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.
Do you know how many times your side has taken your dishonest story, left off the part about "income tax" and just said 47% pay "no taxes"?
It's actually 51% that pay no federal income tax whatsoever, and everyone knows that stat refers to federal income tax.
Furthermore, 30% of income earners actually get MORE money fromthe federal government than they pay in income tax.
All documented here:
Quote:
"In summary, for tax year 2009, approximately 22 percent of all tax units, including filers and non filers, will have zero income tax liability, approximately 30% will receive a refundable credit, and approximately 49% will have a positive income tax liability."
In fairness, this is no more imaginary than most of what you post.
such as....
At least if it's imaginary, I do label it as such. Not a day goes by when I don't have to call BS on lefty posters here for imaginings, halluciations, and fantastical fabrications. I already had one today in my thread about Sarah Brady.
Re read the post I responded to. The poster claimed high tax rates brought in more revenue. He is demonstrably wrong.
Well, if that is the data you want to use, as opposed to federal income tax alone, we can surely go about it. Here's what I see (not accounting for increase in population but also presenting size of receipts as a percentage of GDP):
1977: $1.055T (18.0% of the GDP)
1981: $1.251T (19.6% of the GDP)
So, during Carter years, federal receipts increased by 18.5%.
Reagan's tax tweaks were implemented in 1981. During Reagan years:
1981: $1.251T (19.6% of the GDP)
1985: $1.251T (17.7% of the GDP)
There was ZERO increase in federal receipts in first four years (1981-85). The receipts as a percentage of GDP declined.
Apply the same logic to Clinton years when top marginal rates were increased (to where President Obama wants):
1993: $1.512T (17.5% of the GDP)
1997: $1.890T (19.2% of the GDP)
THAT is a 25% increase in federal tax receipts, and a substantial increase in federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP.
Fast forward to first four years under W Bush, and results from his two tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA):
2001: $2.215T (19.5% of the GDP)
2005: $2.153T (17.3% of the GDP)
And once again, we did not see an increase in federal receipts. In fact we saw a decline in tax receipts, and a decrease in federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP.
As you should be able to see, the data you relied on, to make your point, it proving it to be a myth you maintain.
Well, if that is the data you want to use, as opposed to federal income tax alone, we can surely go about it. Here's what I see (not accounting for increase in population but also presenting size of receipts as a percentage of GDP):
1977: $1.055T (18.0% of the GDP)
1981: $1.251T (19.6% of the GDP)
So, during Carter years, federal receipts increased by 18.5%.
Reagan's tax tweaks were implemented in 1981. During Reagan years:
1981: $1.251T (19.6% of the GDP)
1985: $1.251T (17.7% of the GDP)
There was ZERO increase in federal receipts in first four years (1981-85). The receipts as a percentage of GDP declined.
Apply the same logic to Clinton years when top marginal rates were increased (to where President Obama wants):
1993: $1.512T (17.5% of the GDP)
1997: $1.890T (19.2% of the GDP)
THAT is a 25% increase in federal tax receipts, and a substantial increase in federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP.
Fast forward to first four years under W Bush, and results from his two tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA):
2001: $2.215T (19.5% of the GDP)
2005: $2.153T (17.3% of the GDP)
And once again, we did not see an increase in federal receipts. In fact we saw a decline in tax receipts, and a decrease in federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP.
As you should be able to see, the data you relied on, to make your point, it proving it to be a myth you maintain.
Why mot use percent of revenue compare to unicorns? Are you suggesting your parameters are more important than the amount of revenue needed to run the government?
The fact remains those tweaks as you call them reduced top marginal rates dramatically while not affecting revenue.
Surely you must see the myth of tax rates on revenue. It is the tax CODE that matters.
Democrats don't love class warfare, Republicans don't love the rich.
America is a social basketcase, a sick society full of ignorance, hatred and intolerance.
The bottom line is that the President will be running his campaign based on class warfare. Just a few months ago, after spending this country into more debt than ever before, he proposed a plan as follows:
President Obama called Monday for up to $1.5 trillion in new taxes on "the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations," the major part of a debt reduction plan designed to cut more than $3 trillion over the next decade......
He pledged to veto any debt reduction plan that cuts Medicare, but does not include more taxes from the wealthiest Americans
That is class warfare, plain & simple. All done while taking $4 million vacations and taking huge amounts of money from Wall Street. And that is hypocrisy, plain & simple.
classwarfare is the perfect political weapon. It is undefined and as such allows each member of the audience to interpret this emotional entity to fit their needs.
Difficult to argue logic with emotion. This is why 'science' unto itself is useless, unless its supplements and validates a clear intention.
Statistics tell us if you wear a seat belt while driving, your chances of surviving a crash will be significantly improved over dying because you were wearing a seat belt while driving. Yet how many people refuse to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Throw all the 'science' you want and it just bounces off the emotionally held position.
Of course if you have an intelligent audience sans political agenda, spewing emotional argument such as found in an Obama speech, would never gain support and would be deemed less than professional.
Why mot use percent of revenue compare to unicorns? Are you suggesting your parameters are more important than the amount of revenue needed to run the government?
The fact remains those tweaks as you call them reduced top marginal rates dramatically while not affecting revenue.
Surely you must see the myth of tax rates on revenue. It is the tax CODE that matters.
Cheers!
1- We were talking about federal income tax receipts. You skipped that and went for federal tax receipts instead. I obliged.
2- You presented a link with data, I obliged to use it and debunked the myth you maintained, and are likely to cling on to. Facts such, no?
So, now you want to make another switch to revenue "needed" to run government? Then please do tell, how Reagan's tax cuts, fixing loop holes and spending was meeting THAT target.
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.
emotion deflects fact
