If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cato @ Liberty)   You know how Bush's tax cuts unfairly benefited the rich? Neither does the CBO   (cato-at-liberty.org) divider line 92
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2099 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 11:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 11:05:52 AM
So says Cato.

www.wearysloth.com

/caaatoooo???
 
2012-10-04 11:11:19 AM
The CBO used the term"fair" or "unfair". How I at least know the headline is garbage.

Fair is a completely subjective term. All people want taxes to be fair. All people that want to change the tax structure think that it is unfair.
 
2012-10-04 11:12:08 AM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net
"Bush's tax cuts on the rich unfairly benefited the middle class, not the rich. It all trickled down to them, and the rich got nothing."
 
2012-10-04 11:14:12 AM
93% of income gains in 2010 went to the top 1%.

The rich have it so hard in this country.
 
2012-10-04 11:15:15 AM
You know how CATO is totally unbiased? Neither does anyone else.
 
2012-10-04 11:15:38 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 93% of income gains in 2010 went to the top 1%.

The rich have it so hard in this country.


Please, make me rich. For the sins of all Americans I will share this burden. I'm like a modern day jesus.
 
2012-10-04 11:16:40 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

"Bush's tax cuts on the rich unfairly benefited the middle class, not the rich. It all trickled down to them, and the rich got nothing."
 
2012-10-04 11:17:09 AM
No wonder they're so prickly about having their wealth redistributed.
 
2012-10-04 11:18:02 AM

Cletus C.: No wonder they're so prickly about having their wealth redistributed.


taxes! legal theft!
 
2012-10-04 11:18:34 AM
Hey, they stole all that fair and square!
 
2012-10-04 11:19:27 AM
Um... did someone claim that Bush's tax cuts mostly benefited the rich?

Because, yeah, that's not particularly true. I mean, possibly in dollars/person terms, but that's what happens when a benefit involved a percentage and some people have a higher base number. But in broader terms the cuts were across the board.

I mean, they were still a bad idea, but they were largely a fairly implemented bad idea. Which sort of contrasts Romney's proposals, which are pretty universally insultingly regressive and mind-numbingly stupid ideas.

Which is sort of a rule of thumb evaluation of how much Romney sucks. I compare his proposal to a thematically similar Bush administration proposal, and it's Romney's that drains more of my IQ points.
 
2012-10-04 11:21:58 AM
TFA: "A favorite talking point among redistributionists..."

:::click::: close window
 
2012-10-04 11:22:30 AM

Jim_Callahan: Um... did someone claim that Bush's tax cuts mostly benefited the rich?


Have you been unconscious for years upon end? How many times have they been referred to as "The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich?"

They have always been painted as Bush helping out his rich buddies by getting them a tax break, regardless of actual fact.
 
2012-10-04 11:23:24 AM

Xythero: TFA: "A favorite talking point among redistributionists..."

:::click::: close window


img0.fark.net

:::no click::: scroll to something else
 
2012-10-04 11:24:30 AM
Ceterum autem censeo vectigal delendam esse
 
2012-10-04 11:24:55 AM

Xythero: TFA: "A favorite talking point among redistributionists..."

:::click::: close window


DON'T TAX ME BRO!
 
2012-10-04 11:25:30 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Have you been unconscious for years upon end? How many times have they been referred to as "The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich?"

They have always been painted as Bush helping out his rich buddies by getting them a tax break, regardless of actual fact.



The actual fact is they do help the rich more though right...or am I imagining reduced capital gains taxes along with reduced income tax favoring the people with the most money?
 
2012-10-04 11:27:19 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Jim_Callahan: Um... did someone claim that Bush's tax cuts mostly benefited the rich?


Have you been unconscious for years upon end? How many times have they been referred to as "The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich?"

They have always been painted as Bush helping out his rich buddies by getting them a tax break, regardless of actual fact.


Um, Bush had tax cuts for everyone, not favoring one group.
Obama wants to end the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich, and leave the tax cuts to the poor and middle class alone.

Does that help clear up your confusion?
 
2012-10-04 11:28:13 AM
What's Latin for "your blog sucks?"
 
2012-10-04 11:29:12 AM

Jim_Callahan: Which is sort of a rule of thumb evaluation of how much Romney sucks. I compare his proposal to a thematically similar Bush administration proposal, and it's Romney's that drains more of my IQ points.


I have a hard time deciding whether Romney is just plain dumber or he gives so little of a sh*t that he feels like he can lie with impunity.
 
2012-10-04 11:30:24 AM

EyeballKid: What's Latin for "your blog sucks?"


Breitbarticus?
 
