Skip to main content

Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades.

In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut that President Bush and Congress enacted, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates — a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999). The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations.





The 4.6 percent effective tax rate — the percentage of its income that a family pays in taxes — is well below the 15 percent marginal tax rate that a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum faces. Typically, such a family reduces its effective tax rate by taking the standard deduction (or, in some cases, itemized deductions), personal exemptions, and tax credits such as the child tax credit. The Making Work Pay tax credit further reduces that family’s effective tax rate.
Read more: http://briansullivan.blogs.fox...rtaxed#ixzz17gDC2FHs
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

SOOOOOOOOOOOOO, let me get this straight, (I need to catch my breath, this is one of your BEST Foxiphiled posts right wing witch of Waterloo) YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE MIDDLE CLASS DOESN'T PAY ENOUGH TAXES?????????? You are REALLY under a spell from Christine O'Donnell(she was on Fox and Fools today so maybe she put out some kind of trance to the indoctrinated) OH SNAP b50m, THIS IS GOLD!!!!
YOU ARE SAYING (wait for it) that YOU and the republicans you support think the MIDDLE CLASS have ENOUGH tax breaks as it is and the people who REALLY need tax breaks are the top 2%?
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades.

In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut that President Bush and Congress enacted, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates — a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999). The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations.





The 4.6 percent effective tax rate — the percentage of its income that a family pays in taxes — is well below the 15 percent marginal tax rate that a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum faces. Typically, such a family reduces its effective tax rate by taking the standard deduction (or, in some cases, itemized deductions), personal exemptions, and tax credits such as the child tax credit. The Making Work Pay tax credit further reduces that family’s effective tax rate.
Read more: http://briansullivan.blogs.fox...rtaxed#ixzz17gDC2FHs


I've got to copy this before you come to your senses and take it down and **** it is from FOX BUSINESS!!!!!!!! Throw in a qoute from one of the thug elected leaders and I have another coveted trifecta!!!!!!!!!! Razzer
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades.

In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut that President Bush and Congress enacted, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates — a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999). The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations.





The 4.6 percent effective tax rate — the percentage of its income that a family pays in taxes — is well below the 15 percent marginal tax rate that a family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum faces. Typically, such a family reduces its effective tax rate by taking the standard deduction (or, in some cases, itemized deductions), personal exemptions, and tax credits such as the child tax credit. The Making Work Pay tax credit further reduces that family’s effective tax rate.
Read more: http://briansullivan.blogs.fox...rtaxed#ixzz17gDC2FHs


I've got to copy this before you come to your senses and take it down and **** it is from FOX BUSINESS!!!!!!!! Throw in a qoute from one of the thug elected leaders and I have another coveted trifecta!!!!!!!!!! Razzer


b50m, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS must have been missed somewhere, your little "post" is going forum viral. I will start calling you the good right wing witch of Waterloo if you keep giving me "gems" like this!!!!!! THANKS! Big Grin
Having taxes that are lower than recent years doesn't necessarily equate to not being overtaxed. If you consider the initial reasoning behind income taxes, anyone who pays income tax is overtaxed, regardless of economic class. You can't tax different level incomes separately and expect class warfare to disappear. If we're going to pay income tax, make it a flat tax that's, let's say, around 10% that EVERYONE with an income pays. Welfare reform has to take place, too. Welfare was originally intended as a short-term assistance, but has been abused like every other government assistance program. The same can be said of unemployment benefits. "I can't find a job." NO! You can't find a job that you feel is good enough for you, so you keep living off the government. What's wrong with working 2 jobs, whatever you have to do to make ends meet, even if one of those is McDonald's? "I ain't workin' at no fast food place." BULL BUTTER! Get off your lazy bum and do something other than stand in the unemployment line! This doesn't apply to everyone, but the ones to whom it does know who they are.
Looks like Cage/Jobe, ferrellj and the rest of the Foxiphiles and TEABAGGERS left you hanging in the wind on THIS post, good right wing witch of Waterloo, b50m. Check out the Daily Kos blog and see the responses it got! Big Grin This article from Brian Sullivan has proved INVALUABLE! THANKS GOOD WITCH, you made my day and HELPED the cause greatly. Keep up the good work!
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
If you look at it from strictly an income tax view, I think that the original post has some merit. The problem is that after income taxes are taken out, the consumption taxes (sales, gas, etc.) kick in. These are what continue to rise and make it hard on those of us who are unfortunate enough to pay income taxes.


