No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
I don't know where you are getting your numbers Freedom. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1818
Obama/McCain Tax Graphic
- Thread starter 25w100k+_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
freedomCM_IHB
New member
yes, those number pretty much correspond to my estimates, for cash income, which is what they are for.
25w100k+, first of all, please forgive the slow response. Though your question was simple, a proper answer is complex. I simply didn't have the time last night to respond adequately.
First of all, you are mis-characterizing the Republican platform. If you read the platform to see what Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about, you will find that the party believes in free markets, small government, and low taxes. Of course a simple look at what happened between 2003 and 2007 reveals that anything but small government wasn't in force. Good things and bad things happen in any administration, but without a doubt one of the worst things that happened during the Bush administration was the growth in Federal spending.
Has the party policy changed? Absolutely not. But unfortunately as parties gain power, people more interested riding the coat tails of the party than in the policies that led to the gains in power begin to join the party. This dilutes the purity of the political belief system that creates parties. It should be noted that a complete change in beliefs isn't required to change the outcome of a party. The majority in the House and Senate that the Republicans had between 2003 and 2007 was narrow. It doesn't take many Republicans to cross the philosophical line and join the tax and spend liberals for government spending to grow. And while President Bush has the right vision on national security and taxes, he never was a believer in small government. Not only did he pass spending bills that should have been vetoed, but he even committed sins such as lobbying Congress for the prescription drug bill.
The official position of the Republican Party is small government. If that fits your belief system, then you need to be active in supporting candidates at local and Federal levels in both the primaries and the general election that share your belief system. If you believe in large government and high taxes, then maybe you should consider moving to Europe.
(Just kidding, but not really!)
But since we are on the subject of taxes, it's probably worth sharing something that I read a few months back. I could probably find the original article with some searching, or you could easily take this factoid, run it against numbers that are very public, and see for yourself. Since the end of World War II, the highest Federal tax rate in this country was 70%, the lowest top tax rate in this country was 28%. During that time we have had robust expansions, recessions and flat economies. But despite a wide range in tax rates and economic activities, Federal income tax collections during that time have always been with a couple of tenths of a percent of 19%.
Higher tax rates don't increase Federal revenues. Even though the Federal government is taking a larger share of your income, the reduction in economic activity offsets the higher rates.
If our government needs more tax money, the only effective way to get it is to grow the economy.
Lower taxes are the best way to do that.
First of all, you are mis-characterizing the Republican platform. If you read the platform to see what Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about, you will find that the party believes in free markets, small government, and low taxes. Of course a simple look at what happened between 2003 and 2007 reveals that anything but small government wasn't in force. Good things and bad things happen in any administration, but without a doubt one of the worst things that happened during the Bush administration was the growth in Federal spending.
Has the party policy changed? Absolutely not. But unfortunately as parties gain power, people more interested riding the coat tails of the party than in the policies that led to the gains in power begin to join the party. This dilutes the purity of the political belief system that creates parties. It should be noted that a complete change in beliefs isn't required to change the outcome of a party. The majority in the House and Senate that the Republicans had between 2003 and 2007 was narrow. It doesn't take many Republicans to cross the philosophical line and join the tax and spend liberals for government spending to grow. And while President Bush has the right vision on national security and taxes, he never was a believer in small government. Not only did he pass spending bills that should have been vetoed, but he even committed sins such as lobbying Congress for the prescription drug bill.
The official position of the Republican Party is small government. If that fits your belief system, then you need to be active in supporting candidates at local and Federal levels in both the primaries and the general election that share your belief system. If you believe in large government and high taxes, then maybe you should consider moving to Europe.
(Just kidding, but not really!)But since we are on the subject of taxes, it's probably worth sharing something that I read a few months back. I could probably find the original article with some searching, or you could easily take this factoid, run it against numbers that are very public, and see for yourself. Since the end of World War II, the highest Federal tax rate in this country was 70%, the lowest top tax rate in this country was 28%. During that time we have had robust expansions, recessions and flat economies. But despite a wide range in tax rates and economic activities, Federal income tax collections during that time have always been with a couple of tenths of a percent of 19%.
Higher tax rates don't increase Federal revenues. Even though the Federal government is taking a larger share of your income, the reduction in economic activity offsets the higher rates.
If our government needs more tax money, the only effective way to get it is to grow the economy.