2012-10-04 11:30:53 AM

EyeballKid: What's Latin for "your blog sucks?"


vestri blogus sugit
 
2012-10-04 11:31:29 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: EyeballKid: What's Latin for "your blog sucks?"

vestri blogus sugit


People called your blog they go the suck
 
2012-10-04 11:32:41 AM

Jim_Callahan: Because, yeah, that's not particularly true. I mean, possibly in dollars/person terms, but that's what happens when a benefit involved a percentage and some people have a higher base number. But in broader terms the cuts were across the board.


In dollars / household term, they dramatically benefited the top quintile - in particular the top 1%.
 
2012-10-04 11:34:01 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Jim_Callahan: Um... did someone claim that Bush's tax cuts mostly benefited the rich?


Have you been unconscious for years upon end? How many times have they been referred to as "The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich?"

They have always been painted as Bush helping out his rich buddies by getting them a tax break, regardless of actual fact.

Um, Bush had tax cuts for everyone, not favoring one group.
Obama wants to end the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich, and leave the tax cuts to the poor and middle class alone.

Does that help clear up your confusion?


Yes, I must have been imagining everyone from 2005 to 2007 talking about Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich.

The cuts were labeled as such by people wanting to demonize the wealthy and it continues today despite being shown that the wealthy did NOT receive the highest benefit from EGTRRA or JGTRRA.
 
2012-10-04 11:34:32 AM
In real dollars the Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthy, that's what happens when you "cut taxes for everyone".
 
2012-10-04 11:35:24 AM

EighthDay: Jim_Callahan: Because, yeah, that's not particularly true. I mean, possibly in dollars/person terms, but that's what happens when a benefit involved a percentage and some people have a higher base number. But in broader terms the cuts were across the board.

In dollars / household term, they dramatically benefited the top quintile - in particular the top 1%.


So when we talk about taxes paid in, it has to be in percentages. We we talk about cuts, it has to be in real dollars.

Jesus, the cognitive dissonance around here is absolutely astounding.
 
2012-10-04 11:36:06 AM
So, they are basically saying that the 1% is now sooo much richer than the 99%, that even with lower percentage taxes, they are paying more in flat dollars (unadjusted for inflation, etc.).

And their point is that that's good? Or bad? Or? They seem gleeful to point out that they are paying more in flat dollars, and they seem to be calling to lower the percentage even more so that their share is equal. Does that mean they want the 1%/99% disparity even higher? Are they blatantly cheering that? Or covering their mouths and doing one of those side-mouth cheers?

I don't think they know how they want to spin those numbers in this piece. The numbers clearly show they could pay the same rate as under Clinton and still be richer in real value (ie. adjusted for inflation, etc.), but then they'd have to confront the reality that personal wealth never translates into business growth because no accountant worth his salt will let you mix personal and company wealth.

/or something
 
2012-10-04 11:40:45 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Dusk-You-n-Me: 93% of income gains in 2010 went to the top 1%.

The rich have it so hard in this country.

Please, make me rich. For the sins of all Americans I will share this burden. I'm like a modern day jesus.


I know right? I mean it does sound like it kind of sucks a little to be rich, but it doesn't sound any worse than my current job. I'm no Jesus, but I'd be willing to try it for a while.
 
2012-10-04 11:41:24 AM
I don't know guys, it's pretty clear that as usual Libs Are Bad and also jealous of the wealthy.
 
2012-10-04 11:46:29 AM

hillbillypharmacist: "Bush's tax cuts on the rich unfairly benefited the middle class, not the rich. It all trickled down to them, and the rich got nothing."


Its true. It all trickled down from where the rich kept it. It greatly benefited the middle class of the Caymans, Switzerland, Luxembourg.
 
2012-10-04 11:47:33 AM

DarwiOdrade: You know how CATO is totally unbiased? Neither does anyone else.


Yeah, but have I ever really claimed to be?

Wait...what?

/DRTFA
 
2012-10-04 11:48:01 AM

Jim_Callahan: Um... did someone claim that Bush's tax cuts mostly benefited the rich?

Because, yeah, that's not particularly true. I mean, possibly in dollars/person terms, but that's what happens when a benefit involved a percentage and some people have a higher base number. But in broader terms the cuts were across the board.

I mean, they were still a bad idea, but they were largely a fairly implemented bad idea. Which sort of contrasts Romney's proposals, which are pretty universally insultingly regressive and mind-numbingly stupid ideas.

Which is sort of a rule of thumb evaluation of how much Romney sucks. I compare his proposal to a thematically similar Bush administration proposal, and it's Romney's that drains more of my IQ points.


media.tumblr.com

/Does not approve
 
2012-10-04 11:48:31 AM
Was this even an argument anyone has ever made? That's not the problem people had with those cuts. It's that he cut at the wrong time and sunk us into deep debt.
 
2012-10-04 11:50:49 AM

EighthDay: Jim_Callahan: Because, yeah, that's not particularly true. I mean, possibly in dollars/person terms, but that's what happens when a benefit involved a percentage and some people have a higher base number. But in broader terms the cuts were across the board.

