Sarah Palin

[BlackHorse]

Didn't the average person pay basically no taxes until around the 40's? In this countries lifetime that is what the last 25%? First thing we should ask ourselves is, considering we are the high majority, is why we are paying so much to begin with in such a short time.

 

When the income tax was set between 1 and 7 percent one congressman was laughed out of congress for asking what if the tax rose above 7%. He was told the Amerian people would never let that happen.

 

In 1941 only 1 in 7 wage earners even filed a federal tax return.

 

Lastly,and this is mostly for Len. If we are so eager and agreeable to a government that says "Hey, we are going to tax these guys that make a lot of money at a much higher rate, because you know, they've got plenty. Those doggon rich people and their money, they don't need all that money so we are going to take some of it and give it to you ok?" You got people like Len and Edstock out there going "Yeah man, screw those rich people. Hit them in the check book, hell yeah."

 

Are you boys so foolish as to think that someday they won't do the same thing to you? What are you going to say then? "Hey this isn't fair!" What? They'll say "Gee Len, you had no problem with this tax rate when we were sticking it to those other guys. It's your turn to do your patriotic duty pal, pay up."

Edited September 23, 2008 by BlackHorse

[Edstock]

right now he's kicking your ass and Len's and Edstock...

 

You gotta think what you gotta think. It may correspond 1:1 with reality, then again, it may not. You know, it's sorta like WMD in Iraq, that way.

 

Time will tell what the US concensus is, and that's all that matters.

 

Should the GOP win, they sure have to deliver, for there will be hell to pay if the standard of living for the sub $100,000 segment goes to the, ahem, dumpster. How much social entropy can today's American society tolerate? Is there a tipping-point? It sure is going to be fun to find out.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about. Those figures you just quoted, all that 35% this and 33% that is just income tax. That doesn't include your state tax, proptery tax, utilties tax, sales tax, ad valorem tax, gas tax and the myriad of other little taxes here and there that they stick us for Len. Think about what your saying before you post. The average American, that's you and me, already pays right at 50% of our income to the government in one form or another because of all the additional tax that we pay. So yes, under Barracks plan in some areas where there is high local tax, those people making over 250 grand a year could end up paying two thirds of every dollar they make to the government. Last I checked that's 66%.

 

You still pay all of those taxes i.e. gas taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. under McCain's extension of the Bush tax cuts. The difference is that the top rate under Obama's plan goes back to where it was in 2000 (39.6% as opposed to 35%) and the taxes are cut for those earning under $250,000. Len is exactly correct. The wealthy were still doing much better under Clinton than they were under Reagan or Bush 41. The economy as a whole was better as well.

 

 

"We take the tax gut they're getting and we give it to the middle class." Joe Biden

 

What tax cut Joe? They already pay more than I do.

 

Personally I thought he came off as angry and full of it, but that's just me. See for yourself Len what the man said. It's not rhetoric, it's not BS, it's what the man said. When are you guys actually going to learn something before you start this nonsense?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLT0EwI_4U...feature=related

Edited September 23, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[fmccap]

Personally I thought he came off as angry and full of it, but that's just me. See for yourself Len what the man said. It's not rhetoric, it's not BS, it's what the man said. When are you guys actually going to learn something before you start this nonsense?

Didn't McCain say that cutting taxes during wartime was immoral when he voted against them so many times? I have heard him say many times that he is going to finish this war yet still cut taxes or not raise already cut taxes during wartime. When are you going to learn to quit this two party crap? They both suck and going for the lesser of the two evils still gives you evil.

 

McCain Offers Tax Policies He Once Opposed

Now that he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, however, McCain is marching straight down the party line. The economic package he has laid out embraces many of the tax policies he once decried: extending Bush's tax cuts he voted against, offering investment tax breaks he once believed would have little economic benefit and granting the long-held wishes of tax lobbyists he has often mocked.

 

McCain's concerns -- about budget deficits, unanticipated defense costs, an Iraq war that would be longer and more costly than advertised -- have proved eerily prescient, usually a plus for politicians who are quick to say they were right when others were wrong. Yet McCain appears determined to leave such predictions behind.

 

To critics, it is political pandering. "It's just part of the new John McCain that's taking on the conventional wisdom that in tight races, you have to energize the base and win by 50.000001 percent," Chafee said. "I was frankly surprised that he's kept it up after securing the nomination. I thought he'd move to the center, and I haven't seen it."

 

Holtz-Eakin urged skeptics to "wind the clock way back," saying McCain has supported lower taxes and a smaller federal government throughout his political career.

 

But McCain's conflicts with fellow Republicans over taxes date back well before his differences with Bush. In December 1994, after his party swept to control of Congress on tax-cut promises, he challenged Ronald Reagan's legacy when he warned, "I think we would be making a terrible mistake to go back to the '80s, where we cut all of those taxes and all of a sudden now we've got a debt that we've got to pay on an annual basis that is bigger than the amount that we spend on defense."

