| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 12:47 am |
|
| It won't.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 12:13 am |
|
To pay for his middle-class tax cuts, Obama says he would raise the top marginal tax rate on Americans earning more than $250,000 from 30.6% to 35%. According to the IRS, the top 5 percent of all income earners in 2004 paid 57.13 percent of all income taxes. Why should anyone seek to excel in business if he is going to get whacked? I can's see how that's going to stimulate growth.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 10:27 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I am betting that they did not do their own research, ID. Who did they quote, and what was their agenda? Here is how you are supposed to do it...don't compare biased information to unbiased. Here is the Tax Policy center's updated analysis from the middle of September. Yes, you can "cherry pick" data for your candidate if you want, but there are good and bad figures for both, but here are the comparative tax plans, including an analysis of what their policies say versus what they have said on the campaign trail.
Both (candidates) have proposed plans that would substantially raise the national debt over the next ten years....(and) neither candidate's plan would signficantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases the campaigns have not specified. OK. So the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan policy analysis group (established by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution), estimates that about 80 percent of households would receive a tax cut. But Investor's Business Daily also questioned whether Mr. Obama's "tax cut" was really a tax cut for people who don't pay taxes. Why do you question their analysis? "There's the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of 'tax relief' that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax 'cut' is a reduction in the taxes you're paying. In contrast, much of the 'relief' in Mr. Obama's plan consists of 'refundable credit' - payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all" (Investor’s Business Daily) But I also note that McCain's economic plan also includes refundable tax credits. So how can the Republicans call Obama’s plan “welfare” or “redistribution” when they propose it themselves?
"Senator Obama believes that the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' - they think it is only fair to reward work." (Jason Furman, Obama campaign's chief economic adviser) Now McCain also proposes to make his health tax credit refundable. So I ask, what work? Both of these people are leading us towards more socialism except that one walks and the other takes an express bus!
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 10:23 pm |
|
| Who watches or listens to CNN?
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
Here is a CNN comparison on McCain's tax plan vs. Obama's tax plan.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 07:38 pm |
|
I am betting that they did not do their own research, ID. Who did they quote, and what was their agenda?
Here is how you are supposed to do it...don't compare biased information to unbiased. Here is the Tax Policy center's updated analysis from the middle of September. Yes, you can "cherry pick" data for your candidate if you want, but there are good and bad figures for both, but here are the comparative tax plans, including an analysis of what their policies say versus what they have said on the campaign trail.
The open sentence of the report should give pause to both parties claiming that theirs is the best and the other guy's is the worst....
Both (candidates) have proposed plans that would substantially raise the national debt over the next ten years....(and) neither candidate's plan would signficantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases the campaigns have not specified.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf
If you want to see what a non-partisan thinks about each of their stimulus plans..
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/10/14/3930623.html
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 378 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 07:28 pm |
|
| Obama keeps on saying in his speeches that almost all workers and "working families" will benefit from his "tax cuts." In the last debate he said, "What I want to do is provide a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans." At another point in that debate, he enlarged the universe of his tax-cut recipients, saying, "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans." But investor's Business Daily pointed out earlier this month that Obama's " 'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 378 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 07:24 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: I hope someone making 5 times the amount of money I do has to pay more. I watched the rich pay less for 40 years now its there turn to pony up for whatever BS the gov wants to spend the taxes on. There you go again, sounding like the last disgruntled, angry man. The guy making 5x you does pay more. Misery loves company.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
The Insyder wrote: Re: The Tax Calculator website: By its own admission, the tax calculator ignores the unprecedented imposition of Social Security payroll taxes on small business profits exceeding $250,000 (where two-thirds of small business profits exist). This is despite the fact that Obama told Charlie Gibson on October 8th that he wants to keep the Social Security tax rate "the same" for these small business owners. This would result in a top small business tax rate of 54.9 percent--the highest level since the Carter Administration It tells those earning $250,000 or more that, "You will probably not get a tax cut" under an Obama Administration. Considering the Obama tax hike will result in a marginal tax rate approaching 50 percent on two-thirds of small business income (which resides in these households), one might call this a bit of an understatement. Most of the "tax cuts" Obama claims credit for is in fact spending. "Refundable tax credits" means that if you zero out your income tax liability, the government gives you a welfare check. This isn't an income tax cut--it's spending. According to the Tax Foundation, one-third of households don't have an income tax liability. It's impossible to cut their income taxes, despite what this "calculator" says. Everyone is told that they may be eligible for refundable credits including a college credit, a retirement savings credit, etc. However, these credits phase out on quite modest levels of income, thus deceiving voters.
