrowing greater than the increased rev, with net result being a larger deficit.

2) are tax cuts, and particularly tax cuts for the rich, the best choice to get the biggest "bang for the buck".

[luvcheney1]

@megarational I would be more than happy to examine the reasons income inequality is an issue. But first, I am really confused as to your goal with increasing taxes on the rich. It is purported to be the need for more revenue. All I do is state the results from tax changes that have already occurred. If you want to change rates, it makes sense to do that, to SEE what happens. Perhaps the goal isnt more tax revenue, but just to have fewer rich people?

[megarational]

@luvcheney1 Are you still trying to go on about the increased tax revenue from the rich, without also examining the changes to the portion of total wealth and income held by the rich?

[megarational]

@luvcheney1 Are you still trying to go on about increased revenue following tax cuts for the rich, without also examining the effect of those tax cuts on the deficit?

[luvcheney1]

@megarational Post 2). I also referenced you to SOI tax stats, IRS site, where you can observe increased tax revenues from the rich, with Bush`s lowering of rates. So, you see, I am not stating opinions at all here. I dont need to. Of course for YOU, its quite fine to opinionate all day long, referencing opinions you like, without facts. I have opinions, but your BS is refute by reality. UK JUST reported lower revenue from rich, they raised their taxes! Da! Other brackets higher!

[luvcheney1]

@megarational I am not Fox. O`Reilly is a silly populist, as silly on oil as you are. He is Fox`s #1 product. Even so, refuting him, or you ought to be fact based. And you, ought to use facts if you want to refute me. I just referenced you to an OMB site, invited you to see, add a few numbers, and observe the reality that tax revenues as % of GDP were less in the 1950`s, at top rate of 91% tax, and over 50% corp tax, compared with far lower rates in Clinton era. (39.6%, and 35%)

[megarational]

@luvcheney1 Statistics are facts. A primary propaganda technique used on Fox all the time for eg, is to state some facts but not others, and then use those cherry picked facts to attribute causal relationships to thinks that are proximate in time but NOT causal.

Opinions matter when they come from non-partisan expert sources who are aware of and have analyzed ALL the facts.

Opinions don't matter when they come form an idiot like you.

[luvcheney1]

@megarational Stockman`s comment is "opinion". I refer you to what are "facts". I`m OK with opinions,but prefer facts, RESULTS.For example, you can google "whitehouse dot gov historical tables" (OMB site) and use table 1.2. For fun, add % of GDP received in revenue from 1951-1960 ( when top personal rate 91%, top corp over 50%), and do same for 1991- 2000 ( top rate personal 39.6%, corp 35%. More revenue as % of GDP at lower rates. Higher tax rates did NOT make revenue happen. .

[megarational]

@luvcheney1

David Stockman, Republican senator (’77- ’83), & director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Regan administration.

interview Nov 10, CNN’s Parker Spitzer:

Question: “Should congress extend the Bush tax cuts?”

Stockman: “I think we can’t afford them, pure and simple. They shouldn’t have been enacted in 2001 & 2003. It’s $3 trillion over a decade of money we desperately need…we have to level with the public.”

[megarational]

@luvcheney1 Joseph Stigwitz, American economist & winner of the Nobel Prize for Economic Science, on CNN's "Parker Spitzer": "those tax cuts [for the rich] are not going to stimulate the economy very much, and are going to leave a legacy of more debt."