Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Where’s the 15% tax cut? Has anybody seen it?

Posted 2 years ago on March 5, 2012, 7:06 a.m. EST by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In the summer of 2000 George W Bush travels the country promising; “to lower the lowest tax rate to 10%”, the lowest tax rate at the time was 15% covering the first $27,050 (S), $45,200 (M), to 10%.

Conservatives often pointed out that the Bush plan gave a 33% reduction to working class (15% to 10%) and only a 11.5% reduction (39.1% to 35%, he was fighting for more here) for those making over $300,000/yr.

When the plan was passed a new tax rate of 10% had been created, but only covering the first $6,000 (S), $12,000 (M), resulting in a 7.2% reduction on the first $27,950 (S), and a 8.6% reduction on first $46,700 (M) both much less than the 11.5% reduction for the wealthy.

This resulted in the number of tax brackets going from 5 to 6. None of the people who had cried for a “flat tax” with fewer tax brackets complained; none of the people who had for years championed the wonderful effects of marginal tax relief complained that most Americans wouldn’t be getting marginal tax relief. None of the “liberals” said anything.

Coming back to that $300,000 level, given that we live in a time where one person stands to pick up 28 billion and the guy that painted his walls is picking up 200 million, 28 billion is a LOT more than 200 million and they’re both a lot more than $300,000 maybe the tax ladder could stand a few more rungs.

154 Comments

154 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Here's a link to a graph that will show you why they didn't cut the 15% rate and why they didn't say anything about it.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are leaving some information out. You do not have to pay taxes or even file a return if you are under 65

  1. Single and make less than $9,500
  2. Married and make less than $19,000

If you are over 65:

  1. Single $10,950
  2. Married $21,300

http://tinyurl.com/7xzlb9g

Bush also included an Alternative Minimum Tax as a way to ensure that wealthy people were not paying zero taxes by taking advantage of deductions and loopholes. The result was increased tax revenue. http://tinyurl.com/3bhpc6r

I am not a tax expert however from what I have seen a flat tax of 18% (0% on the first $25,000i) with no other deductions would bring in even more money, lower taxes in the middle class and increase taxes on the rich who use loopholes to pay less than 18%.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Before we change the rates let's get rid of the loopholes, that part always seems the hardest. So just close the loopholes, when we know they're tight then we will know what the rate needs to be to cover the "bills".

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Or put another way, let's add some tax brackets, Bush did it in 2001 so it must be a good thing.

[-] -2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What do you expect, Bush was a liberal progressive.

[-] 5 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So we should definitely let his tax cut expire. I agree.

[-] -2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I guess you missed the part where the tax revenue went up even though the rate went down. http://tinyurl.com/3bhpc6r

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So we don't need to cut spending, what with all that tax cut money rolling in, right?

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

No spending has been going up faster than revenue so the deficit is increasing (especially in the past three years).

Here is the deficit in BILLIONS each year for the past 10 years.

  1. 2003 -377.6
  2. 2004 -412.7
  3. 2005 -318.3
  4. 2006 -248.2
  5. 2007 -160.7
  6. 2008 -458.6
  7. 2009 -1,412.7
  8. 2010 -1,293.5
  9. 2011 -1,645.1
  10. 2012 -1,245.0 (predicted)

Something happened in 2009 but I am not sure what.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

We were balanced before Bush came in back in 2001, guess that tax cut is what happened.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually revenues were going up until the housing crash in 2008.

http://tinyurl.com/7v3pjsy

The spending went up faster than the revenue. That's what happens when you bail your buddies out wilt loans and stimulus and screw the citizens.

I am tired of giving more than 50% of my money to these assholes. That is what it is after federal tax, state tax, payroll tax, sales tax, SSI tax, Medicare tax, SUI tax, phone tax, utilities tax, car registration, property tax.

Go for a walk, they'll tax your feet.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You should talk to Romney; he gives less than 14%.

Maybe if he paid a little more you could pay a little less, that’s what this whole thing is about. Welcome aboard.

Now let’s get out there and kick some Republicans out of office!!!

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually the problem is the spending not the revenue.

If you taxed and took 100% of the income from the 1% it would not even cover 1/4 of the deficit.

No more crony capitalism. No more hand out. Why give the politicians more money to give to their friends???

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Actually the problem is the Republican party.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The top rate has dropped from 90% to 15%.

In 1993 we passed a budget which was “the world’s largest tax increase” and huge spending cuts which led to a balanced budget, without a single Republican vote.

Then the GOP cut taxes and screwed it all up.

If all the GOP would sign a pledge that they would never again cut taxes, maybe we could work something out, but as it is even if we fix things we know that the GOP will screw it up. So we got to get rid of the Republicans first if we want to fix this thing.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am not sure what country you live in the top tax rate has not been 90% since 1963.

The largest tax increase in history was in 1931 when the rate went from 25% to 63% and of course we had the Great Depression for the next ten years.

Actually the budget was not balanced until three years after the republicans took over congress in 1995.

Year....Budget Surplus/Deficit

  1. 1993 -255.1
  2. 1994 -203.2
  3. 1995 -164.0
  4. 1996 -107.4
  5. 1997 -21.9
  6. 1998 69.3
  7. 1999 125.6
  8. 2000 236.2

The budget balance has more to do with cutting spending. After 9/11 we spent a ton of money on wars.

I just don't believe in giving the government our money because they seem to be so good at wasting it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How did Romney my pay less than 14% on 20 million anyway?

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I have no idea what that has to do with balancing the budget. Especially since he was never in congress.