I hope someone making 5 times the amount of money I do has to pay more. I watched the rich pay less for 40 years now its there turn to pony up for whatever BS the gov wants to spend the taxes on.
Face it people the Gov is broke cos they no longer obey the limitations set forth on them in the Constitution. Unless and untill we force them too nothing will really change.
PS Bush drove 6 million people from middleclass to poor class so fix the republicans first
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 06:13 pm |
|
Re: The Tax Calculator website: By its own admission, the tax calculator ignores the unprecedented imposition of Social Security payroll taxes on small business profits exceeding $250,000 (where two-thirds of small business profits exist). This is despite the fact that Obama told Charlie Gibson on October 8th that he wants to keep the Social Security tax rate "the same" for these small business owners. This would result in a top small business tax rate of 54.9 percent--the highest level since the Carter Administration It tells those earning $250,000 or more that, "You will probably not get a tax cut" under an Obama Administration. Considering the Obama tax hike will result in a marginal tax rate approaching 50 percent on two-thirds of small business income (which resides in these households), one might call this a bit of an understatement. Most of the "tax cuts" Obama claims credit for is in fact spending. "Refundable tax credits" means that if you zero out your income tax liability, the government gives you a welfare check. This isn't an income tax cut--it's spending. According to the Tax Foundation, one-third of households don't have an income tax liability. It's impossible to cut their income taxes, despite what this "calculator" says. Everyone is told that they may be eligible for refundable credits including a college credit, a retirement savings credit, etc. However, these credits phase out on quite modest levels of income, thus deceiving voters.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 06:00 pm |
|
So in tonight's debate the economic argument may focus on something voters do understand—taxes. Here, Barack Obama can argue that he represents change. He wants higher taxes on high earners and promises "tax cuts" to 95 percent of taxpayers. Actually, they're not tax cuts at all but rather refundable tax credits, which means cash payments to the 40 percent or so of households who don't pay income tax. That is classic redistribution. Maybe some of you don’t mind paying for someone else but I strongly object to the government taking my earnings and accomplishments and handing them over to someone else. If I wanted to do that, I would donate to a charity. In any event, those of you who are fooled by this socialist chicanery, those refundable tax credits will be phased out as incomes rise, so his proposal amounts to, as American Enterprise Institute associates Alex Brill and Alan Viard have written, "marginal rate hikes in disguise" on those with incomes as low as $27,000. So according to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 04:38 pm |
|
Newsmax fearmongering again....what a surprise.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 02:53 am |
|
| Last edited on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 02:54 am by Vindicator
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 03:22 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Well it isn't going to happen, so wake up and move forward. Oh its going to happen cos the entire system is going to collapse. They will have no choice but to go to some other form of currency, so the system will chage. The question is are WE THE PEOPLE going to allow Congress to replace it with another fiat system?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 01:27 am |
|
| Well it isn't going to happen, so wake up and move forward.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 07:38 pm |
|
first off gold and silver backed money is more stable. It increased the value of the dollar back in the late 1800s
Second even if a fiat system is a good thing, why are we letting private banks run our money system?
Third its well known that the gold market is fixed along with alot of other commodity markets.
Last edited on Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 07:39 pm by Ben Franklin
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 07:23 pm |
|
The reason our currency has value is because someone else is willing to accept it. Even if the government says, "you must use this for transactions" there are ways around it - Knapp identifies these exceptions in his own 'State Theory of Money' which is the classic text on currency systems and the basis for most 'statist theories of currency'. Just take a trip to China - the government tells businesses they must accept Yuan, and they tell them what the exchange rate for dollars must be - but I know that even this most centralized government is incapable of preventing street vendors from using U.S. dollars and setting their own rates.
