BF2S Forums Democrats & Republicans

Skruples wrote:

I believe Marconius' point was that the tax policy of this administration heavily favors the wealthy, and statistics agree. Why not do a little reading:
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm

Thank you for that Skruples. However I have to point how shallow your point is, any reduction in taxes is going to benefit the wealthy because THEY are the carrying the largest portion of our tax system.

THE POOR DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES....THEY GET THEM BACK + MORE.



A new CBO report produced at the request of congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners. Increased! It increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners, while decreasing the tax share of lower and middle income groups. This always happens. Every time you lower the marginal rates they end up paying more, because they report more income, and there's more tax on the income because the rates are lower, so they're reporting more income. They pay more taxes. Their share of the total bite increases even though their tax rate goes down. This has always been the case. That's the whole point of supply-side economics. You know, this is what's never ceased to amaze me. The Democrats have always run around and said the rich need to pay their fair share. They're paying more than their fair share! And every tax cut they get they end up paying even more, of more of their fair share.

The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Law, 2001 to 2014, shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, the top 5% of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes. As a result of the tax cuts since 2001, all taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts. While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, the CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20% of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts.

Because when you take it down to the lower 20%, you're into the income levels where you people are still being paid with withholding, it's not all -- independent contractor -- the point is that they report more income. They shelter less, they report more income, and the rate comes down, and tax revenue increases. And since their taxes, even though the percentage is higher. So the amount of money taken from them in taxes is higher. It's all common sense. It never has ceased to amaze me how people don't get this.

They get stuck on these percentages and they get stuck on the size of a tax cut, and they say, well, somebody making $400,000 a year gets a tax cut of $4,000, and somebody making $16,000 gets a tax cuts of $250. How's that fair? Somebody gets $4,000 and they don't need it. They don't need it. That's nobody's job to tell you who and what you don't need, especially not the government's. And that's what they focus on and everybody gets sidetracked.

Here are the numbers. You'll be stunned. The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. The top 20%.

Now, if you're going to have a tax cut that is broad-based and reaches 78% of the people, I'm sorry, you're going to be cutting taxes on the top 20%. It's unavoidable! And guess what? It worked! It stimulated the economy.

As a personal anecdote, last year I stopped working full-time in order to finish up my fourth degree. The income of my household dropped to less than $40,000. Not only did I get everything back, I received an additional $2,500.

p.s. I found your reading materials to be heavily liberally biased. A google search revealed....

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Liberal policy organization specializing in federal budget issues from a low-income perspective.

reading assignment for you:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/ec … /index.htm
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/baily0406.pdf <-----look at GDP numbers since 2000
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Skruples wrote:

I believe Marconius' point was that the tax policy of this administration heavily favors the wealthy, and statistics agree. Why not do a little reading:
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm

Thank you for that Skruples. However I have to point how shallow your point is, any reduction in taxes is going to benefit the wealthy because THEY are the carrying the largest portion of our tax system.

THE POOR DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES....THEY GET THEM BACK + MORE.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/573/ … xes8gq.jpg

A new CBO report produced at the request of congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners. Increased! It increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners, while decreasing the tax share of lower and middle income groups. This always happens. Every time you lower the marginal rates they end up paying more, because they report more income, and there's more tax on the income because the rates are lower, so they're reporting more income. They pay more taxes. Their share of the total bite increases even though their tax rate goes down. This has always been the case. That's the whole point of supply-side economics. You know, this is what's never ceased to amaze me. The Democrats have always run around and said the rich need to pay their fair share. They're paying more than their fair share! And every tax cut they get they end up paying even more, of more of their fair share.

The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Law, 2001 to 2014, shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, the top 5% of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes. As a result of the tax cuts since 2001, all taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts. While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, the CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20% of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts.

Because when you take it down to the lower 20%, you're into the income levels where you people are still being paid with withholding, it's not all -- independent contractor -- the point is that they report more income. They shelter less, they report more income, and the rate comes down, and tax revenue increases. And since their taxes, even though the percentage is higher. So the amount of money taken from them in taxes is higher. It's all common sense. It never has ceased to amaze me how people don't get this.

They get stuck on these percentages and they get stuck on the size of a tax cut, and they say, well, somebody making $400,000 a year gets a tax cut of $4,000, and somebody making $16,000 gets a tax cuts of $250. How's that fair? Somebody gets $4,000 and they don't need it. They don't need it. That's nobody's job to tell you who and what you don't need, especially not the government's. And that's what they focus on and everybody gets sidetracked.

Here are the numbers. You'll be stunned. The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. The top 20%.

Now, if you're going to have a tax cut that is broad-based and reaches 78% of the people, I'm sorry, you're going to be cutting taxes on the top 20%. It's unavoidable! And guess what? It worked! It stimulated the economy.

As a personal anecdote, last year I stopped working full-time in order to finish up my fourth degree. The income of my household dropped to less than $40,000. Not only did I get everything back, I received an additional $2,500.

p.s. I found your reading materials to be heavily liberally biased. A google search revealed....

