U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-26-2009, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
878 posts, read 2,537,376 times
Reputation: 313

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolem View Post
Actually-one only needs to look at the first post of this thread and other posts throughout to see that yes-there are people who do want to stick it to the rich. They are cheering and gleeful over it.

Just curious-if you believe that all the Bush tax cuts should sunset or only those for the "rich"? These cuts were not all for the rich. If you actually pay federal income taxes, your taxes went down with the Bush tax cuts. Many people try to beat a loud drum and yell loud and clear that these were only for the "rich"-but they were not. I really don't see how changing the 10% bracket up to 15% is going to help our economy. I mean if the main concern in allowing these to expire is the deficit, shouldn't they all expire? (not advocating that, just asking).
That's a hard question to answer because there are different aspects of the tax cuts that I think need to be examined. Based on the information contained in this URL http://www.cbpp.org/4-23-04tax.pdf, it appears that with the after tax decrease benefits were seen more by those in the upper income bracket. If the after tax benefits were the same across the board then I would see it as being a fair tax break. Having my after tax income raise by 1 or 2 % is a big difference then seeing it raise by 5 or 6%. So with that in mind, I could say that "Yes, I think that only the tax breaks for the rich should expire" but I am sure that there is more to it than that and I would need to examine this issue more thoroughly before coming to a conclusion. I am not trying to brush off the question but I don't think I can give a fair answer at this time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2009, 01:44 PM
 
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
8,115 posts, read 17,333,145 times
Reputation: 7287
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolem View Post
Actually-one only needs to look at the first post of this thread and other posts throughout to see that yes-there are people who do want to stick it to the rich. They are cheering and gleeful over it.

Just curious-if you believe that all the Bush tax cuts should sunset or only those for the "rich"? These cuts were not all for the rich. If you actually pay federal income taxes, your taxes went down with the Bush tax cuts. Many people try to beat a loud drum and yell loud and clear that these were only for the "rich"-but they were not. I really don't see how changing the 10% bracket up to 15% is going to help our economy. I mean if the main concern in allowing these to expire is the deficit, shouldn't they all expire? (not advocating that, just asking).
I have one more thought on this matter. You could increase taxes on EVERYBODY at 100%, per Obama's budget, and if the intent is to match spending, per the Wall Street Journal, you'd still fall way short:

"A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion."

So in other words, you'd have to drill down to the $75k level at tax at 100%, to cover the spending proposed by congress in this upcoming budget, to be approved by the president. Does that have to be repeated? This is a complete disgrace. What we are doing here (once again) is deferring future finanical responsibility to our children and grandchildren. Letting the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% of earners does not even begin to scratch the surface.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:00 PM
 
5,210 posts, read 9,133,493 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by flexysteve View Post
I want those in favor of these hiked up taxes on the "rich" to think about the longterm effects. How much longer will the "rich" especially the super rich who pay more than 80% of all taxes be happy footing the bill for all of the lazy people who just want a handout from the government?

Class warfare can go both ways and as the golden rule says, those with the gold, make the rules. Say someone like Warren Buffet decides to take his money offshore, because some other country will charge him 1/5 of the taxes of the US. Thats a pretty good chunk of change for 1 guys and a pretty bill loss in revenue for the US.

I know If I worked hard and saved all my life and lived a pretty meager lifestyle like Warren Buffet, I'd be pretty ticked off at all these people looking for handouts.

Then after that the businesses will follow. Why should big businesses stay here to pay some of the highest corporate taxes in the world? Why do you think Ireland is currently booming for businesses?

Why are the UAE and Switzerland currently the places rich people move to? Rich people don't move into countries to support others, they move to countries to be with other rich people. They don't move to Africa or India to support the poor. United States is 17th on list. List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Driving up taxes will eventually drive the tax revenue away.
Actually, I'm puzzled by Warren Buffet's behavior. He is a self built billionaire and, as such, should understand how hard it is to get ahead in life - how hard it is to become "rich."

You would think if anyone would understand the value of hard work and the importance of rewarding success, it would be him. Yet, he is an Obama supporter and serves on the board of The Washington Post - one of the most liberal rags out there. Evidently, he is o.k. with "spreading the wealth around" - not through charitable donations mind you, but through government intervention/confiscation.

I am very much against giving bonuses to crooked CEO's who cook their books and run their companies into the ground. Those people should be forced to give back all of their ill-gotten gains as far as I'm concerned. Make them pay a hefty penalty, too.

But, I hate to see legitimate successes being punished with back breaking taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:01 PM
 
939 posts, read 2,015,428 times
Reputation: 567
The government won't be "sticking it to the rich" any more than the the top earners have been "stuck" in the past. Average tax rate under Bush administration was lower than Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations.

