mnealtx 0 #151 November 1, 2007 Quoten other words, Joe Sixpack the worker is paying his taxes, Agreed Quotewhile a lot of small business owners are tax cheats. And 20% of self-employed are cheating, too... it still doesn't prove sven's point or disprove mine. QuoteWhich is even worse when you consider that small business owners have the ability legally to take deductions that employees cannot take. Sure - and rightly so, since they have expenses to running the business that employees do not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #152 November 1, 2007 Quote ... it's the engine of capitalism, and if a business owner (remember, small businesses employ 85% of the population and constitute 90%+ of the economy) I absolutely agree with the criticality of the entrepreneurial spirit. I’m a little struck by the figures. Is it really true that small businesses are responsible for 85% overall jobs, or do they create 85% of the new jobs or something else? Are small business really responsible for 90% of the overall economy, or 90% of the growth in the economy? What percent of the GDP? What’s the definition of a small business, i.e., 10, 100, or 500 people? ---- If anyone's interested in (what I thought was) a fantastic read on different styles of capitalism (e.g., US vs Europe vs India vs Russia) & the importance of fostering innovaton, I highly recommend Bob Litan, et al.'s new book Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity, which is available to download free in total from Yale Press wiki. Litan currently spends most of his time at AEI. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #153 November 1, 2007 QuoteQuoten other words, Joe Sixpack the worker is paying his taxes, Agreed Quotewhile a lot of small business owners are tax cheats. And 20% of self-employed are cheating, too... it still doesn't prove sven's point or disprove mine. QuoteWhich is even worse when you consider that small business owners have the ability legally to take deductions that employees cannot take. Sure - and rightly so, since they have expenses to running the business that employees do not. A lot of the exact same expenses are deductible on a Schedule C but not to an employee. The tax treatment is very favorable for business owners. According to 2003 IRS figures, Each taxpaying household on average ends up paying an additional $2,600 per year to make up for those who do not comply. Also according the IRS, the bulk of non-compliance comes from small business owners (including the self-employed)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #154 November 1, 2007 You might find this interesting: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/11/INGV560VO41.DTL... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #155 November 1, 2007 Interesting stats - thank you for the information. I still believe the tax breaks (at least for small business) help compensate for the added expense of running a business - an easy example that people rarely think of is the employer's half of FICA/Medicaid.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #156 November 1, 2007 Quote According to 2003 IRS figures, Each taxpaying household on average ends up paying an additional $2,600 per year to make up for those who do not comply. That "on average" bit was a nice touch, considering something like 2/3rd of households don't even pay $2600 in federal income taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 November 1, 2007 Quote You might find this interesting: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/11/INGV560VO41.DTL Not a very neutral piece, is it? Maybe just a bit of an agenda, but it's sorta expected from the source. I was unaware that the 2001 law did ANYTHING to the AMT - is there proof of that easily accessible somewhere, because I can't seem to find anything on it. It would be rather dishonest to call it "Bush's hidden tax increase" if it wasn't changed by the tax reforms. The other stuff mentioned I can't comment on, because I've not researched any of it. It's certainly no surprise that (at least to me) that people / businesses will cheat on their taxes assuming they think they can get away with it. I'm still trying to figure out how people/business that haven't paid taxes in DECADES are somehow Bush's fault - seems like that blame would be equally shared by other administrations.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #158 November 1, 2007 Quote Quote According to 2003 IRS figures, Each taxpaying household on average ends up paying an additional $2,600 per year to make up for those who do not comply. That "on average" bit was a nice touch, considering something like 2/3rd of households don't even pay $2600 in federal income taxes. And some people pay no attention to adjectives.