[BlackHorse]

You still pay all of those taxes under McCain's extension of the Bush tax cuts. The difference is that the top rate under Obama's plan goes bact to where it was in 2000 and the taxes are cut for those earning under $250,000. Len is exactly correct.The wealthy were still doing much better under Clinmton than they were under Reagan or Bush 41. The economy as a whole was better as well.

 

Don't get me started on McCain's plan. I looked at it and frankly it doesn't help anyone no matter what their income is. My point is the libs got a couple of robin hoods out there say "We are going to tax these guys over here at a higher rate and give that tax to you middle class folks."

 

I don't want someone elses money Barrack. How the hell is that ok? That's not ok with me? That's not ok period. You want to take less money out of my paycheck? Great, I'll be down with that because frankly they take far too much already. But don't get up there and tell me you're going to levi a higher tax rate on some other guy and give me the money. Go to hell with that. I'm telling you guys and you just can't seem to get it through your thick skulls. If they'll do it to them and you stand by and say its ok, then sooner or later they'll do it to you. Maybe not today, or tomorrow or next year. But just as sure as hell they'll eventually getting around to saying "Hey, it's your turn pal." and there's not a damn thing you can say about it.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Don't get me started on McCain's plan. I looked at it and frankly it doesn't help anyone no matter what their income is. My point is the libs got a couple of robin hoods out there say "We are going to tax these guys over here at a higher rate and give that tax to you middle class folks."

 

I don't want someone elses money Barrack. How the hell is that ok? That's not ok with me? That's not ok period. You want to take less money out of my paycheck? Great, I'll be down with that because frankly they take far too much already. But don't get up there and tell me you're going to levi a higher tax rate on some other guy and give me the money. Go to hell with that. I'm telling you guys and you just can't seem to get it through your thick skulls. If they'll do it to them and you stand by and say its ok, then sooner or later they'll do it to you. Maybe not today, or tomorrow or next year. But just as sure as hell they'll eventually getting around to saying "Hey, it's your turn pal." and there's not a damn thing you can say about it.

 

 

The fact is that we have a graduated tax system the marginal rates exist for that reason. Granted there is some rationale to a flat tax system where everyone pays the same rate on their income. Steve Forbes was a proponent of the flat tax in 2000. The Flat Tax is regressive in that the less you make the more of your income goes to taxes.

 

The Fair Tax is based on a national sales tax on all new items. It is an attempt to take some of the unfairness of having the poor pay a much higher proportion of their income in taxes by rebating a minimum amount representing necessities. It would also capture some of the underground ecomomy since it is a sakles tax collected by the seller of goods and services. It is interesting and somewhat conrtoversial but I don't see the likelyhood of it ever being instituted. Lastly the fair tax would not eliminate State income or sales taxes, school and realty taxes or any of the other excise taxes you referenced above.

 

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

 

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

 

As Len and I stated above Obama's plan is merely to undo the Bush cut of the top marginal rate returning it to where it was in 2000 and to cut the rate on the middle class. It is revenue neutral as far as it goes.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[RangerM]

As long as taxes are based on income, we will continue to have these "class warfare" arguments.

 

Do we hate the rich? Why? Are they worthy of hatred, or merely the object of envy? There are specific rich people who deserve our ire, but only through their (personal) actions/attitudes, not because they are rich.

 

I'm sure we all would prefer that we don't rob Peter to pay Paul. We'd prefer to be Peter in the first place, but with the freedom to succeed comes the freedom to fail. Otherwise, there is no freedom for any of us.

 

I favor the FairTax. I agree with Mark that it's likelihood of implementation is slim, but so long as we (left and right) engage in the divisive rhetoric as seen in this thread, it has no chance.

 

I see it as the greatest shift in power from government to the people that this country will have seen since the Revolutionary War. Once we have the ability to control how much we send to the government (through our voluntary consumption), we dictate governments actions every day as opposed to every 2 or 4 years. And once the government knows the revenue stream is controlled by us, fiscal responsibility will have to follow.

 

Many have much to gain with keeping things the way they are, and in keeping the current tax system, we all lose.

[Len_A]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about. Those figures you just quoted, all that 35% this and 33% that is just income tax. That doesn't include your state tax, proptery tax, utilties tax, sales tax, ad valorem tax, gas tax and the myriad of other little taxes here and there that they stick us for Len. Think about what your saying before you post. The average American, that's you and me, already pays right at 50% of our income to the government in one form or another because of all the additional tax that we pay. So yes, under Barracks plan in some areas where there is high local tax, those people making over 250 grand a year could end up paying two thirds of every dollar they make to the government. Last I checked that's 66%.

 

 

"We take the tax gut they're getting and we give it to the middle class." Joe Biden

 

What tax cut Joe? They already pay more than I do.