You want to make yourself really mad, add it all up and then see what your tax rate really is. I did this last year and I was shocked 28% to Uncle Sam right off the top then add taxes for fuel and then a average of 9% on every dollar you spend, local taxes and surcharges on utilities, phone etc pushes it to over 50%. Mad
Yes, like b50 says, we are now paying the cheapest federal income taxes since Harry Truman was president. A lot was due to the Bush tax cuts, and some due to the Obama tax cuts.
All that being said, our country is in real fiscal trouble, mostly because of these tax cuts, especially on the super wealthy.
I would gladly pay the taxes I was paying under Clinton if we could again have the economy we had under Clinton and the security that we had enough money left to pay down the national debt.
Only if you could 'undo' 9/11 and stop the two wars.

Why is it so hard to realize that having wars causes a big drain on the economy that taxing the heck out of rich won't solve. The housing bubble and dot com bubble happened. They also can't be 'undone'.

Clinton made sure to do nothing to 'rock' the boat. That's why every one thinks he did so well. If you make no decisions you get no blame.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Only if you could 'undo' 9/11 and stop the two wars.

Why is it so hard to realize that having wars causes a big drain on the economy


Our former president would disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTk49D3OeY4
He said war is good for our economy.

More to your point tho, one of the wars ,Iraq, had nothing at all to do with 9/11. It was planned by Cheney and his energy commission before he and W ever took office.
The "war" in Afghanistan could possibly have been over by now if W had prosecuted it instead of letting it go to go after Iraq.
Yew, the wars are a terrible drain on our economy and the world's resources. I once heard that the war in Iraq was using 1/2 million barrels of oil a day. If that were back on the world market, instead of being sucked up by that idiotic misstep, we all would be much better off.
Quote "The housing bubble and dot com bubble happened. They also can't be 'undone'."
Yes, the housing bubble caused in most part by deregulation of the banking industry , started by RR, given full reign to ruin by a bill written and pushed through the Congress mostly by Phil Graham , and was signed by Clinton on his way out of the Job.

Quote "Clinton made sure to do nothing to 'rock' the boat. That's why every one thinks he did so well. If you make no decisions you get no blame."

Clinton actually DID do things to improve our economy , he raised taxes and balanced the budget(in a Senate vote that was 50/50 with all the Republicans saying that raising the taxes would ruin our economy. Took Gore to break the tie). This gave confidence to investors and the economic boom that followed was a direct result. You may never want to admit that was actually good policy, but in truth it was, and still could be.

By the way, seems the REpublicans are still trying to use that same argument. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it worked before and brought us the greatest expansion of our economy in the history of the Republic.
They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
The budget was balance during Clinton’s term because the Republicans forced him to. Liberals keep forgetting that Clinton would have never had a balanced budget otherwise.

Lowering taxes for everybody helps everybody. Sounds like our current president has figured that out. Wall street responded positively after the tax deal was announced. They know lower taxes will spur growth and jobs.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Only if you could 'undo' 9/11 and stop the two wars.

Why is it so hard to realize that having wars causes a big drain on the economy


Our former president would disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTk49D3OeY4
He said war is good for our economy.

More to your point tho, one of the wars ,Iraq, had nothing at all to do with 9/11. It was planned by Cheney and his energy commission before he and W ever took office.
The "war" in Afghanistan could possibly have been over by now if W had prosecuted it instead of letting it go to go after Iraq.
Yew, the wars are a terrible drain on our economy and the world's resources. I once heard that the war in Iraq was using 1/2 million barrels of oil a day. If that were back on the world market, instead of being sucked up by that idiotic misstep, we all would be much better off.
Quote "The housing bubble and dot com bubble happened. They also can't be 'undone'."
Yes, the housing bubble caused in most part by deregulation of the banking industry , started by RR, given full reign to ruin by a bill written and pushed through the Congress mostly by Phil Graham , and was signed by Clinton on his way out of the Job.

Quote "Clinton made sure to do nothing to 'rock' the boat. That's why every one thinks he did so well. If you make no decisions you get no blame."