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #159 November 1, 2007 QuoteQuote You might find this interesting: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/11/INGV560VO41.DTL Not a very neutral piece, is it? Maybe just a bit of an agenda, but it's sorta expected from the source. I was unaware that the 2001 law did ANYTHING to the AMT - is there proof of that easily accessible somewhere, because I can't seem to find anything on it. It would be rather dishonest to call it "Bush's hidden tax increase" if it wasn't changed by the tax reforms. The other stuff mentioned I can't comment on, because I've not researched any of it. It's certainly no surprise that (at least to me) that people / businesses will cheat on their taxes assuming they think they can get away with it. I'm still trying to figure out how people/business that haven't paid taxes in DECADES are somehow Bush's fault - seems like that blame would be equally shared by other administrations. Small business owners INDEED have been getting away with cheating on their taxes for decades. The IRS budget for going after tax cheats has been cut since the 1990s, though. And remember, ordinary working Joe Sixpack is not the tax cheat. How do YOU feel about subsidizing your local dry-cleaner, building contractor, and pet store owner with your taxes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #160 November 1, 2007 QuoteInteresting stats - thank you for the information. I still believe the tax breaks (at least for small business) help compensate for the added expense of running a business - an easy example that people rarely think of is the employer's half of FICA/Medicaid. Here's another piece, from the Boston Globe: The Biggest Tax Cheats by Robert Kuttner How can we possibly reduce the federal deficit and find enough money for high-quality public services without raising everyone's taxes? Actually, there's a remarkably easy solution. The government just needs to get serious about collecting money from tax cheats. And this doesn't mean audits of ordinary taxpayers or mom-and-pop businesses -- that's not where the big cheating is. Much of it is in the form of very complex tax shelters, deliberately designed to make the tax evasion techniques so complicated that auditors have trouble figuring out what's legal and what isn't. Much of the rest happens overseas, where affiliates of US corporations arrange to book their profits in tax havens with which the United States has no enforcement treaty. The Internal Revenue Service recently released a report estimating that taxes owed but not collected in 2001 (the last year studied) ranged from $312 billion to $353 billion. That didn't even count much of the tax evasion by US firms offshore. Yesterday, the Economic Policy Institute (on whose board I serve) pulled together a group of tax experts, including former IRS commissioners Donald Alexander and Sheldon Cohen, to make the case for better tax enforcement. ''If you see someone breaking into your neighbor's house, you call the police," said Cohen. The IRS as good guys is, of course, a very hard sell politically. ''Abolish the IRS" has become a leading applause line on the Republican right. But the more tax evasion is winked at, the more honest taxpayers are called on to make up the difference. Vito Tanzi, a tax expert who used to work for the International Monetary Fund, estimates that the owners of $7 trillion in assets that might otherwise be taxable do not report income on those assets to any nation, and others have placed the figure as high as $11.5 trillion. According to Robert McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice, this translates to about $255 billion a year in taxes owed, mostly to major industrial nations, but not paid. Economist Max Sawicki, in a new paper written for the Economic Policy Institute, calculates that the gap between adjusted gross income reported to the IRS and the number calculated by the Commerce Department is about $900 billion a year. Last fall, Citizens for Tax Justice examined federal taxes paid by 275 of America's largest corporations. On average, they paid a rate of 17.3 percent -- lower than the rate paid by nearly everyone who is reading this column. The statutory corporate rate is 35 percent. The fact that the taxes actually paid were less than half that amount reflects a blend of special-interest laws, shelters, and outright tax-cheating. As McIntyre observes, in the 1950s, US corporations paid 4.8 percent of the gross domestic product in taxes. By 2004 that had fallen to 1.6 percent. In recent years, the likelihood of a high-income individual, corporation, or partnership being audited has drastically declined. The IRS enforcement budget is down almost one-third since the mid-1990s. Even as Congress has larded up the tax code with new, complex shelters and special-interest provisions that invite abuse, it has limited the IRS budget to the point where taxpayer assistance offices are closing and the hands of the IRS are tied when it comes to in policing tax cheats. Recently The New York Times reported on a Bush administration plan that would give the government access to hundreds of millions of international banking transactions in an effort to track money-laundering by terrorists. Ironically, the same administration, in its first weeks in office, sidetracked an agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration that would have produced greater tax collaboration among nations. The agreement would have required the reporting of financial transactions with nations used as tax havens. But this sort of international enforcement is strenuously resisted by America's blue chip trade associations, corporate lobbyists, and their political allies. ''This is a crime wave," says McIntyre, ''facilitated by the most prestigious accounting firms and law firms, with ordinary taxpayers footing the bill." The Bush administration is willing to invade privacy when the purpose is thwarting terrorists but abets criminals when the purpose is corporate tax evasion. As the folk song ''Pretty Boy Floyd" put it, ''Some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen." Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #161 November 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote You might find this interesting: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/11/INGV560VO41.DTL Not a very neutral piece, is it? Maybe just a bit of an agenda, but it's sorta expected from the source. I was unaware that the 2001 law did ANYTHING to the AMT - is there proof of that easily accessible somewhere, because I can't seem to find anything on it. It would be rather dishonest to call it "Bush's hidden tax increase" if it wasn't changed by the tax reforms. The other stuff mentioned I can't comment on, because I've not researched any of it. It's certainly no surprise that (at least to me) that people / businesses will cheat on their taxes assuming they think they can get away with it. I'm still trying to figure out how people/business that haven't paid taxes in DECADES are somehow Bush's fault - seems like that blame would be equally shared by other administrations. Small business owners INDEED have been getting away with cheating on their taxes for decades. The IRS budget for going after tax cheats has been cut since the 1990s, though. And remember, ordinary working Joe Sixpack is not the tax cheat. How do YOU feel about subsidizing your local dry-cleaner, building contractor, and pet store owner with your taxes? This is the same stupid ass resoning you use in support of the death tax"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #162 November 2, 2007 http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm I liked what Bill Clinton had to say: QuotePresident Clinton on the Today Show, September 16, 2005 Matt Lauer: What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make to pay those [hurricane relief and Iraq war] bills? President Clinton: I would repeal the tax cuts for upper-income people. I myself have gotten 4 tax cuts while young Americans have gone off to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we've had this massive natural disaster. We've run up this huge deficit. How are we covering this money? We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia to pay for the suffering of our people in the Gulf area, to pay for the Iraq War, and to cover my tax cuts — and we are expecting our children to pay the bill. We've made a decision to lower the living standards of our children and grandchildren and to soak other people around the world who don't have the money we do, by and large, to cover our self-indulgence. I can keep getting more and more articles that talk about how the rich get tax breaks that the lower class don't or can't take advantage of. If you want reading assignments let me know....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #163 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDude - you're shooting yourself in the foot, here. You're using the example of someone that can't afford a mortgage as needing MORE benefit from a tax on dividends and capital gains??? You REALLY need to do some more research on this... especially when (as shown) the advantages are equally available to those with an AGI of ~32k/year or above. No, nice try though. I'm using the example that some making gazillions of dollars doesn't need tax breaks while the guy scraping by at $20k does need them............regardless of where they come from. Dude, you really still don't get it, do you? Where do you think the JOBS that provide Joe Sixpack's money come from? Oh yeah...those rich folks and the companies they own/run. What do you do when money's tight? That's right - you take care of the essentials and get rid of non-essentials. Do you REALLY think companies don't do the same thing? The basis of good law is benefit to the entire public, not benefit to one certain demographic at the expense of another - you have not YET shown harm to Joe Sixpack from a break on dividend and capital gains tax that JOE HIMSELF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. The fact that Warren Buffet will get more gain out of the break than Joe Sixpack is immaterial. So - you want to take away those benefits that "only the rich get"? No problems, but your own argument about fairness says you also have to take away those benefits that the rich DON'T get. So - no earned income credit payments, no child care expense deductions, etc.... all of those tax breaks that "the poor" get that "the rich" don't - gone. Now, there's Joe Sixpack. He just got laid off, because the company that he worked for had to lay off 12% of the workforce in order to meet budget due to the increased taxes. The rest had to take a 10% cut in pay, and will end up paying more in taxes since they don't get the earned income credit or the childcare expense deductions anymore. They're also having to pay more at the store, since the companies passed on part of THEIR increased cost of doing business on to the customer, just like they always do. But you sure showed those rich fuckers...didn't you? Nice rant..........completely unfounded, but nice rant. So how exactly were people able to survive with only one person working an average job and able to afford a house and a car in the "good old days"? Was that on planet X in dream land? No it was in this country...............so try to figure out exactly what changed. So the costs kept rising, but the pay didn't..............so where did the extra money go? You think it might be in someone's bank account? I'm not sure, but work on it and let me know what you come up with....