We were supposedly on the bimetallism convertability system of gold/silver from 1876 onward until we officially dropped it during the Nixon Administration. Simultaneously, it was illegal to hoard gold/silver in the U.S. (meaning it was illegal to do the conversion). We have been, by default, working off of a fiat system for more than a century and our money has held a more stable valuation than gold/silver have during that time. Yes, inflation reduces the value of each dollar. So do mining discoveries and industrial substitutions on gold/silver. The only value that gold/silver have is because someone else is willing to accept them as payment for goods and services. If silver becomes more available in the markets, its market price falls. If money becomes more available in the markets, its market price falls. There is no particular advantage to operating under a metallism/specie system. When gold/silver become scarce, their value increases and the prices of other commodities falls - precisely the reason for the collapse of several economies in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. Businesses cannot operate in an environment with unpredictably falling prices. If by the time you can get your product to market you discover that the market prices have fallen by 10% because of a silver shortage, you can find yourself bankrupt very quickly. So while the gradual reduction in the value of each U.S. dollar through inflation is frustrating over very long periods of time, the short-run destruction power of deflation is even more frustrating.
As to the argument that every fiat currency system in history has collapsed, so has every economy using commodity-backed currency. So far, fiat currency economies have had longer life expectancies than commodity backed ones. (see DeSoto's book on economic history for more) While we may dislike the notion of fiat currency, as long as it is reasonably managed (aka - don't do a Zimbabwe and turn on the presses so fast) it is more stable than a commodity currency that can cause deflationary periods.
Ben, yes, I have read a great deal in currency systems, including writing my own papers on Knapp's book. I can appreciate that there is a certain sense of security that comes from holding an ounce of gold and the notion of permanency. But that ounce of gold has been very unpredictable in its market value. Does it have market value? Of course. But for those that sold their goods and services last spring when gold values were 20% higher than they are today, they would have lost 20%. Would those lucky enough to earn their gold a year earlier be happier - a 100% increase in market value - of course. It is the precarious nature of the timing of earnings that makes gold/silver based systems inherently unstable.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 06:31 pm |
|
| No, I won't. I understand your position, and I have gleaned enough of your position, but they all ignore the realities of the situation.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 06:26 pm |
|
Again, I encourage all of you that think your U.S. Dollars are worthless because they are fiat currency to use an envelop and send them to me. I collect them. Everyone needs a hobby.
Thank you.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 04:45 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Bixby wrote: Kirk, you have to admit that the debt-based currency we all uise is only worth whatt the powers say they are worth.
No, our currency is worth what people are willing to accept for it in exchange for items of value. The powers that be set exchange rates, but look at third world countries or even our own country during the Revolutionary War or the south during the Civil War to determine how effective the goverment saying what a buck is worth.
There are disadvantages to our system, but there are advantages, as well. Until you at least acknowledge them and the reasons they are in place (not the tin-foil hat reasons) you can't have a reasonable discussion.
Fred read the Creature from Jekhll island and or the secrets of the federal reserve. Then once you actually have some facts we can have a reasonable discussion.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 04:44 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Fred, it is not tin-hat to state that we are helpless to what the government declares the value of money that it issues without some firm backing of something of tangible worth. The South faced the very same situation in that it had very little gold or silver. It issues fiat money just as we do. Those European currencies that collapsed early in the last centur6y did so for a lack of something of value, other than the labor of its peoples. When they began to issue fiat currency things began to go downhill. It works only for so long.
Every fiat currency system in history has collapsed.
This bail out or No Banker left behind will at minimum increase the cost of living exponentally at max it will cause hyperinflation. Unless youre still stupid enough to believe guys who have been lying to you for the last year and a half.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 04:41 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: Ah yes, the return of the "our money is worthless" position. As I have encouraged others in the past, if you truly believe that your money is worthless as it is nothing more than paper issued by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, simply place all those worthless slips of paper into an envelop and mail them to me in care of the State News post office box. I have a small, but growing, collection of them.
For those who wish to pursue the argument that the U.S. Government is not constitutionally permitted to tax our incomes - I suggest a visit to Mr. Snipes. Is he out of jail yet? Do you think he might run for president, he has as much time in prison as McCain - which from those ads/speeches appears to be his strongest qualification for the job?
Youre missing the point I never said the gov cant tax income I specifically stated what the USSC says income is. IT IS NOT PAY FOR WORK UNLESS YOU WORK UNDER A GOV PRIVLIDGE! You are falling for the lawyer trick of terms of art.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 04:17 pm |
|
Fred, it is not tin-hat to state that we are helpless to what the government declares the value of money that it issues without some firm backing of something of tangible worth. The South faced the very same situation in that it had very little gold or silver. It issued fiat money just as we do. Those European currencies that collapsed early in the last century did so for a lack of something of value, other than the labor of its peoples. When they began to issue fiat currency things began to go downhill. It works only for so long.