Lower taxes are the best way to do that.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1217568426]yes, those number pretty much correspond to my estimates, for cash income, which is what they are for.</blockquote>
You're making your own numbers up?!?!?
You're making your own numbers up?!?!?
muzie_IHB
New member
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1217557780][quote author="idrnkurmlkshk" date=1217540364]All this stupid arguing over What is or isn't fair is such a waste of time. Bythe time inflation catches up, 2million will be nothing.
When we try to measure FAIRNESS, we just set ourselves up for failure.
Lets just make a <strong>FLAT TAX</strong> and abolish all write off's (or as I call them artificial rebates) and be done with all this B.S.!
Doesn't get much more "fair" or balanced than that.</blockquote>
Does that include all investment income/dividends/capgains too?
and how is it fair to have a family who brings home $25k pay say 10% ($2500) while another bringing home $2.5M pay the same 10% (250k)? The reason the poor pay a lower rate is that they need it all to eat/live, while i'm sure that the $2.5M family can struggle by on $2M just as well as $2.25M</blockquote>
Whenever I see arguments like that there is to me an underlying message.
The underlying message being that money is some quantity that is randomly assigned to random people, that the rich somehow got the luck of the draw and the poor just got the wrong lottery ticket. That to me seems to be a rather negative view of the world.
Yes there is a lot of luck involved in earnings, net worth and so forth, but frankly if the tax system was based on the belief that every dollar one owns is a dollar rightfully earned, there wouldn't be any debate about "fairness" of high-percentage of taxes. Just because someone devotes his or her life to make a lot of money as a CEO or lawyer or whatever doesn't mean he/she hasn't earned the right to every dollar that person has gained. I find the argument that the rich "deserve" to be taxed more just because they have more to be preposterous. Who are we to say they don't have a right to the money they've earned?
The person who makes only 15,000$ could be in poverty because of bad luck or bad economic conditions. But let's face it, a lot of people in lower income brackets aren't that interested in money. That's their perogative, and they're not lesser persons because of it. There should definitely be social services and such to ensure that people in these conditions are not simply cast off out of society; but overall, there is a growing disconnect where the more you earn, the more you get punished for it with higher taxes.
If we actually view dollars as earned instead of just luck of the draw, it becomes clear that this tax system discourages people from creating value, aka earning more, since they just get more of their income away the more they earn.
In Canada, tax brackets get up to 51% around the 75,000$ level if I remember correctly. It just creates an enviornment where there isn't that much push from people to earn more past a fairly low level, as there is just too much friction due to taxes and the rewards aren't commensurate with the effort put in.
When we try to measure FAIRNESS, we just set ourselves up for failure.
Lets just make a <strong>FLAT TAX</strong> and abolish all write off's (or as I call them artificial rebates) and be done with all this B.S.!
Doesn't get much more "fair" or balanced than that.</blockquote>
Does that include all investment income/dividends/capgains too?
and how is it fair to have a family who brings home $25k pay say 10% ($2500) while another bringing home $2.5M pay the same 10% (250k)? The reason the poor pay a lower rate is that they need it all to eat/live, while i'm sure that the $2.5M family can struggle by on $2M just as well as $2.25M</blockquote>
Whenever I see arguments like that there is to me an underlying message.
The underlying message being that money is some quantity that is randomly assigned to random people, that the rich somehow got the luck of the draw and the poor just got the wrong lottery ticket. That to me seems to be a rather negative view of the world.
Yes there is a lot of luck involved in earnings, net worth and so forth, but frankly if the tax system was based on the belief that every dollar one owns is a dollar rightfully earned, there wouldn't be any debate about "fairness" of high-percentage of taxes. Just because someone devotes his or her life to make a lot of money as a CEO or lawyer or whatever doesn't mean he/she hasn't earned the right to every dollar that person has gained. I find the argument that the rich "deserve" to be taxed more just because they have more to be preposterous. Who are we to say they don't have a right to the money they've earned?
The person who makes only 15,000$ could be in poverty because of bad luck or bad economic conditions. But let's face it, a lot of people in lower income brackets aren't that interested in money. That's their perogative, and they're not lesser persons because of it. There should definitely be social services and such to ensure that people in these conditions are not simply cast off out of society; but overall, there is a growing disconnect where the more you earn, the more you get punished for it with higher taxes.
