Professor Maule has to my blog post title card, the us create your tax cuts jobs responds and we will give your tax cuts.
Followed below my questions and assertions in blockquotes by Professor's answers.
My question:
"Is and if he really thinks the rich to much wealth and income inequality should accumulate, are a serious problem, why not just say rather than the motives defame those of us who do not believe his way to take a few intellectual elites to the authority decide how wealth distributes?"
Maule's reply:
Obama's tax plan is to increase taxes for individuals with income of over $250,000. Most Americans in this category fall and 95 percent are unaffected by this particular proposal. Americans in this category are paying taxes to lower prices than you paid a decade ago.
The theory was that reduction of prices on the rich benefits not only for the rich, but would generate for everyone else. This "trickle down" theory turned out to be a failed experiment.
All that was passed down the economic pain America caused the capitalist casino players. Technically, Obama beats revocation of tax cuts for the rich. They had their chance. It failed, other than the wealthy widen more prosperous, the smaller middle class and the gap between the owning and have-nots.
My assertion:
"[Professor Maule] assumes that we are all either con artists, money grabber düpierten followers."
Maule's response:
I caused by those guidelines open for some other reasonable characterization to describe someone who advocates failed failed policies as a solution to a problem. Tax cuts for the rich, if so wonderful would not leave cocoons have economy of the nation. Tried several times, and the overwhelming majority of Americans are worse than they were ten years ago.
No, I don't think that a cheater or a money grabber is. Must I believe he has deceived been? Yes, he exposed was, and has absorbed theories and concepts, a series of fiscal measures which have not worked to defend.
Much if the tax cut ideas floated first many years ago, to many people's surprise, I support the idea not damage to try something that had not been tried on the basis that it would. I defended the result the tax cuts for the rich is proportionally more than tax cuts for which not enough, because the rich subject to proportionally higher rates were. After approach failed the tax cut and then was tried, and could not again and again, I re-evaluated the experiment, and came to the conclusion that it had taught the nation it was something that did not work.
For some reason, some people just want someone's ideas give a chance. Go far, can hang who are advocates tax cut to me evidence that you desperately and ready mislead whomever you are in your failed systems draw to the failed attempt. If you not are con deceived artist, money grabber or people that, what are you?
Professor by one of my readers, Knox Marlow Maule also responded to an assertion, made.
Knox Marlow assertion:
I think [Professor Maule] perfectly articulates the left Redistributionists views. Fortunately, I believe there is moderate on the left and the right who are willing to compromise without class warfare questions (again, I will show on the Simpson Bowles and Domenici Rivlin proposals).
Maule's observation:
Last week the outpouring has the "It's socialism" in response to the proposal to revoke tax cuts unabated adopted for those with high-level incomes continue. For example, on GetLiberty that assertion is stretched, the "Barack Obama is a Socialist, believes in from the owning take and give the have nots." It is unclear whether this claim claims Obama is a Socialist because he "believes in the owning take and give, the have nots" or if the claim Obama is a Socialist WHO "believes in from the owning take and give, the have nots." The latter interpretation indicate that it Socialists, who in faith "from the owning take and give the have nots." There may be such Socialists, but if they exist, are not on my radar.
What is the assertion disturbing is former interpreting the intent must be a test, the latter interpretation makes no sense. The idea that believe in taking from the owning and allow the have nots makes a person who is a Socialist that almost every President elected since 1913, and almost everyone since that time is selected or was Socialist.
How I develop that reading GetLiberty assertion? The federal income tax usually takes some of the owning and distributes the have nots, although in recent years also have it haves has less and more to the already. Since 1913, the Executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government adopted, changed and managed a progressive federal income tax.
The idea that Obama or someone else support is seen in this light, the progressive federal income tax, a Socialist a total canard has a misleading sound bite designed to mislead those that emotionally predisposition to taxation are dislike.
The debate continues. Stay tuned.
Tags: Opinion · Policy of taxation · Tax policy
Trimiteți un comentariu