Skip to main content

23 replies

Yes, Tax the Rich.

Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
According to the Christian Science Monitor:

quote:
Thus, on the basis of current law, in 2011 the extension of the Bush tax cuts to all Americans would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected. Extending the cuts to households making over $250,000 a year accounts for $32 billion of that.

Over 10 years, the total revenue loss from the tax cuts comes to $3.9 trillion, according to the US Treasury.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P...-the-federal-deficit
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

skippy delepepperskippy delepepperOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
According to the Christian Science Monitor:

quote:
Thus, on the basis of current law, in 2011 the extension of the Bush tax cuts to all Americans would result in a $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the US Treasury compared to what had been expected. Extending the cuts to households making over $250,000 a year accounts for $32 billion of that.

Over 10 years, the total revenue loss from the tax cuts comes to $3.9 trillion, according to the US Treasury.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P...-the-federal-deficit

______________________________________________________________________________

To start with mister head,

I'ts not the gov't's money to start with. They didn't earn it.
You can't raise taxes on the very people who create the jobs of
Americans who in turn pay taxes on the very incomes that were
created by the rich. More jobs, more income for the gov't thru
payroll taxes. Pretty logical to me. Cut gov't expenses. Cut gov't
hand-outs to pet projects and thoses taking advantage of the system.
Cut gov't waste in general. We need to take a magnifying glass to were
all this money goes. Look at all the un-accounted for so called
stimullus money. The rich create jobs when the gov't doesn't tax
them to death. Mad

Keep Marching,
Skippy
skippy delepepperskippy delepepperOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The highest rate of 5 year average GDP growth in recent history was 1996-2000, when taxes were higher and budget deficits were zero.

__________________________________

The deficits were zero because of the dangerous
cuts in our military. The same cuts we had to reverse after we were attacked. It's easy to zero out a deficit when you strip our military.
The same military that protects us from the dangerous countries and faction around the world. Somalia was a disgrace. And so was Clinton. I wonder if they were able to ever get the stains out of the carpet. Big Grin

Keep Marching,
Skippy
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
The highest rate of 5 year average GDP growth in recent history was 1996-2000, when taxes were higher and budget deficits were zero.


I think you are forgetting the intergovernmental holdings that Clinton used to "balance" the budget. Everyone could have a balanced budget if one counts borrowed money.

As to the Clinton tax increases, everyone tends to forget the Clinton era tax cuts that included capital gains tax cuts that are tax cuts for the rich (and a few pensioners).

quote:
he Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.

The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

The Clinton tax policies of the early '90s were based on rate increases and luck -- the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.
http://www.americanthinker.com...clinton_economy.html
Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
BushIIe used the same acconting tricks, and had deficits of $150billion to $500billion. Clinton managed to get deficits of zero.

Repeal of the BushIIe cuts would result in a capital gains rate of 20%, not 28%. So bring on the tax increasing prosperity!!!!!!

Its simple...we are at war...the rich are going to have to sacrifice like generations have during previous wars. Why are the current rich not patriotic Americans???????
b50mb50mOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Bush had two wars to fight, Clinton shot a few missiles for fun.


And for the first time in history, taxes were cut during wartime RATHER than raised. War is the reason we even have an income tax, a tax that was supposed to be temporary.


There was also that little problem of the housing collapse and the dot com bust.
if the income tax was supposed to be temporary, what was supposed to fund the government?
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
Repeal of the BushIIe cuts would result in a capital gains rate of 20%, not 28%. So bring on the tax increasing prosperity!!!!!!


Lets see here, using the numbers from The Christian Science Monitor the super rich who make more than $250000/year would pay an extra 320 billion dollars into the Treasury over ten years (Assuming that they don't use the thousands of pages of tax code to hide the loot.). This years projected deficit is 1.6 Trillion dollars for just one year! Ten years of taxing the super rich will only amount to 20% of one year of Obama's deficit.

So what about the "regular rich" like the guy stocking the shelves at Wally World. Since his contribution to the deficit from the Bush tax cuts is in the 3 Trillion dollars over ten years range, he would help pay for 2 years of deficits at the present rate or 3 years at 1 Trillion/year. At best, only 30% of the shortfall, assuming that the decrease in real wages doesn't effect the national economy.

In short, the only way out is to cut spending to only the necessary functions of government and to encourage capitalists to grow their businesses. Leeches won't survive very long if the host runs out of blood.
Opie CunninghamOpie CunninghamPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by skippy delepepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
The highest rate of 5 year average GDP growth in recent history was 1996-2000, when taxes were higher and budget deficits were zero.

