Reply With Quote
If taxes are not increased the national debt will go up even moreso. And who cares about which party gets the blame or credit?
Oh, and...
"We're all Keynesians now."
THE REPUBLICAN TAX INCREASEfrom another link:Now you have to love this bit of nonsense. Once again we're seeing how valuable our system of government education is to the Democrats. After all, you could never pull this off with an educated electorate.
You know, don't you, that taxes are going up at the end of the year. At the beginning of the Bush presidency the Republicans simply didn't have enough votes to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. The Democrats insisted on an expiration date of December 31st, 2010. Now ... since those tax cuts will expire and taxes are going up .. The Democrats have decided it might be a good political ploy to start referring to this as a "Republican Tax Increase."
Nope ... not kidding: House majority leader Steny Hoyer says that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a "Republican tax increase" for "working Americans" and the Democrats have "no intention" of allowing it to go into effect. Hoyer says, "We have no intention of allowing the Republican tax increase -- that their policies would lead to -- to go into effect for working Americans. Period .... We're going to act and make sure that the Republican phase out and increase in taxes does not end as they provided for in the laws they passed."
This is just amazing. Now we have a lot of economists telling the Democrats that if they don't extend the Bush tax cuts our economic recovery will be damaged. Democrats don't want to cut the taxes on the top producers. They know that their base cons uency loves taxing the rich ... but they also don't want to be seen as increasing taxes during a recovery. After all ... what if the experts are right? What if increasing taxes on the very people who we're depending on for job growth stalls our recovery? Well, that's easy! We'll just call them "Republican tax increases" and let them take the heat!
Again .. not to belabor the point ... but you can't get away with this if the voters are truly educated and informed.
If taxes are not increased the national debt will go up even moreso. And who cares about which party gets the blame or credit?
Oh, and...
"We're all Keynesians now."
What a stupid graph.
"Tricks the Right Plays to Make it Look Like the Rich are Getting Fleeced"
I was going to say. The only thing that graph tells you is that the top 1% never paid as much as the bottom 95%, except very recently.
Those poor extremely rich people.
They are to be pitied.
So we need more deficit financed tax cuts and we're going to about the debt and deficits. Anyways, this is stupid as the debt and deficits are more of a concern to the electorate at this point, an electorate that is not stupid enough to understand that there are two ways to close the fiscal gap and one of those is by increasing tax rates, which is what is set to happen automatically.
Why is it that the answer to the fiscal irresponsibility of the other party is to advocate more of your own?
We don't need more revenue, we need less spending.
My point of the article was the spin the democrats are putting on these tax cuts.
I'm curious. Why does the MSM always refer to the Bush tax cuts as "Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans"?
The cuts applied across the board.
I've mentioned that before, but these board lib s still refer to them as cutting taxes for the wealthy.
I didn't know that lowering my marginal tax rate by 3% made me wealthy.
It is certainly needed, otherwise that's more from the ChiComs that will have to be borrowed to provide freedom tax cuts to all.
So what part of the DoD budget are you going to cut?we need less spending.
WGAF?My point of the article was the spin the democrats are putting on these tax cuts.
What it really says is the top 1% are making more money than they have in a long time.
A little, but most the cuts need to come from other places.
Pretty good article on how the expiring Bush tax cuts will affect individuals.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/exp...nce-taxes.html
Most Americans have a fairly strong opinion of former President George W. Bush, either for or against his eight-year reign. One thing that all Americans can agree on, however, is that he was a serial tax cutter, with tax reduction as one of the cornerstones of his economic policy. Many of these tax cuts were enacted with sunset provisions, meaning they were embedded with predetermined expiration dates, many of which are coming up in 2011 and 2012. These sunset provisions were placed in the tax laws in some cases to garner enough legislative support to get the bills passed, or to get around rules that existed on cutting revenue without passing an offsetting spending cut.
Major Legislation
The two major tax-cutting bills from the Bush era were the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
These two laws cut taxes across the board for earned income, long-term capital gains and dividends. The legislation also expanded the child tax credit and made dozens of other changes and adjustments to the tax code, involving exemptions, deductions and the marriage penalty.
Tax Brackets
EGTRRA created six tax rate brackets--10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%, based on income levels. If no extension is passed and signed into law, then the pre-2001 tax rates will go back into effect starting in tax year 2011. The 10% bracket would disappear, and those taxpayers would move up to the 15% bracket, which would apply to all incomes below $34,550. The other tax rates would increase to 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% for the highest earners making more than $379,650.
Child Tax Credit
One major provision that will expire at the end of 2010 is the child tax credit, which EGTRRA doubled from $500 to $1,000 per child. Unless Congress votes to extend the child tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA will go back into effect.
Capital Gains/Qualified Dividends
The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends were also reduced to 15%, with lower income filers facing a 0% tax rate. The sunset provisions would move the capital gains rate back to a maximum of 20%, and qualified dividends would resume being taxed at the regular tax rate of the filer, or as high as 39.6%.
Marriage Penalty
EGTRRA also eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty" and gave a married couple filing jointly a standard deduction twice that of a single filer. Tax rates were also adjusted for joint filers to remove the penalty. These provisions are set to expire as well.
Other Expirations
Another legacy of the two tax cuts was the elimination of the phase out of the personal exemption, which was gradually eliminated over time. If no extension is passed, then the phase out will resume at incomes above $122,500.
The phase out for itemized deductions were also eliminated by the Bush tax cuts, and these will also kick back in. Some taxpayers may lose as much as 80% of their itemized deductions if their income is too high.
Democrats Strike Back
The Democratic Party hated the tax cuts when they were first passed and are moving to rein them in. President Obama has asked Congress to extend and make permanent the 10%, 15% and 25% tax rates. The 28% bracket would be recalculated to include individuals with income less than $200,000 and married filers with income less than $250,000. The "rich" would be out of luck under the proposal, with the 33% and 35% brackets expiring at the end of 2010, and the former 36% and 39.6% tax rates going back into effect.
Obama is also seeking to make permanent the long-term capital gain rates of 0% and 15%, but tax capital gains at a rate of 20% for those taxpayers that fall into the 36% and 39.6% brackets. None of this has been decided yet, and passage is not certain due to the politics of Washington in general--and during an election year in particular.
Bottom Line
Most politicians are reluctant to raise taxes. In this case, they may not have to because the sunset provisions embedded in tax-cutting legislation from the Bush era will result in significant tax increases in the United States over the next few years as long as they do nothing. Whether they will do this with an impending election is another thing.
What other places?
No, it says the top 1% now pay more than 95 times as much as the bottom 95%.
And how much more do they make?
It doesn't make that distinction. You tell me.
Maybe be should cut funding to NASA, since they spend most of their time these days studying global warming and improving relations with the Muslim world.
Because it's a stupid graph.
If you go by this graph, the top 1% pay about three times the tax rate as the bottom 95%, meaning they only make about 32 times more:
Just a guess, but it could be because the more you make, the money money you'll "save". For instance, if I reduce taxes from 15% to 10%, a poor person making $1000 a month saves 50 bucks (100 dollars taxed instead of 150), while a rich person making $100,000 a month saves dramatically more. (Instead of being taxed $1,500, they're being taxed $1000, a savings for 500 dollars.)
Of course, the VALUE of the cut is probably felt more by the poor person than the rich (as those 50 dollars may be more vital to the poor person than the 500 would be to the richer person.)
So the middle class doesn't need an extended tax cut, they need to pay more.
So when the tax cuts expire, the little guy gets hurt more. Right?
Or laid off by evil rich dude.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
