Obama and elusive tax or no tax (McCain, generation, Reagan)
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.
With all the freepers from the far right frothing at the mouth over Obama's raising of taxes on those making over 250,000 a year, I decided to look into this just a little.
Keep in mind, this discussion of tax hike isn't raising taxes, it is letting George Bush's tax cuts expire on their own as they were intended to do. In fact, the Bush tax cuts were issued with a sunset clause instead of being made permanent as one former Bush aid said, "So that when they were due to expire, anyone who didn't reinstate them would be seen as a tax raiser". So the plan was put in motion quite some time ago.
Now, there are even some Democrats right now getting their panties in a bunch over raising taxes on the wealthy, but I have to ask all our members here, does anyone think that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a liberal spreader of wealth or a socialist? Did not the United States produce millionaires back in the 40,50,60,'s etc...?
Lets examine a historical data sheet on taxation rates since around the turn of the century
Now looking at this chart, it is hard for me to think that the extreme nature of the current criticism is just freaking out panic by folks who should be hiding under a bed or digging their bunkers.
I don't like to pay taxes anymore than the next person, but seriously, lets be reasonable here. How many folks posting here are making more than 250,000 and of those, are you really going to whine that you will have to pay taxes that are more historically on par than the gimmie gimmie days of the past few years?
I guess we can now just place Dwight D. Eisenhower among the ranks of the socialist now... oy
Having the expirations written in also helped with long-term budget scoring, letting the Bush people argue that the tax cuts were actually much cheaper than they would have been if made permanent to start out with. And of course, once the cuts were passed, the Republicans immediatley began cheerleading for making them permanent. Sort of a two-step strategy. Lie to people about the up-front cost, then after the sale, try to convince them what a good deal they got. People are so dumb that by the time the actual bill comes around, they won't remember why they got it anyway. [And yes, right-wingers, your leaders really do regularly count on your being dumb. And you don't make them pay a price for that very often.]
In any case, rich people will suffer no noticeable pain as the result of returning to a 39.6% marginal rate above $250K. There are apparently quite a few who post here who are in that bracket, and unless they are just plain doing it wrong, they are paying no more than somewhere in the range of 21-22 cents per dollar of adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. The reasonably clever will be paying a little less. This compares to 13-14 cents per dollar for all those who are in the top 50% of earners, and about 3 cents per dollar for all those who are in the bottom 50% of earners. The 39.6% rate would return the rate on high earners to something a little above 23 cents per dollar, or roughly the same rate they faced in Ronald Reagan's final year in office. No one -- repeat, no one -- among this group is going to see his or her financial situation spun off the tracks by such a development. They will in fact have to work hard even to notice the change. The lifestyles of such people are simply not affected by the value of the last dollar they receive. By contrast, that value determines the lifestyle of those in the middle class. Now, the right-wing disinformation media can produce all sorts of screed claiming that tax increases on the rich will be just disastrous, and they are all crap. The bottom line is that the rich have been getting a free ride at the expense of everyone else for quite some time. That needs to come to an end, and the good thing is that the rich won't even need to notice that it happened.
Hey, I'm not too proud to wash the limo's and private jets of the City-Data jet set here for 10 bucks an hour, I could use a little extra change in my pocket.
After looking through that data sheet, I can only conclude that when it comes to taxes, this whole thing is more about red meat for shrills.
So you're saying at this point we can afford to affect those companies and farms?They do employ people you know.
It does affect individuals. It's a tax on the Gross Estate.Family farms are often sold because they can't afford to pay taxes on the value of the land. The previous generation might have bought the land at 250.00 and acre and made a modest income on production. The land may be now worth an excessively taxable amount. The tax can't be met, so the land is sold. You may say "so what they have money now, rich bastards?" Well, they've lost a livelihood and a place they love. Something taxes were already paid on the entire lifetime of the previous generation.
Last edited by EasilyAmused; 03-10-2009 at 07:14 AM..
Inheritance taxes traditionally affect about 2% of all estates. 2% is very different from 100%. They meanwhile address the noble social purpose of preventing the buildup of permanent aristocracies while still allowing the successful to pass on many of the fruits of a life's labor. Substantial portions (i.e., well over half) of those larger estates that incur significant tax burdens consist of unrealized capital gains on various investments. These have never been taxed, and in the absence of an inheritance tax, never would be. Eliminating inheritance taxes would simply shift tens of billions of dollars worth of tax burden off of the rich and onto everybody else.
Originally posted by TnHilltopper
With all the freepers from the far right frothing at the mouth over Obama's raising of taxes on those making over 250,000 a year, I decided to look into this just a little.
Keep in mind, this discussion of tax hike isn't raising taxes, it is letting George Bush's tax cuts expire on their own as they were intended to do. In fact, the Bush tax cuts were issued with a sunset clause instead of being made permanent as one former Bush aid said, "So that when they were due to expire, anyone who didn't reinstate them would be seen as a tax raiser". So the plan was put in motion quite some time ago.
Now, there are even some Democrats right now getting their panties in a bunch over raising taxes on the wealthy, but I have to ask all our members here, does anyone think that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a liberal spreader of wealth or a socialist? Did not the United States produce millionaires back in the 40,50,60,'s etc...?
Lets examine a historical data sheet on taxation rates since around the turn of the century
Now looking at this chart, it is hard for me to think that the extreme nature of the current criticism is just freaking out panic by folks who should be hiding under a bed or digging their bunkers.
I don't like to pay taxes anymore than the next person, but seriously, lets be reasonable here. How many folks posting here are making more than 250,000 and of those, are you really going to whine that you will have to pay taxes that are more historically on par than the gimmie gimmie days of the past few years?
I guess we can now just place Dwight D. Eisenhower among the ranks of the socialist now... oy
You post really cool threads Tn. Just wanted to say that
I bought the whole "Socialist tax hike" junk myself until I looked into it and realized that Obama's "tax increase" was simply letting the top rate go back to Clinton-era levels. Then I remembered what the 90s were like, put 2 and 2 together and realized that the right wing media was lying to us. It still makes me mad when I hear people like Sean Hannity tell us that "our" (meaning, average middle class folks) taxes are going to go sky high because it's not just inaccurate, it's a lie.
And when you look at tax rates in the fiftiies compared to today we have nothing to complain about.
Inheritance taxes traditionally affect about 2% of all estates. 2% is very different from 100%. They meanwhile address the noble social purpose of preventing the buildup of permanent aristocracies while still allowing the successful to pass on many of the fruits of a life's labor. Substantial portions (i.e., well over half) of those larger estates that incur significant tax burdens consist of unrealized capital gains on various investments. These have never been taxed, and in the absence of an inheritance tax, never would be. Eliminating inheritance taxes would simply shift tens of billions of dollars worth of tax burden off of the rich and onto everybody else.
"Noble Social Purpose"
You just jumped your own shark.
So you're saying at this point we can afford to affect those companies and farms?They do employ people you know. It does affect individuals. It's a tax on the Gross Estate.
Well, it's a tax on the gross estate after deducting funeral expenses, executors' fees, attorneys' fees, applicable losses, the value of outstanding debts and mortgages, bequests to a spouse, charitable bequests and contributions, federal and state standard deductions, gift taxes paid, and unified and other credits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasilyAmused
Family farms are often sold because they can't afford to pay taxes on the value of the land.
No, this basically never happens. Family farms are often sold because the heirs don't want to do farming for a living, prefering to liquidate the asset, no doubt using some portion of the proceeds to pay applicable estate taxes, and then using the rest for other purposes. You can search and search and you will not come up with an actual case where a family farm had to be sold in order to pay the inheritance taxes on it.
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.