 

Personally I thought he came off as angry and full of it, but that's just me. See for yourself Len what the man said. It's not rhetoric, it's not BS, it's what the man said. When are you guys actually going to learn something before you start this nonsense?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLT0EwI_4U...feature=related

OK, first of all I find the idea of adding up all those other taxes (and I don't like paying anymore than anyone else) to the subject of federal income tax to be both disingenuous, and more obfuscation (and no, obfuscate and it's derivatives are not my new favorite word, it's what you guys on the political right appear to be doing). Like Mark B. Morrow pointed out, you're going to be paying those taxes no matter what under any administration. I'll go so far as to say that most of the other taxes you mentioned, the ones on the state and local level, are not the problem of any presidential candidate or Congress. My brother lives in Dallas - no Texas income tax, but they pay higher sales taxes and I think higher property taxes than I do in my western Detroit suburb. My wife & I have a friends who originally from the Detroit suburbs, who moved to Chicago, IL, then to D.C., and then back to Chicago. There's no Chicago income tax, but between Cook County sales tax and Chicago sales tax, their tax burden is way higher than ours. Their choice - for the commute to their jobs in Chicago, it's just as easy for them to move across the border into Wisconsin and avoid the higher taxes - they don't want to, as they enjoy actually living in Chicago proper. So does a good friend of mine - he and his family live Chicago itself, and changed their mind about moving to Wisconsin. Their choice and not my problem. My State of Michigan income tax and my local property taxes are deductible, to a small extent, from my federal income taxes.

 

My problem with Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and the reason I support Obama's plan to roll them back to 2000 level is the disparity, and that has exactly zip to do with "class envy". My wife and I have zero kids, and our tax cut, for a combined gross income in the high five figures, was all of about $800. No problem, as we appreciated it.

 

My problem is that we have friends who are also childless, hence no additional deductions, living six or seven miles from us who are more successful financially than we are (no envy - they deserve to earn what they're worth), who make about three times what we make. Their tax cut was nearly 14 times more than ours. It's not that I have a problem with their taxes going down as well as mine. Understanding that under a graduated income tax system, their tax burden, in terms of a percentage of their income is higher than mine, which it should be - they can afford it. I wouldn't have a problem if their tax cut was 6 or 7 times higher than mine, but with their income being 3 time higher than mine, I have a serious problem with a tax cut that was 14 times higher. I've had a problem with that disparity since the beginning, and nothing you or any other conservative is going to say is going to change my mind.

 

I absolutely believe in the graduated income tax system, and while greater success shouldn't be penalized per say, neither should the upper income earners get off easy. The whole idea of the graduated income tax system was to give recognition to the fact that those in the lower income brackets can't afford to shoulder as much of the tax load. We have to deal with it. And that's one of the problems I have with the whole idea of a value-added tax or national sales tax, in that it appears to hit the lower income brackets the hardest by virtue of the fact that the lower income brackets can't afford to shoulder as much of the burden, and with what Mark B. Morrow said about rebating a certain minimal amount representing necessities, then we're definitely back in the kind of social engineering that the graduated tax system represents to being with.

 

The idea of a couple making in the mid $80's getting a $800 tax cut, and another childless couple making in the $250K range getting 12 to 14 times bigger a tax cut is absurd. The only thing more absurd is trying to justify that big a disparity.

[napfirst]

Come on, Nap. A person who is truly confident in his views doesn't need to resort to personal attacks.

 

Even though I disagree with Len in this matter, and knowing what I know of Len's situation, you should back off that kind of thing.

 

An apology would also be appropriate here.

 

Spirited debate is one thing, but this thread is going downhill fast.

You are correct, no excuses...I apoligize to you Len.....I should have known better...I've been there too....

[BlackHorse]

OK, first of all I find the idea of adding up all those other taxes (and I don't like paying anymore than anyone else) to the subject of federal income tax to be both disingenuous, and more obfuscation (and no, obfuscate and it's derivatives are not my new favorite word, it's what you guys on the political right appear to be doing). Like Mark B. Morrow pointed out, you're going to be paying those taxes no matter what under any administration. I'll go so far as to say that most of the other taxes you mentioned, the ones on the state and local level, are not the problem of any presidential candidate or Congress. My brother lives in Dallas - no Texas income tax, but they pay higher sales taxes and I think higher property taxes than I do in my western Detroit suburb. My wife & I have a friends who originally from the Detroit suburbs, who moved to Chicago, IL, then to D.C., and then back to Chicago. There's no Chicago income tax, but between Cook County sales tax and Chicago sales tax, their tax burden is way higher than ours. Their choice - for the commute to their jobs in Chicago, it's just as easy for them to move across the border into Wisconsin and avoid the higher taxes - they don't want to, as they enjoy actually living in Chicago proper. So does a good friend of mine - he and his family live Chicago itself, and changed their mind about moving to Wisconsin. Their choice and not my problem. My State of Michigan income tax and my local property taxes are deductible, to a small extent, from my federal income taxes.

 

My problem with Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and the reason I support Obama's plan to roll them back to 2000 level is the disparity, and that has exactly zip to do with "class envy". My wife and I have zero kids, and our tax cut, for a combined gross income in the high five figures, was all of about $800. No problem, as we appreciated it.

