Middle Class Tax Increase

[The Scotsman]

what does not kill us will make us stronger

............ guess you're right....

anyway its 11.30 bedtime.....g'night Crystal

 

[Pandora]

............ guess you're right....

anyway its 11.30 bedtime.....g'night Crystal

Good night

 

[BigRob]

Awwwww, geeeeee.....you mean the 1%ers might (actually) have to help pay-for-the-War (from which they'd profitted, so greatly), anyhow??!!!!

They must be heart-broken.

In case you missed it, post the Bush tax cuts the "rich" paid even higher a % of the overall tax revenue.

In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmak*ers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's col*lective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers low*ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers. The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per*cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, mean*ing that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

 

[Lagboltz]

In case you missed it, post the Bush tax cuts the "rich" paid even higher a % of the overall tax revenue.

One reason that the wealthiest are paying a large part of the taxes is that they make so bloody much money. In 2006, the bottom 50% earned 12.8% of the total US income. The wealthiest 1% made almost twice that. Today it's even more slanted to the wealthy.

 

[BigRob]

One reason that the wealthiest are paying a large part of the taxes is that they make so bloody much money. In 2006, the bottom 50% earned 12.8% of the total US income. The wealthiest 1% made almost twice that. Today it's even more slanted to the wealthy.

So what? They earned it.

 

[Lagboltz]

So what? They earned it.

Well, I for one don't feel sorry for wealthy 1% if we roll back the taxes to what they were a decade or so ago. Just who are the wealthy? Actors, musicians, TV personalities, professional athletes, corporate executives... Largely American idols. I don't care about them at all. They have enough to last them several lifetimes. So, BigRob if you make over a quarter million dollars a year, you have the privilege of pissing on the rest of us. I am retired and on a fixed income and don't have that privilege.

 

[BigRob]

Well, I for one don't feel sorry for wealthy 1% if we roll back the taxes to what they were a decade or so ago.

Well you apparently want them to feel sorry for you and carry a larger tax burden for you.

Just who are the wealthy? Actors, musicians, TV personalities, professional athletes, corporate executives... Largely American idols. I don't care about them at all. They have enough to last them several lifetimes.

Who else falls into this category? Doctors, lawyers, small business owners. How about the married working couple in New York City making 250,000, they are certainly not "rich."

Doctors, lawyers, small business owners, and many others are among the hardest working people in the country. But instead we tell them that they "make to much money." It is bogus.

So, BigRob if you make over a quarter million dollars a year, you have the privilege of pissing on the rest of us. I am retired and on a fixed income and don't have that privilege.

My personal situation is irrelevant in the shaping of tax policy. What is relevant is economic growth. If you get a tax cut on a fixed income, are you going to go out and hire people or start a business? If someone making over a million a year gets a cut, the odds are much higher that they will invest it, or go out and start a business. That promotes growth.

 

[Lagboltz]

Well you apparently want them to feel sorry for you and carry a larger tax burden for you.

You know I don't care whether they feel sorry for me or not. That sort of retort is just juvenile.

Who else falls into this category? Doctors, lawyers, small business owners. How about the married working couple in New York City making 250,000, they are certainly not "rich." Doctors, lawyers, small business owners, and many others are among the hardest working people in the country. But instead we tell them that they "make to much money." It is bogus.

They are making over 6 times the median income. They are rich in my book. Half of Americans make less than $40,000 a year. I'm not saying $250,000 is making too much money, I'm just saying that I would like the taxes rolled back to pre-Bush days.

My personal situation is irrelevant in the shaping of tax policy. What is relevant is economic growth. If you get a tax cut on a fixed income, are you going to go out and hire people or start a business? If someone making over a million a year gets a cut, the odds are much higher that they will invest it, or go out and start a business. That promotes growth.

My personal situation is relevant. If I get a tax cut on a fixed income, I will have more money to patronize the new businesses that people start. There has to be a balance between the wealthy class and the lower class, otherwise the economy of the country will suffer. What we disagree on is the equilibrium point.

 

[BigRob]

You know I don't care whether they feel sorry for me or not. That sort of retort is just juvenile.

No more juvenile that advocating for rolling back taxes because you do not feel sorry for them. But this is not the issue.

They are making over 6 times the median income. They are rich in my book. Half of Americans make less than $40,000 a year. I'm not saying $250,000 is making too much money, I'm just saying that I would like the taxes rolled back to pre-Bush days.

Why do you want to see them rolled back? What do those rates do to promote growth or better the economy? I do not think it is valid to argue that since Clinton had a good economy, it was the tax rates that caused it.

My personal situation is relevant. If I get a tax cut on a fixed income, I will have more money to patronize the new businesses that people start. There has to be a balance between the wealthy class and the lower class, otherwise the economy of the country will suffer. What we disagree on is the equilibrium point.

Well, you most likely got a tax-cut under the Bush tax plan. You would most likely have gotten one under the McCain plan. Both of these plans give incentives to the middle class as well as the upper class. The Obama plan ignores the upper class and puts all the focus on the middle class.

I agree there should be balance, and I believe that there was under the Bush tax cuts. It has been since blown up into something it was not, but the actual cut was it was. I do not see any balance under the Obama plan, I simply see an Obama plan that puts a higher burden on those starting the business and makes points of entry into the market harder to find.

It does no one any good if you have money to spend and no one able to start a business to sell you anything. Keep in mind that your tax cuts will be paid for (in theory) by rolling back the Bush cuts and through corporate tax. So, you will get your refund, and will lose any savings in the higher price that a corporation puts on you to make up for their own tax increase. This causes companies to move away, and people to actually be worse off. I see it as lose-lose, unless the plan changes somewhat.

 

[Lagboltz]

Why do you want to see them rolled back? What do those rates do to promote growth or better the economy? I do not think it is valid to argue that since Clinton had a good economy, it was the tax rates that caused it.

Not only did Clinton have a good economy, but he had a slight budget surplus. Some conservatives argue that he did not, but even then they argue only a slight deficit.

Well, you most likely got a tax-cut under the Bush tax plan. You would most likely have gotten one under the McCain plan. Both of these plans give incentives to the middle class as well as the upper class. The Obama plan ignores the upper class and puts all the focus on the middle class.

Well, yes, he ignores the upper class in the sense that he gives them an even higher tax rate.

I agree there should be balance, and I believe that there was under the Bush tax cuts. It has been since blown up into something it was not, but the actual cut was it was. I do not see any balance under the Obama plan, I simply see an Obama plan that puts a higher burden on those starting the business and makes points of entry into the market harder to find.

If Joe the Plumber was looking at buying or starting a business, he would have all sorts of tax breaks -- payroll, capitol equipment, gas, and many other business deductions. Of course, right now he would have a problem getting business loans, but if after all that he still netted $250,000, I would call him rich. Ordinarily, he would use the excess money to grow the business further while getting tax write-offs. I was involved in 3 start-up companies (not as a financial person), and believe me, taxes are not the major financial problem in the first years.

It does no one any good if you have money to spend and no one able to start a business to sell you anything.

Well, 80% of employment in the US is in the service industries, and a large number of retail businesses buy manufactured products from overseas. We will always have something to buy, but we need more manufacturing here in order to stem the $2 billion loss per day in balance of trade, but that is a digression.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I dont think so, only a total fool would believe this man that he can come through with all the candy he promised and lower your taxes too.

Ah, yes.....give us some more o' that Iraqi-Oil Will Pay For Their Own Reconstruction-Agenda.

You folks did great, with that prediction....and, Dick Cheney's deferred-compensation (from Halliburton) is a good example, of that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Letting the tax cuts EXPIRE is the same as increasing taxes. Duh. Turn the words any way you like, it means people bring home less in their paychecks and have less to live on!

.....Which is what tax-cuts, for the 1%ers, have gotten us.

I guess you haven't noticed. You still livin' with Mom & Dad??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

he seemed so nice, and so cute and i loved his speech here in the states, i was admittedly dazzeled by him....

Spoken like a true Palin-fan.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In case you missed it, post the Bush tax cuts the "rich" paid even higher a % of the overall tax revenue.

Heyyyyyy.....I can do that, too!!!

In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 1 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid 99% of all income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to the 1%ers, because God insisted-upon-it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So what? They earned it.

Earned suggests there was some kind o' work involved.