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #164 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You might find this interesting: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/11/INGV560VO41.DTL Not a very neutral piece, is it? Maybe just a bit of an agenda, but it's sorta expected from the source. I was unaware that the 2001 law did ANYTHING to the AMT - is there proof of that easily accessible somewhere, because I can't seem to find anything on it. It would be rather dishonest to call it "Bush's hidden tax increase" if it wasn't changed by the tax reforms. The other stuff mentioned I can't comment on, because I've not researched any of it. It's certainly no surprise that (at least to me) that people / businesses will cheat on their taxes assuming they think they can get away with it. I'm still trying to figure out how people/business that haven't paid taxes in DECADES are somehow Bush's fault - seems like that blame would be equally shared by other administrations. Small business owners INDEED have been getting away with cheating on their taxes for decades. The IRS budget for going after tax cheats has been cut since the 1990s, though. And remember, ordinary working Joe Sixpack is not the tax cheat. How do YOU feel about subsidizing your local dry-cleaner, building contractor, and pet store owner with your taxes? This is the same stupid ass resoning you use in support of the death tax Apparently you have no real response, just an insult. The dead pay no taxes. Their beneficiaries do. "Death tax" is a misnomer used by the wealthy to appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect. Apparently it worked.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #165 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Things like this quote don't ring a bell? Quote Another provision in the bill would extend to 2010 the 15 percent tax rate on most dividends and capital gains, a benefit heavily favoring those who make $1 million or more a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which makes the official tax estimates, has said this provision will save investors almost $51 billion through 2010. Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them. And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary. Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it? I still don't understand why you're complaining. The wealthiest are still paying most of the taxes. Why do you want them to pay more? I guarantee you that they didn't get rich because the government took their money and told them how to spend it. Everyone thinks that trickle-down-economics doesn't work. Guess what - it's the engine of capitalism, and if a business owner (remember, small businesses employ 85% of the population and constitute 90%+ of the economy) doesn't have to pay taxes on a financial gain if he re-invests it, that is good for everyone. Yes, he still pays taxes on his income, but if you amp it up too much, it only gets passed on to the little guy anyway. Remember, the "rich" in the eyes of the more liberal-wealth-redistribution-crowd have salaries starting at about $60,000/yr. Why does anyone think they are entitled to someone else's money? For any reason? Fairness? I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by?...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #166 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuote I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? It's particularly galling that the wealthy people whining loudest for tax breaks that Joe Sixpack doesn't get, are also the most likely to be cheating on their taxes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #167 November 2, 2007 I have done a little research. (oh, and death taxes is a correct term) So answer me this, there is a legal entity that pays no death taxes. Do you know what/who that is?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #168 November 2, 2007 Times up. Next question, why would this same group (not a political group or government) oppose getting rid of the death tax?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #169 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? It's particularly galling that the wealthy people whining loudest for tax breaks that Joe Sixpack doesn't get, are also the most likely to be cheating on their taxes. Nice generalization sir. Show me the whining oh slinger of the chum"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #170 November 2, 2007 QuoteI'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" You clearly don't even understand what trickle down economics means with a statement like that. It's not a "hope I get a little extra from the man" type deal.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #171 November 2, 2007 Times up the positon you support here actually supports a group you indicate you detest the most. Oh the irony"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #172 November 2, 2007 Quotehttp://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm I liked what Bill Clinton had to say: QuotePresident Clinton on the Today Show, September 16, 2005 Matt Lauer: What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make to pay those [hurricane relief and Iraq war] bills? President Clinton: I would repeal the tax cuts for upper-income people. I myself have gotten 4 tax cuts while young Americans have gone off to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we've had this massive natural disaster. We've run up this huge deficit. How are we covering this money? We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia to pay for the suffering of our people in the Gulf area, to pay for the Iraq War, and to cover my tax cuts — and we are expecting our children to pay the bill. We've made a decision