US Taxes---Who pays what.

[sousaman2089]

Building public housing is, in itself, a Catch 22 in America. Make a building full of people who don't have a lot of money in the middle of downtown. The businesses around this building will struggle because now there's a lot of people who don't have a lot of money right next to them. Businesses will leave the area, those who live in the public housing can't find a job there anymore since the businesses are gone and now there's a giant building of poor people who have very low chances of getting jobs anywhere near them.

[SFP]

Building public housing is, in itself, a Catch 22 in America. Make a building full of people who don't have a lot of money in the middle of downtown. The businesses around this building will struggle because now there's a lot of people who don't have a lot of money right next to them. Businesses will leave the area, those who live in the public housing can't find a job there anymore since the businesses are gone and now there's a giant building of poor people who have very low chances of getting jobs anywhere near them.

Let's not get to caught up with where the buildings are located. I have to disagree because if someone truly wanted a job they could walk a mile or get on a bus to get there. The problem is lack of self motivation to better yourself through societal norms or a culture that does not and cannot see that a strong educational foundation can lift you from your current predicament. In some societies making the dean's list is key, in others its being a sports star and in some it's being a drug king pin. We need to change as a society in glorifying what is truly beneficial to our communities.

[Chico]

Building public housing is, in itself, a Catch 22 in America. Make a building full of people who don't have a lot of money in the middle of downtown. The businesses around this building will struggle because now there's a lot of people who don't have a lot of money right next to them. Businesses will leave the area, those who live in the public housing can't find a job there anymore since the businesses are gone and now there's a giant building of poor people who have very low chances of getting jobs anywhere near them.

Let's see, businesses will struggle because there are people near them that don't have a lot of money, so the businesses will leave and the poor will have low chances of getting a job near them. ??? Did they try before?

[Beninator]

BTW -- let's just say we DO raise taxes just as our Prez asks, and let's say we really hit 'em hard and QUADRUPLE taxes on corporate jet owners....
seriously -- just how many of them are there, and would any such tax help in even the slightest way?

http://radioviceonline.com/go-ahead-tax-the-rich-lets-run-the-numbers/

Well since you seem to target just the corporate jet part of this, lets look at the bigger picture of CEO's salaries as compared to the middle class wage stagnation that is currently happening in the United States.

"At a time when millions of Americans are trying to hang on to homes and millions more are trying to hang on to jobs, the chief executives of major corporations like 3M, General Electric and Cisco Systems are making as much today as they were before the recession hit. Indeed, some are making even more."

"For the average C.E.O., however, the good times have returned. The median pay for top executives at 200 major companies was $9.6 million last year. That was a 12 percent increase over 2009, according to a study conducted for The New York Times by Equilar, a compensation consulting firm based in Redwood City, Calif."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10comp.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Meanwhile, the average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier. After inflation, workers were actually making less. So once again we have further indications that the upper tier Americans are doing very well especially compared to the middle class and should have their taxes raised to the Clinton years.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_01202011.pdf

[tornado]

Ben -- if you are going to worry about what someone else makes, you'll always find someone making more who appears to be doing less and it'll just make you miserable..

For every CEO making $50 million there are numerous rock stars, sports stars, and celebs making every bit as much for very little work -- and oddly nobody's griping about what they make -- how come??

It provokes memories of all the debate about whether Michael Jordan was worth $30 million -- but regardless of whether he was or not the point is that you don't have to pay him,
nor do you have to pay the CEO's -- so why even be concerned what they make?

Personally I couldn't care less if some CEO makes $30 million or some private jet owner makes $500 million -- as long as they pay taxes, operate legally with their money - and in the end it is likely that some (or a lot) of that money will be back in circulation really soon because big time earners are also big time spenders....
remember this??

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20276050,00.html

http://mydeco.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/michael-jackson-spent-437k-on-furniture/

http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/14/michael-jacksons-insane-interior-design/

[Beninator]

Ben -- if you are going to worry about what someone else makes, you'll always find someone making more who appears to be doing less and it'll just make you miserable..

For every CEO making $50 million there are numerous rock stars, sports stars, and celebs making every bit as much for very little work -- and oddly nobody's griping about what they make -- how come??

It provokes memories of all the debate about whether Michael Jordan was worth $30 million -- but regardless of whether he was or not the point is that you don't have to pay him,
nor do you have to pay the CEO's -- so why even be concerned what they make?

Personally I couldn't care less if some CEO makes $30 million or some private jet owner makes $500 million -- as long as they pay taxes, operate legally with their money - and in the end it is likely that some (or a lot) of that money will be back in circulation really soon because big time earners are also big time spenders....
remember this??

