Printable View
According to the article below in the Orange County (California) Register, federal and combined federal and local taxes are at a lower point relative to the the median U.S. income than at any time since the 1950's (for feds) and the 1960s (for combined).
http://www.ocregister.com/news/-117079-ocprint--.html.
sorry. I copied the url incorrectly at first. The link works now.
Trickle down. Look at all the jobs those untaxed dollars have created.
There is no political will from either party to to raise taxes on median income families even though that is where the big money is...mainly because that is where the majority of the votes are too...it is much easier to demonize the "rich" even though that is not the answer to deficits.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
I keep saying that congress needs to stop stifling business so we can have more employed people, hence, more tax payers.
"much easier to demonize the "rich" even though that is not the answer to deficits."
the under-taxed, tax-avoiding, tax-evading rich demons caused the criminal Banksters Great Depression, they should "share the sacrifice" forced on everyone else, for many years to come.
don't you ever tire of usimg the same old GOP talking points? Sort of like Enron.. get out of there way and let them run!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Does anyone here feel that they are not taxed enough? I pay more in just State Tax, Franchise Tax board, sales tax, gas tax, tire tax, school tax, DMV fees, etc etc than many middle income earners pay in Federal income tax…
You could move to another state, stop driving, and stop going to school maybe? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CavsSuperFan
The point of the article, however, was that taxes, both federal and combined federal and local are LOWER now as a percentage of median income than at any time in the last 50-60 years.
And we are drowning in debt!!
To say that "I am paying more than someone else" is TOTALLY missing the point.
The point is that the public has been sold on a political line that says: "Taxes are ALWAYS too high and it is ALWAYS good to lower taxes.
If taxes are lower on average than they have been in the last 50-60 years, why is Paul Ryan advocating more tax CUTS as a way of reducing our debt?
C'mon guys...this is essential arithmetic.
"why is Paul Ryan advocating more tax CUTS as a way of reducing our debt"
Because he's a LYING BASTARD.
Ryan's "budget" fantasies dispel any doubt that he and Repugs are party of the Have-It-Alls and are hell bent of fucking over the Have-Nots.
Political cant trumps it. Has for a generation now.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Perversely, appeals to reality and reason mainly serve to anchor people all the more firmly in the political faiths that resist them.
Reality, common sense --- even basic math -- are radical, inimical to both major political tribes.
Today we are very close to the utopia where human consciousness conforms completely to ideology and no longer thinks for itself. When ideology becomes more powerful than reality and truth and the political ostracizes independent thought, post-humanism isn't far off ... and may be already present.
You should actually read what he says and not what your left wing websites say about him. He is not advocating lowering tax revenue, but rather lowering the basic tax rate and simplifying the tax code and eliminating most of the credits/deductions. The result could actually be revenue positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
"He is not advocating lowering tax revenue"
He wants to lower the tax rate on the wealthy, and he wants to pay for it by destroying Medicare, Medicaid, and Soc Sec.
The US tax code is hyper-complicated because that's the way the wealthy have paid for it to be, to their advantage, to game the system.
Ryan won't be able to change shit about the tax code, just like $30B spending cuts are meaningless (except to the people being cut).
There is no data showing lower tax rates increases tax take. A voo-doo economics fantasy just like trickle down.
I'm sorry if you cannot grasp such simple concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I assume by calling this a talking point, you believe we need less tax payers paying more taxes?
Apparently, people like George don't think they pay enough. I suggest they write checks to the IRS and their state to help out.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavsSuperFan
Yep, the math says as you decrease your number of tax payers, the combined average tax revenue will decrease, unless you raise tax rates enough to offset the losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
I will say again. We need more tax payers.
Letting in more young immigrants will be one option.Quote:
Originally Posted by WC
Only if we need jobs filled that Americans cannot take. Most the jobs (illegal) immigrants are taking pay so low that income taxes are not taken out. However, if we got US citizens to work them, it would reduce the cost of government hand-outs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
the same handouts you utilized?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'll ask..what specifically are you talking about?Quote:
don't you ever tire of usimg the same old GOP talking points? Sort of like Enron.. get out of there way and let them run!
All I can do is wonder how dumb people like you are for bringing that up. Using programs as a safety net are far different than using them as a hammock. Are you too dumb to see that?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Calling my words GOP talking points, as if they are wrong, so I must assume you believe the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
This is simply not factually correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Even the most conservative economists acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts contributed 1 and 1/2 Trillion to the national debt that (belatedly) now has everyone in the Republican Party exercised.