 

My problem is that we have friends who are also childless, hence no additional deductions, living six or seven miles from us who are more successful financially than we are (no envy - they deserve to earn what they're worth), who make about three times what we make. Their tax cut was nearly 14 times more than ours. It's not that I have a problem with their taxes going down as well as mine. Understanding that under a graduated income tax system, their tax burden, in terms of a percentage of their income is higher than mine, which it should be - they can afford it. I wouldn't have a problem if their tax cut was 6 or 7 times higher than mine, but with their income being 3 time higher than mine, I have a serious problem with a tax cut that was 14 times higher. I've had a problem with that disparity since the beginning, and nothing you or any other conservative is going to say is going to change my mind.

 

I absolutely believe in the graduated income tax system, and while greater success shouldn't be penalized per say, neither should the upper income earners get off easy. The whole idea of the graduated income tax system was to give recognition to the fact that those in the lower income brackets can't afford to shoulder as much of the tax load. We have to deal with it. And that's one of the problems I have with the whole idea of a value-added tax or national sales tax, in that it appears to hit the lower income brackets the hardest by virtue of the fact that the lower income brackets can't afford to shoulder as much of the burden, and with what Mark B. Morrow said about rebating a certain minimal amount representing necessities, then we're definitely back in the kind of social engineering that the graduated tax system represents to being with.

 

The idea of a couple making in the mid $80's getting a $800 tax cut, and another childless couple making in the $250K range getting 12 to 14 times bigger a tax cut is absurd. The only thing more absurd is trying to justify that big a disparity.

 

Well that's a fine story Len but I'm afraid it's simply not true. First off yes you have figure in all the other taxes that people are going to pay if you're going to run for President and propose a new tax plan. It's not like you get to say "Well it's not my problem that you have to pay all those other state and other kinds of federal taxes, I'm just concerned with income tax." Give me a break, that's lame as hell. Meanwhile back in the real world people still have to pay those taxes, they don't just magically go away.

 

Now as for your friends who supposedly got a tax cut that is 14 times bigger than yours. Len that is a lie. You stated that your income is in the high five figures. Ok, that means that your tax cut by 2010 under the Bush plan is 11.2%. That other family that you made reference to under the Bush tax cuts is 6.8% based on the fact that you said they made three times what you make which puts them in the $205,000 to 518,000 range.

 

In fact, if you look over the years of the Bush Tax cuts, beginnig in 2001 you have consistently recieved a greater tax cut then your friends whom you claim got a bigger tax cut than you. In 2005 your tax cut was 24.8% while your freinds who make over $205,000 was only 8.9%. You got a tax that was 16 times larger than theres. Don't come in here throwing facts and figures around unless you can back them up Len.

 

Now yes, the big winners were the top 1% of tax payers who make over $518,000 annually. They'll get a 51% tax cut. But then again, they were paying a disproportionally large amount of the tax burden anyway, which you have freely admitted is ok with you because apparenlty the rich need to be punished or something. I find it absolutley hilarious that you were dumb enough to post your income here and try to make out like your friends were getting over when the truth is that under the Bush tax cuts you got the far better deal.

 

Lowest 20% Less than $20,000 $ 12,200 $ –2.8 $ — $ –2.8 $ –98 $ –98 1.6% 1.2%

Second 20% $20,000–36,000 27,500 –14.5 — –14.5 –508 – 508 8.1% 6.2%

Middle 20% $36,000–59,000 46,100 –22.6 — –22.6 –791 –791 12.6% 9.6%

Fourth 20% $59,000–97,000 75,800 –30.9 — –30.9 –1,081 –1,081 17.2% 13.2%

Next 15% $97,000–205,000 133,200 –26.2 — –26.2 –1,225 –1,225 14.6% 11.2%

Next 4% $205,000–518,000 296,000 –11.0 –4.9 –15.9 –1,923 –2,780 6.1% 6.8%

Top 1% $518,000 or more 1,491,000 –71.6 –49.8 –121.4 –50,149 –85,002 39.9% 51.8%

 

The two key figures to look at here are the Next 15%, thats you at $97,000 to $205,000 given that you claim an income in the high five figures. Below that is your freinds the Next 4% category at $205,000 to $518,000. Follow those rows over the last set of figures out to the right and that is your total income tax cut at the end of the Bush Tax cut plan in 2010. Seems like you owe your friends some money Len. The really funny thing here is you could of course claim you made below 97 grand but then your tax break gets even larger.

 

The difference between the Bush plan and the Barrack plan is that Bush didn't promise to take a tax cut from someone else and give it to you. Under his plan you just got a tax cut period.

 

Here read for yourself, learn something.

 

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

Edited September 23, 2008 by BlackHorse

[Len_A]

You are correct, no excuses...I apoligize to you Len.....I should have known better...I've been there too....

no problem. economy around Detroit has been bad for years.