HOWEVER:

  1. He made most of it via investments and capital gains is at 15%.
  2. He gave $7 million to charity.
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course this post is about tax fairness, or more to the point it's about how the GOP lies about their tax cuts to get them passed then screw the working man in the back room.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

How was the working man screwed.

Clinton lowered the capital gains tax which is what everyone like Warren Buffet and Co is talking about these days.

The working man pays virtually no taxes on the first $20,000. The bottom 53% pay no federal income tax. There are also many programs for the working class.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So let's see, yes I checked there was time before 1963 good I was worried.

Let me check one more thing yes during the last 6 years of his Presidency Bill Clinton repeatedly had to veto efforts by the GOP to bust the budget with tax cuts.

Thank you for checking I was pretty sure my facts were correct, thank you for proving them.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually your facts are not correct.

The top tax rate never went below 31% You were talking about 1993. In 1993 there was a $255 BILLION deficit which is not balanced.

Finally your assumption is that we need to tax and spend more is wrong. We need to let people keep more of their money and stop spending it on wars, crony capitalism, and providing paychecks for losers who did not save for their retirement years.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Or we could go back to the tax rates of the 1950's when the economy really grew great.

[-] -1 points by OWSJesus (20) 2 years ago

Ron Paul caused the sharp increase in the deficit by voting not to spend money that would have decreased the debt after a sizable ROI was realized. Are you stupid or what?

Borrowing one's way out of debt is the new financial savvy and prosperity.

Vote Obama.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ron Paul didn't cause anything he's just one vote for now, of course if he gets to put in judges that believe your boss should deflower your bride then he will be getting his stuff done for real.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Here is the federal budget deficit in BILLIONS each year for the past 10 years.

  1. 2003 -377.6
  2. 2004 -412.7
  3. 2005 -318.3
  4. 2006 -248.2
  5. 2007 -160.7
  6. 2008 -458.6
  7. 2009 -1,412.7
  8. 2010 -1,293.5
  9. 2011 -1,645.1
  10. 2012 -1,245.0 (predicted)

Something happened in 2009 but I am not sure what.

ɐɯɐqo ǝʇoʌ

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

TARP.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

TARP was bad but that was a loan program much of which was paid back with interest. What is worse is the "stimulus" spending since then which is not loans and will not be paid back. Many companies with ties to politicians received hundreds of millions in "stimulus" spending. Also the military spending makes up a big piece of the pie.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You're saying that the effect of TARP would not be in these deficit numbers? If it's not TARP in 09, then I don't know what.

Maybe there was something "reserved" ? And the stimulus spending.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That is correct. TARP would not be in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 numbers, The loans were made in 2008 under Bush. In fact the banks were paying the money back with interest in 2009 and 2010.

The government earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years.

We did loose some in 2009. The Treasury lost about $17 billion on the separate $80 billion TARP payout to Detroit automakers.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'm thinking it's stimulus. But it might be helpful to look at revenue and spending separately to see what happened.

[-] -1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

Ok, so you are agreeing that Ron Paul caused all this with his meddling in the Fed and not voting to spend enough money? I'm pretty sure I understand you now, and I really want to.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

LOL

My wife tells me the same thing. If she puts more on the credit card our debt will go down. As long as we keep charging on the Visa more than we earn we will be OK.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That was the Laffer curve that turned out to be a real laugher.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course I'm talking about taxable income.

You seem to know enough, to understand "marginal tax rate" yet you don't address it, do you think that marginal tax relief is not important?

Has it never been important?

Would you and others call it "across the board" if there was no marginal tax relief for those making over a million a year?

I think not, this is where the lie lies.

Here's a link to who really pays taxes:

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Joe I see you don't deign what he did, just pointing out that it was still fair even though he told a bunch of lies to do it?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Single and make less than $9,500

yeah

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If you make more than that you still do not pay income tax on the first $9,500.

And that is your adjusted gross income which is after you take the standard deduction of $5,950 so you do not pay any taxes on the first $15,540. If you deduct other things like education expenses you pay even less.

So if you made 15,540 you pay $0 federal income tax.

If you made $27,000 and only took the standard deduction your tax would be: (27,000 - 15,540) = (11,460 * 0.1) = $1,146

Then you get to take out the Earned income tax credit which is a minimum of $464 so your tax would be 1,146 - 464 = $682.

That is without deducting and expenses like education, child care..

That is why most lower and middle income people get money BACK when they file their taxes.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

unless they make nothing

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Well why should you pay taxes if you make nothing?

On the other hand, if you make nothing then you can collect unemployment, welfare, food stamps and get these for free:

  1. Career Development Assistance
  2. Child Care/Child Support
  3. Counsel/Counseling
  4. Disability Assistance
  5. Education/Training
  6. Energy Assistance
  7. Scholarships
  8. Healthcare
  9. Housing Insurance
  10. Living Assistance
  11. Loan/Loan Repayment
  12. Medicaid/Medicare
  13. Social Security
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

i died in the paper work

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Boy you have an excuse for everything. You sound like my brother who still lives at home with my parents at 32 years old.

My mom said she thinks he is depressed. I told her yes, he's depressed into the couch!

I find it interesting that the slackers are always complaining about how much the achievers make or pay in taxes.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they ain't

don't give a crap about airport regulations neither

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If you put the kitchen sink in the bathtub you ain't gonna have no soap.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

soap don't got nothing to do with plumbing

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

The problem with a flat tax is that a rate of 18% is insufficient; raise it sufficiently and the working class will starve.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually estimates I have seen are that 15% would bring on more money.

Also, 0% on the first $25,000 would be great for the working class.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

And why give them a pass?