Cutting tax rates further for the same folks that got the earlier tax cuts will lower revenues even more.
Supply side economics has never accomplished one damn thing except the increase in the national debt. That is what happened when Reagan tried, it is what happened when George W. Bush tried it, and it will happen again if Paul Rand tries it.
There are facts here, folks. Facts.
Supply side economics is a failed, failed system.
YOU are not factually correct. Every year new tax credits and deductions are granted to the politically connected. It doesn't matter what the "base" rate is if massive exemptions are constantly being whored out by congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
It is a fact that there is a "sweet spot" on tax rates somewhere between 0% and 100% that maximizes revenue.
The "fair" way as advocated by Paul is a lower base rate and doing away with or at least massively limiting credits and deductions. Who do you think takes the best advantage of these credits and deductions? It's not Joe Middle Class...it's those evil rich people...
Really? Link please. How do you know the debt wouldn't be worse without the cuts? taxes and the economy are interactive and dynamic. Not static.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
But did they have more money to spend in the economy or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Have you watched a parallel universe to see if that's true, or are you assuming that is correct? There is no way you can have definitive evidence otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
No, they are assumptions. I say our problem comes from where we get our supplies if you wish to use those words. We have a serious world trade deficit. We need to bring production of items we by back to our shores. Personal income taxes really matter little when jobs are going overseas.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
The wealthy have a tax rate of 35% but after all the deductions they actually only pay 17%. Ryan wants to tax them at 25% and eliminate the deductions. You do the arithmetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
A promise to eliminate deductions is just a promise. You do the arithmetic.
Yeah...I can hear it now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
"We can't simplify the tax code! Think of all the unemployed accountants!"
So we should make the path to legality easier?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Which do you think will be enacted first? Slashing Medicare, or raising taxes on the rich by removing loopholes? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Do you use gas? Do you use tires? Do you drive? Do you think those highways you drive on pay for themselves? You think those schools you rely on have trees where money grows?Quote:
Originally Posted by CavsSuperFan
More importantly whats your frame of reference? Did you pay taxes in the 40s,50s, and 60s? Did you buy war bonds to finance the wars we had to fight? Did you under go rationing during WWII?
Talk bout the fucking embodiment of the general population's problem. The generations that came before knew what sacrifice was and you have the nerve to bitch that you're overtaxed.
Do I feel I'm undertaxed? No, I KNOW that I'm undertaxed and I know that we're all undertaxed. Its fucking obvious to anyone that can count.
Only the people making more money than me are undertaxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavsSuperFan
- American majority
This is why we can't have nice things.
Hell, we KNOW you are undertaxed. Fucking leech...:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Link: Besides the one that opened this thread, try:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://economiccrisis.us/2011/04/60y...eficit-growth/
The article above not only quotes David Stockman, who was Reagan's OMB manager as laying the debt crisis at the feet of too-low taxes (along with spending, of course), but also Harm Bandholz of Unicredit Markets
"But did they have money to spend?..."
they had borrowed money to spend, yes. But it was contributing to the debt that will have to be repaid by our grandchildren?? Remember?
"Have you watched a parallel universe?..."
No. I have watched our own universe where the national debt tripled under Reagan and doubled under Bush, all the while no one complained. What were you watching? The debt numbers under each President are proof positive. The very definition of evidence.
dubya's cut in estate taxes was a "tax expenditure" of $800B+.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-1...6-28-10-f1.jpg
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
dubya's tax cuts and wars really exploded the deficit, there is no (honest) question.
Neither in the near term. Longer term when the shit really hits the fan maybe we'll see meaningful reform on both. First the american people need to suffer a whole lot more before there will be the political will to seriously tackle the tax code, deficits, entitlements. In the mean time, all we can do is enjoy the show.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
What percentage do you pay? Federal income tax only.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I was in the upper tax bracket for 4 years in the past decade. One before the Bush cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Not really what I was asking. Try this...Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177504
I know what you're asking and I think its a bullshit question. I'm a full time student now (hence the leech comment from CC) and somehow the fact that you paid more federal income tax in 2010 gives you legitimacy?
You saw the smiley, right? All in fun...Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I wasn't offended CC. I've said far worse and I know we both have thick skin.
One of our big problems as a country is the majority of people want services from the government, but they don't want to pay for them. If you were to poll the entire country I'm sure you would find a vast majority support tax cuts for everybody. I'm betting a majority would also be against cutting medicare and social security. At some point we are going to have to decide which we prefer: a social safety net or low taxes.
true, but platitudinous. there are a handful of threads here on that exact topic.