Clinton actually DID do things to improve our economy , he raised taxes and balanced the budget(in a Senate vote that was 50/50 with all the Republicans saying that raising the taxes would ruin our economy. Took Gore to break the tie). This gave confidence to investors and the economic boom that followed was a direct result. You may never want to admit that was actually good policy, but in truth it was, and still could be.

By the way, seems the REpublicans are still trying to use that same argument. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it worked before and brought us the greatest expansion of our economy in the history of the Republic.

They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.


Not to justify war, but WWII ended the depression. During the late sixties, the economy prospered in the midst of Viet Nam. The present conflict costs about $75 billion annually, which is a small portion of the deficit -- $1.1 trillion or more. The Clinton expansion was a bubble -- the dotcom bomb. So, your great expansion resulted in a recession, not a great argument.
quote:
More to your point tho, one of the wars ,Iraq, had nothing at all to do with 9/11. It was planned by Cheney and his energy commission before he and W ever took office.


That is pure BS.

I refer back to:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
More to your point tho, one of the wars ,Iraq, had nothing at all to do with 9/11. It was planned by Cheney and his energy commission before he and W ever took office.


That is pure BS.


I refer back to:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.


No , it is not BS. I know FOX pushed Bush's agenda, but Bush had to lie to get the country to back his little war in Iraq. There was no need to wage war, and in fact we would most likely been a lot better off if Saddam were still in power. He hated the religious zealots (like Al Qaeda), and kept Iran at bay. (we won't even mention how Iran was coming closer to the US and even helping with the Al Qaeda problem before they were stunned by Bush calling them the "Axis of Evil", and the events the happened there afterward).
Like I said before, if Bush had intent on prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and killing Ben Laden when they had him bottled up at Tora Bora , we may could have been out of there by now.
I know, shoulda, woulda, coulda !
Slick Willie had the guy on video courtesy of the CIA, never took the shot. They knew his whereabouts 5 times.

It is BS and Fox had nothing to do with it. Have you forgotten the unanimous backing of the Congress for Bush to do whatever it took?

If you sleep better thinking Bush was evil, so be it.

Facts state otherwise.
http://www.infowars.com/saved%...on_let_bin_laden.htm

December 5, 2001

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
* Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Slick Willie had the guy on video courtesy of the CIA, never took the shot. They knew his whereabouts 5 times.

It is BS and Fox had nothing to do with it. Have you forgotten the unanimous backing of the Congress for Bush to do whatever it took?

If you sleep better thinking Bush was evil, so be it.

Facts state otherwise.


Actually I have come to believe that Cheney was really the man in charge during the 1st 6 years of that admin and called the shots. Bush just didn't seem to care one way or another about much IMHO.
Actually Clinton did take one shot, and was criticized by the Republicans in Congress for doing so ; they called it "the tail wagging the dog".

I have not forgotten that the invasion of Iraq was approved by a majority in Congress, but it was NOT unanimous, and I for one knew it was wrong to do so, but the bobble headed , fox indoctrinated sheeple had me and a lot of other people outnumbered.
Don't forget that the admin outed a covert CIA agent over her husband stating the truth about the nuclear ambitions of Iraq which did not "fall in line' with the Bush narrative.

BTW, and little of this was ever made because the majority of the country was for the 1st Gulf War, don't forget that Bush1 actually hired an advertising agency which made up all that stuff about Iraqi soldiers tossing babies up and spearing them on bayonets. They then hired the daughter to the Iraqi minister to tell that, although she had not been in her home country in years and years. All lies made up to incite the people of the US to back that war. (I thought it was the right thing to do because Iraq invaded one of our allies)
The Bush's have a way of lying . It seems to be their nature.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Skipped right over Clinton's chances, didn't you?


You skipped right over the fact that Reagan actually financed him and helped arm him.

Also you seem to forget that a lot of the Taliban (but not UBL himself) were flown out of Northern Afghanistan in a large convoy of Pakistani air craft and flown to Pakistan. Such a large "convoy" could NOT have escaped the notice of the US who seemed to OK the "mission" for unknown reasons.
Is it joowahn or wahn? Do you believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If so, what happened to them before the UN-approved inspection? If not, how do you define "weapons of mass destruction" and why would Bush's top advisors say there were WMD's in Iraq?
These are sincere questions. Please answer them honestly.
quote:
Don't forget that the admin outed a covert CIA agent

Plame was not covert at the time and had not been for five years. Bush did not do that.