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Give who a pass? I would like to give everyone a pass.

I am tired of giving more than 50% of my earnings to the government so the politicians can waste it and give it to their friends as subsidies. That is what we pay when you consider Federal tax, state tax, property tax, SSI, medicare, SUI, WDEV, phone tax, utilities tax, car registration, sales tax, and about 50 other taxes.

It's time for a tax revolt!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What did you do in 02 to keep them out of Iraq? When have you demanded prison reform?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Boy this board is getting really stale it we are commenting on posts that are 2 months old.

How the hell could I stop them from going into Iraq? They do what they please. They use our money to fund their wars and give hand outs to their friends.

I know you don't like him but this is a great speech made before congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7zCWAmO9OM

No other congressman would ever have the balls to speak this truth.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

My current total tax bill is at least 40 - 45% of my income and I'm not even in the AMT bracket - the lower middle class pays far more. You're right - the only way to impact corruption in government (and it's ALL corruption) is a nationwide tax revolt.

I'm just saying that our extreme poor should not get a "buy"; they have to contribute, too. And many now actually profit on this one; that didn't happen 30 years ago.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You bill is more than 45%. You are not counting all the little taxes that chip away at you.

Did you ever look ate your phone bill? utility bill? how about a hotel bill.

Are you counting the tax on gasoline (avg 28.6¢/gal)?

Building Permit Tax

Capital Gains Tax

CDL license Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Court Fines (indirect taxes)

Dog License Tax

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel permit tax

Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)

Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)

IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Local Income Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Septic Permit Tax

Service Charge Taxes

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)

Sales Taxes

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Road Toll Booth Taxes

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone federal excise tax

Telephone federal universal service fee tax

Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes

Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax

Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax

Telephone state and local tax

Telephone usage charge tax

Toll Bridge Taxes

Toll Tunnel Taxes

Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)

Trailer registration tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

Joe, I agree and appreciate your comment, and would like to add one key fact that is missed by we the people.

Our gas tax isnt a mere .42 cents a gallon, but probably 4 times that, close to $2 a gallon in taxes when you include the 117 million dollars a day our government taxes oil companies, who in turn just passes this "hidden double and triple taxation down to us in "hidden costs."

The idiocracy of our "leaders" escapes the general public much as Goldman Sach executives who argued back in 1998 that "there is no need for regulation of derivatives because they are private transactions between "professionals."

A better term to describe this level of idiocracy is found in the bible, "in the last days, our leaders wisdom shall flee them".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Do the people in the 15% bractek not pay these taxes? Why did the top get a bigger cut than worhking clas after being told they were getting twice as much.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Yea... you're right. But it seems this government wants us to pay more so others will not have to. That doesn't make a real lot of sense to me. Two years ago, the very same week that Obama said he was lowering taxes, my federal withholding, and that of my wife's, went UP.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

$10 * 40 hours a week * 51 weeks a year= $2,0400 a year

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not sure your point, my numbers are all from the tax tables except the last paragraph where they are from before the trust fund babies found out FB was way overvalued.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

many people don't make much money

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think we should talk about that more.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I suspect all these tax cuts will go away, good riddance. They screwed the working man when they passed them in the first place.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Here's a good one.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

someone mention 2000? This one was what let me know you can't trust anybody, but still didn't make me stupid,(ie willing to let Republicans win)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Bringing this back for those who think I never say anything bad about “them”, but this really pissed me off and no one said a word. Besides today is the biggest payday for the 1% since, the last one.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Personally, I had my taxes cut. I work on grants so I have to pay my own SS-or rather it comes out my pay directly. When Obama cut that part for businesses, he cut my taxes by about $2.00/hr.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Policy is different than personal.

Mostly just pointing out what huge lairs the GOP are when it comes to tax cuts, saying they're for everybody, then grabbing the big marginal tax cut prize just for their rich buddies. I think people should know as much truth as they can get.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you are simple wrong...here are the final number facts

2000/2003 marginal rates and income brackets

2000

15% <$26250

28%<$63550

31% <$132600

36% <288350

39.5% 288350<

.

2003

10% <7000

15% <28400

25% <68800

28% <143500

33% <311950

35% 311950<

the "middle class" had their rates drop from 28% to 25% and 31% to 28% for most of the income generated in that income sector...and the amount taxed at 15% instead of 28% increased by 8%

EVERYONE got a reduction in the first $7000 of AGI

it was NOT just a cut for the "rich"...if you paid taxes before the reduction you paid a lower tax rate after the cut....plain and simple..

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

BTW if you look at my post it clearly states everybody got a cut, just the rich got almost twice as much.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh thank you, anybody can see where in 2000 marginal tax on $26,000 dollars was 15% in 2003 on $26,000 dollars it was 15%.

In 2000 tax on $3000,000 was 39.5%, in 2003 it was 35%.

For those making 26,000/yr zero marginal relief

For those making $300,000/ yr 11.4% marginal tax cut

Thank you for helping to clearly prove that working class people got zero marginal tax relief while millionaires got over 10%.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

those making 26K got 5% relief on the first 7K and with the deductions available to all, paid zero on much of that income.....

I know you like to forget that these rates are based not on actual income, but on AGI....which is a much smaller number, placing most into the lower tax bracket after the reductions.....