Last edited on Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 05:15 pm by Bixby
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 04:06 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Kirk, you have to admit that the debt-based currency we all uise is only worth whatt the powers say they are worth.
No, our currency is worth what people are willing to accept for it in exchange for items of value. The powers that be set exchange rates, but look at third world countries or even our own country during the Revolutionary War or the south during the Civil War to determine how effective the goverment saying what a buck is worth.
There are disadvantages to our system, but there are advantages, as well. Until you at least acknowledge them and the reasons they are in place (not the tin-foil hat reasons) you can't have a reasonable discussion.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 03:55 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: Ah yes, the return of the "our money is worthless" position. As I have encouraged others in the past, if you truly believe that your money is worthless as it is nothing more than paper issued by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, simply place all those worthless slips of paper into an envelop and mail them to me in care of the State News post office box. I have a small, but growing, collection of them. Kirk, you have to admit that the debt-based currency we all uise is only worth whatt the powers say they are worth. Money is a unit of measurement like quarts, inches, etc. There is a problem saying that today, an "inch" is only so long and tomorrow it is something else. There is a problem with an "expanding" money value system. Tomorrow they can say that the FRN is worthless and there is nothing you can do about it. Gold or silver is never worthless. We are forced to abide by this system and your premise of sending you all of this valuless paper holds no water. So if tomorrow it is worthless, what will you do? Those with gold or silver have something of value.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 03:18 pm |
|
Ah yes, the return of the "our money is worthless" position. As I have encouraged others in the past, if you truly believe that your money is worthless as it is nothing more than paper issued by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, simply place all those worthless slips of paper into an envelop and mail them to me in care of the State News post office box. I have a small, but growing, collection of them.
For those who wish to pursue the argument that the U.S. Government is not constitutionally permitted to tax our incomes - I suggest a visit to Mr. Snipes. Is he out of jail yet? Do you think he might run for president, he has as much time in prison as McCain - which from those ads/speeches appears to be his strongest qualification for the job?
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 02:58 pm |
|
Lavitakus wrote: Bixby wrote: Tyrannical taxation, and excessive government spending and borrowing, are not only threats to our economy—they erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral responsibility. The income tax is a 20th-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise and tariff taxes were allowed. We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty. The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government—the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere ‘reform’ of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.”
Alan Keyes
But yet we the people allowed this bailout to get to the house
Keyes is only half right. If one reads the cases on the 16th Amend. one finds that it gave congress no new power of taxation. other cases show that income is NOT all that comes in, it is the profit or gain from a federally connected privledge. Like being a federally chartered bank. the income tax is no doubt being misapplied by the feds and is an outcome of the Federal Reserve system. Supply and demand. Each year they remove some of the supply to keep the value of the FRN.
Now ask yourself how much the value of the FRNs are going to go down with this Trillion dollar bailout.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 04:49 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Tyrannical taxation, and excessive government spending and borrowing, are not only threats to our economy—they erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral responsibility. The income tax is a 20th-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 85 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise and tariff taxes were allowed. We need to return to the Constitution of economic liberty that our Founders intended to be a permanent bulwark of our political liberty. The income tax in effect makes us vassals of the government—the politicians decide how much income we can keep. No mere ‘reform’ of this slave tax, such as flattening the rate, can correct its fundamental denial of control over our own money.”
Alan Keyes
But yet we the people allowed this bailout to get to the house
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
aww thanks no one else I try so hard to 
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:13 pm |
|
Gosh, Skjuda. You are really Mr. Wonderful.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
First off by JI putting the information here he is advancing the misconception usd by the feds and therefore advocating its use. I nor anyone else is repudiating JI but trying to stop his using a very skewed data. As I have said many times before when someone posts something I believe it is in the best interest to present all sides, including those opposed to it.
In this case we have several people coming out opposed to the filth being spewed and showing how it is misrepresenting the facts. IN a discussion JI should have come back with more facts or something to further the conversation instead of trying to pass the buck to the very people he is supporting.
For the record I have sent letters to the treasury department trying to get them to stop distorting the facts but as of yet no reply has come my way nor do I expect one.