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20276050,00.html

http://mydeco.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/michael-jackson-spent-437k-on-furniture/

http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/14/michae...terior-design/

T, I am not worried about someone's salary. What I find interesting is that there is a political belief out there that we can not raise taxes on the wealthy regardless of the situation. A theory that I think is extremely flawed and not for the betterment of our country. If the purpose is to raise revenue, then it is time to raise the taxes on those who have benefited the most during the past 25-30 years.

[Da Coach]

T, I am not worried about someone's salary. What I find interesting is that there is a political belief out there that we can not raise taxes on the wealthy regardless of the situation. A theory that I think is extremely flawed and not for the betterment of our country. If the purpose is to raise revenue, then it is time to raise the taxes on those who have benefited the most during the past 25-30 years.

I suggest anyone who thinks this is the solution should go back and start at the beginning of this thread. The highest earners already pay the overwhelming majority, and a much higher percentage of the income taxes in the US than anyone else. It has also been shown in the past that raising taxes on those in this category, since they are responsible for most job creation, will harm the economy, and slow job growth. It has also been shown to actually reduce the total tax revenues gathered by the government (there are many reasons for this -see the earlier part of this thread). The Ronald Reagan tax cuts demonstrated that tax revenues will increase when tax rates are reduced, and the economy is stimulated. It will promote more earning, economic expansion, more taxpayers moving up into the higher tax brackets, more employment (and thus more tax payers).

[SFP]

I'm not for raising taxes without eliminating pork and truth be told if we just cut all the loopholes and right offs, oops sorry eliminating loopholes to some groups is raising taxes????

Fundamentally to me the real problem is the bureaucratic waste that has been established, along with the uneven playing field that the large enterprises have right now through legislation that their special interests have created.

Fixing that will go a long way of creating jobs for Americans and perhaps establishing communities with the stability needed to make things right. There is no magic pill and if we want to regain what our grandparents built it will take a steady march of a generation who realizes that me first mentality should be frowned upon not glorified.

On our Bill of Rights! Besides not addressing our slavery issue at the time, is the best piece ever written. It is not our founding fathers fault that we have turned that article around. If Jefferson was alive today he would be a very angry populist and even Adams a Federalist would be ashamed of what has transpired in our political system.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

[Da Coach]

I suggest anyone who thinks this is the solution should go back and start at the beginning of this thread. The highest earners already pay the overwhelming majority, and a much higher percentage of the income taxes in the US than anyone else. It has also been shown in the past that raising taxes on those in this category, since they are responsible for most job creation, will harm the economy, and slow job growth. It has also been shown to actually reduce the total tax revenues gathered by the government (there are many reasons for this -see the earlier part of this thread). The Ronald Reagan tax cuts demonstrated that tax revenues will increase when tax rates are reduced, and the economy is stimulated. It will promote more earning, economic expansion, more taxpayers moving up into the higher tax brackets, more employment (and thus more tax payers).

How long before Obama and his economic advisors realize the harm they are doing to the economy? The June jobs report that was released this morning was shockingly bad and far worse than even the most pessimistic predictions. Do we really want to raise taxes now and further slow the economy?-

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/unemployment-rises-to-92-as-us-adds-only-18000-jobs/6255651/

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hiring slowed to a near-standstill last month. Employers added the fewest jobs in nine months and the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent.
The Labor Department said Friday that the economy generated only 18,000 net jobs in June. And the number of jobs added in May was revised down to 25,000.
Businesses added the fewest jobs in more than a year. Governments cut 39,000 jobs. Over the past eight months, federal, state and local governments have cut a combined 238,000 positions.
The latest report offered evidence that that the recovery will be painfully slow. Two years after the recession officially ended, companies are adding fewer workers despite record cash stockpiles and healthy profit margins.
Hiring has slowed sharply in the past two months, after the economy added an average of 215,000 jobs per month in the previous three months.
Economists have said that temporary factors have, in part, forced some employers to pull back. High gas prices have cut into consumer spending. And supply-chain disruptions stemming from the Japan crisis slowed U.S. manufacturing production.
The economy typically needs to add 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. And at least twice that many jobs are needed to bring down the unemployment rate.
The economy and job market are remarkably weak two years after the recession officially ended. Unemployment has topped 8 percent for 29 months, the longest streak since the 1930s.
Unemployment has never been so high so long after a recession ended. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent.
Average hourly wages declined last month. After-tax incomes, adjusted for inflation, have been flat this year.
The average work week declined to 34.3 hours, from 34.4, which means employers demanded less work from their existing staffs.
And temporary employment fell 12,000. Businesses generally hire more temporary workers before taking on permanent ones.
The number of unemployed workers rose almost 175,000 to 14.1 million, pushing up the unemployment rate.
There are signs that economy could improve in the second half of the year. Gas prices have come down since peaking in early May at a national average of nearly $4 per gallon. Prices averaged $3.59 a gallon nationwide on Friday, according to AAA.
And manufacturing activity expanded in June at a faster pace than the previous month, according to the Institute for Supply Management. That suggests the parts shortage caused by the March 11 earthquake in Japan is beginning to abate.
Still, the government said last month that the economy grew only 1.9 percent in the January-March quarter. Analysts are expecting similarly weak growth in April-June quarter.
The economy will grow at a 3.2 percent pace in final six months of the year, according to an Associated Press survey of 38 economists.
Still, growth must be stronger to significantly lower the unemployment rate. The economy would need to grow 5 percent for a whole year to significantly bring down the unemployment rate. Economic growth of just 3 percent a year would hold the unemployment steady and keep up with population growth.