[Len_A]

Well that's a fine story Len but I'm afraid it's simply not true. First off yes you have figure in all the other taxes that people are going to pay if you're going to run for President and propose a new tax plan. It's not like you get to say "Well it's not my problem that you have to pay all those other state and other kinds of federal taxes, I'm just concerned with income tax." Give me a break, that's lame as hell. Meanwhile back in the real world people still have to pay those taxes, they don't just magically go away.

 

Now as for your friends who supposedly got a tax cut that is 14 times bigger than yours. Len that is a lie. You stated that your income is in the high five figures. Ok, that means that your tax cut by 2010 under the Bush plan is 11.2%. That other family that you made reference to under the Bush tax cuts is 6.8% based on the fact that you said they made three times what you make which puts them in the $205,000 to 518,000 range.

 

In fact, if you look over the years of the Bush Tax cuts, beginnig in 2001 you have consistently recieved a greater tax cut then your friends whom you claim got a bigger tax cut than you. In 2005 your tax cut was 24.8% while your freinds who make over $205,000 was only 8.9%. You got a tax that was 16 times larger than theres. Don't come in here throwing facts and figures around unless you can back them up Len.

 

Now yes, the big winners were the top 1% of tax payers who make over $518,000 annually. They'll get a 51% tax cut. But then again, they were paying a disproportionally large amount of the tax burden anyway, which you have freely admitted is ok with you because apparenlty the rich need to be punished or something. I find it absolutley hilarious that you were dumb enough to post your income here and try to make out like your friends were getting over when the truth is that under the Bush tax cuts you got the far better deal.

 

Lowest 20% Less than $20,000 $ 12,200 $ –2.8 $ — $ –2.8 $ –98 $ –98 1.6% 1.2%

Second 20% $20,000–36,000 27,500 –14.5 — –14.5 –508 – 508 8.1% 6.2%

Middle 20% $36,000–59,000 46,100 –22.6 — –22.6 –791 –791 12.6% 9.6%

Fourth 20% $59,000–97,000 75,800 –30.9 — –30.9 –1,081 –1,081 17.2% 13.2%

Next 15% $97,000–205,000 133,200 –26.2 — –26.2 –1,225 –1,225 14.6% 11.2%

Next 4% $205,000–518,000 296,000 –11.0 –4.9 –15.9 –1,923 –2,780 6.1% 6.8%

Top 1% $518,000 or more 1,491,000 –71.6 –49.8 –121.4 –50,149 –85,002 39.9% 51.8%

 

The two key figures to look at here are the Next 15%, thats you at $97,000 to $205,000 given that you claim an income in the high five figures. Below that is your freinds the Next 4% category at $205,000 to $518,000. Follow those rows over the last set of figures out to the right and that is your total income tax cut at the end of the Bush Tax cut plan in 2010. Seems like you owe your friends some money Len. The really funny thing here is you could of course claim you made below 97 grand but then your tax break gets even larger.

 

The difference between the Bush plan and the Barrack plan is that Bush didn't promise to take a tax cut from someone else and give it to you. Under his plan you just got a tax cut period.

 

Here read for yourself, learn something.

 

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

Unless you can prove someone is lying, don't accuse them, just shut the hell up. I pulled my 2000 through 2003 tax returns - I didn't pull the $800 figure out of my ass. That was it - $800 whole dollars, with the only increases in deduction coming from my property taxes, and that got partially offset by the annual declines in the mortgage interest we're paying. Otherwise, those four returns were roughly the same. And what my friends told me their tax cut was I repeated verbatim. If they're lying, then I have no proof, but I also have no reason to doubt them, especially when he makes a point of saying that four years worth of the tax cut paid for one of their cars, and the both drive some nice ($) cars. I posted a rough range of my income - sue me - it's not like you have my real name, so why do you find it so amusing? I find hilarious that you don't even think of using a spell checker. I counted at least seven errors, but then that would be changing the subject. You don't want a tax cut if the strings attached are a tax increase on the upper income brackets, fine by me. Vote for McCain then. Nothing you've posted is going to even come close to changing my vote.

 

Maybe you should take your own advice and learn something. I checked out the homepage of http://www.ctj.org - Citizens for Tax Justice. OMG, did you give me a great laugh today - I must seriously thank you, and consider this post as my sincere "thank you" for allowing me an opportunity to have a laugh...at your expense, Buckwheat.

 

On the homepage for Citizens for Tax Justice., the first link today is as follows:

 

 

Obama's Tax Cuts Would Go to the Middle Class, McCain's Would Go to the Wealthy, and Neither Proposes to Increase Federal Revenue 9/12/08 - Link Here to go to the PDF document or download the document directly from this post. Among Citizens for Tax Justice's points are these -

 

Presidential candidate John McCain's campaign is running ads that say Senator Obama

proposes "painful tax increases on working American families." Senator McCain lately has been

telling Americans that "Senator Obama will raise your taxes." These statements show either a

proud ignorance or a willful dishonesty.

