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.
InformedConsent View Post
We don't have an economy in which proposed tax increases are motivated by a desire to reduce the deficit. The Democrats want to increase spending.
Of course we do. That's the whole purpose of proposals to raise taxes now instead of cutting spending, which we know will impact GDP negatively.
There is no evidence "Democrats want to use add'l revenue to increase, spending." That's your bias talking, not facts. Democrats have over the last 20 years been the only party that held down spending. Reagan and Bush increased spending. Clinton held it down and Bush, the later, could be called a drunken sailor spender. (Sorry for the insult, drunken sailors.)
This is from the article that I posted. If you don't agree with the article, take it up with newsweek. Keep in mind it was going by what she made in 2006. Why don't people actually read the posts before they respond? It is live Pavlov's dog.
You have absolutely nothing to say about making 46 million and paying only 15%. I did not think so.
and what percent do you think he should pay
why not tax everyone at 100%..will that be enough blood for you liberals
sorry but we dont want the slavery by the liberals
the FACT is that his sec is married.. her tax bracket is 15% bracket..he actual tax percent would be 13.58% and the actual tax due would be 8k...that's on 60k of taxable income...("Taxable Income" is Regularly Taxed Income minus Adjustments, Deductions, and Exemptions.) so taking her A,D,E (I dont know how many kids she has, so just the Married jointly and the 3.7k per exempt) brings her down to less than 40k of taxable income which would be in the 15% bracket with an actual rate of 12.88% and a tax due of 5.1k
the fact that buffet makes millions ON INVESTMENTS means nothing when his INCOME is only 100k..
you think taxing investments at 15% is too little...even when the RETURN on said investments is less tahn 10%
you raise the investment(cap gains) tax and what will happen is they wont invest in reportable stuff
we need to cut spending back to 2005/6 levels
spending has increase 44% since 2007
we dont have a revenue proble, we have a spending problem
Last edited by workingclasshero; 07-05-2011 at 01:52 PM..
Of course we do. That's the whole purpose of proposals to raise taxes now instead of cutting spending, which we know will impact GDP negatively.
There is no evidence "Democrats want to use add'l revenue to increase, spending." That's your bias talking, not facts. Democrats have over the last 20 years been the only party that held down spending. Reagan and Bush increased spending. Clinton held it down and Bush, the later, could be called a drunken sailor spender. (Sorry for the insult, drunken sailors.)
These are the facts that they ignore. It is the same old tired trickle down economic theory or starve the beast theory. Pick your poison.
why not tax everyone at 100%..will that be enough blood for you liberals
sorry but we dont want the slavery by the liberals
the FACT is that his sec is married.. her tax bracket is 15% bracket..he actual tax percent would be 13.58% and the actual tax due would be 8k...that's on 60k of taxable income...("Taxable Income" is Regularly Taxed Income minus Adjustments, Deductions, and Exemptions.) so taking her A,D,E (I dont know how many kids she has, so just the Married jointly and the 3.7k per exempt) brings her down to less than 40k of taxable income which would be in the 15% bracket with an actual rate of 12.88% and a tax due of 5.1k
the fat that buffet makes millions ON INVESTMENTS means nothing when his INCOME is only 100k..
you think taxing investments at 15% is too little...even when the RETURN on said investments is less tahn 10%
you raise the investment(cap gains) tax and what will happen is they wont invest in reportable stuff
we need to cut spending back to 2005/6 levels
spending has increase 44% since 2007
we dont have a revenue proble, we have a spending problem
This is going to be an eye opener for you. I know you have been conditioned to believe that there is left wing conspiracy on taxes and that Obama and current democrats are trying to do something that has never been done in history. The graph attached will be an eye opener. If you look at the graph, you will notice that the only time taxes were lower were before the great depression...right before. Are you getting that? Please tell me that you are. If the Republicans get what they want...that is where we are heading.
This is going to be an eye opener for you. I know you have been conditioned to believe that there is left wing conspiracy on taxes and that Obama and current democrats are trying to do something that has never been done in history. The graph attached will be an eye opener. If you look at the graph, you will notice that the only time taxes were lower were before the great depression...right before. Are you getting that? Please tell me that you are. If the Republicans get what they want...that is where we are heading.
This is going to be an eye opener for you. I know you have been conditioned to believe that there is left wing conspiracy on taxes and that Obama and current democrats are trying to do something that has never been done in history. The graph attached will be an eye opener. If you look at the graph, you will notice that the only time taxes were lower were before the great depression...right before. Are you getting that? Please tell me that you are. If the Republicans get what they want...that is where we are heading.
I know for facts that I make 3 times what my father makes, and its is HARDER now than it was for my father
I know that FEES and LICENSES and other taxes are at their HIGHEST EVER
my property tax on my little 60x150 lot with a little 1400sf house is over 12k a year
the fact is that FEDERAL taxes may be at their lowest, but STATE and LOCAL and FEDERAL OTHER taxes are way up
the top brack in the 50's was around 90%...but had many loophole that the EFFECTIVE rate was down near 15%...and that was on the rich..the top bracket was on incomes of OVER 400k in 1950's dollars..which would be over 3 million in todays's dollars
why do you want the facsist rule of the liberals...do you have no PRIDE man
This is going to be an eye opener for you. I know you have been conditioned to believe that there is left wing conspiracy on taxes and that Obama and current democrats are trying to do something that has never been done in history. The graph attached will be an eye opener. If you look at the graph, you will notice that the only time taxes were lower were before the great depression...right before. Are you getting that? Please tell me that you are. If the Republicans get what they want...that is where we are heading.
Take a look at what happened with the the top marginal tax from the beginning of the Great Depression, and think about how FDR's taxing and spending policies led to a much more prolonged depression than we should have had.
Take a look at what happened with the the top marginal tax from the beginning of the Great Depression, and think about how FDR's taxing and spending policies led to a much more prolonged depression than we should have had.
So, recovery of the great depression was longer than it should have been. So the question would be, compared to what? What would have not been a long recovery?
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.
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.