to lower the living standards of our children and grandchildren and to soak other people around the world who don't have the money we do, by and large, to cover our self-indulgence. I can keep getting more and more articles that talk about how the rich get tax breaks that the lower class don't or can't take advantage of. If you want reading assignments let me know. Again - find me some FACT - not hearsay. FYI - "Fact" in this case would be something like a link to thomas.state.gov or similar, where the text of the law can be looked up. Anecdotal interviews from Democratic talking heads != "proof"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #173 November 2, 2007 Quote I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Perhaps because the data proves you wrong? In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. Looks like "lower taxes, more money coming in to fed.gov". Quote Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? Recent data from the IRS - The top 25% of taxpayers (AGI over ~62K) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, while paying 86% of all taxes. The top 1% (AGI over ~365k) earned roughly 21% of the nation's income, while paying over 39% of the taxes. Roughly 42 MILLION people were able to use deductions and benefits to entirely wipe out their tax liability or even get back more than what they paid in. That's due to those tax credits that the rich (you know - those folks that are making over 62k/year) can't get. The top 1% ends up paying more in tax than the bottom 95% - how much more before YOU think they're paying their fair share?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #174 November 2, 2007 Quote In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. I wish you wouldn't derail the topic, because Kallend will correctly point out the fallacy in using these absolute numbers without controls for population and inflation. (especially notable for Reagan who came in a time with double digit inflation). I think you will also find that tax revenues always jump substantially from a recession to a boom period. On the topic of interest...I thought many of the Bush cuts in 2001 were quite fair considering all of the tax hikes that helped balance the budget were targetting the higher payers. I like having that extra 3% back - it makes up for the ever increasing SS. And like a lot of people, I didn't get through the 2001-2003 recession without suffering considerably financially. It's not like I was eat the foie gras every night thinking about how to screw the working poor. For two years my income was one third of normal. I rather like keeping more of my money now to build ahead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #175 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. I wish you wouldn't derail the topic, because Kallend will correctly point out the fallacy in using these absolute numbers without controls for population and inflation. (especially notable for Reagan who came in a time with double digit inflation). I didn't bring up the subject, Sven did - I just rebutted it. As for controls or adjustments for population/inflation, those only seem to be pertinent when the point being discussed isn't in the Dem's favor, in my reading of SC. FYI, though... the article DOES mention that the revenue numbers were adjusted for inflation. Quote I think you will also find that tax revenues always jump substantially from a recession to a boom period. Oddly enough, those boom periods seem to closely follow the tax cuts...amazing how that happens, isn't it? Quote On the topic of interest...I thought many of the Bush cuts in 2001 were quite fair considering all of the tax hikes that helped balance the budget were targetting the higher payers. I like having that extra 3% back - it makes up for the ever increasing SS. And like a lot of people, I didn't get through the 2001-2003 recession without suffering considerably financially. It's not like I was eat the foie gras every night thinking about how to screw the working poor. For two years my income was one third of normal. I rather like keeping more of my money now to build ahead. I know a LOT of people got screwed when the dotcom bubble finally burst - sorry you got caught up in it. As for the tax break...you're obviously mistaken - didn't you know that only the RICH got tax cuts/breaks?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 18 #167 November 2, 2007 I have done a little research. (oh, and death taxes is a correct term) So answer me this, there is a legal entity that pays no death taxes. Do you know what/who that is?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #168 November 2, 2007 Times up. Next question, why would this same group (not a political group or government) oppose getting rid of the death tax?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #169 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? It's particularly galling that the wealthy people whining loudest for tax breaks that Joe Sixpack doesn't get, are also the most likely to be cheating on their taxes. Nice generalization sir. Show me the whining oh slinger of the chum"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #170 November 2, 2007 QuoteI'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" You clearly don't even understand what trickle down economics means with a statement like that. It's not a "hope I get a little extra from the man" type deal.