Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14315812)

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp


The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 14315940)

Maybe because some posting here are rich. Ever think of that?

And dude, what's with your avatars lately, are you a child?

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 14316068)

what does any other tax have to do with the fact that he lowered income taxes for the top bracket from 70% to the 20-something %'s?

oh...

nothing.

;)

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 14315521)

he (Buffett) paid: $78MILLION in taxes... (??? Correction: 17.7% tax on $46 million = $8,142,000)
she (Secretary) paid: $18,000 in taxes (On $60,000)

Where's the problem?

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 14315681)

Not the only - but certainly the most popular...... wouldn't ya agree?

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 14316077)

A) most are not as rich as they would like you to believe.

B) they can afford the taxes.

Oh yes I'm actually 8 years old.

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 14316657)

1) But some are.

2) Irrelivant. I'll say again, placing the burden of "the fucked up ecomomy" and massive deficit etc on the shoulders of the successful simply because "they can afford it" is a ridiculous non-solution that is born of short term thinking. Everyone should pay their fair share, period.

3. That's what I figured. An 8 yr old would think flying such an avatar "cool", but I had to ask just to be sure.

Thanks for your candor. :D

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14316730)

I asked this earlier in the thread but never got an answer so I'll ask you. To me the tax burden is a very complex question with, obviously, many opinions on how to do it.

Here, however, is my question. If the top 1% of the country controls 95% of the country's wealth should they then not be responsible for 95% of its taxes? How would this be unfair? If a person earns 95% of the money that is out there and taxes must be paid on that earned money why wouldn't they pay 95% of the taxes?

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14316730)

I asked this earlier in the thread but never got an answer so I'll ask you. To me the tax burden is a very complex question with, obviously, many opinions on how to do it.

Here, however, is my question. If the top 1% of the country controls 95% of the country's wealth should they then not be responsible for 95% of its taxes? How would this be unfair? If a person earns 95% of the money that is out there and taxes must be paid on that earned money why wouldn't they pay 95% of the taxes?

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14316778)

But they are not using 95% of the services the government provides.

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 14315521)

he paid: 17.7% on $46 million
she paid: 30% on 60,000

Where's the problem?

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 14316872)

Beat me to it.

Kane -- I'm kind of surprised by you on this. The fundamentals of your question are of a much too simplistic view of the argument. The simplistic answer I'm inclined to give is that if the gov't followed your model they would invariably be penalizing the successful for being successful. Now, where is the incentive for anyone else to become successful if the more they earn the more they are penalized (all the while watching other less successful, and all the welfare people, the lazy people, etc. get off with paying much lower %'s and in some cases 0.00!), and where is the incentive for the country's successful to stay in that country, or at the very least invest in it's economy, and keep their wealth inside the country?

Answer: none whatsoever.

Conversely, giving the wealthy the evil tax breaks that so many are critical of opens up doors for the truly successful. They are incentivized to do more business, hire more people, spend more money in the community and into the country's economy.

Tax them yes, but evenly, and fairly across the board. The bigger picture and long term projections say that doing this is always going to be better than simply raising their taxes to the tune of millions and in some cases billions simply because "they can afford it".

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14316778)

But they are not using 95% of the services the government provides.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317094)

They are, however, providing this wealth to the rich. Without buyers companies have nobody to sell stuff to. Without workers they have nobody to make their products which they then sell to the same people that are working for them. Basic business 101 is that you need a good team in order to grow your business. If 95% of the people helped make you rich what is wrong with you paying a little more in taxes and still being rich while leaving them some extra money to continue buying your stuff with?

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 14315903)

And you clearly don't have a clue.

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 14316921)

And then, when someone you know (or maybe a lot of people you know) get laid off from their long-held jobs at the factory, people again blame the rich guy at the top.

God forbid anyone place the blame where it belongs... on the shoulders of the government that decided it was the top 5% who should shoulder 95% of the economic burden so that the other 95% could...what?

And ultimately some of that blame has to fall on those who voted to elect that government.

But it's easier to blame the greedy rich guy. All rich people are greedy, after all. Right?