__________________________________

The deficits were zero because of the dangerous
cuts in our military. The same cuts we had to reverse after we were attacked. It's easy to zero out a deficit when you strip our military.
The same military that protects us from the dangerous countries and faction around the world. Somalia was a disgrace. And so was Clinton. I wonder if they were able to ever get the stains out of the carpet. Big Grin

Keep Marching,
Skippy


Where was the Military on 9/11 ?
HIFLYER2HIFLYER2Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Bush had two wars to fight, Clinton shot a few missiles for fun.


Two wars, one of which was of the Neo-cons and Cheney's making. Completely unjustified.


What about the current killer in office he bombed Libya "a act of war" with out congressional approval.
The PropagandistThe PropagandistPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
Doing the math (33 billion divided by the total of 300 billion X 100) shows that the super rich, those with incomes over $250,000, would get 11% of the tax cut. The regular rich, those working a job, get 89% of the Bush tax cut.


Less than 2% of taxpayers get 11% of the tax break? That should tell you how much money is piling up at the higher incomes.

http://thebrooksreport.org/wealth/

http://thebrooksreport.org/wealth/wealth-in-america/

One thing people forget about graduated income tax is that everybody in each bracket pays the same. For 2010, Married Filing Jointly, it doesn't matter if you make $20 thousand or $20 million, your first $16,750 is taxed at 10% -- for everybody. And so on throughout the tax brackets. You don't start paying the higher percentage until you reach a certain level.

Think of it as your income being counted out into separate boxes, each taxed at a different rate. Only income over $373,650 is taxed at 35%.
You don't reach that percentage of taxation until you reach that level of income -- and only on that income in excess of that amount. All other income is taxed at the lesser amounts of lower tax brackets.

2010 IRS Tax Brackets
The below 2010 tax tables are the projected federal income tax brackets for 2010:

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly
10% Bracket $0 – $16,750
15% Bracket $16,750 – $68,000
25% Bracket $68,000 – $137,300
28% Bracket $137,300 – $209,250
33% Bracket $209,250 – $373,650
35% Bracket $373,650+
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/index.html
Last edited by The Propagandist
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
Less than 2% of taxpayers get 11% of the tax break? That should tell you how much money is piling up at the higher incomes.


Forgetting something aren't you. A rather large percentage of lower income people pay no income taxes after deductions:

From: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...567323.html?x=0&.v=1
quote:
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.


quote:
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
The PropagandistThe PropagandistPost Master
Many social programs that would have been provided by program agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services are now delivered by the IRS. Consider that the EITC, the cash-assistance program for working-age families, is about as big as Food Stamps. More families benefit from the child and dependent care tax credit than from Head Start or subsidized child care. More families with children in college are eligible for college tax credits than for subsidized student loans or Pell grants.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that income tax filing really combines two functions: taxes and transfers. The Tax Policy Center estimated that before deducting special tax breaks more than 80% of households owe income tax. The one-fifth of households with no tax liabilities are almost all poor (removing them from the income tax rolls was an explicit policy decision of President Reagan in the 1986 tax reform).

That leaves 27% who do not owe income taxes because their subsidies are at least as great as their liability. They are not by any means the greatest beneficiaries of IRS-administered largesse. Tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction, state and local tax deductions, deduction for charitable contributions and exclusion of contributions to pensions, 401(k) plans and employer-sponsored health insurance are much, much bigger and disproportionately flow to those with higher incomes.

Given that low-income tax subsidies are raising the reward to work, helping families support children and pay for childcare, and providing assistance with higher education expenses, it's neither surprising nor disturbing that they are significant relative to income (and tax liability).

But I do think there is a problem with the way we account for tax subsidies for people at all income levels. We should break out the tax collection and social program functions of the IRS. It would be a big boost to transparency, might build support for tax reform and might dampen the tiresome rhetoric about tax system freeloaders.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/...tors-len-burman.html
thenagelthenagelPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Bush had two wars to fight, Clinton shot a few missiles for fun.


And for the first time in history, taxes were cut during wartime RATHER than raised. War is the reason we even have an income tax, a tax that was supposed to be temporary.


social security and walfare were supposed to be temporary as well. stopgap measuers emplaced during the depression..
and yet, we are still arguing about them....

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×