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #171 November 2, 2007 Times up the positon you support here actually supports a group you indicate you detest the most. Oh the irony"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #172 November 2, 2007 Quotehttp://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm I liked what Bill Clinton had to say: QuotePresident Clinton on the Today Show, September 16, 2005 Matt Lauer: What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make to pay those [hurricane relief and Iraq war] bills? President Clinton: I would repeal the tax cuts for upper-income people. I myself have gotten 4 tax cuts while young Americans have gone off to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we've had this massive natural disaster. We've run up this huge deficit. How are we covering this money? We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia to pay for the suffering of our people in the Gulf area, to pay for the Iraq War, and to cover my tax cuts — and we are expecting our children to pay the bill. We've made a decision to lower the living standards of our children and grandchildren and to soak other people around the world who don't have the money we do, by and large, to cover our self-indulgence. I can keep getting more and more articles that talk about how the rich get tax breaks that the lower class don't or can't take advantage of. If you want reading assignments let me know. Again - find me some FACT - not hearsay. FYI - "Fact" in this case would be something like a link to thomas.state.gov or similar, where the text of the law can be looked up. Anecdotal interviews from Democratic talking heads != "proof"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #173 November 2, 2007 Quote I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Perhaps because the data proves you wrong? In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. Looks like "lower taxes, more money coming in to fed.gov". Quote Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? Recent data from the IRS - The top 25% of taxpayers (AGI over ~62K) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, while paying 86% of all taxes. The top 1% (AGI over ~365k) earned roughly 21% of the nation's income, while paying over 39% of the taxes. Roughly 42 MILLION people were able to use deductions and benefits to entirely wipe out their tax liability or even get back more than what they paid in. That's due to those tax credits that the rich (you know - those folks that are making over 62k/year) can't get. The top 1% ends up paying more in tax than the bottom 95% - how much more before YOU think they're paying their fair share?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #174 November 2, 2007 Quote In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. I wish you wouldn't derail the topic, because Kallend will correctly point out the fallacy in using these absolute numbers without controls for population and inflation. (especially notable for Reagan who came in a time with double digit inflation). I think you will also find that tax revenues always jump substantially from a recession to a boom period. On the topic of interest...I thought many of the Bush cuts in 2001 were quite fair considering all of the tax hikes that helped balance the budget were targetting the higher payers. I like having that extra 3% back - it makes up for the ever increasing SS. And like a lot of people, I didn't get through the 2001-2003 recession without suffering considerably financially. It's not like I was eat the foie gras every night thinking about how to screw the working poor. For two years my income was one third of normal. I rather like keeping more of my money now to build ahead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #175 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. I wish you wouldn't derail the topic, because Kallend will correctly point out the fallacy in using these absolute numbers without controls for population and inflation. (especially notable for Reagan who came in a time with double digit inflation). I didn't bring up the subject, Sven did - I just rebutted it. As for controls or adjustments for population/inflation, those only seem to be pertinent when the point being discussed isn't in the Dem's favor, in my reading of SC. FYI, though... the article DOES mention that the revenue numbers were adjusted for inflation. Quote I think you will also find that tax revenues always jump substantially from a recession to a boom period. Oddly enough, those boom periods seem to closely follow the tax cuts...amazing how that happens, isn't it? Quote On the topic of interest...I thought many of the Bush cuts in 2001 were quite fair considering all of the tax hikes that helped balance the budget were targetting the higher payers. I like having that extra 3% back - it makes up for the ever increasing SS. And like a lot of people, I didn't get through the 2001-2003 recession without suffering considerably financially. It's not like I was eat the foie gras every night thinking about how to screw the working poor. For two years my income was one third of normal. I rather like keeping more of my money now to build ahead. I know a LOT of people got screwed when the dotcom bubble finally burst - sorry you got caught up in it. As for the tax break...you're obviously mistaken - didn't you know that only the RICH got tax cuts/breaks?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gawain 0 #170 November 2, 2007 QuoteI'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" You clearly don't even understand what trickle down economics means with a statement like that. It's not a "hope I get a little extra from the man" type deal.