That was Dick Armitage who was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists. He told CBS that the special counsel investigating the leak, Patrick Fitzgerald, "asked me not to discuss this, and I honored his request."

After Novak's column ran, Wilson accused Bush administration officials of leaking his wife's name in retaliation for his criticisms about intelligence used to buttress the case for invading Iraq.
Well, if you believe her story she was covert, but I do love the little info included in her 60 Minute interview.

quote:
In 1998, she was working at headquarters, spying for the newest CIA division, counter-proliferation.

"Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys, basically, did not get nuclear weapons," Plame Wilson explains.

By the time her name was leaked in 2003, she was chief of operations for the CIA's joint task force Iraq, in charge of dozens of officers and analysts. It was before the Iraq war, and she was trying to find evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

At the time, Plame Wilson says this didn't sound so far-fetched. "It's not as though Saddam Hussein had not pursued this and had not used WMD on his own people," she says.
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
Is it joowahn or wahn? Do you believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If so, what happened to them before the UN-approved inspection? If not, how do you define "weapons of mass destruction" and why would Bush's top advisors say there were WMD's in Iraq?
These are sincere questions. Please answer them honestly.


There is no evidence that Saddam had a functional WMD weapons system. A few hundred artillery rounds found buried and leaking does not constitute a legitimate threat. Saddam bluffed because he was more afraid of Iran than of the UN...he misunderestimated BushII. The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel. All along, the real threat has been Iran, a country which has long range missiles and access to nukes from North Korea/China.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel.

That worked out really well so far hasn't it?

Where's the oil?
Where's the security?


After a lot of thought on the subject, I do believe a part of the reason was to stop the flow of cheap oil. Suddam was keeping the worlds oil prices down because he was pumping all he could and selling it cheap supposedly for food. While I do not believe it was the main reason, sadly I think it was factor.
The OPEC oil is controlled by a bunch of folks that are generally lazy and crazy. The mideast oil is by far the cheapest and easiest to extract and as long as they throttle their supplies, they can have a huge impact on world oil prices. When countries like Brazil, Nigeria and Argentina are fully online, the price will drop as those countries will probably be selling as much as they can pump. Mideast peace is dependent on neutralizing Iran, and neither BushII nor Obama had/have the nerve to start that fight.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel.

That worked out really well so far hasn't it?

Where's the oil?
Where's the security?


Oil is being pumped and sold as we type.(remember, nobody ever said we would get it for free, only that American oil companies would get the right to some of the oil fields)

Security is provided by the Chinese.

You really need to watch some of the documentaries on Link TV. That would explain a lot to you and we wouldn't have to do so much typing here.
Watch some of those conspiracy documentaries? No thanks.
I could read Time though.



U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields
By Vivienne Walt Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world...0.html#ixzz182jAUWjV
I agree with your article, like I said , the Chinese are there providing security for (their) oil.
That does not change the premise that Cheney encouraged the invasion of Iraq so that American oil companies would get the fields, just didn't happen to come out the way he wanted. Would possibly have worked out better for him if their original estimate on the war in Iraq would have been more accurate (greeted as liberators, pay for itself, etc)
Fortunately, his old company, Haliburton made (possibly) billions off the war in Iraq, and are still screwing the US as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
Is it joowahn or wahn? Do you believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If so, what happened to them before the UN-approved inspection? If not, how do you define "weapons of mass destruction" and why would Bush's top advisors say there were WMD's in Iraq?
These are sincere questions. Please answer them honestly.


There is no evidence that Saddam had a functional WMD weapons system. A few hundred artillery rounds found buried and leaking does not constitute a legitimate threat. Saddam bluffed because he was more afraid of Iran than of the UN...he misunderestimated BushII. The USA went to Iraq on a nation building mission to secure mideast oil and increase the security of Israel. All along, the real threat has been Iran, a country which has long range missiles and access to nukes from North Korea/China.


Well, you didn't exactly answer my questions. Hussein DID have WMD's and used a variety on his own people. US troops DID find evidence of weapons manufacturing in Iraq. Certain US troops received information from Iraqis detailing the three countries where Iraq's WMD's were sent. Just because liberal-run, main-stream media refuses to report all the truth all the time, you don't have to ignore it as well.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×