0
mirage62

Bush Tax breaks for the "rich"

Recommended Posts

I'm sure there are people here that can pick this apart, and I'd like to hear from you.

Quote



Thought this was fascinating.



Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some
examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both
singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only
helped the rich.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008


Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K -Tax $4,500 (46% less)
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 (11% less)
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 (19% less)
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K - tax $9,000 (46% less)
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 (11% less)
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 (19% less)

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is
amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is
screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.

If any Democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax
cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above
can't wait for it to happen.


Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always wondered where the "Robin Hood" mentality came from on the Democratic side. If I work hard, spend a decade in college, and eventually make a lot of money, why should I have to pay a larger tax percentage?

EDIT: Don't dig too deep into Robin Hood's victims, please. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor and that, alone, is the concept that I despise.
(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I always wondered where the "Robin Hood" mentality came from on the Democratic side. If I work hard, spend a decade in college, and eventually make a lot of money, why should I have to pay a larger tax percentage?



Nonsense - Robin Hood is an analogy for tax reduction, not tax increases.

The Government Stole (taxed) from the working people. Robin Hood took the money back from the government and returned it to the people. They were poor because of excess taxation.

Unfortunately, Robin Hood is not represented by either the Dems or the Reps of today.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I understand it correctly - please correct me if I'm wrong - the basic Dem idea is to take back the tax breaks for the rich.

Does anyone know who they define as "rich"? Seems to me that I heard $200K but as a mix of the population there aren't enough people in that bracket to raise lots of money.

The main thing that struck me is that it looks like everyones tax burdon went down.......... but someone has to pay more if the Dems get there way.

WHO IS IT?
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll never see it defined...that way, you have the 'tax cuts for the RICH' bogeyman for a much larger demographic - including some that would be counted as 'the rich' for the Dem's purposes.

I'm still at a loss to figure out how giving someone who DOES pay taxes a break is unfair to someone who isn't having to pay any taxes...other than class envy, that is.

Taking numbers from the IRS in regards to tax burden is even more illustrative.

2005 numbers (% share of total tax burden):

Top 1%: 39.38%
Top 2-5%: 20.29% ( 59.67% cumulative total)
Top 6-10%: 10.63% (70.3% cumulative total)
Top 11-25%: 15.69% (85.99% cumulative total)
Top 26-50%: 10.94% (96.93% cumulative total)

So, you have the top 50% of all filers paying 97% of all the taxes....while the Bush tax cuts have removed an additional 10-12 million filers from the tax rolls (roughly half of the country does not have any tax liability).

QED...you have 25% of the population paying the way for the other 75%.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Once again people getting hung up on tax cuts/tax increases.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. We will all pay back what we spend. Want to really reduce taxes? Cut spending. Democrats can't do that, and republicans are even worse.



Agreed....but it makes a good soundbite to rabble-rouse with.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I always wondered where the "Robin Hood" mentality came from on the Democratic side. If I work hard, spend a decade in college, and eventually make a lot of money, why should I have to pay a larger tax percentage?



It is important to note from whom exactly Robin Hood stole.

Recall that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor and fought against tyranny, injustice, etc.

The Sheriff of Nottingham was a bad dude because of his taking land and hevaily taxing everyone into poverty. Oh yes - the rich were the government taxing so many.

Or, the bad guy is Prince John - whom even in the Disney version shouted (in the great voice of Peter Ustinov), "Double the taxes. Triple the taxes. Squeeze every last drop out those insolent, musical peasants." And "Taxes! Taxes! Beautiful, lovely taxes! Ah-hahhhh! Ah-hahhhh!"

Who were the rich? Those that taxed the peasants into oblivion - the government.

Now, for some reason, it is the government who is viewed as Robin Hood. What if Prince John said, "Your tax dollars will pay for you to at least have a bite to eat." Oh, that would make it better. They'll be dirt poor, and thin, but they'll survive.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes, did you know that he spent more than half of his life behind bars? :P

Being an educated man would you like to guess what the level of "rich" is for the Dem's



You tell me. I seem to be in the top 2% in income and assets, and I'm a Dem (well, to be more accurate I'm an anti-Republican).

You need tax revenues to run the country**, and you can't get blood out of a turnip.

** in the long term. We currently run the country by borrowing money from China.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You need tax revenues to run the country**

** in the long term



You sound more like a laissez-faire character. "In the long term, we're all dead." - John Maynard Keynes.

As a laissez-faire guy, you should be anti-Dem and anti-Republican.


But - the issue of revenue to run the country, yeah, we do. We seemed to run the country without an income tax for, what, 126 years?

But as the govermnet wants to do more and more it needs more and more.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you favor taxing EVERYBODY more, or just the top 2%?? We don't need more taxes we need to cut wasteful spending and us the savings to fund better things.

Seems to me that people that make over 100K a year totally 3% of the working population. You can't raise enough taxes off that group to do what the Dems want.
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> So you favor taxing EVERYBODY more, or just the top 2%?