The figures below represent the Average Tax Rate for the top 1% for the past nineteen years (totals represent percentage of Adjusted Gross Income paid in income taxes for top 1% earners)

1987 26.41%
1988 24.04
1989 23.34
1990 23.25
1991 24.37
1992 25.05
1993 28.01
1994 28.23
1995 28.73
1996 28.87
1997 27.64
1998 27.12
1999 27.53
2000 27.45
2001 27.50
2002 27.25
2003 24.31
2004 23.49
2005 23.13
2006 22.79

Source:

http://http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Last edited by Paige65; 02-26-2009 at 02:45 PM.. Reason: corrected link
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
19,521 posts, read 20,910,960 times
Reputation: 13858
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude View Post

And are you saying that the rich will somehow not be rich anymore after their 3% increase? Or that the poor will all of a sudden become rich?
I don't think that's the point, nickeldude. The "rich" (which include most small business owners, most of whose wealth is tied up in their businesses) are nothing if not focused on the bottom line. So, they may very well decide to either lay off workers or forego expanding their businesses (and thus not hire anyone new) as a way of recovering that 3%.

I'm with you in wanting the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share of taxes. I am not in agreement, however, that "soaking the rich" is the best way to grow the economy.

We may end up like England, with many of our wealthiest people setting up offshore tax shelters or Swiss bank accounts to evade taxation.

The poor will not benefit from increased taxation to the degree that it will compensate for a further contraction of the overall economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:16 PM
 
3,859 posts, read 9,356,753 times
Reputation: 2732
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0421 View Post
I have one more thought on this matter. You could increase taxes on EVERYBODY at 100%, per Obama's budget, and if the intent is to match spending, per the Wall Street Journal, you'd still fall way short:

"A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion."

So in other words, you'd have to drill down to the $75k level at tax at 100%, to cover the spending proposed by congress in this upcoming budget, to be approved by the president. Does that have to be repeated? This is a complete disgrace. What we are doing here (once again) is deferring future finanical responsibility to our children and grandchildren. Letting the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% of earners does not even begin to scratch the surface.


That is what I thought and why I don't really believe that they are allowing the tax cuts on the top 2% expire because of the deficit. It is to redistribute even more wealth. If our leaders were serious about the deficit, they would not have passed a nearly one trillion dollar so-called stimulus bill filled with pet projects, like 30 million dollars for Nancy P's mouse. Not to mention even more talk of bailouts and "stimulus" plans that will only worsen the deficit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:24 PM
 
703 posts, read 2,624,547 times
Reputation: 657
Better option, tax athletes, actors/actresses making over $5 million/yr at a much higher rate as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR.
493 posts, read 524,491 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude View Post
Um I do believe all were doing is taking away the tax breaks that the rich were given, and instead taxing the poor less... Its not like Obama is the first person to change tax percentages on certain brackets. Were merely undoing the counter-productive tax plan that Bush put in place.
Not exactly "poor", unless you consider <$250k/yr poor, but I applaud your perspective none the less.

If someone complains about not making $250k/yr, I say tough *****, life isn't fair. If someone complains about having to pay more taxes because they do make more than $250k/yr, I say congratulations on your career success, but tough *****, life still isn't fair!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:28 PM
 
939 posts, read 2,015,428 times
Reputation: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
I don't think that's the point, nickeldude. The "rich" (which include most small business owners, most of whose wealth is tied up in their businesses) are nothing if not focused on the bottom line. So, they may very well decide to either lay off workers or forego expanding their businesses (and thus not hire anyone new) as a way of recovering that 3%.

I'm with you in wanting the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share of taxes. I am not in agreement, however, that "soaking the rich" is the best way to grow the economy.

We may end up like England, with many of our wealthiest people setting up offshore tax shelters or Swiss bank accounts to evade taxation.

The poor will not benefit from increased taxation to the degree that it will compensate for a further contraction of the overall economy.
I don't think the majority of people, across the entire income spectrum, are in favor of "soaking the rich". I don't understand all the angry commentary about increasing taxes on the rich that will only result in levels the "rich" have already seen historically. What am I missing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2009, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR.
493 posts, read 524,491 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paige65 View Post
The government won't be "sticking it to the rich" any more than the the top earners have been "stuck" in the past. Average tax rate under Bush administration was lower than Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations.

The figures below represent the Average Tax Rate for the top 1% for the past nineteen years (totals represent percentage of Adjusted Gross Income paid in income taxes for top 1% earners)

1987 26.41%
1988 24.04
1989 23.34
1990 23.25
1991 24.37
1992 25.05
1993 28.01
1994 28.23
1995 28.73
1996 28.87
1997 27.64
1998 27.12
1999 27.53
2000 27.45
2001 27.50
2002 27.25
2003 24.31
2004 23.49
2005 23.13
2006 22.79

Source:

http://http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html (broken link)
The link is not working, but out of curiosity, what did it say you had to make to be considered in the top 1% of earners?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top