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Liberal policy organization specializing in federal budget issues from a low-income perspective.

reading assignment for you:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/ec … /index.htm
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/baily0406.pdf <-----look at GDP numbers since 2000
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

post of the month.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Thanks fleder, i was waiting to get home to a broader bandwidth to post something like that, in truth, EVERY taxpayer in America has received no less than 3 tax cuts under the current administration, no matter what income bracket they fall into, this allows for more small business investment and small business, despite what the Enron focused media would have you believe, is the driving force behind the American economic machine

The "evil rich" still pay a grotesquely disproportionate amount of the federal tax revenue, when I do get home to that broader bandwidth I will post some links, I will probably post new instead of editing here

Do you realize that the rich don't pay disproportionately more than anyone else?  Sure, they like to point to the pretty pie chart that says how much of total revenue collected they paid, but the story lies in what they don't tell you.  They don't tell you how much should have been collected.  They also don't tell you that when all is said and done, after their accountants, tax advisers, and tax attorneys get all done is that what they pay as a percentage of their income is lower than many uppder-middle class earners.

What this really shows is the growing divide between the haves and have nots.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you really think the wealthy have shouldered a harsh burden when it comes to taxes, I suggest you actually find out what they don't want you to know.

http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/index.htm

So, in essence the charts are correct except for the fact they should have paid MORE?

I have said it before and I'll say it again. If you are not happy with what you are making, go back to school, there are a plethora of federally subsidized programs, pick a field that is in demand (i.e. not basket weaving) and do what it takes to graduate and get yourself in position to make more money. Stop worrying about what everyone else is making and stop trying to take it from them with the police power of government (gunpoint).

"Today 20:37:23 -1 Democrats & Republicans you and getting pussy are mutually exclusive  "

you are absolutely correct, since I am male, you cannot get any pussy from me

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Skruples wrote:

I believe Marconius' point was that the tax policy of this administration heavily favors the wealthy, and statistics agree. Why not do a little reading:
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/1-30-06tax2.htm

Thank you for that Skruples. However I have to point how shallow your point is, any reduction in taxes is going to benefit the wealthy because THEY are the carrying the largest portion of our tax system.
<truncated>

Point taken, and well put. I apologize if my original post seemed curt, but I was in a bit of a hurry.

I would point out that the same 50% that pays most of the taxes constitutes almost the same percentage of the total income (about 94%, according to the 2003 IRS income tax report), and the bottom 50% of earners constitute only ~6% of the total taxable income. That is a topic for another thread, however.

After an hour of looking through IRS reports, you appear to be largely correct. If I come away from this with one thing, it is a pounding headache coupled with a profound desire to never get involved in tax discussion again.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Do you realize that the rich don't pay disproportionately more than anyone else?  Sure, they like to point to the pretty pie chart that says how much of total revenue collected they paid, but the story lies in what they don't tell you.  They don't tell you how much should have been collected.  They also don't tell you that when all is said and done, after their accountants, tax advisers, and tax attorneys get all done is that what they pay as a percentage of their income is lower than many uppder-middle class earners.

What this really shows is the growing divide between the haves and have nots.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you really think the wealthy have shouldered a harsh burden when it comes to taxes, I suggest you actually find out what they don't want you to know.

http://www.perfectlylegalthebook.com/index.htm

So, in essence the charts are correct except for the fact they should have paid MORE?

I have said it before and I'll say it again. If you are not happy with what you are making, go back to school, there are a plethora of federally subsidized programs, pick a field that is in demand (i.e. not basket weaving) and do what it takes to graduate and get yourself in position to make more money. Stop worrying about what everyone else is making and stop trying to take it from them with the police power of government (gunpoint).

I don't know much at all about the ins and outs of US tax laws in particular, and I haven't read the book on the site Agent_Dung_Bomb links to, but I'm finding all this very interesting anyway.  I have no reason to doubt what anyone's saying either here or on that site, but for all the apparent disagreement, it doesn't all strike me as necessarily incompatible.

I note that although the book has supposedly been praised by Ralph Nader -- which might ring a few warning bells -- the author's credentials appear to be in order.  What he's saying seems to square with how I understand the US tax system to compare with those of other G8 countries.  In other words, that there is a much bigger gap between rich and poor in the US.

Of course, the gap is growing everywhere, but the rate is apparently much faster in the US.  Don't think I'm judging, or complaining -- many of my friends would make more money doing the same jobs in the US; in fact I know many people who have moved there for that very reason, and I would be lying if I said I have never considered it...    But bear with me, here...
---------------------------

There's a longstanding cultural belief here in Canada that we take care of the most vulnerable in our society -- not because we're a buncha hippies (well, I'm not) -- but because we think growing an underclass will end up costing us more in the long run.  I personally am skeptical of the extent to which we actually "extend a hand", but it's a cornerstone of Canadian self-perception, so it has a real effect regardless.

Equally, the US has a long tradition of viewing itself primarily as a self-made, self-sufficient, meritocratic society, where success comes to those who work for it.  Obviously, this view is to some extent common in all capitalistic societies, but in the US this entrepreneurial self-perception predominates at every level.  So much so, it almost seems to constitute a kind of national religion.

Anyway, I'm fascinated by cultural differences and their relative effects on policy.  But I'm also fascinated by the use of perception of cultural difference to achieve a particular political result.  Just as Canada's fabled social safety net seems to consistently let whole neighbourhoods slip through, I'm open to the idea that economic realities in the US might vary from the conventional view.

Either way, I think Darth's advice is good, wherever you live.  If you want to make more money, take advantage of the plethora of federally subsidized programs, and go back to school.  With any luck, you can then get a job that pays well enough to provide sufficient tax revenue for the next round of people who need those federally subsidized programs to improve their situation.

Build that pie higher! 

splixx wrote:

They are all corrupt what else do you need to know?

and they cannot lie straight in bed