In 1940 or so a white senator prepared a report that showed blacks were incapable of flying an airplane or to serve in any capacity above cook or maid. We all know how stupid and full of lies that report was and has become. I equate this report to the same level. Both deserve to be put in the trash and never seen again.
|
Runnerman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 560 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 09:59 pm |
|
Let me see here. The government puts out a press release on taxes. JP takes the release and associated link and posts it. So how is he misrepresenting anything? By having faith in what the Treas Dep puts out? If it is a misrepresentation, then it is the government who is misrepresenting things, no? It's like the old story. There is a problem, the press release. You have a finger pointing at the press release. Instead of addressing the problem (the press release) , you are addressing the finger.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 09:52 pm |
|
T.I.: because such "presentations" are loaded. The purpose is to present an image of the system in a particular light without regard for the reality. The "presentation" interchanges the concepts of income and taxable income. The purpose of which appears to be to cause a perception that there is a lack of fairness to the proportionality of the income taxes upon higher incomes. Juris has chosen to parrot this table without critical questioning of its misrepresentations. He is now aware of those misrepresentations. I do not take it up with T.D. because they have a political objective that wants to encourage the public to believe the misrepresentation. I have no intention of wasting my time.
Anyone looking forward to the August 21st release of I.O.U.S.A. with David Walker and Warren Buffet?
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:49 pm |
|
Let me butt in, Kirk & friends, with a question. Then if it is the same stats posted by whomsoever, then shouldn't the origin of it still rest with the Treasury Dept? Why pick on JP? Why not do as he asks and that's to take up the matter with the TD? Just trying to sort things out here.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:42 pm |
|
| juris: it is the same chart offered, again and again, by the "Fair Tax" advocates who fail to understand that income taxes only occur (at maximum) on income earned over the standard deduction and personal exemption levels. At this time, approximately $14,000. This means that the bottom 20% of households in the U.S. (which earn less than the deduction and exemption amounts), average very little income taxes paid. Presenting partial data, taxable income does not equal income, and pretending it is a complete picture is misrepresentation (at best). Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:42 pm by Kirk
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
Gentlemen: Kirk & Skudja
If you take issue with the post regarding taxes, then take it up with the US Treasury Department. It is not to support anyone's policy, failed or otherwise, nor is it from the fiartax group. It is just information to be taken as you will. If you think it is spewing filth (Skudja) then call treasury and set them straight. I'm sure that they will appreciate your expert analysis. There is a link within the post which gives you a chart. I'll repeat it again.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 06:23 pm |
|
Again we have someone spewing false filth using statistics to try and garner support for a failed policy.
The real truth is when you look at real numbers not hidden by percentages. For example lets take the following cases:
Income 50k - taxes paid from all sources 16500 - 33 cents on the dollar
Income 20 million - taxes paid all sources 1.6 million - 8 cents on the dollar
So while statistically (satistically) the higher earner pays more his share is actually extremely low compared to the low earner. I believe and most Americans believe everyone should be paying around the same amount and as seen above it is progressively skewed. The numbers above do not include all the soft taxes like DMV, fees for services, etc... when they are added in the low earner pays upwards of 50 cents on the dollar.
Most high earners will say why should I pay more than others in total dollars but the truth is they would not be earning that much money without the support form all the low earners. They need to step up to the plate and pay thier fare share.
When a low earner has to pay taxes of 16500 that is a lot of money to them and it is a burden, when a high earner has to pay 1.6 million it is nothing and does not crate a burden, they just write a check. Just becuase it is bigger does not mean it is a burden.
So please stop using or relying on statistics since they are so wrong.
Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 06:25 pm by Skjuda
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 06:01 pm |
|
juris: so....
The first $14,000 or so of income is not subject to income taxes (standard deductions and personal exemptions). Once you eliminate that $14,000 from household income, the top 5% of households earned over 50% of household income in the U.S. (Millions of U.S. households earn less than $20,000 a year, only about $6,000 of which is subject to income taxes, though the entire amount is subject to payroll taxes. Of the several thousands of million-income households, none paid OASDI - social security - taxes on any earnings over $102,000.) Nor do you post on the failure of more than 60% of U.S., publically traded corporations to pay ANY income taxes in any of the last 6 years during which record profits were posted by most of them. Where is your moral indignation at the under-proportional payment of taxes by multi-billion-dollar companies? You need to work with more than just the e-mail alerts sent out from the "Fair Tax" newsletters.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:10 pm |
|
Double post. Sorry.
Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:11 pm by Jurisprudence
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:06 pm |
|
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS April 1, 2004
js-1287
Fact Sheet:
Who Pays The Most Individual Income Taxes? The individual income tax is highly progressive – a small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total. The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise. The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent. The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent. The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent. Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis.