 

Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) does not think that new tax cuts will improve the lives of ordinary

Americans, but we do feel that the public should receive accurate information about the tax

cuts both candidates are offering. We respectfully ask that Senator McCain act honorably and

avoid attempts to mislead the public about his opponent's positions.

 

 

Senator Obama proposes two types of tax cuts. First, he proposes making the Bush tax cuts
permanent for all but the richest 2 or 3 percent of taxpayers. Second, he proposes the creation of
many additional tax cuts for the middle-class.
Both candidates propose additional tax cuts, but Obama's new tax cuts benefit middle- and lowincome
families while McCain's new tax cuts primarily benefit corporations and businesses.
McCain's chief economic adviser has admitted that Obama's plan does not raise taxes.
McCain condemns Obama for refusing to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone, even
though McCain voted against enacting the Bush tax cuts.
There is no evidence that allowing taxes to revert to the levels in place under President Clinton
will harm the economy. It is therefore even less likely that Obama's plan, which would only do this
for the richest 2 or 3 percent, would harm the economy.

Remember Blackhorse, you gave me the source for this document. Again, thank you.

obamataxhikemyth.pdf

Edited September 23, 2008 by Len_A

[BlackHorse]

Unless you can prove someone is lying, don't accuse them, just shut the hell up. I pulled my 2000 through 2003 tax returns - I didn't pull the $800 figure out of my ass.

 

The numbers don't lie Len, which means you must have. Either that or you have a serious lack of understanding of the tax code.

 

By the way, you didn't have to go looking around that website to find arguments to back up your position. I gave them to you right on the linked page if you had bothered to read. Scrolling to the bottom would have netted you this gem.

 

CTJ’s new study conclusively exposes the chicanery of the Bush administration and its supporters in arguing that the tax cuts were even-handed. “After all,” they claimed, “the rich pay most of the taxes, so it’s only fair that they get the lion’s share of the tax cuts.” But in fact, in 2010 before the Bush tax cuts, the top one percent was expected to pay just over a quarter of all federal taxes (don’t feel too bad for these people; they’ll take in 19 percent of all the income). So a tax cut that gives the richest Americans more than half of its benefits is obviously anything but even-handed.

 

Hell the title of the article was

 

Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich

 

 

Now given that title and given that exert above you can discern a number of things.

 

1. Apparently you are considered rich, wealthy, the man, by these people. As such you must be their enemy.

 

2. I say that you must be their enemy because you can read that little paragraph above and figure out pretty quick these people think that just because someone is wealthy that the government should take a higher percentage of their income than they take from somone who is not wealthy. That of course is so long as they CTJ gets to decide who is wealthy and who isn't.

 

Take this little line right here for instance.

 

But in fact, in 2010 before the Bush tax cuts, the top one percent was expected to pay just over a quarter of all federal taxes (don’t feel too bad for these people; they’ll take in 19 percent of all the income).

 

In fact the top 1% pay as much in taxes as the bottom 50% even after the Bush tax cuts.

 

But don't feel bad for them. No we detest them. Those stinkin rich people. They don't deserve what they have. We should take it from them.

 

Do you guys hear how you sound?

 

Why is it ok to hate rich people in this country? Why is it ok to take more from them then from everyone else? I mean we are a nation that will preach how fair and just we are from the highest hill and across the deepest valley to the whole world, but then we turn right around and punish people for being rich by taking their wealth. How is that fair? You tell me Len, how is it fair that some wealthy person who works just as hard for his money as you do for yours should have to give up a large percentage of it to the government? You damn well know that if it was your money you wouldn't think it was fair at all. But under a liberal ideology, people must be separated into categories or social classes, especially by race, gender and level of income. Those are the three biggest ways that liberals work to keep people like you and me divided, from being of a like mind.

 

A 10% income tax across the board is fair. If you make 10 grand or 100 grand, they take 10%, you are left with 90% of your income. The prince and the pauper buddy, 10%.

 

As for McCain's tax plan, perhaps you missed where I already stated I wasn't at all impressed with it.

Edited September 23, 2008 by BlackHorse

[Deanh]

The numbers don't lie Len, which means you must have. Either that or you have a serious lack of understanding of the tax code.

LOL....or maybe someone is wrong, or could be wrong and won't admit it.........hold it, let me check my typing and spelling...ok its fyne.

[xr7g428]

Bar Stool economics -

 

Suppose what every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all

 

Ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it

would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

 

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.but if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

 

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, so. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!'

 

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

 

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the

Tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Deanh]

Bar Stool economics -

 

Suppose what every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all

 

Ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it

would go something like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

 

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.but if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

 

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, so. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!'