If we actually view dollars as earned instead of just luck of the draw, it becomes clear that this tax system discourages people from creating value, aka earning more, since they just get more of their income away the more they earn.
In Canada, tax brackets get up to 51% around the 75,000$ level if I remember correctly. It just creates an enviornment where there isn't that much push from people to earn more past a fairly low level, as there is just too much friction due to taxes and the rewards aren't commensurate with the effort put in.
freedomCM_IHB
New member
well, that is certainly one way to look at it.
another is that as a society we have basic needs that should be met (education, basic healthcare, public safety, etc) and these things cost X dollars. So what is the fairest way to meet this need? Since the need is more than an equal tax rate will meet, we need to find some socially acceptable compromise. Many of us see a graduated tax as the most fair of many less than equal alternatives. (Rather like democracy is the best of many bad systems of government).
What system would you propose that is more fair?
another is that as a society we have basic needs that should be met (education, basic healthcare, public safety, etc) and these things cost X dollars. So what is the fairest way to meet this need? Since the need is more than an equal tax rate will meet, we need to find some socially acceptable compromise. Many of us see a graduated tax as the most fair of many less than equal alternatives. (Rather like democracy is the best of many bad systems of government).
What system would you propose that is more fair?
4walls4me_IHB
New member
freedomCM, more taxes aren't needed. Less spending is. I'll give you that the Repubs have screwed that one up lately and the party base is pissed off about it. Obama and company WANT to spend like crazy. I'd rather take a chance on McCain than hand over power to someone who openly wants to spend more.
There is more than enough money flowing in, it just needs to be used correctly.
People in higher brackets earn their money. The government does not have a right to tax from Peter to give to Paul to the point liberals would like.
There is more than enough money flowing in, it just needs to be used correctly.
People in higher brackets earn their money. The government does not have a right to tax from Peter to give to Paul to the point liberals would like.
BMP 309_IHB
New member
[quote author="25w100k+" date=1217477628]<img src="http://outtheotherear.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/gr2008061200193.gif" alt="" />
I think its interesting. Personally, I'm all for taxing the super rich more, but 2.6 million seems a little low to begin the real raping. I think tax 'percentages' should be ammoritzed over a period of time. Its not hard to imagine a family who owns a business that make almost nothing for 10 years, sells for 2.6 million, pays 50%, then goes back to making a much smaller amount.
Oh well, I'm not going to vote for either of them, as Obama betrayed his supporters on the FISA vote and McCaine should stand trial for treason because of his P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act vote.
I just thought it might help those on the fence on who to vote for decide.</blockquote>
25K - you're an idiot. First, the Obama tax plan you posted does not take into consideration the social security tax increase Obama proposes - which would increase taxes an additional 6% (employee contribution) on income earners exceeding 125K (single) or 250k (married). If you're a small business, you're bearing the whole 12%. Don't forget about increasing capital gains to about 50%! Obama yearns to be loved by the world - especially Europe. How much will Europe love it when the US surpasses Europe as the most taxed country in the world! Hoooooraaaaay!!!!!!!!!
You should read an article written by Professor Boskin from Stanford, published in the Wall Street Journal titled <em>Obamanomics</em>. It concludes that top income earners will be bringing home 37 cents for each dollar they make. That, my friend, is communism. Obamunism if you will. Incidentally, Obama's tax the "rich" doesn't take into consideration cost of living. As you likely know - assuming you don't live with your parents - cost of living in OC is high - very high. Making 125 as a single person or even 250k as a couple, does not make you rich.
Obama's a genius. He's pitting class against class. 250k was no coincidence. He chose it because he knows that only 2% of Americans earn that much per annum. Not a huge electoral impact. But he's also naive. He forgets that the top 2% are the top employers and the top spenders. If, all of a sudden, an attorney is making 300k per year is now bringing home 36K less in after tax dollars - he'll buy fewer ties, go out to fewer dinners, play fewer rounds of golf, etc... What that means is that the "poor" (can we say that? - or is rich the only derogatory word we can use to describe class?) are getting less commissions on their tie sales, fewer tips from diner customers, fewer beers on the back nine. Fewer tie sales, fewer tips, fewer beers means layoffs. So, my friend, the poor will get poorer - by a policy that seeks to rob the rich to enrich the poor. The rich you ask? Well, they're busy sheltering money from taxes. They're also less inclined to risk capital to make capital. thus, heavy taxes chill innovation and entrepreneurship. History has ALWAYS shown heavy tax policies backfire.