[Beninator]

I suggest anyone who thinks this is the solution should go back and start at the beginning of this thread. The highest earners already pay the overwhelming majority, and a much higher percentage of the income taxes in the US than anyone else. It has also been shown in the past that raising taxes on those in this category, since they are responsible for most job creation, will harm the economy, and slow job growth. It has also been shown to actually reduce the total tax revenues gathered by the government (there are many reasons for this -see the earlier part of this thread). The Ronald Reagan tax cuts demonstrated that tax revenues will increase when tax rates are reduced, and the economy is stimulated. It will promote more earning, economic expansion, more taxpayers moving up into the higher tax brackets, more employment (and thus more tax payers).

Busy day at work, but once again, you are falling victim to supply side spin!

Facts from the CBO and factcheck.org

"In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House??™s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been ??“ even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product"

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

[Da Coach]

Busy day at work, but once again, you are falling victim to supply side spin!

Facts from the CBO and factcheck.org

"In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product"

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

Ben, it is you who is believing the propaganda of the left. That site you reference, factcheck.org, was created by a bunch of ultra-liberals (just look at their home page and read all their stories), who cannot stand the fact that all the political talk shows that are successful and draw audiences (like Rush Limbaugh) are conservative. And nobody ever listens to the the liberal talk shows. It drives the liberals nuts. Even George Soros' billions couldn't keep Air America from going bankrupt.
So sites like the dailykos.com and factcheck.org (which is a misnomer, since the only facts they really want to dispute are those stated by conservatives) have been started to try to keep a liberal voice alive. They are way more biased than anything they try to dispute. And the benefits of lowering taxes has been proven over and over again. Even John F. Kennedy lowered corporate tax rates against the advice of some liberals, and reaped a huge increase in tax revenues. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts lead to the most prosperous times in this country's history, and allowed subsequent administrations and congresses to reduce the debt and balance the budget.

[Beninator]

Ben, it is you who is believing the propaganda of the left. That site you reference, factcheck.org, was created by a bunch of ultra-liberals (just look at their home page and read all their stories), who cannot stand the fact that all the political talk shows that are successful and draw audiences (like Rush Limbaugh) are conservative. And nobody ever listens to the the liberal talk shows. It drives the liberals nuts. Even George Soros' billions couldn't keep Air America from going bankrupt.
So sites like the dailykos.com and factcheck.org (which is a misnomer, since the only facts they really want to dispute are those stated by conservatives) have been started to try to keep a liberal voice alive. They are way more biased than anything they try to dispute. And the benefits of lowering taxes has been proven over and over again. Even John F. Kennedy lowered corporate tax rates against the advice of some liberals, and reaped a huge increase in tax revenues. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts lead to the most prosperous times in this country's history, and allowed subsequent administrations and congresses to reduce the debt and balance the budget.

Again..that article cited references from the CBO. Are you disputing the CBO?

and thanks again for proving one of my points by referencing JFK. The top tax bracket at the end of the Eisenhower administration was around 90% in which JFK lowered to around 70%. So from a historical perspective the wealthy in this country are paying significantly less in taxes.

As for factcheck and other sites such as politifact, I think that they are a wealth of information and find it ironic that the roots of factcheck are from Walter Annenberg and his foundation. Liberal bias you say.. I just looked at the front page of their site and it looks pretty balanced to me. The topics range from Obama's tweets, factchecking Obama's budget speech, to Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan etc.. If you note anything from the links that I provide during these debates, you will see that I offer MULTIPLE SOURCES.

As for the Reagan years, look at the debt explosion during those years. Supply side theory is basically Keynesian economics on steroids. Come on DC, even David Stockman has jumped off the supply side wagon!