In dollars / household term, they dramatically benefited the top quintile - in particular the top 1%.


And, as I said, or at least strongly implied, if you think that dollars/household is a valid way to look at the "fairness" of taxes then you're either a moron or you're just ignorant and need to consider staying off the FARK boards until you pass first-grade math. This really isn't an appropriate hangout for six-year-olds, I'm afraid.
 
2012-10-04 11:52:36 AM
So basically the rich are getting richer so fast, that even massively cutting their taxes hasn't been enough to stop them paying more in absolute dollars, i.e. if I went from earning a hundred million a year in 2000 to four hundred million a year now, I would be paying more taxes despite the tax cuts during that period? Wow, now I know that being rich is a horrible thing, and should be glad to not be rich.
 
2012-10-04 11:52:36 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: How many times have they been referred to as "The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich?"


That'd be 'zero'.

That clue you in to where you went wrong on that post, perhaps?
 
2012-10-04 11:52:53 AM
Hey look, when we arbitrarily manipulate the data it skews reality enough to make our viewpoints seem logical.

Will wonders never cease?

/if something goes wrong just shake the etch a sketch
 
2012-10-04 11:54:52 AM
The_Six_Fingered_Man: The cuts were labeled as such by people wanting to demonize the wealthy and it continues today despite being shown that the wealthy did NOT receive the highest benefit from EGTRRA or JGTRRA.

NOT the highest benefit?! Oh those poor wealthy.
 
2012-10-04 11:57:54 AM
Tax loopholes benefit the rich.......this is the problem.
 
2012-10-04 12:00:53 PM

Jim_Callahan: if you think that dollars/household is a valid way to look at the "fairness" of taxes then you're either a moron or you're just ignorant


the real dollars the consumer class is losing is important when it comes to the economy because those dollars lost impact buying decisions.
 
2012-10-04 12:00:55 PM
now, compare their share of taxes between 2003 to 2008 with their share if income between that time
 
2012-10-04 12:01:02 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: The Jami Turman Fan Club: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Jim_Callahan: Um... did someone claim that Bush's tax cuts mostly benefited the rich?


Have you been unconscious for years upon end? How many times have they been referred to as "The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich?"

They have always been painted as Bush helping out his rich buddies by getting them a tax break, regardless of actual fact.

Um, Bush had tax cuts for everyone, not favoring one group.
Obama wants to end the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich, and leave the tax cuts to the poor and middle class alone.

Does that help clear up your confusion?

Yes, I must have been imagining everyone from 2005 to 2007 talking about Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich.

The cuts were labeled as such by people wanting to demonize the wealthy and it continues today despite being shown that the wealthy did NOT receive the highest benefit from EGTRRA or JGTRRA.


Take a look at your link. When lefties talk about letting the "Tax cuts for the rich" expire, they're talking about allowing it to expire for rich people, not that they only affected rich people to begin with.
 
2012-10-04 12:05:05 PM
The only fair tax policy is one where everyone pays the same absolute dollar amount, because I suffered the same closed-head injury as the braintrust at Cato and so I don't understand marginal utility at all.
 
2012-10-04 12:06:12 PM
Hey, look at that. An advocacy group advocating for their group. The things you see in this life...
 
2012-10-04 12:06:37 PM
Oh, so NOW the Republicans suddenly give a shiat about what the CBO has to say.
 
2012-10-04 12:06:50 PM
Actually, Bush wanted tax cuts just for the rich. It was Congressional Dems that insisted that the middle class get some of this largess too.
 
2012-10-04 12:09:41 PM

Headso: Jim_Callahan: if you think that dollars/household is a valid way to look at the "fairness" of taxes then you're either a moron or you're just ignorant

the real dollars the consumer class is losing is important when it comes to the economy because those dollars lost impact buying decisions.


Miss a prepositional phrase in my post, eh? You in a time zone where the coffee's not up, then?
 
2012-10-04 12:10:38 PM
This "share of taxes paid" argument is bullshiat. Suppose I have a population of five people, earning $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, and $50,000, and they all pay 25% of their income in taxes. So I collect $37,500 in taxes, of which the $12,500 paid by the $50,000 earner makes up 33%. Now let's say I exempt the first $10,000 in income from taxation, and charge them a 25% tax on the rest. Now I collect only $25,000 in taxes, and the $10,000 in taxes paid by the $50,000 earner makes up 40% of my tax revenue. According to the Cato Institute, this tax plan is worse for the rich, even though that individual is paying less.
 
2012-10-04 12:12:28 PM

Jim_Callahan:
Because, yeah, that's not particularly true.


I can't imagine why someone would feel those cuts benefited the rich more...
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report