Millionaires got over 10%...."millionaire" is a accrued wealth definition, not an income definition......and those in the higher income levels are the S-corp owners of your local coffee shop, bike shop, lawn care companies, restaurants, etc...the ones who pay most of the salaries in this country.....would you like to take away some of their money....so they can hire less people and provide less products and services? Is that your intention?

and since the amount that the upper income levels paid in total federal taxes went UP after the tax relief and the shares of taxes paid by the lower incomes went DOWN....I guess you are wrong in the practical result of the tax relief

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Since everybody got that 5% on the 7,000, we can get rid of the rest of that tax bill and everybody will still have gotten a tax cut, you have a great plan, I support it. Everybody gets a tax cut, and all the rates except the 10% goes back to 2000 rates, perfect, that should help the budget problem a lot.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, if you want a single rate we can certainly institute a flat tax....I support that..those who pay more deserve more relief......

and those who pay the highest rate pay over half of all federal taxes, and those who pay the top two rates pay nearly 70% of all federal taxes....THAT is unfair distribution of taxes.....those persons pay far more in shares of taxes than they earn in shares of income......and use LESS of the public services those taxes pay for......

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I didn't say anything about a single rate I was just accepting what you said that you got a tax cut then you got a tax cut, it doesn't matter if taxes were cut on all your income or not. So with the 10% everybody gets a cut and that's all that matters according to what you are saying about the $40,000/yr single worker.

Who told you life was fair?

When the CEO’s give themselves 30% raises and the workers get pay cuts, where are you crying for “fair”.

Let me be the first to tell you buddy, life is not fair!!

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you limit revenue with higher tax levels, people park their money in shelters, or tax free investments, or take it out of the country.....people with wealth didn't get it by being financially stupid....

and the idea that one dollar is worth more or less because of who has it is nonsense socialist claptrap......

progressive taxation is an affront to liberty and right to personal property..

You need to remember that life isn't fair when you spew the nonsense about "living wage" and "social justice"......

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

All history shows your claims to be false, many times we have raised revenue by raising taxes.

We did it in 1993, for instance, repeating your lies, don't make them true.

But even if it didn’t it would be a good thing to do because the democracy is threatened by the incredible wealth and therefore power that a few have, stripping them of their power is worthwhile, even if it doesn’t balance the budget. Working people will have to pay the bills, they always do.

But I could go for a flat property tax, where people paid according to what they have and therefore what they cost the government to protect.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

"All history".....that is an outstanding lie, and you know it.....

the rate increase in 1991 lowered revenue

The rate increase in 1993 was passed in august, but retroactively applied the new rate to income......so, those who planned and budgeted for the year were taken by surprise, and had a 'fast-one' pulled on them.....

taxes were increased 30% and yet only netted an 8% increase in revenue...not really a massive effect, and 2% less than the increase in revenue from 1997 to 1998, after the capital gains rate was reduced.....leading to the 4 years of real deficits below 135 Billion..... or the revenue increase from 88 to 90 while tax rates were static...

you would think with all your blather about tax increases "many times" raising revenue, that it would be outside the level of the increase attributed to tax rate decreased (it's not) or an anomaly when compared to revenue increases NOT tied to tax rate changes (it's not)

how are working people paying the bills, especially on the federal level? the top 10% of tax payers pay 70% of the income taxes collected and 55% of ALL federal taxes.....on about 46% of total income.....

the numbers don't support your arguments......unless you twist and contort them, or ignore them altogether.....

We might have an agreement on property tax, but....I thing property tax should be on the property (i.e. the "ground") it should not increase because you "improved" the ground, and In a perfect world I don't like property tax at all, as it give the government a means to confiscate personal real estate through tax lien....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Sure as soon as we burn all those stocks and bonds and such so the government don't have to spend all it's money defending them, same for those buildings.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

obama is an idiot, when those tax cut plans were first presented he should have placed a wiretap around the author's desk to see who he is in bed with and sought to have the corruption exposed. But as is most often the case, we have the blind leading the blind.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

He's not blind, he's just doing what is best for the country, which, by the way, is a Corporation for the corporations and by the corporations right about now. Explore the Corporate in and of the United States of America, Inc. and then perhaps you will understand why "the people" have to revolt for the rights in the Constitution..
He is just the figure head, just like Abe Lincoln, doing what he must do to keep the country from imploding. Unfortunately, no matter who gets in office....it is inevitable. This system is old hat, tired and has gone way past its prime!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I got it like when John Quincy was fighting slavery.....as a child

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Obama was in Chicago, but hey water is wet want to blame him for that too?

[-] -1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

Why do you people talk about taxes, are you completely oblivious to the real issue? No matter what money goes into government, you and I will never see one dime of it. The money is mostly consumed in large government salaries, which ultimately results in less freedom for us. Do I need to prove this because I can. I think this is just another example of what is referred to as "the blind leading the blind", or plain and simple brainwashing at best.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

OK go ahead and prove it.

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

This is the only thing I know. I make less then 30k and got a tax break from Bush. So per the Left I am RICH!!!!! for the taxes cuts where only for the RICH. That is what they said for almost 6+ years and ranting about the it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Maybe it's your inability to deal with numbers that has led to your low relative value.

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Sorry, you need to translate what you just said there.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't know nothin' 'bout being rich, but gettin' a job to pay the bills got damn tough after Clinton left office...