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #171 November 2, 2007 Times up the positon you support here actually supports a group you indicate you detest the most. Oh the irony"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #172 November 2, 2007 Quotehttp://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm I liked what Bill Clinton had to say: QuotePresident Clinton on the Today Show, September 16, 2005 Matt Lauer: What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make to pay those [hurricane relief and Iraq war] bills? President Clinton: I would repeal the tax cuts for upper-income people. I myself have gotten 4 tax cuts while young Americans have gone off to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we've had this massive natural disaster. We've run up this huge deficit. How are we covering this money? We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia to pay for the suffering of our people in the Gulf area, to pay for the Iraq War, and to cover my tax cuts — and we are expecting our children to pay the bill. We've made a decision to lower the living standards of our children and grandchildren and to soak other people around the world who don't have the money we do, by and large, to cover our self-indulgence. I can keep getting more and more articles that talk about how the rich get tax breaks that the lower class don't or can't take advantage of. If you want reading assignments let me know. Again - find me some FACT - not hearsay. FYI - "Fact" in this case would be something like a link to thomas.state.gov or similar, where the text of the law can be looked up. Anecdotal interviews from Democratic talking heads != "proof"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #173 November 2, 2007 Quote I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Perhaps because the data proves you wrong? In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. Looks like "lower taxes, more money coming in to fed.gov". Quote Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? Recent data from the IRS - The top 25% of taxpayers (AGI over ~62K) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, while paying 86% of all taxes. The top 1% (AGI over ~365k) earned roughly 21% of the nation's income, while paying over 39% of the taxes. Roughly 42 MILLION people were able to use deductions and benefits to entirely wipe out their tax liability or even get back more than what they paid in. That's due to those tax credits that the rich (you know - those folks that are making over 62k/year) can't get. The top 1% ends up paying more in tax than the bottom 95% - how much more before YOU think they're paying their fair share?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #174 November 2, 2007 Quote In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. I wish you wouldn't derail the topic, because Kallend will correctly point out the fallacy in using these absolute numbers without controls for population and inflation. (especially notable for Reagan who came in a time with double digit inflation). I think you will also find that tax revenues always jump substantially from a recession to a boom period. On the topic of interest...I thought many of the Bush cuts in 2001 were quite fair considering all of the tax hikes that helped balance the budget were targetting the higher payers. I like having that extra 3% back - it makes up for the ever increasing SS. And like a lot of people, I didn't get through the 2001-2003 recession without suffering considerably financially. It's not like I was eat the foie gras every night thinking about how to screw the working poor. For two years my income was one third of normal. I rather like keeping more of my money now to build ahead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #175 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. I wish you wouldn't derail the topic, because Kallend will correctly point out the fallacy in using these absolute numbers without controls for population and inflation. (especially notable for Reagan who came in a time with double digit inflation). I didn't bring up the subject, Sven did - I just rebutted it. As for controls or adjustments for population/inflation, those only seem to be pertinent when the point being discussed isn't in the Dem's favor, in my reading of SC. FYI, though... the article DOES mention that the revenue numbers were adjusted for inflation. Quote I think you will also find that tax revenues always jump substantially from a recession to a boom period. Oddly enough, those boom periods seem to closely follow the tax cuts...amazing how that happens, isn't it? Quote On the topic of interest...I thought many of the Bush cuts in 2001 were quite fair considering all of the tax hikes that helped balance the budget were targetting the higher payers. I like having that extra 3% back - it makes up for the ever increasing SS. And like a lot of people, I didn't get through the 2001-2003 recession without suffering considerably financially. It's not like I was eat the foie gras every night thinking about how to screw the working poor. For two years my income was one third of normal. I rather like keeping more of my money now to build ahead. I know a LOT of people got screwed when the dotcom bubble finally burst - sorry you got caught up in it. As for the tax break...you're obviously mistaken - didn't you know that only the RICH got tax cuts/breaks?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
