mnealtx 0 #26 June 11, 2007 Quote Quote Quote A working person voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders. Yeah, damn those Republicans for cutting the tax that the working class pays... If you think that the tax cuts benefited working class people, there is only one thing I can say to you. Did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? If you really understood what the tax cuts have done and for which income group, you wouldn't be quite so keen on them. Do you really think that huge tax cuts for the extremely wealthy while running up record federal budget deficits is good public policy? The deficits are being mostly funded by the Chinese. If they call in the debt, you'll see interest rates jump 6-8%. That will improve the economy a lot. Y'know, the lefties keep crowing about "huge tax cuts for the rich", but oddly enough, can't show any proof.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #27 June 11, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote A working person voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders. Yeah, damn those Republicans for cutting the tax that the working class pays... If you think that the tax cuts benefited working class people, there is only one thing I can say to you. Did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? If you really understood what the tax cuts have done and for which income group, you wouldn't be quite so keen on them. Do you really think that huge tax cuts for the extremely wealthy while running up record federal budget deficits is good public policy? The deficits are being mostly funded by the Chinese. If they call in the debt, you'll see interest rates jump 6-8%. That will improve the economy a lot. Y'know, the lefties keep crowing about "huge tax cuts for the rich", but oddly enough, can't show any proof. What kind of proof do you need? The kind readily available by doing a google search? The numbers don't lie. http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm The rescumlicans and their lackeys in the right wing controlled media do. And credulous morons believe them. More info here http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html and here http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html and here http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_again_bush_exaggerates_tax.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 June 11, 2007 Oddly enough, I can't find any info in there showing where "the evil rich" are getting more of a cut, other than what simple math shows, that is... must be some super-special tax table that the IRS doesn't give out to us underlings, I suppose - the one that I have still shows: Income between $0 and $7,825, tax is 10% of the amount over $0 Income between $7,825 and $31,850, tax is $782.50 plus 15% of the amount over 7,825 Income between $31,850 and $77,100, tax is $4,386.25 plus 25% of the amount over 31,850 Income between $77,100 and $160,850, tax $15,698.75 plus 28% of the amount over 77,100 Income between $160,850 and $349,700, tax is $39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850 Income over $349,700, tax is $101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700 I know that math's hard, and it's more fun to go shopping.... but maybe you can explain how those tax cuts that are only for the wealthy are resulting in record tax receipts?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #29 June 11, 2007 Here you go: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #30 June 11, 2007 Quote Here you go: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf World Socialist Web Site? No need to second guess those guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #31 June 11, 2007 Quote Quote Here you go: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf World Socialist Web Site? No need to second guess those guys. Well, I read Fox News once in a while, so why not read the article and judge it on its merits, or lack thereof? Or just clamp your hands over your ears and yell "NANANANANANANANANA I can't hear you! NANANANANAN!" -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 June 11, 2007 QuoteHere you go: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf How about if you answer my questions, above? I'll repost them for you here, as well. Where is this special tax rate for "the rich"? If this tax cut is so bad and hurting the average person, why are tax receipts (you know, government income) at record levels?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #33 June 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteHere you go: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf How about if you answer my questions, above? I'll repost them for you here, as well. Where is this special tax rate for "the rich"? It's right there in the article I posted - Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes, which fund social security and medicare,are capped at about $70,000. A millionaire pays 1% of thier income to payroll tax, where thee average worker pays 15.3%. Was that so hard? As to the record tax revenues - first, I'd like some proof of that. Assuming that it is true fact, I'd say that many companies are doing very well due to the war and the high energy prices. These corporate taxes on their huge profits account for the increase. Next question. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 June 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteHere you go: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf How about if you answer my questions, above? I'll repost them for you here, as well. Where is this special tax rate for "the rich"? It's right there in the article I posted - Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes, which fund social security and medicare,are capped at about $70,000. A millionaire pays 1% of thier income to payroll tax, where thee average worker pays 15.3%. Was that so hard? As to the record tax revenues - first, I'd like some proof of that. Assuming that it is true fact, I'd say that many companies are doing very well due to the war and the high energy prices. These corporate taxes on their huge profits account for the increase. Next question. Negative - Social Security tax is capped at (this year) at 97.5k, if I recall correctly, and is an INCREASE in the cap level over 2006 ( and years prior - more tax dollars coming in. Medicare has no cap. Neither point answers my question about this tax break that the rich are supposedly getting, since that is INCOME tax. Tax receipts?: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cbo+record+tax+receipts&btnG=Google+SearchMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 June 11, 2007 QuoteI've often wondered; What would have happened if Clinton had refused to answer that question, and told them his relationship with Lewinsky was none of their business? I suspect that the judge wouldn't have dismissed the Paul Jones claim, and her lawyers definitely would have issued a subpeona post haste to get her to the stand. Ultimately it was a small part of the trial - his behavior with ML might suggest a tendency to screw around with the help, but that's a far cry from the claims made. Mostly it would be a bargaining chip to get the settlement, like the one that happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #36 June 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHere you go: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/tax-m13.pdf How about if you answer my questions, above? I'll repost them for you here, as well. Where is this special tax rate for "the rich"? It's right there in the article I posted - Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes, which fund social security and medicare,are capped at about $70,000. A millionaire pays 1% of thier income to payroll tax, where thee average worker pays 15.3%. Was that so hard? As to the record tax revenues - first, I'd like some proof of that. Assuming that it is true fact, I'd say that many companies are doing very well due to the war and the high energy prices. These corporate taxes on their huge profits account for the increase. Next question. Negative - Social Security tax is capped at (this year) at 97.5k, if I recall correctly, and is an INCREASE in the cap level over 2006 ( and years prior - more tax dollars coming in. Medicare has no cap. Neither point answers my question about this tax break that the rich are supposedly getting, since that is INCOME tax. Tax receipts?: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cbo+record+tax+receipts&btnG=Google+Search There should be no cap. And source please. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 June 11, 2007 QuoteIt's right there in the article I posted - Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes, which fund social security and medicare,are capped at about $70,000. A millionaire pays 1% of thier income to payroll tax, where thee average worker pays 15.3%. Was that so hard? Responding to a lot of ridiculous statements, starting with this one. The Medicare tax alone is 1.65% (employee) + 1.65% (employer), or 3.3% on the million. You're correct in that he'd only pay 12.4% on 90some thousand (the FICA cap has been increasing faster than inflation for some time now to bolster the SS surplus and fund DC's deficit spending). But since SS benefits are tied to benefits provided, it isn't inappropriate to have a cap, so long as we're pretending that this isn't money pissed away. End result, the average worker pays 15.3% (though the employee only directly pays half of that), while the million dollar salaried employee pays 4.5%. But the later guy isn't going to get a great return for that 45,000$, compared to the one who contributed 6,000. ----------------------- Chinese are funding our deficits? Yes, they're buying a substantial majority, if not essentially all of the 30 year treasuries. That's why the yield curve is flat. But they're doing it in part to prop up the currency rate, since expensive dollars hurts them. And they don't benefit at all from any dumping scenario. Quite the opposite, in fact. ------------ Tax cuts for the rich. Really, there's no question about this. In 1994, Clinton upped the highest marginal tax rate to 39.4%. Now it's 31%. You couple this change with the increasing FICA limit and you see the tax burden being shifted by both the low and high end to those in the upper 5 figures. This also was done during the Reagan Administration when income rates were lowered, but FICA tax rates increased. Dropping the tax rate on dividends could also be seen as high income biased, but there I think it is a positive move as it encourages companies to pay back their shareholders. And even at the average income, you can benefit from the preferred treatement on this form of earnings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 June 11, 2007 >>There should be no cap. I don't disagree. >>And source please. USA Today Newsbusters NYT Stubborn Facts Now, if we can just pull Congress back from the hog trough and get spending under control... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #39 June 12, 2007 Your hero, William 'The Perjurer' Clinton, aka El Jefe Clintonista, served a grand total of zero days in jail for perjury. You're stating that Scooter Libby is guilty and needs to serve the time. Care to explain that dichotomy of sentencing thought there? LMFAO. I think you'll probably do so right after explaining how Armitage isn't guilty of outing a covert agent if Ms. Plame actually was covert, so I won't hold my breath on that one. While you're at it, please find at least SOME proof that the tax cuts have created the current deficit. If you'd actually bother to read the data vice spout left wing talking points, you'd find that we're record tax revenues. I laugh when anybody states the tax cuts are costing the US treasury $$. Utterly hilarious. Spending more than you have causes deficits - not tax cuts. And look at the pork coming down the pike! Oink oink oink, I say! Anybody following the news over the last few years can see how skewed justice has become as of late. Paris Hilton - in jail OJ - free Michael Jackson - free William Keyser (DoState FSO) - one year in jail Scumsucking piece of shit low-life should-be-skinned-alive-and-fed-to-rabid-wolves-ounce-by-ounce-traitor-mother-fucker Sandy Berger - free Scooter Libby - perjurer - headed to the clink Bill Clinton - perjurer - served no time That hollywood Spector dude - free (for now) Quite skewed, justice seems to have become. Most troubling when you think about it in some aspects. Left wingers chortling about Libby's 30 months who do not think El Jefe Clintonista should have served time as well - look in the mirror and mouth the phrase 'partisan hypocrite' over and over to yourself. That way you'll be used to hearing it when you attempt to argue with conservatives on the issue. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #40 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote A working person voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders. Yeah, damn those Republicans for cutting the tax that the working class pays... So, now the republicans are the savior of the working class? That is freaking hilarious! I'd say that someone who wants to leave more money in the working class' pocket at the end of the day is doing more for them than someone who wants to take more OUT... You, obviously, think different. Feel free to send more money in to the IRS as a donation to make up for it. You forgot to add "... and saddled them with record debts"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 June 12, 2007 QuoteYou forgot to add "... and saddled them with record debts" *yawn* Still haven't found a counter to the fact that tax receipts are at record highs AFTER a reduction in tax, have you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #42 June 12, 2007 record debts for discretionary spending, perhaps. Now compare that with the sum total of entitlement spending... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 June 12, 2007 Quote record debts for discretionary spending, perhaps. Now compare that with the sum total of entitlement spending... Hence my comment earlier about pulling the hogs back from the trough...that's the only thing that going to get the debt under control. It's not that Congress doesn't have enough money...it's that we've given it TOO DAMN MUCH...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #44 June 12, 2007 IRS Data from Rushlimbaugh website. Only The Rich Pay Taxes Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes October 10, 2003 There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%. *Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity. Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay: Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income. The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy) The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore. I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed. Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it. I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now! Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from 2001... (Rush Limbaugh.com Non-EXCEL version of the 2000 IRS Data)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joedirt 0 #45 June 12, 2007 I would vote democrat if I was in the lowest tax bracket and planned on staying there, but thankfully I'm not retarded so I have figured how to make more than minimum wage. The more you rely on the government the more control they have over you, that's why a lot of those middle eastern countries have absolute control over their people. They are basically rich welfare states from all their damn oil money. The government collects all the profits from the oil and divides it up how they see fit. Sounds like a certain female presidential candidate to me. I guess people are suckers for the robin hood mentality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joedirt 0 #46 June 12, 2007 Oops, I meant to say demoncrats. Hahahahaha... See what I did there, I added letters to make it sound like democrats are really demons... and that is hi LAR ious. Hahahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #47 June 12, 2007 Quote I would vote democrat if I was in the lowest tax bracket and planned on staying there, but thankfully I'm not retarded so I have figured how to make more than minimum wage. The more you rely on the government the more control they have over you, that's why a lot of those middle eastern countries have absolute control over their people. They are basically rich welfare states from all their damn oil money. The government collects all the profits from the oil and divides it up how they see fit. Sounds like a certain female presidential candidate to me. I guess people are suckers for the robin hood mentality. Another thing my daddy taught me was the more I worried and complained about what the "other guy" has that I don't the more miseable I would be. He is right. I hope the rich keep making money. If I chose to work as hard as "most" of them do I could have millions too. But then I suppose I would be acused of getting rich on the backs of the poor. Sad political reality..........but it still works"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #48 June 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou forgot to add "... and saddled them with record debts" *yawn* Still haven't found a counter to the fact that tax receipts are at record highs AFTER a reduction in tax, have you? If you look at the inflation adjusted revenues over the last three decades you will see that we currently have a shortfall compared with the years prior to the Bush cuts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #49 June 12, 2007 Quote Quote record debts for discretionary spending, perhaps. Now compare that with the sum total of entitlement spending... Hence my comment earlier about pulling the hogs back from the trough...that's the only thing that going to get the debt under control. It's not that Congress doesn't have enough money...it's that we've given it TOO DAMN MUCH... In 2006 the USA spent $528.7 Billion on the military (I won't say "defense" because our military actions are primarily offensive). This is 46% of the entire world's military spending. If we cut back to just equal the next 4 countries COMBINED, we wouldn't have a federal deficit at all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #50 June 12, 2007 QuoteYou forgot to add "... and saddled them with record debts" And what was the last year we weren't "saddled with record debts"? Here's a hint - it was before you moved to this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