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

I know, That tech bubble of the internet when it popped it popped really big. and then right when we might get better 9/11 shit happens. Trust me i understand. i have been unemployed twice in the last 10 years due to a company closing all it's stores and going back to the internet only and again then a large company closed it's 300 stores and went out of business. I never been Rich and unless i hit the jackpot that is not going to happen. Hell with things looking like it is i may never retire either.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not to mention that stupid tax cut of Bush's making everything worst, what with the government grabbing up every penny to pay for their stupid wars, and leaving nothing for people to build job creating business with.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

The tax cut was OK. I even got money from it. The problem was there was no cut in spending at all. Not a good thing at all. Going into war was ok at the time with the facts we had that you will call lies ( what ever), find out all the intel from all the nations about the WMD's was shit, was bad and then wanting to do nation building was stupid when you have do not have total control of the land is ........ this just pisses me off.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How can you cut spending sending all those troops to war? WE should have been raising taxes so it wouldn't take over 10 years to win it. Damn thing is bleeding us dry alright. If only we had a competent President when this all started, a competent President would of not have let us get attacked in the first place.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Not have let us get attacked in the first place.. I see you are one of those.. The war was over real fast. It was and is the So called nation building that was and is the problem.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey don’t misunderstand me; I think any competent President would have had a fair shot at keeping us from getting attacked.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Who knows maybe Bin Laden was out on that golf course?

Hey I got it Bush was using the OJ method of hunting down the bad guys.

I see your one of “those” guys who think Bush did a good job, yeah 8 years and couldn’t get Bin Laden what an idiot.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

If you have no intel on where the fool is then how are you going to get the fool? Remember how hard it was to find Saddam? And he never even left Iraq. Hell we can not even find people in America when they do not want to be found unless they mess up, and you know for a fact he was protected by others in Pakistan. You think it is so easy to find people? you are a ignorant fool that watches to much Hollywood.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh I forgot, Obama invented intel.

[-] -2 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Oh i forgot you lick Obama's boots. For someone with the name "factrfun" you sure do not understand facts very well. But hey if stupid is your thing, i have to tell you that you do it very well.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Fact is Bin Laden is dead.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Damn right he be dead and sunk in the sea........

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (22327) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I do believe that when he was running for office he was very good at telling half truths or at least one half truth. The wealthy got a great tax break.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This was really planned out, after it happen I did Lexus/Nexus search, found that Bush never actually said he wanted to lower the 15% rate to 10%, he was always careful to say "cut the lowest rate to" 10% was rip-off was planned from the beginning. And the sad thing is the left let it go because cutting the 15% would cost real money, if you didn't see this look here.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You need to look deeper into that data since someone in the 28% range also pays at the 15% rate for a portion of their income.

Here is some more in depth tax data.

  1. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
  2. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21938
  3. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1
[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

None of this data indicates a reduction of the 15% rate.

Some people’s taxable income falls between the 15% and 25% rates, these people received no marginal tax relief.

As a result the share of tax burden carried by the working class increased as a result of the 2001 Bush plan.

The 2001 Bush tax cut was not "across the board". Those who say it is should be happy with having just a new 10% rate and nothing else.

Why was there no outrage about the new bracket being created? Where was Forbes?

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If I am in the 28% bracket, a large percentage of my income is in the 15% bracket. The report is showing Federal Revenue by bracket.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

But what if you're not in the 28% bracket, or do those people not count?

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Of course they do, that is why the 15% bracket is high silly. It includes the folks in the 15% and the folks in the 23% and the folks in the 28%... They all pay into the 15% bracket.

If you are in the 28% bracket you don't pay 28% on everything. You pay 15% on the first...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You seem to know the details tell you what, take single guy making $45,000/yr taxable. compared to single guy making $45,000,000/yr. Tax bill 2000 vs. tax bill 2008 if the $45,000/ percent change is greater then you got a point.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So Joe did you ever find that marginal tax relief for people who are in the 15% bracket, I see the top rate went down for those with taxable of $35,000,000.00/yr, but the top rate for those making $35.000/yr didn't.

Why do you think Bush and the GOP were screwing working people?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Well if you look at who got to keep more of their money, $463 billion less was taken from families making less than $220,000 and $81.5 billion for those making more.

Also, there were several credits put in for the working class so they end up paying less. The payroll tax cuts, Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit are all big deal for the working class.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm sorry I didn't see that marginal tax cut for working people in any oif that.

Are you claiming that Bush cut payroll tax in 2001? (and the GOP tells us that's bad right)

I don't believe that is true.

Please is that what you are saying?

Now I did make it easy for you just show the change in incomes taxes for the $45,000/yr and the $45,000,000/yr I will do the work if you agree to amit you are wrong if the $45.000,000 went down more, and I will amit I am wrong if the $45,000 went down more, deal?

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well lets see, the Obimination has had 4 years to do something about this but he is too busy being on vacation, golfing, campaining and just doing nothing to help the working class.

But he does take credit for creating 2 million jobs that were created by the private sector - not by him.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You are correct in that the worst thing Obama ever did was extend those tax cuts, we can only hope, and write lots of letters that mistake will not be repeated.

Repel the Bush tax cuts now!!!

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

well....actually the 10% rate applies to the first $14,450.00 of single filers and the first $28900.00 of married filers, after the standard deduction.....and the deductions for children and EITC takes this amount even higher......

you are wrong again.....and since 49% of tax payers pay nothing in federal taxes I guess millions of people DID see a tax reduction....

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh but you didn't say what do you think about adding some tax brackets like Bush did in 2001?

Only this time let's do it on the top end.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I agree we need to and new tax brackets for the very wealthy so that they can be taxed at a higher rate. A family making $300K is well off, but certainly more middle class than wealthy.

I do think corporate taxes should be lowered drastically though to encourage companies to do as much business in the US as possible. Most profits made by corporations will end up in the pockets of the superwealthy anyway so an increase in their taxes would negate the slashing of corporate taxes from a revenue standpoint.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Get rid of sp. treatment for captital gains and dividends, restore the $1,000.00 of interest/devidend deuction for all so a lot of people would never have to worry about it, on the firist $20,000 in saving or so.

replace the corporate income with a VAT I would think, but others might know better there.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I think a VAT would shift too much of a tax burden to the poor.

