There’s no need for the RNC to launch ridiculous attacks on Democrats like John Edwards anymore, the press just does it for them.
» Breaking News
Crystal Gunns/Louisa C. Tuck: School Pressured To Fire Porn Star Turned Lunch Lady
Amber Lynn [Breaking Beauty]
Lindsay Lohan, Samantha Ronson Fight At Dubai Hotel
Russian Billionaire Sergei Rodionov Publishes Book Of Nudes… Of His Wife Olga
Alexis Tyler: Breaking Beauty
Marc Ambinder has already informed us that the “mainstream press” doesn’t like John Edwards, so they are going to “bury him” the same way they “buried” Al Gore and John Kerry.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/this-is-why-we-revile-them-by-digby.html
Oliver, is John Edwards proposing to raise taxes?
Answer: Yes.
You do realize that a lot of people who sell their homes might be thrown into that $250K tax bracket because of such a sale? Capital gains are considered income.
As for Edwards, why is it that Democrats are only open to ‘cutting taxes’ based on particular behavior? Edwards plan regarding the $500 isn’t a tax cut. Unless I am buying a home, paying for school, investing, retiring or need , then the money just sits there.
My wife stays at home so I how do I benefit from a child care tax credit?
And why just a reduction of the marriage penalty? Why not eliminate it altogether? I’d like to see him explain, “Well, it’s still a penalty, but just a smaller one now.” A reduction merely makes an increase down the road that much easier while the elimination of such a penalty makes it harder to reinstate.
The refusal of the Democratic party to embrace broad based tax reform that extends to everybody is a major reason why they I don’t vote for them. It’s always little piecemeal things here and there that sound wonderful, but are precipitated on particular lifestyles and behaviors.
And the near-religious belief that cutting taxes are always good in all circumstances are why I don’t vote for them. If you’re worried about the little guy, Jay, taxes are a small part of the picture.
I’ve never known a tax cut I didn’t like.
And I’m hardly rich.
And the near-religious belief that cutting taxes…
And there’s your first mistake: there’s more scientific evidence supporting the Laffer Curve than there is proving man-made emissions will result in an apocalypse.
Once again, Jay talks about something he knows nothing about. Even if you don’t buy another home the first $250k ($500k for married couples) of capital gains incurred in selling a primary residence is tax exempt.
It’s all about ME ME ME!!!1!!1@!1
Well, gravypan maybe you should look a little deeper into that tax cut.
If your “tax cut” makes it so that you can’t access government services that you want and need, it isn’t really a benefit to you is it? If it means that your mother’s Medicare premiums cost more and the copays are more, it wasn’t really a cut was it?
If it means that that levee that protects your town isn’t maintained and your property insurance rises it wasn’t really a tax cut, was it?
“You do realize that a lot of people who sell their homes might be thrown into that $250K tax bracket because of such a sale? Capital gains are considered income.”
Ummmm, no. Capital gains is not considered income. Capital gains is the value earned on an investment. Income is the value paid to you for your effort.
Both are taxed, but one requires work, the other one doesn’t. Wanna guess which one is taxed at a lower level?
Just because the IRS makes you report on both on the same form, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
Actually, mdhawk that is one thing Jay got right (blind squirrel acorn). What you are reaching for is that capital gains are unearned income, where as wages are earned income.
Once again, Jay talks about something he knows nothing about. Even if you don’t buy another home the first $250k ($500k for married couples) of capital gains incurred in selling a primary residence is tax exempt.
Only if you’ve owned or lived in the house for a certain amount of time. So stop pretending it is automatic or read up more on the subject before beating your chest.
If your “tax cut” makes it so that you can’t access government services that you want and need, it isn’t really a benefit to you is it? If it means that your mother’s Medicare premiums cost more and the copays are more, it wasn’t really a cut was it?
If it means that that levee that protects your town isn’t maintained and your property insurance rises it wasn’t really a tax cut, was it?
Here we go. The well worn myth that cutting tax rates somehow means that there’s less revenues coming in. Considering revenues last year were at an all time high and the federal deficit has shrunk by close to 60% the last three years, the notion that cutting tax rates will result in less revenues is an argument that has no merit.
Then why ever cut spending at all? Why have this ludicrous Porkbusters campaign? Why not have a second trillion-dollar war? Why not instead spend infinte amounts and tax cut our way back into the black?
Answer: Because the Laffer curve is bullshit, and not even conservatives believe it in the final analysis, except on religious grounds.
“Both are taxed, but one requires work, the other one doesn’t. Wanna guess which one is taxed at a lower level?”
So when somebody pours X amount of money in their home to improve the value of their investment on the open market, they didn’t actually have to “work” at that income?
Interesting logic at work.
“Then why ever cut spending at all? Why have this ludicrous Porkbusters campaign?”
Well, only if you think a tax cut that generates extra revenue excuses wasteful spending.
“Only if you’ve owned or lived in the house for a certain amount of time. So stop pretending it is automatic or read up more on the subject before beating your chest.”
Yes. 2 years. People generally don’t buy and sell primary homes that quickly unless they are trying to profit on them, which means…it is a capital gain! Admit you’re wrong and move on.
“Here we go. The well worn myth that cutting tax rates somehow means that there’s less revenues coming in.”
Except its not a myth. As Quaker amply proves time and time again when mouthbreathers make that claim, revenues only fell in years following a major tax cut. The Laffer curve has some credence but like everything else, conservatives don’t understand it. We appear to be on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Lowering taxes now lowers revenue.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
“Here we go. The well worn myth that cutting tax rates somehow means that there’s less revenues coming in. Considering revenues last year were at an all time high and the federal deficit has shrunk by close to 60% the last three years”
Only if you buy the assumption that the Iraq war was free. The Iraq war has been “off-budget”, it hasn’t ever counted towards the debt. Seems that I remember a President though, not too long ago, who ran surpluses. Does anybody remember who that was? Did he do it by raising taxes?
Oliver, is John Edwards proposing to raise taxes?
No, George Bush raised taxes when he incurred a $750 billion deficit.
Goddamnit, are you fucking stupid or fucking dishonest?