 

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

 

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the

Tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

good post,..........I'm searching for a happy hour ......like I have stated, I do not profess to know the ins and outs of politics and its baggage, I'll leave that up to the armchair experts....but what I find blatantly obvious to my ignorance is BOTH sides are going where the majority of votes preside....also a counter to all this is "raising taxes on the weathy" is that the more disposible income the "middle class has" the more they theoretically will spend no?, probably at places OWNED by the people scared shiteless of Obama's PRESUMED stance on upper income taxing. Also the mention came up of 66%....answer....don't spend as much of thet >250k...problem solved...make out like lower income people, watch every dollar because you have too, drive a compact instead of a Bentley, turn the lights off when you leave the indoor swimming pool, buy a smaller home, etc etc etc....the 66% is a direct reflection of ones standard of living...please, I know you will, correct me if I am wrong.....I say bring on the flat tax....curious as to whom is opposing that suggestion.....perhaps it is just not fiscally viable, I really do not know....but seems like a pretty good band-aid and fair for all....

[BlackHorse]

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

Quite right, in fact the entire Kennedy family already puts all of their money in off shore Cayman Island bank accounts for the specific purpose of avoiding the American tax system. So to do a number of large American corporations. Enron for instance kept a lot of their earnings in Banks in the Caymans and Bermuda.

[Ron W.]

Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax, Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service charge taxes Social Security Tax Road usage taxes Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax

 

COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

 

What happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

 

 

And I still have to "press 1" for English.

[BlackHorse]

please, I know you will, correct me if I am wrong.....I say bring on the flat tax....

 

I agree with the flat tax, scroll back up a couple posts. What I don't agree with is this notion that people who work hard and also happen to make a lot of money should be told "drive a compact and eat beans and rice like the rest of us". It's the mindset of a communist Deanh, don't give yourself over to such nonsense. Unless of course by compact you meant one of these,

 

[Hemiman]

Christifundies would freak. militant fetus-fetishists,

 

Would you be refering to Christians who don't think it's good to kill children?

Edited September 23, 2008 by Hemiman

[Deanh]

I agree with the flat tax, scroll back up a couple posts. What I don't agree with is this notion that people who work hard and also happen to make a lot of money should be told "drive a compact and eat beans and rice like the rest of us". It's the mindset of a communist Deanh, don't give yourself over to such nonsense. Unless of course by compact you meant one of these,

 

and like I said...I would think 7.75% of 80 odd grand would be part of that 66%.....also Property taxes etc etc ....goes hand in hand correct?.....double edged sword taxing the wealthy.....oh, well...all the conjecture will be for nought post elections, we will just be told what we WANT to hear to garner our votes then BAM....seemingly NOTHING will be instituted due to more pressing matters such as whom to declare war on next and where the Dollars are going to come from to sustain such matters of importance.....I'm going to Cuba!

Edited September 23, 2008 by Deanh

[Len_A]

The numbers don't lie Len, which means you must have. Either that or you have a serious lack of understanding of the tax code.

That's still a leap in logic that you can't prove. Which means I repeat what I said before - prove it or shut the hell up. $800 was our tax cut around here. Not a penny more. And I am not about to accuse my friend of exaggerating or lying.

By the way, you didn't have to go looking around that website to find arguments to back up your position. I gave them to you right on the linked page if you had bothered to read. Scrolling to the bottom would have netted you this gem.

 

 

 

Hell the title of the article was

 

Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich

 

 

Now given that title and given that exert above you can discern a number of things.

 

1. Apparently you are considered rich, wealthy, the man, by these people. As such you must be their enemy.

 

2. I say that you must be their enemy because you can read that little paragraph above and figure out pretty quick these people think that just because someone is wealthy that the government should take a higher percentage of their income than they take from somone who is not wealthy. That of course is so long as they CTJ gets to decide who is wealthy and who isn't.

 

Take this little line right here for instance.

 

 

 

In fact the top 1% pay as much in taxes as the bottom 50% even after the Bush tax cuts.

 

But don't feel bad for them. No we detest them. Those stinkin rich people. They don't deserve what they have. We should take it from them.

 

Do you guys hear how you sound?

 

Why is it ok to hate rich people in this country? Why is it ok to take more from them then from everyone else? I mean we are a nation that will preach how fair and just we are from the highest hill and across the deepest valley to the whole world, but then we turn right around and punish people for being rich by taking their wealth. How is that fair? You tell me Len, how is it fair that some wealthy person who works just as hard for his money as you do for yours should have to give up a large percentage of it to the government? You damn well know that if it was your money you wouldn't think it was fair at all. But under a liberal ideology, people must be separated into categories or social classes, especially by race, gender and level of income. Those are the three biggest ways that liberals work to keep people like you and me divided, from being of a like mind.

Never said I hate rich people. Thats your conclusion, based on no evidence. Just because I believe in the graduated income tax or progressive tax doesn't mean that I'm out to "get" rich people. Even under the progressive tax structure, I'd much rather be a rich person than a poor one. We're not even going to agree to disagree on this. Call it the trappings of a Jesuit education, but I still believe, and will always believe, that in a civilized society, in the principles that JFK quoted the Bible on (Luke 12:48) "For of those to whom much is given, much is required" It isn't envy of the wealthy, it isn't hatred, regardless of how many times you want to bring up that tired old cliche. It's about looking out for the poorest or lowest among us, and using the resources where you can find them. Is it a bit socialist? I don't know. Is it a bit of social engineering? Oh, hell yes. Go raise FDR from the dead and bitch at him and those in Congress at that time for passing it. Deal with it. Like I said, we're not even going to agree to disagree on it.