You should be embarrassed by your PATRIOT Act comment. Was it overreaching - perhaps. But you cannot argue with the results. 0 attacks on US soil since its enactment. Research what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War to preserve the Union. I'm too tired to school you on that too.
BMP
I think its interesting. Personally, I'm all for taxing the super rich more, but 2.6 million seems a little low to begin the real raping. I think tax 'percentages' should be ammoritzed over a period of time. Its not hard to imagine a family who owns a business that make almost nothing for 10 years, sells for 2.6 million, pays 50%, then goes back to making a much smaller amount.
Oh well, I'm not going to vote for either of them, as Obama betrayed his supporters on the FISA vote and McCaine should stand trial for treason because of his P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act vote.
I just thought it might help those on the fence on who to vote for decide.</blockquote>
25K - you're an idiot. First, the Obama tax plan you posted does not take into consideration the social security tax increase Obama proposes - which would increase taxes an additional 6% (employee contribution) on income earners exceeding 125K (single) or 250k (married). If you're a small business, you're bearing the whole 12%. Don't forget about increasing capital gains to about 50%! Obama yearns to be loved by the world - especially Europe. How much will Europe love it when the US surpasses Europe as the most taxed country in the world! Hoooooraaaaay!!!!!!!!!
You should read an article written by Professor Boskin from Stanford, published in the Wall Street Journal titled <em>Obamanomics</em>. It concludes that top income earners will be bringing home 37 cents for each dollar they make. That, my friend, is communism. Obamunism if you will. Incidentally, Obama's tax the "rich" doesn't take into consideration cost of living. As you likely know - assuming you don't live with your parents - cost of living in OC is high - very high. Making 125 as a single person or even 250k as a couple, does not make you rich.
Obama's a genius. He's pitting class against class. 250k was no coincidence. He chose it because he knows that only 2% of Americans earn that much per annum. Not a huge electoral impact. But he's also naive. He forgets that the top 2% are the top employers and the top spenders. If, all of a sudden, an attorney is making 300k per year is now bringing home 36K less in after tax dollars - he'll buy fewer ties, go out to fewer dinners, play fewer rounds of golf, etc... What that means is that the "poor" (can we say that? - or is rich the only derogatory word we can use to describe class?) are getting less commissions on their tie sales, fewer tips from diner customers, fewer beers on the back nine. Fewer tie sales, fewer tips, fewer beers means layoffs. So, my friend, the poor will get poorer - by a policy that seeks to rob the rich to enrich the poor. The rich you ask? Well, they're busy sheltering money from taxes. They're also less inclined to risk capital to make capital. thus, heavy taxes chill innovation and entrepreneurship. History has ALWAYS shown heavy tax policies backfire.
You should be embarrassed by your PATRIOT Act comment. Was it overreaching - perhaps. But you cannot argue with the results. 0 attacks on US soil since its enactment. Research what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War to preserve the Union. I'm too tired to school you on that too.
BMP
BMP 309_IHB
New member
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1217568426]yes, those number pretty much correspond to my estimates, for cash income, which is what they are for.</blockquote>
wrong.
wrong.
BMP 309_IHB
New member
[quote author="skek" date=1217488776]Currently, the top 10% of wage earners make 48% of the income in the country, but pay nearly 70% of the income taxes. The top 1% of wage earners make 21.8% of the income and pay 38.4% of the income taxes. The average tax rate is also steeply progressive. The problem is not on the tax side, the problem is on the spend side.
<img src="http://perotcharts.com/images/taxation/taxation09.png" alt="" /></blockquote>
Skek, agreed. The problem is on the spend side. Your post saved this inane thread. It's literally as if people refuse to accept facts in favor of liberal talking points. Lower taxes + less spending = greater prosperity.
<img src="http://perotcharts.com/images/taxation/taxation09.png" alt="" /></blockquote>
Skek, agreed. The problem is on the spend side. Your post saved this inane thread. It's literally as if people refuse to accept facts in favor of liberal talking points. Lower taxes + less spending = greater prosperity.
BMP 309_IHB
New member
25/100 why so quiet? I'm sure you read my responses...Could it be because...you're...wrong?! :coolsmirk: