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.
You seem to not understand the difference between a one time expenditure (like the stimulus bill) and reoccurring expenses that happen year after year after year. Personally, I blame the educational system other wise people like you might be able to tell the difference.
That's a lie. You're only talking about income taxes but pay roll taxes make up over 50% of all the taxes paid. Income taxes only around 40% of taxes paid with royalty payments, excess payments, tariff payments, gasoline taxes, and sin taxes making up the other 10% of taxes at the Federal level.
Anyone who claims, as you have, that the top 5% pays anything close to 65% of the taxes can safely be dismissed as someone too ignorant to bother with.
Even among this prosperous group, the highest earners paid the lion's share. The top one percent of earners in the country are paying close to a third of all the taxes collected. That's approximately 1.2 million earners who paid 32.3 percent of 1996's federal individual income taxes.
n enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
This means that under Clinton, the richest 1% had their tax liabilities DROP from 32.3% of the tax bill to 29% of the tax bill.
According to the IRS, this group of taxpayers (1,399,606 total) paid 38.02% of all federal individual income tax collected in 2008.
Which means that under Bush, the top 1% had their tax liabilities increase from 29% to 38.2% of the tax liability..
And you guys want to return back to the Clinton years, where they rich pay less?
Here goes a chart
Why on gods earth would you want to reverse the tax cuts and make the rich pay less I'll never know...
I know because you dont undestand WHY they are paying more now. You think its all about the marginal tax rate and have no understanding at all that its about the effective tax rate. FACT, the effective tax rate on the rich goes UP, when the marginal tax rates go down..
No they were not.. tax cuts do not take place with borrowed money.. Its SPENDING which takes place with borrowed money.. Again, the 2003 tax cuts INCREASED revenues, it DOUBLED capital gains tax revenues, its SPENDING which increased far more than the income which took place with borrowed money..
A comparison would be borrowing against your mortgage on your home and going out and buying a new car with the money. You would say that the borrowing against the mortgage was the cause of the debt but thats not true.. Its wasting that borrowed money on the car which caused your debt problems. If you borrowed the money and sat the money in a bank, your networth would not change to be negative. If you used it to buy an investment property your net worth wouldnt again change to be negative, it would actually increase. its the SPENDING of the borrowed money on a depreciating asset with negative returns which is the problem.. and thats exactly what the government does time and time again..
Or if I just received a $1 pay raise, (because the tax cuts increased revenues) and I go out and I sell my $100K home that I barely could afford and buy a $1,000,000 home I'm in for future economic problems would you not agree? Again its not the income which is the problem, its the SPENDING..
Its no wonder Americans are in such bad financial shape when they dont understand this crap..
You need to do a bit of research on the origins of Bush's so-called "tax cuts". And you are correct. SPENDING is the problem, and I can't figure out how you missed the fact that the "tax cuts" are GOVERNMENT SPENDING since there isn't enough income to handle the committments already.
Do you run your own business this way? Lord, I hope you are smarter than this in person...
You need to do a bit of research on the origins of Bush's so-called "tax cuts". And you are correct. SPENDING is the problem, and I can't figure out how you missed the fact that the "tax cuts" are GOVERNMENT SPENDING since there isn't enough income to handle the committments already.
Do you run your own business this way? Lord, I hope you are smarter than this in person...
no tax cuts are not the spending...taxes (all taxes income, corporate, payroll and etc fees) are the INCOME...spending is what you do with that income
if you work and you take a pay cut...you then REVISE your BUDGET to reflect the lower income, and you SPEND LESS
no tax cuts are not the spending...taxes (all taxes income, corporate, payroll and etc fees) are the INCOME...spending is what you do with that income
if you work and you take a pay cut...you then REVISE your BUDGET to reflect the lower income, and you SPEND LESS
When they are misnamed and accomplished on borrowed money, it is spending.
There was never any money in the treasury for "tax cuts" in the first place. It was a Bush vote-buying gimmick, and it worked. We got screwed for a full eight years instead of cutting our losses at four.
Seems like an easy solution. Take one for the team and ****. What do the Democrats have to gain by stalling? Make the tax cuts permanent and they could move on to their favorite issues like gays in the military and the dream act.
Why not just keep the tax rates for the past decade and make them permanent, and if some day down the road they want to raise them, then they can offer that up thru the US congress?
You need to do a bit of research on the origins of Bush's so-called "tax cuts". And you are correct. SPENDING is the problem, and I can't figure out how you missed the fact that the "tax cuts" are GOVERNMENT SPENDING since there isn't enough income to handle the committments already.
Do you run your own business this way? Lord, I hope you are smarter than this in person...
Tax cuts are not government spending. Here, lets equate this to a real life scenario..
You go to a restaurant and a waitress waits on you.. You get a $20 bill and leave the waitress $0 as a tip..
Are you telling me that the $5 tip you didnt leave the waitress is income and the money you didnt give her is an expense?
Please tell me who your accountant is because I have 2 geothermal units I'd like to buy for my home but cant justify the $30K expense. I'd like them to get me the tax credits as if I had the expense anyways..
When they are misnamed and accomplished on borrowed money, it is spending.
There was never any money in the treasury for "tax cuts" in the first place. It was a Bush vote-buying gimmick, and it worked. We got screwed for a full eight years instead of cutting our losses at four.
They didnt borrow to fund the tax cuts, they borrowed to fund the expenses..
Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period. It’s impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years.
But, but tax cuts for the rich means jobs for the poor...
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.