By lowering corporate tax rates drastically and simultaneously raising personal tax rates for the very wealthy, I think you would be able to still bring in the same amount of tax revenue but create a bunch of jobs in the process. By not taxing corporate profits, that is more money that goes to the shareholders and reinvested in the business. Most of those profits would end up in the hands of the very wealthy, who now have a higher rate so those profits would still be taxed anyways. However, some of those excess profits would inevitably go to the middle and lower classes though new job positions, new construction projects, 401K's, bond holders, stock holders, etc.

The way I look at it, people who run companies are a lot more likely to outsource jobs than they are to actually move themselves and take up residencies in foreign countries. By lower corporate taxes but raising personal taxes on the super wealthy, it would encourage companies to do more business in the US while still having the same amount of tax revenue.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The VAT can be adjusted for luxury goods, and seems to work pretty well. Of course if we're talking about restoring tax rates to those we had in the 50's, top rate of 90%, then the personal tax only might work.

One of the problems with not taxing corporate activities is a loss of control. Would we see even more corporate paid luxury items for the Officers of the company? Now much of what is allowed is set by tax standards. These are all details which are not very useful to discuss here, though it can be somewhat relaxing like talking about what one would do with a winning lottery number, fun to talk about but not real planning. I focus on broad points though this is a detailed post it is by way of informing on how things are done so we know what to watch for the next time around.

Here we see that “tax reform” just means shitting more of the tax burden to those least able to complain about it. If OWS doesn’t stand up and make those people heard then we fail, this post is to remind us what we fight for:

Those that can’t be heard.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I think a third of a dollar is quite enough for anyone to pay in taxes.......and adding to the top really is more show that go, even a doubling of the taxes on the richest would still leave us with a massive deficit, spending is the problem...NOT revenue

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Raising taxes on the very wealthy is as much about keeping them from taking over as it is raising revenue.

Anybody driving a car that can only turn one way better be on a NASCAR track otherwise your going to wreck, and that’s exactly what the GOP has done to America it’s drove us into a ditch because it refuses to make any adjustments to the tax rate.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I know what you guys think about the people who "don't pay taxes"

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-dont-we-turn-america-into-a-corporation/

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

When introduced the 10% only applied to $6,000 for a single person, hence the $300 checks everybody remembers.

I see you didn't say anything about marginal tax relief, you guys once cared about that except for the working man no marginal relief for him under the Bush 2001 tax cut, but the millionaires got theirs alright always got to take care of them.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Facts....You refer to the fact that tax cuts were greater for the rich because of the marginal tax rates....yet refuse to admit that revenues went up as a result. The Wall Street Journal editorial page stated that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006.

The Washington times wrote" From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”"

Further, the "child tax credit" rolled - over time - millions of Americans off the tax rolls. This tax credit was begun under Clinton with a GOP led initiative. Combined with the EIT, from the mid 1990's till 2012 increased the threshold at which many families paid no income tax from $24,900 to $51,400.

Discussion of "marginal" rates and tax rates without the inclusion of the tax credits aimed at the lower and middle income classes is disingenuous. As is leaving out "effective" tax rates - I happen to be in the 15% tax bracket but paid only a 7% effective tax rate for 2011. The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is about 11%, For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%. The average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGI of $1 million or more is 25%.

Of course none of that fits in with your view that the "marginal" tax rate decreases benefited the rich more than the middle class....

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Look I was only pointing out that a great number of Americans received no marginal tax relief from the 2001 Bush tax cut and a lot of people didn't care.

You keep talking about revenue and other distracters as is the norm for the righties on here.

I could and might someday post some actual truth about revenue as opposed to your attempts to confuse.

But this post is about the hypocrisy of Bush and all the righties when it comes to marginal tax relief, they only want to make sure the top brackets get it and don't care about the rest.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

No, it is you who seek to confuse the issue by focusing on one part of the whole. You are talking marginal tax "relief"....if one is paying NO income tax at all then the marginal rate relief of others should not concern them.

In 2003, a 35 percent tax was owed on every dollar of taxable income above $155,975 earned by a married taxpayer filing separately. But that tax bracket applied only to earnings above that $155,975 threshold; income below that cutoff point would still be taxed at rates of 10 percent on the first $7,000, 15 percent on the next $14,400, and so on. Depending on deductions, a taxpayer might pay a relatively modest average tax on total earnings, yet nonetheless face a 28–35 percent marginal tax

Furthermore, the US was not the only country to lower the marginal tax rates - although you want to only focus on the percentage of marginal tax rate relief because it fits your argument that it was "unfair".

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/MarginalTaxRates.html

Several economies that seemed on the verge of bankruptcy in the early eighties were suddenly revived once marginal tax rates were reduced. In 1983 to 1984, Turkey's marginal tax rates were slashed: the minimum rate dropped from 40 to 25 percent, the maximum from 75 to 50 percent. Real economic growth jumped to nearly 7 percent in the following four years and to 9 percent in 1990. Like Turkey, South Korea was deep in debt to international banks in 1980, when real output fell 2 percent. Korea subsequently cut tax rates and expanded deductions three times, and economic growth averaged 9.3 percent a year from 1981 to 1989. In the early eighties the African island of Mauritius faced an unemployment rate of 23 percent and massive emigration. Tax rates were cut from 60 percent to 35 percent, and the economy grew by 5.4 percent a year from 1981 through 1987. Egypt, Jamaica, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, and Mexico had similar experiences after slashing marginal tax rates.