1Estimates of taxes paid ignore any behavioral responses to the tax cuts.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
Last edited on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:08 pm by Jurisprudence
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 04:05 am |
|
European Levels of Taxation: Barack Obama's Tax Plan
by Rea S. Hederman, Jr. and Patrick Tyrrell
WebMemo #1973
Note: Representatives of the Obama campaign have informed the authors that the campaign is not committed to the full 12.4 hike in the payroll tax. An increase in the payroll tax is merely one of many different tax increases that are being considered for those making over $250,000. The Obama campaign implies that the tax increase on those earning over $250,000 may not be limited to earnings but also cover different types of income. Despite questioning, the campaign has not provided any more details.
Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.) has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income as business income or capital gains and the migration of capital from the United States to abroad.
Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.
How the Obama Tax Plan Compares to Other Countries
Senator Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed top tax rate.
The costs in economic terms of such high taxes are real. For example, of the six countries with higher tax rates than 55 percent, the average unemployment rate is 7.35 percent (see chart). This figure includes Denmark, which appears to have a very low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. However, Denmark spends over 5 percent of its GDP on unemployment programs and benefits, thereby increasing its unemployment rate.[1]
A Return to the Bad Old Days
Historically, Senator Obama's tax rate would be the highest individual tax rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax shelters and tax avoidance strategies were common when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. This new top tax rate will again encourage these gimmicks, reducing investment and economic growth as resources are squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive taxation.
Many individuals will attempt to transfer their compensation from wages to capital gains, since capital gains would only be taxed at 25 percent, or less than half of the top rate on wages. This would put a great deal of pressure on a company to do anything it could to make its stock quickly increase in value. Other individuals would try to incorporate so they could pay business taxes instead of having to pay taxes on their wages. Again, these resources would be diverted away from more productive uses and slow the economy.
High tax rates also encourage capital and income flight to lower-taxed areas. There is ample evidence in the United States of individuals and businesses moving to states such as Florida or Delaware to take advantage of their tax-friendly laws. A higher federal tax rate would encourage individuals to move assets abroad to take advantage of lower tax rates in countries such as Canada, France, and Great Britain.
These high tax rates could also have a large impact on the labor force. Many workers could choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue a great deal about what effect minor changes in the tax code will have on incentives to work. However, the Obama plan calls for a tax increase so large that economists will be focusing on the harm to the overall economy rather than just the isolated effects on labor and on capital.
A Finite Source of Revenue
Perhaps a larger worry than the damage to the economy is the long-run budget problem of the United States. While Senator Obama raises taxes a great deal on upper income individuals, the overall tax plan increases the national deficit. As a result, the country will be even less prepared to pay for current and future Social Security and Medicare obligations. When money is needed to pay for those programs, it will be hard to tax the rich even more, given that the top rate will already be so high. Instead, in order to pay the government's spending and entitlement shortfalls, taxes would fall most heavily on middle-income Americans. After all, even successful taxpayers are not an infinite source of revenue.
Rea S. Hederman, Jr., is a Senior Policy Analyst and the Assistant Director, and Patrick Tyrrell is a Research Assistant, in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 03:39 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I guess I'm being dense. What does your response and supposition have to do with my assertion?
I seriously doubt that the difference in the tax levels of CEO salaries of small businesses equate to a difference in how they invest. Furthermore, I suspect that most small business owners are smart enough to keep their taxable salaries under this particular level.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 03:29 am |
|
The Washington Post and the NY Post have 2 interesting features on the Obama tax plans. Neither paper is a bastion of the right but are liberal leaning publications.
By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 10, 2008; Page A10
On the campaign trail, Sen. Barack Obama bashes President Bush for "reckless" economic policies that are "mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt." But the Democratic presidential candidate has adopted a key component of Bush's fiscal policy: A novel bookkeeping method that guarantees that the $9.5 trillion national debt will get much bigger.
This Story When Obama promises to cut taxes for the middle class without increasing the deficit, he is measuring his proposals against the large deficits that would result from Bush's plan to extend his signature tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date. Because Obama wants to eliminate some of the Bush tax cuts, he would bring more money into the Treasury, permitting him to pay for new programs without increasing the deficit even more.