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317078)

In the end you can't have any discussion about taxes without talking about spending.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317078)

A flat tax will not work.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317078)

If you tax everyone at, say, 10% it may be fair, but it will not raise enough money to plug the bleeding holes of the governments accounting records. In the end if our government is going to continue to spend money like a drunk in a strip club you have to then do what is best for the economy. I read recently that 80% of the economy is made up from consumer spending. That means the working people that make up 95% of the tax payers in the country power the economy by buying shit that they don't need. If they have more money to spend they will and it will help improve the economy. Don't believe me? What do you think the recent economic stimulus check was all about? If you give them tax breaks they will continue to spend because they don't know any better. most people are natural born consumers. The rich will continue to get rich. Would an income tax raise on the rich drive some of them offshore? Possibly. But if you crank up taxes on the middle class it can bring the economy to screeching hault.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317123)

Dude, I think you are way off base on this one. The government and taxes are to blame for layoffs?

Originally Posted by kane (Post 14317094)

They are, however, providing this wealth to the rich. Without buyers companies have nobody to sell stuff to. Without workers they have nobody to make their products which they then sell to the same people that are working for them. Basic business 101 is that you need a good team in order to grow your business. If 95% of the people helped make you rich what is wrong with you paying a little more in taxes and still being rich while leaving them some extra money to continue buying your stuff with?

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14316778)

But they are not using 95% of the services the government provides.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14318012)

No one is holding a gun to their head and saying you have to buy such and such product. Those who are making money off the other 95% are doing so because they are smart and innovative. Why would you punish people for getting an education, working hard, and being innovative? Isn't that the kind of stuff we should be promoting in this country if we want it to continue to advance?

It's a moral issue to me. I just think it's unfair to demand a small percent of the population to pay for everyone else's services.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14318012)

It's a moral issue to me. I just think it's unfair to demand a small percent of the population to pay for everyone else's services.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 14318054)

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't mind handing over half of your income to the government every year just as long as poor people had to give half of their money to the government as well?

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 14318098)

FWIW, every industrialized (read: wealthy) nation has a progressive tax system, and wealthy Americans pay far less in taxes than their European counterparts.

The reason they all have a progressive (in your words, immoral) tax system is because it's the only way society can function and continue to prosper.
If you take more money from poor people, they will starve, and then they will riot and burn your cities and all of your wealth along with it.
If you don't take enough from the wealthy to fund the government, then the government cannot provide the services necessary to keep society moving.
If we have to shutter all of our military bases it won't be long before another country comes here and takes over and takes all of your wealth away from you. If we have to shutter all of our public schools and hospitals then it won't be long before society deteriorates into anarchy.

In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Welcome, to the real world.

Originally Posted by MovieMaster (Post 14315551)

June 11th

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

http://birdboard.com/taxbreakdown.jpg

Now before you come to a conclusion or judgment read the following below!




How Taxes Work

Since it is tax season....It's good to understand how taxes are paid.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since
you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work
out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything
at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier. Remember they are the ones who pay your wages, create jobs, and innovate.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


:clap:And We ask ourselves why all the jobs are leaving? We are forcing them to look elsewhere!

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell (Post 14318379)

Thank you for sharing, that was excellent.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14318219)

First, we don't exactly pay far less than other countries. Perhaps on paper we do with our federal income tax table, but not when you add in other taxes. Someone making a lot of money is automatically going to be hit with 35%, add in a state tax that can go up to 10% and you are sitting at close to 45% of your income. Lets not forget about our lovely payroll/self-employment tax. That's another 15% of your income down the tubes. If you happen to own a lovely home, you're looking at even more taxes. Depending on where you live, you could be paying up to 12% sales tax on every item you purchase.

And I understand the progressive system and why it's important. I just feel it's too progressive at the moment. It can be fixed by spending less. There is no reason we should be spending hundreds of millions on bridges to nowhere. On setting up teapot museums and Bear DNA studies. I have no problem paying in more than the next guy if it goes to such things as infrastructure, health care, and technology that can help advance our society. But I'm tired of being taxed to death so I can fund some bullshit war to get a bunch of crooks rich or other retarded pet projects.

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 14318421)

Ok well at least you seem to be willing to have a reasonable discussion about the issue unlike alot of other people.

On paying less than other countries, yes we do, substantially less than most industrialized nations.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp

We can totally agree, however, on wasteful government spending and the need to get rid of it.