The same pattern was repeated in most major industrial countries.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

the standard deduction in 2002 was 4700 single, 6900 hoh, and 7850 married filing jointly...so the amounts that applied to the 10% rate were 10,700 - 13,850...and again, that is before the EITC and deductions for children, mortgage interests, property, state, and local taxes, etc.....

you leave these out because it doesn't suite your purpose to mislead people.......

and the tax cut in 2001 was equal for all income above 27,050: .5%

last time I checked those making 27k a year weren't millionaires.....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course we are talking about taxable income here, but you are a tricky devil trying to confuse people.

Again you don’t talk about marginal tax rate, when there was a time when that was all you guys talked about. Now tell me how many of you guys would have called it “across the board tax cut” if their marginal rate had not been cut, for millions of Americans it was not, “across the board” but those are the Americans the GOP don’t care about, working Americans. Here’s a simple graph that shows who really pays taxes.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

the final result WAS a tax cut for everyone.....I know you want to gloss over that...

and, of course a tax cut would have much more benefit to those who actually paid taxes......which almost 50% of Americans do not do......

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Again you seem to have tremendous trouble with the words “marginal tax relief”, just tell me is that not important anymore?

Wouldn't everyone have gotten a tax cut if all we did was create the 10% tax rate, let's get rid of the rest of the it, which we can't afford.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

it created revenue....as tax cuts always do....

you obviously think that economic activity is static and that you can increase revenue by simply raising taxes....which has never been the result of tax increases....

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh yes change the subject, you were just about to tell me how if all they did was put in the 10% rate eveybody would have gotton a tax cut, just like you pointed out.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I didn't change the subject, the tax cut was across the board for all income levels..that was my statement....you said we couldn't "afford" the tax cut, but, since it increased revenue there really is no "can't afford" as more money came in after it than before....

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh so since we had a big tax cut creating all that revenue we won't need any spending cuts....cool didn't know we were rolling in dough

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

if they hadn't increased spending by massive amounts beginning in FY2008 (the first year of democrats).....including the 787 billion in stimulus which was added into the baseline of the budget in 2010 after being sold as a "one time" expenditure in 2009.....

the federal spending/revenue (not including Social Security debt issued by the treasury) was:

Republican Congress>

1.86T / 1.99T in 2001

2.01T / 1.85T in 2002 +150B spending / -14B revenue

2.16T / 1.78T in 2003 +150B spending / -8B revenue

finalization of the tax rates......

2.29T / 1.88T in 2004 +130B spending / +10B revenue

2.47T / 2.15T in 2005 +180B spending / +27B revenue

2.66T / 2.41T in 2006 +190B spending / +26B revenue

2.73T / 2.57T in 2007 +70B spending / +16B revenue

Democrat Congress>

2.98T / 2.52T in 2008 +250B spending / -50B revenue

3.52T / 2.11T in 2009 +540B spending / -410B revenue

3.46T / 2.16T in 2010 -60B spending / +50B revenue

3.82T / 2.17T in 2011 +360B spending / +10B revenue

Revenue went up each year (under Republicans) after the finalization of the marginal tax rates in 2003 (FY2004 began in Oct of 2003), and the deficit went down........right up until the Democrats took over congress and promptly increased spending by a quarter trillion dollars...reversing the trending down of deficits, each year replacing the previous year as the "baseline" including the stimulus of 2009 which was NOT a one time expenditure, but rather a yearly expense each year since it was passed, since it became the new baseline of the federal budget....

so, your contention that the tax cuts weren't "paid for" is false, as they created a positive trend in government finances with up-trending revenue and down-trending borrowing...even with the added expense of the wars and the Medicare part D Rx drug program.....

and would have continued had the Democrats not pulled the rug out from under the economy beginning in 2007, with regulation and divisive rhetoric which led to instability and uncertainty in the marketplace, that caused businesses to shed workers and take protective postures, increasing unemployment and causing a ripple in the housing market when those unemployed could no longer pay their mortgages.....

I know this is hard for you to follow, because you are a devoted drone, but feel free to check out the unemployment numbers, the revenue, and spending numbers, at the BLS site and in the US statistical abstract at the census site.......

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ok since you’re NOT changing the subject here, could you just pull out the part that talks about marginal tax rates, in the 2001 Bush tax cut?

I don't see it, so looks like a bunch of distracting bullshit to me.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

the tax reduction was incremental, and did not fully implement until 2003, to pull that out and attempt to determine anything is a manipulation of history, and misdirection with the hope of diverting the discussion from the truth into some realm of fantasy that resides in your, and other demented liberal/collectivist minds

and we were also in a recession due to the DotCom bubble, Enron, and the 9/11 attacks from 2001-2003......do you forget that, or were you still shitting your diaper then?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Marginal tax relief? 2003 ? What it's not there.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There was no reduction of the 15% rate therefore it was not “across the broad” repeating the lie doesn’t make it true no matter how many times you do it. Millions received no reduction on their marginal rate, the only reduction they got is the same one that everyone got when the 10% rate was created. By your argument that since their taxes were reduced when they received that reduction on part of their income. I simply ask you to apply the same standard for the wealthy as you do for working class. And tell the wealthy that getting the 10% rate is enough and they don't need marginal relief, just as the working class does not need marginal relief, according to you and W Bush.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you cannot get much more "relief" than paying ZERO...which is what many in the lower income levels pay......

are you advocating a flat tax? it seems that those who earn more are supposed to be satisfied with the same rate reduction as those who earn less, and by extension they should expect to pay the same rate as those at the lower income levels for ALL of their income then.......

