It’s impossible to tell what you are referencing because you’re going in circles. You said the Obama tax cuts for the middle class were larger than Trump’s. I said that Obama’s biggest cuts were extensions of Bush tax cuts and the rest were temporary. You said you weren’t talking about the extensions, only the cuts from the stimulus. I said the biggest cut from the stimulus was the temporary making work pay credit. Now you’re saying you weren’t referencing that cut. How can you say that Obama cut taxes more for the middle class, then when I point out that they were temporary (your main complaint with Trump’s), you say you didn’t mean the temporary ones? If you didn’t mean the temporary ones, then stop counting them in your claim that Obama’s were larger. You’re playing both sides of the fence.
It is an arguable point, which is why you are using some weird classification (“it’s not part of the stimulus”) to dismiss it. If you’re going to claim Obama was better on taxes than Trump, you can’t pick and chose what tax laws he signed. You have to take them all.
If you’re not claiming that, if you’re just claiming that Obama’s stimulus was better than Trump’s tax cut, okay. If you’re just claiming that Obama’s stimulus was better than Trump’s tax cut for the middle class, okay. Those are both fair points worth arguing, but because Trump’s tax cuts are so new, it’s hard to say which is better.
It is much easier to take Obama’s tax record overall and point out that it was worse than Trump’s is right now because Trump hasn’t passed any tax increases, unlike Obama who passed a bunch, and in the minds of many GOP voters, severely hamstrung the economy with them.
This thread has been a vivid display of the wisdom of the founding fathers. The federal government was to be limited to tariffs not taxes. Just enough to provide for the defense of the nation not to attempt solve all the failings of man. The federal taxes have caused so much dissension and delusion. Rich man vs poor man. That a certain race or gender should have advantages over others. That the government should provide for the weak and infirm, a task better provided by churches and charitable organizations. Taxes where to be levied by States and local governments providing more effective use of the funds and better oversight.
Not to mention that the original tariff revenue-raising structure was so HORRENDOUSLY regressive, the American people rose up en masse and demanded the implementation of a progressive federal income tax.
No, it merely looks that way when you’re so busy spinning.
Nope.
Not only did I never make that claim, I have repeatedly corrected you for falsely insinuating I did.
Exactly, because the extension of just the Middle-class tax cuts was not part of the stimulus bill.
And you were wrong.
True, because I posted from the getgo I wasn’t including the incentivized credits.
Except I didn’t.
You can check my OP that is WAAAAY upthread. I posted that the tax cuts as part of the stimulus bill were larger (for the Middle-class) than the tax cuts (for the Middle-class) in the recent GOP tax bill, therefore they were even less likely to be noticed by the vast majority of the American people, which has been shown by recent polling to be exactly the case.
Pretty straightforward.
I really think the problem is you need to take more time and READ and COMPREHEND what others have posted before responding.
Ah yes, you prefer to ignore the will of more than three fourths of the American people’s vote, and instead be governed by a plutocratic oligarchy who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes.
In an 1813 letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents… There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class… The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.”
I can’t find any information that “people rose up en masse” to demand income taxes.
You make it sound like there were significant protests.
eta : yes many people did support an income tax as an alternative to tarrifs. But I’m questioning the idea that “people rose up en masse” to “demand” it.
3/4 of state legislatures approving something is not the same as 3/4 of people voting for it.
Today the Republicans are a mere 5 states away from controlling 3/4 of the state legislatures… yet the popular presidential vote marginally leans Democrat.
Oh they did and there were. You think it was easy to get more than two-thirds of the House and more than two-thirds of the Senate to vote for the 16th Amendment which was aggressively opposed by the Rich & Corporate(originally charters).
Well, in the form of representative democracy, they did.
I can’t find any old timey turn of the century photos with men in smart suits of the day and signs reading “tax us more” “I want to pay part of my wages to the government”
I mean its possible as given about that time the populist movement and Socialist party were at their peaks.
And I agree that at the time people favored income tax (soak the rich) over tarrifs (tax my beer) which was really the choice. It wasn’t pro income tax as much as dislike of the tarrifs we had.
But rising “up in masse to demand” it is a couple levels above supporting one tax structure over another.
Or … what do you consider “rising up in masse to demand” something? Does the occupy Wallstreet movement fit that bill as far as you’re concerned?
What swayed it was the woman’s vote. Soon the woman’s vote was going to be the majority. The legislators realized this and voted for their (woman’s) vote. The inevitability of the Nineteenth Amendment was the influence of the sixteenth amendment.
What, am I running an online remedial history course now ?
It began with farmer groups like the Northwestern Alliance, the Southern Alliance, and the National Colored Farmers Alliance. In the early 1890s they were being ripped-off by high fees from grain elevator operators for storage and high fees from railroads to ship their crops. They were paying high tariffs on much of the equipment they had to buy, like farm machinery, making it far more expensive. They were heavily in debt purchasing expensive land and expensive equipment, and stuck with high interest rates on that debt.
They eventually banded together and produced a policy platform of demands, such as the elimination of high tariffs, the enactment of a progressive federal income tax, the dissolution of national banks to be replaced by regional sub‐treasuries that could underwrite low-interest farm loans utilizing their crops as collateral, and the direct election of senators. These are some of the demands which were known as the ‘Ocala Demands’.
In the next election, their Alliance took over the majorities of 8 state legislatures, elected governors in 4 different states, and sent 44 representatives to the U.S. House and elected 2 to the U.S. Senate. These successes led to the development of a national party, which allowed them to enact much of their agenda into law.
Sorry, I don’t have any video.
Because repealing the tariff regime and replacing it with a progressive income tax LOWERED their taxes.
Well yes, as I posted, the tariff regime was horrendously regressive and oppressive, and they wanted a much fairer system. It was both.
It was a reference back to my previous post in regards to the tax cuts in the stimulus bill being larger than the tax cuts in the GOP bill, in regards to the Middle-class.
And I addressed that point in the second half of my post you just quoted, so quit using “DUH READING COMPREHENSION” as a crutch in your argument.
I also pointed out that the temporary Making Work Pay credit was the biggest cut for the middle class from the stimulus bill. You said I was wrong. If that wasn’t, what was?
I disagree that you’ve done anything to substantiate the claim that “the American people rose up en masse to demand” an income tax.
Clearly the 16th amendment was passed and there was support for that. But that is not necessarily evidence of “the American people [rising] up en masse to demand” it.