I don't, however, agree with your point that the system is "too progressive" at the moment. This is the least progressive it's been in the modern era.
Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 50%. From 1988 to 1992 they were a bit lower than they are now, but for the vast majority of the post WWII era taxes have been much higher than they are right now.

Plus, and here's the thing most people don't get, income taxes are a red herring. They're a head fake.
The "real money" in this country isn't earned as income. It's not paid in the form of a salary or a bonus. The "real money" in this country comes from interest accumulating on interest, inheritance, and market speculation.
The money that comes from that is taxed at a different rate and under different rules, that most people don't understand.

You cry foul at the fact that you, or a doctor, or an attorney, has to pay 35% in federal income tax and social security and medicare and state tax on top of that, and don't stop to realize that hedge fund managers and people like Warren Buffet are only paying a 15% capital gains tax rate on the money they make. The same thing goes for most CEO's who get paid most of their money in the form of stock options.

Why do the republican anti-tax-istas think it's ok for a foreman in a mill making 50K a year to pay 28% in income tax and 8% in social security and medicare on top of that, but that someone like Paris Hilton shouldn't have to pay a penny in tax on the mega-millions that they inherit?

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 14318617)

I agree with the capital gains tax rate criticism. I've never understood why we determine that one form of making income is better than the other. Especially considering investing isn't what it used to be. We don't invest in companies for decades like the old days and hold on to the stock certificates. Investing changes everyday with companies being bought and sold by the same guy within minutes. The capital gains tax has been used as a way to abuse the tax system by paying CEO's and others in stock options.

But if you're going to raise that, then lower the regular tax rates. Our government shouldn't be out there looking for new revenue streams. They should be looking to limit expenses.

As for the progressive nature, you won't sway my opinion. I think it's too progressive right now despite how much worse it was years ago. I'm also someone who doesn't go to a bar with his buddies and point to the richest one and say "you're buying". Politicians turn this into rich vs poor when we should all be on the same side. It just seems immoral to me to punish someone who works hard, takes risks, and becomes succesful with his life.

Let me add one thing. The people that get fucked hardest by the tax system are young, self-employed, single people who make just over $75,000 a year. Not only do they pay 28% on their federal income and 2-10% on their state, but the full 15% for self employment tax. They have no real deductions, and their income level is just over the threshold requirements to deduct their student loan interest or receive a tax rebate from the government. They also can't deduct their health insurance like most Americans. They haven't been in the workforce long enough to build up equity to invest (and enjoy the capital gains rate) or buy a home (and deduct the interest).

Think about that. You're 26, out of medical school with $150,000 in loans. You're now paying half your income to the government, a crapload to the banks for school loans, all the while being told by the government you're too rich to get any of these rebates. The guy would have been better off not going to school, getting married, having 3 kids, and driving a UPS truck.

It's not the poor guy or the rich guy that gets fucked in our system, it's the young middle class one with an education.

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14315750)

You're not punishing success. Like I will say again higher taxes during clinton lots of fortunes were made.

Originally Posted by spunkmaster (Post 14318660)

You're the biggest democrat tool I've ever seen. If the DNC told you it's better to have a 2 inch dick you would agree with them and fight anyone who said otherwise !

Originally Posted by abadfish (Post 14315548)

I'd rather our govt spent BILLIONS in the United States on American citizens then in Iraq/elsewhere. I don't see what is so scary about helping our own people. Sure the system will be abused but it's still better then anything else.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 14315258)

You mean for the welfare state the democrats want to create?

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14318400)

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14318685)

Calling me names doesn't change we had a huge ...

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 14315524)

The logic only works when you're talking about 'successful' people who make $250k. If you penalize these people, you can put them in dire straits. You create a huge underclass by penalizing the middle class and upper middle class. If you increases taxes on the super rich, they're still super rich. How is that penalizing them? You think the super rich are going to jump ship because they make $2 billion instead of $3 billion?

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 14317109)

The problem is alot of people listen to pundits.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 14317111)

OH sure.... It's not secret.. Maybe you don't even realize you do it.

. . .

What is your draw to McCain? I feel voting for him is like voting for the bully that told you he is going to take your bike away, beat you up, and kick you in the balls. It's just illogical.