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5909) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You will talk about anything other than what the post is actually about won't you?

I know where your going with this “zero” tax thing so we can talk about it here if you like:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-dont-we-turn-america-into-a-corporation/

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

'49% of tax payers pay nothing in federal taxes"

That's a lie. They pay payroll taxes.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

"Payroll Taxes" are for government "insurance" programs, and the bottom 60% only pay about 30% of those payroll taxes while the top 20% pay over 40% of the payroll taxes

so that doesn't really apply.....

so much for your "lie"

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

However you wish to call them, they are still taxes. Just like all other taxes, they are spent on running the country as the freely elected representatives decide.

THe top percent may very well pay more overall, but as a percentage of their incomes, they pay FAR less. Their is a cap on payroll taxes, in case you've forgotten.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

who gives a shit about "percentage of income"....that is the purpose of upward mobility and advancement, to have more disposable income.

that is something you have to EARN, it's not a gift

there is only a cap on Social Security......not the rest of of the payroll taxes...

why should anyone pay more into Social Security than is required to fund their retirement benefit? Are you admitting that SS is a re-distributional welfare program?

I think you should worry more about what the OWS "leaders" did with over a half million in donations....since the movement is just about broke...

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The USA has the LOWEST social mobility of any developed country in the world.

Payroll taxes ARE SSI, and are capped at under $120,000.00 per year or so.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Social Mobility? please explain what YOU mean by that.....

there is also FICA which is a payroll tax, and there is no cap on that...

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The ability to move from one economic quintile to another in one's lifetime is called social mobility. It is also called socio/economic mobility. It is also called the ability to pull one's self up by his own bootstraps. The USA has the worst record of that if any country in the developed world. We are more likely to stay rich if we were born rich, and stay poor is we were born poor, than anyone. And that applies to intergeneration social mobility as well. If you were born poor, your children will likely be so in adulthood, too. The rungs on the ladder of income distribution have grown too far apart as the ladder has lengthened to be surmountable by most people.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

haha...do you have some credible data to back that up, because the forbes 400 crushes that contention, since 2/3's of the members DID bootstrap themselves up, as did/do most Americans of the past several generations when they participate in the system.....

I personally know hundreds if not thousands of people who began from humble beginnings and created lives of far more success than they hailed from......

you can't sit around and hope that your life will get better, that is the disconnect in this country, people think they are "owed" a good life by "the system" and don't apply themselves and get busy with the task of improving their own lives...and those are the ONLY ones who don't improve their circumstances......

there are no "rungs" on the income "distribution" ladder, as income is "earned", not distributed.......

Those who get trapped in the so-called "safety net" experience what you are talking about, because they are fed negative thoughts and philosophy by a willing bunch of poverty pimps, in government, the media, and in communities, both real and virtual (like this site) so they never even try.....

the problem is with people, not with the system, those who do not attempt, or try halfheartedly, ONCE, then quit, are the problem.........

You have fallen for the propaganda and the myopic view of the "myth of scarcity"........the reality is one of great abundance, but as the meaning of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" which states that you cannot measure the speed and position of particle at same time, or that both cannot be known with certainty...when you focus on scarcity you cannot see or measure abundance, and vis-versa.....which creates the disconnect in our discussion: My world is abundant and full of opportunity, because that is what I look for, you, and many others like you, look for scarcity and lack, and find it everywhere......

it's all perspective, and yours is terribly wrong.....

You cannot create abundance for those who only see scarcity, no matter how much you give them, it's never enough, and will never change their circumstances.....THAT is your problem and the problem of the philosophy of the left...NOT any "social mobility", which is available to anyone who works for it, sets goals, adjusts, and lives intelligently...those who live haphazardly never achieve anything...and never will...

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_07192000/

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

The myth of the bootstrap is just that, an unfounded, unsubstantiated myth for MOST people. It is not a matter of individual character, since the economic IMMOBILITY is across all sectors, from the lowest quintile to the highest. The issue is systemic, as it effects absiolutely every one.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

so your proof is a couple of opinion articles by liberal authors, a paper by the liberal OECD, and a paper that only takes into account comparative analysis, and not the reasons "why" some don't have "social mobility"

hardly credible proof....

I again point to the 2/3's of the US's richest 400 people who without advantage or birthright, made massive rises in socioeconomic stature.....what made them different from their neighbors? or in one case from the other homeless vets? if NOT character then what?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If you actually read them, you will discover that a couple of the links I provided are in fact research articles, not opinion pieces. The figures used are from the US census bureau and the IRS, hardly left wing organizations. Your citation of exceptions to the system does not disprove that there is a systemic problem, but only that there are always a few exceptions. The lack of socio/economic mobility in the USA is thoroughly documented. That it is far greater here than in the rest of the developed world is simply a fact, and is also thoroughly documented. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your having your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

yes, I said that...they are papers......and the oecd has a liberal bent, and the other that was written by a set of authors from brookings and pew, doesn't investigate the "why" of how some find social mobility and others don't....it just compares sets of data on generational success......not the differing philosophies of the successful and the failures...

and I personally know many many "exceptions" to your assertion, and many who fit, and the philosophical differences are the determining factor...those who believe the system controls them are controlled by the system, and those who believe that they are in control, control their own outcomes......and the results are predictable...

I could sit down with any person and in a short time determine the major cause of their success, or failure...and it has nothing to do with circumstance or the "system"...and EVERYTHING to do with attitude and philosophy...

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The census bureau and the IRS are certainly left wing commie organizations aren't they? The research is overwhelming. I provided you with ontly a couple of sources. There are dozens upon dozens.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not to ignoring facts.