 

A 10% income tax across the board is fair. If you make 10 grand or 100 grand, they take 10%, you are left with 90% of your income. The prince and the pauper buddy, 10%.

Nope. Don't favor it. My state of Michigan's income tax is a flat tax - still don't agree with it, for the reasons above. Most "flat tax" proposal I've seen starts with dumping the tax exemption for primary residence property tax, and for mortgage interest. Those flat tax proposals that keep those exemptions can't find a tax percentage that's at least revenue neutral enough for the federal budget without being too f***ing high for middle class and lower class wage earners as to still be fair, especially with the rising prices of energy and basics.

 

As for McCain's tax plan, perhaps you missed where I already stated I wasn't at all impressed with it.

I did see that. Nothing about the McCain of 2008 impresses me at all. He doesn't seem to be like the McCain I voted for in the 2000 primary. I'm not impressed by his tax proposals either, nor his health care proposal. I'm not thrilled with some of his campaign staff. And the topic of the start of this thread, his choice for V.P., thrills me less. Had he picked Romney, I may have switched my vote. This choice? Not on a bet.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax, Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service charge taxes Social Security Tax Road usage taxes Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax

 

COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

 

What happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

 

And I still have to "press 1" for English.

 

Actually we have always had a National Debt:

The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions again.[19]

 

The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. The debt slowly fluctuated for the rest of the century, finally growing steadily in the 1910s and early 1920s to roughly $22 billion as the country paid for involvement in World War I.[19]

 

The buildup and involvement in World War II brought the debt up another order of magnitude from $51 billion in 1940 to $260 billion following the war. After this period, the debt's growth closely matched the rate of inflation until the 1980s, when it again began to increase rapidly. Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled. The debt shrank briefly after the end of the Cold War, but by the end of 2005, the gross debt had reached $7.9 trillion, about 8.7 times its 1980 level.[20]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_hist...e_United_States

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/lind

 

Even with all of those taxes and the imposition of the income tax America is far more prosperous now than we were 100 years ago. Much of what those taxes paid for has made us more productive and more efficient.

 

In 1908 we did not have the following:

Interstate highways

Rural electrification

Public water and sewage

A modern rail system

Airports (or even commercial airplanes)

Modern Ports

Most Public Colleges and Universities

 

All of these things and many more such as the space program, governmental regulatory agencies for health and safety and the world's largest military are paid for with taxes. I doubt very much that America would have become the Superpower of the World without the advances funded by tax dollars and i doubt any of us would want to live in the America of 1908 where the rich took brutal advantage of the poor. There was a reason the extremely rich of the Gilded Age were referred to as Robber Barons.

 

The rich do better when everyone does better. It doesn't necessarily work in the opposite direction.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow

[Ralph Greene]

I like the flat tax idea. Hi income folks would still pay a lot more. But why should they pay an increasing percent amount of their income?

 

Hi income people don't get any extra's for all the taxes they pay. They don't get any more national defense than low payers. They don't get any more use of Interstate highways, fire and police protection, sewer and water use, public school and university systems, etc. They were able to prosper under our system, and should pay some of that back, but it's not the fault of hi income people if low income people weren't motivated to take advantage of our system....or didn't get the chance to take advantage of the system. If not for the hard work of hi income business owners, there would be no jobs for low income folks. So you do have to be careful about how much you tax the people who make a financial difference in our society. Our tax system has to find that balance.

 

I am retired, and benefited from our system. I don't mind paying my fair share. But I feel little responsibility for many retirees who didn't save, who accumulated debt, who lived beyound their means, and who didn't prepare for their retirement years. Bad luck is one thing, that happens, and I don't mind helping out with that safety net, but so many of my age group just feel some entitlement I don't wish to pay for.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[fmccap]

Even with all of those taxes and the imposition of the income tax America is far more prosperous now than we were 100 years ago. Much of what those taxes paid for has made us more productive and more efficient.

 

In 1908 we did not have the following:

Interstate highways

Rural electrification

Public water and sewage

A modern rail system

Airports (or even commercial airplanes)

Modern Ports

Most Public Colleges and Universities

 

All of these things and many more such as the space program, governmental regulatory agencies for health and safety and the world's largest military are paid for with taxes. I doubt very much that America would have become the Superpower of the World without the advances funded by tax dollars and i doubt any of us would want to live in the America of 1908 where the rich took brutal advantage of the poor. There was a reason the extremely rich of the Gilded Age were referred to as Robber Barons.

 

The rich do better when everyone does better. It doesn't necessarily work in the opposite direction.

I guess that depends on your definition of prosperous. It is true that we didn't have those things but it is also true that the nation didn't have the debt it does now and the people didn't have the debt they have now.

 

It's all debt based and will come to an end.