If you have to get more money to run the government (because we're spending too much) then taxing the top 2% works better than taxing the bottom 2% (or even the top 10%.) Warren Buffett recently said as much, and he's sort of an expert on that top 2%

But again, we need to spend less. And every time anyone proposes that, someone like you says we need "to fund better things." And so we fund those better things, and taxes either go up to pay for them (which no one likes) or taxes stay the same and we go ever deeper into debt (which most people are OK with because they don't think ahead.)

What I really want is a balanced budget amendment with reporting requirements. Want an Iraq war? Your taxes go up $1000 a person right then and there. Want Star Wars? That will be $40 please. I have a feeling that once people stop hiding behind the "tax break" nonsense, we'd get a lot more fiscally responsible very quickly.

>Seems to me that people that make over 100K a year totally 3% of the
>working population. You can't raise enough taxes off that group to do what
>the Dems want.

Why not? It's better for the economy and it gets you more money total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one wants to address the question, would rather do the usual tax debate.

But the main fallacy in this snip is that it only covers the federal withholding, which is just a piece of the taxes most people pay.

The change in taxation of qualified dividends from the marginal tax rate to 15% was a signficant tax cut that certainly favored the wealthy. I think it's a good cut in that it encourages all to buy stocks in companies that pay dividends back (better than money markets given the stock growth). Everyone can benefit. But certainly it favors those with thousands of shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


What I really want is a balanced budget amendment with reporting requirements. Want an Iraq war? Your taxes go up $1000 a person right then and there. Want Star Wars? That will be $40 please. I have a feeling that once people stop hiding behind the "tax break" nonsense, we'd get a lot more fiscally responsible very quickly.



Yes, I think the only way we can make a clean break without blowing up the economic momentum is to go isolationist and stop sending armies about the world. The world says they don't want us to do it anyway, let's give it a try. If they change their mind, they can pay us to be cops. Otherwise, we can compete on an even footing again.

Go back 7 years and we probably could have held close to a balanced budget right away, but now we have to work our way down to it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billvon you are right on. I am a limited government, unlimited personal liberty guy. I vote Republican, but when it comes to spending, there's not much difference between them and the Dems. And in about the year 2040, all of the revenue taken from us (at gunpoint) will only service the debt. No bullets, no judicial system, no congressional paychecks, not to mention no handouts or social security. I'm really worried about our country. But - if you guys are interested in a solution to our screwwwwwed up tax code, go to www.fairtax.org and read about that. It doesn't reduce spending, but it makes the collection much more transparent, and has features that boost economic growth. And economic growth is the only way we can increase tax revenue to avoid the upcoming catastrophe. I hope we wise up soon. I have grandkids.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

. . . unlimited personal liberty guy. I vote Republican . . .



See any contradiction there?



With the new reps? Sure do.

Reps were SUPPOSED to founded on 3 things: Fiscal Libertarianism, Social Conservatism, and Foreign policy hawk.

I disagreed with the Social Conservatism aspect of that because you can't take a liberal stand (left or right) in social policy and stay true to fiscal libertarianism, but in general, it was a better concept than the other guy with: Fiscal liberalism, social liberalism, and foreign policy malaise.

But today, the other looks the same as before, just MORE of it. And the Reps now look like: Fiscal liberalism, social conservatism (which is liberal in application) and foreign policy hawk (but in the wrong way). So neither party is attractive as they've lost the fiscal responsibility and only fight over what to spend it all on.

The Fairtax sounds good. But it still doesn't fix the issue of overspending. It just packages it differently. The hope that it fixes spending is when the people get upset and stop buying things above the minimum in order to show their displeasure. It'll still require lower spending and a balanced budget approach.

Do you think the government would REALLY give that much power back to the people?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The GOP has been against personal liberty



that's such a generic statement, I don't even know what to do with it - I can state it for both parties and be able to count positions both for and against each statement and each party depending on which liberties you favor

you're just spitting sound bites

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The GOP has been against personal liberty



that's such a generic statement, I don't even know what to do with it - I can state it for both parties and be able to count positions both for and against each statement and each party depending on which liberties you favor



The other party is irrelevent to the point - the GOP has never been for 'unlimited' (or remotely close) personal liberties. They are opposed to anything enjoyable - sex, drugs, rock and roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The hope that it fixes spending is when the people get upset and
>stop buying things above the minimum in order to show their displeasure.

How would that help anything? They'd just up the minimum tax. If they couldn't do that, they'd just borrow more money from China. I don't see that as any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, with the 2 party system, I have to pick the lesser of the two evils. My views are more Libertarian, but - are you trying to say that the Dems are more supportive of personal liberty and personal responsibility? Yikes. Getting back to the main point, at least the Republicans do more to stay out of my pocket, for the time being. Until we can field some independent candidates who want to do ONLY what the constitution allows, I'll still vote Repulican

Two quotes from Ben Franklin.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." .
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0