But under current law, all the tax cuts expire and the deficit disappears completely. Democrats in Congress have vowed to preserve the Bush tax cuts only if they can cover the cost and keep the budget in balance. Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits. According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.
 if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf ) { placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,20,'inline=y;',true) ; } "Obama has criticized Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, and now he's using Bush's baseline as a yardstick by which to measure fiscal responsibility," said Leonard E. Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "Congress hasn't agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because they don't have the money to pay for it."
By adopting Bush's bookkeeping system, Obama has frustrated deficit hawks who say government should live within its means, especially given a new White House forecast that the next president will face a record $482 billion deficit during his first year in office. Obama also appears to undercut congressional Democrats who have made pay-as-you-go budgeting a central tenet of their leadership, insisting that new policies should be paid for instead of adding to the nation's debt.
"It's not unreasonable to say, 'We're inheriting a budget that's going to have substantial deficits into the future' . . . But after we've been saying, 'Bush has irresponsible policies we can't afford,' he will be asking us to replace them with different policies we can't afford,' " said a Democratic congressional aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity so he could speak candidly.
Privately, some Democrats acknowledge that they may be forced to follow Obama's lead and abandon their pay-as-you-go pledge if they want to keep the Bush tax cuts that benefit the middle class, including a $1,000 child tax credit, a reduction in the marriage penalty and a new 10 percent tax bracket. Beginning in 2011, those provisions will increase the deficit by at least $100 billion a year unless lawmakers can raise the money elsewhere.
"Leaving some of the tax cuts in place would cost us a small fortune," said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a member of a group of conservative House Democrats known as the Blue Dogs who have been adamant about following pay-as-you-go rules. "I don't know that any Blue Dog has a good way to pay for that."
Unlike his Democratic colleagues, Obama has never made balancing the budget a priority. He concedes that he would not be able to do it during his first term, and probably not during his second, either.
Obama economic advisor Jason Furman said Obama compares his tax plans to Bush's instead of to current law because it draws a clear distinction with Republican Sen. John McCain, who wants to keep all the Bush tax cuts and add even more. According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plans would increase the national debt by at least $5 trillion over the next 10 years. McCain has said he would balance the budget through massive spending cuts.
Furman said Obama would consider abandoning Democratic promises to cover the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts if it were part of "a really tough deficit-reduction bill" that significantly improves the nation's grim financial outlook. "President Bush created this problem. We would put in place rules so it never happens again," Furman said. "But a sound budget is based on making realistic promises and sticking to them."
At the heart of the debate is one of the most arcane but fundamentally important concepts in Washington: The budget baseline.
NextNext > Last edited on Tue Aug 12th, 2008 03:32 am by The Insyder
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 03:25 am |
|
June 14, 2008
WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama called yesterday for jacking up the payroll tax, which would slap top wage earners with tens of thousands of dollars in additional fees.
Under his plan - which would be the largest tax hike in at least a decade - the 6.2 percent payroll tax would be applied to the entire income of workers making $250,000 or more a year. Currently, that rate applies only to the first $102,000 of income.
"That way, we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden onto seniors," he said yesterday.
Social Security is slated for bankruptcy after years of the federal government raiding it.
A worker making $200,000 a year would pay no additional payroll taxes under Obama's plan. But anyone making $250,000 a year or more would pay 6.2 percent in payroll taxes on their entire income - not just on their first $102,000.
Though Obama's tax-hike plan is still vague, it appears the tax would apply also to employers who match workers' payments, amounting to another proposed tax increase on businesses.
"Barack Obama likes to think that his tax increases will only hit a few Americans, but in truth, his economic plan will be a disaster for everyone, especially seniors," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
"Because of Barack Obama's tax increases, one out of every three senior households will end up paying higher taxes," he said.
Campaigning with seniors in Columbus, Ohio, yesterday, Obama also accused McCain of wanting to privatize Social Security.
"Privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It's a bad idea today," Obama said.
While neither Bush nor McCain has proposed "privatizing" Social Security, both support allowing workers to siphon some of their Social Security payments into private accounts.
"Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones," Obama said, alluding to the recent tumble in stock prices. "You wouldn't feel very confident about the security of your nest egg."
Campaigning yesterday in New Jersey, McCain swatted back, accusing Obama of misrepresenting his position on the crucial issue. "I will not privatize Social Security," he said. "But I would like for younger workers, younger workers only, to have an opportunity to take a few of their tax dollars, a few of theirs, and maybe put it into an account with their name on it. That's their money." With Post Wire Services
churt@nypost.com
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|