[tornado]

..
The top tax bracket at the end of the Eisenhower administration was around 90% in which JFK lowered to around 70%. ...

this talk is laughably irrelevant since back when the upper marginal tax rates were 70% -- all the people who earned enough for that to affect them simply sheltered their incomes one way or another via foreign banks, investments, deductions, or creative accounting (cheating)...

anyone who thinks that even by raising tax rates to 100% will bring in much more $$ is crazy ---
ultimately if anyone who earns dollars that are all going to be taken as taxes by Uncle Sam sees it coming they either find a way to shelter the income (often OUTSIDE the USA) or they stop working
..both of which are terribly BAD end results for our nation - and thus you have HURT the very economy you think you're helping by hitting the "wealthy" and SUCCESSFUL with prohibitive taxes...

Ben -- the rich folks aren't dumb -- they aren't going to sit by and let Uncle Sam pick their pockets..

even wealthy folks like the Kennedy's and filmmaker Michael Moore openly admit they find tax loopholes, foreign investments, and shelters for their millions and end up paying ZERO taxes...

I heard Moore say it himself in his own words in an interview -- he wants to nail other wealthy millionaires but he's got his own solution that allows him to make millions without paying ANY taxes -- not a penny!

[Beninator]

this talk is laughably irrelevant since back when the upper marginal tax rates were 70% -- all the people who earned enough for that to affect them simply sheltered their incomes one way or another via foreign banks, investments, deductions, or creative accounting (cheating)...

anyone who thinks that even by raising tax rates to 100% will bring in much more $$ is crazy ---
ultimately if anyone who earns dollars that are all going to be taken as taxes by Uncle Sam sees it coming they either find a way to shelter the income (often OUTSIDE the USA) or they stop working
..both of which are terribly BAD end results for our nation - and thus you have HURT the very economy you think you're helping by hitting the "wealthy" and SUCCESSFUL with prohibitive taxes...

Ben -- the rich folks aren't dumb -- they aren't going to sit by and let Uncle Sam pick their pockets..

even wealthy folks like the Kennedy's and filmmaker Michael Moore openly admit they find tax loopholes, foreign investments, and shelters for their millions and end up paying ZERO taxes...

I heard Moore say it himself in his own words in an interview -- he wants to nail other wealthy millionaires but he's got his own solution that allows him to make millions without paying ANY taxes -- not a penny!

Again..the top tier tax rate is currently around 33%.. The proposal is to roll that back to the Clinton years which is around 40%. By not extending the Bush tax cuts, we save $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

[Da Coach]

Again..that article cited references from the CBO. Are you disputing the CBO?.....

That is not what the CBO actually said. But the CBO is often wrong, because they simply do not consider all the variables that ocur.
Here is a brief article that shows that the CBO admitted that the Bush tax cuts "actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

The CBO report quoted in that link, "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2004" also shows that the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue, just as they have for every president who has tried them. Why do we continue to deny what has been proven true every time we have tried it?

Ben, your philosophy of "sock it to the rich", and continuing tax increases and massive entitlement spending is exactly why liberal countries like Greece, Spain, and other European countries are so far in debt that they need massive bailouts, and are headed toward bankruptcy.

Here is another example of the Laffer theory in action (supply side economics), which predicts that the more the government taxes something or someone, the less revenue occurs. Arizona placed huge taxes on cigarettes in 2004 to make smokers pay for state Medicaid health care coverage for children.
But now too few people in Arizona are smoking and the Arizona Medicaid system is nearly bankrupt, and is eliminating 117,000 people from coverage, with more cuts likely to come-

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/06/smoked-out

The liberals' kind of shallow thinking, which btw the CBO is guilty of, always likes to presume that if taxes are increased, it will lead to increased revenue. But they do not consider many other variables that always occur. People will simply find another way to get around those taxes, in this case like always, they either just stop smoking, or they get their cigarettes elsewhere.

Again, as I asked before, how much worse does this economy need to get, and how bad does unemployment need to get before the Obama administration admit they are wrong about their "solutions".
Didn't the 2010 elections teach Democrats anything?
Wasn't the summer of 2010 promised to be the "summer of recovery"?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/06/biden-touts-summer-of-recovery/1

Didn't Obama promise the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%?

http://www.mrc.org/bmi/biasbythenumbers/2011/Stimulus_Two_Years_Later_Networks_Ignore_Obamas_Failed_Job_Promise.html

And didn't Obama promise the stimulus plan would create 4 million jobs?- but instead he has lost about 4 million more jobs.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09011/941119-176.stm

http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/stimulus-update-obama-promised-4-1-million-new-jobs-by-gregory-hilton/