Taxes

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Khan, Aug 13, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Khan

    Khan New Member

    WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
    The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. (from MSNBC.com)

    That's good news. I was really worried about our rich people.
     
  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I know, I am a died-in-the-wool wealth redistributionist myself.

    On the other hand, please note that the wealthiest 20% is actually PAYING slightly less than TWO THIRDS of federal income (I gather) tax revenue and the wealthiest 1% pays a whopping FIFTH of all federal income (I gather) tax.

    Of course they can pay, and they SHOULD pay, but really, even under GWB, the tax system still looks pretty progressive to me.

    Of course, this apparently doesn't take social security deductions into account.
     
  3. Jeff Walker

    Jeff Walker New Member

  4. Veteran101

    Veteran101 New Member

    In the minds of most Liberals, of whom today are trying to renew the Teddy Roosevelt word of Progressive, rich is defined as anyone making $1.00 (one dollar) more than you.

    Every politician talks about tax cuts, we see decreasing percentages, or so they say. The only question I have here is, has anyone seen a drop in total taxation anywhere?????

    For fun or actually the reality of agony experience, this year once my 1040's were complete, I sat for 4-plus hours and added my total taxation from income, utilities, groceries, gas, entertainment, sales, property, etc. etc. etc. Total result??? A whopping 61% of my total income was absorbed in taxes!!!!

    Try it for yourself, your results will amaze !!!!

    Bush talks tax breaks, but the breaks are bold faced lies. Kerry talks about middle class tax breaks, again lies. Not one candidate has proposed cuts in AMT, not one politician dares to discuss it. But thanks to the Clinton additions to the codes in the 90's even the low to middle income person may be subject in a couple years.
    Study the alternative minimum tax, study total taxation, and one will find that all these lowlife politicians on both sides the isle are parasites with hearty hunger pangs for your money.

    In closing, The year was 1776. America signed the declaration of independence. A war was fought until 1781 for freedom of monarchy oppression from England. Taxation without representation was a major issue. America won freedom from autocratic government and massive taxation.

    The current year is 2004. Today, actually since 2002, America has surpassed modern England in taxation by 2% total. Our federal government is larger than ever, our state governments are growing, our local governments also have their hand out. Ever notice new government buildings around you. More, More, More they demand until election year, then they lie, lie, lie, until they retain their office.

    If Japan can run a surplus with a national 5% sales tax and 10% income tax, how come America drowns in debt with oppressive taxation? Could it be we need to control our borders, cease in taking care of the entire world, shrink our size of government? Who knows????

    All I know is 2004 should list the Kerry, Bush, Nader ticket as the Best of the Three Stooges!!!!

    Enjoy,
     
  5. GUNSMOKE

    GUNSMOKE New Member

    The study cited here is a PROJECTION nothing more nothing less; nothing less than a guess.

    It is NOT based on fact.

    Typical of LIB LIES, and the LIB motto:

    "NEVER LET ANYTHING AS SILLY, BORING, AND IRRELEVANT AS THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2004
  6. Khan

    Khan New Member

    Re: Re: Taxes

    Read much?
    It's from a Congressional Budget Office study from 2001 to 2004. Not a projection. It's a published study from that office, not the media. There just reporting the findings of the study. Sorry you don't like it.
     
  7. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Looks like a good sign to me. The rich in this country carry far too much of the tax burden.

    BLD
     
  8. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    That's 'cause they are the only ones with any money!
     
  9. GUNSMOKE

    GUNSMOKE New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Taxes

    EVER LOOK AT A CALENDAR? IT IS 2004 NOW, AND AS FOR READING THE "REPORT" THE FIGURES FOR 2004 ARE A PROJECTION, THEY CANNOT BE FACT 2004 IS NOT OVER YET!

    SORRY YOU HAVE AN AVERSION TO LOGIC AND THE TRUTH, OH, YOU MUST BE A LIB...........
     
  10. GUNSMOKE

    GUNSMOKE New Member

    THE OFT QUOTED SECTION OF THE REPORT VERBATIM

    *Emphasis added for "NOSBORNE48."
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    For as long as I can remember, regardless of which party is in the White House or which party controls congress, the general opinion has been that "The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer."

    Both parties have used this line in attempts to blame and oust the other party for "creating" and "perpetuating" this phenomenon.
     
  12. DCross

    DCross New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Taxes

    I knew when I heard this that it would be misconstrued. Now, Kerry can say, "See, I told you that Bush's tax cut would harm you." But upon just a bit more analysis of the report, it does not say that taxes have increased on individual middle class tax payers. Rather, more middle class tax payers are taking on more of the entire load. However, taxes for individuals have decreased. It is not difficult to see how this works. Just look at the tax schedules for the past few years. See how taxes have decreased for everyone? BTW, with these tax CUTs, tax REVENUE is UP? Could that be? Could Bush be right?

    Regarding this rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer thing, it is partially false. We have more millionaires and billionaires than we have ever had. There are poor people getting richer. And especially after the dotcom bust, we see that rich people have gotten poorer (given, they are still rich).

    I am just afraid of this message being misinterpreted. Bush had no qualms about saying that rich people are over taxed. This is no surprise. The cuts will incent them to invest and expand. ButI think this will be used as an emotional plea for a democratic solution, and it is hogwash.

    Darren
     
  13. dcv

    dcv New Member

    It's hard to dispute the cliche that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer when you look at figures like the GINI index of household income inequality. It took off like a rocket around 1980. (hmmm...what happened in 1980?) Hint...it starts with an R, and ends with an eagonomics.

    If you look at the percentage distribution of income in the US over the past four decades, you will see that all groups show a decrease in their percentage of total earnings, with the exception of the top 20% which consistently increases. The rate of this increase has more than doubled since ~1980.
     
  14. Khan

    Khan New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Taxes


    Iadmit that I just sort of cynically put that story up without thinking about it. Now that I have read it and similar ones, I realize that thanks to my wife mostly, I fall into the bottom of the "haves". So now I can b*tch that I'm shouldering all the tax burden and the middle class is lax. This is fun.
     
  15. DCross

    DCross New Member


    But this is much like the other statistic. Okay, so the top 20% had a greater percentage of income. But this does not say that the rich are getting richer per se. Its says that the top 20% have a greater percentage of the income. How many of those in the top 20% were rich in 1980? All of them? If so, I concede. You are right. Are there any Microsoft millionaires in there. Are there any Yahoo millinonaires in there? How many of the top 20% were not rich in 1980?

    Also is income inequality a conclusive measure of wealth? If our nations millionaires have all of the loopholes, as liberals claim, then couldn't their income be at the lower end of the scale (or least not as high as we would think?)

    No one index or statistic is going to give a total picture of our economy. However, it seems that some throw these numbers around without regard for the entire picture.
     

Share This Page