US Taxes---Who pays what.

[Beninator]

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.

Not just my philosophy DC. This guy seems to think the same.... and I think he knows a lot about the matter! He even stated that; "the wealthy have never had it so good."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.html

[Da Coach]

Not just my philosophy DC. This guy seems to think the same.... and I think he knows a lot about the matter! He even stated that; "the wealthy have never had it so good."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_786516.html

That's great. Let's elect Warren Buffet president. Anyone could do better than the people in charge now.
BTW, even taking every penny of Warren Buffet's money, all of Bill Gates' money, and all the total fortunes of the top thousand wealthiest people in the US would not even make up 1% of the national debt.
That's how bad it has gotten.

[AZ BU Fan]

Anyone who thinks raising personal income tax revenue through higher taxes will lower the defecit is sadly naive...Pols will just use the extra income to justify spending more. This is what pols do.

IRS data: 2007 Federal Personal Tax Income 14% higher than 2000 Federal Personal Tax Income....Despite the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts on the "rich"....

No problem with revenues post tax cut, problem with spending, by BOTH parties.

Bank bailouts, Investment Company bailouts, welfare spending, unemployment spending, teacher/fire/police union member funding for raises/more employees, unlimited free health care for poor/elderly. Pick your party, all are spending money the country doesn't have.

Get spending under control, particularly when revenues fluctuate. Neither party predicts future economic slowdowns when approving long term spending, they assume revenues will always increase at ridiculous rates and spend more according to these projections.

Federal Gov has NEVER kept its word on financial matters....Expecting them to keep a promise using more revenue to reduce the defecit is a laugh.

They are all afraid for their jobs if they stop giving away money to all of their various constitutencies and political donor groups.

[Beninator]

That's great. Let's elect Warren Buffet president. Anyone could do better than the people in charge now.
BTW, even taking every penny of Warren Buffet's money, all of Bill Gates' money, and all the total fortunes of the top thousand wealthiest people in the US would not even make up 1% of the national debt.
That's how bad it has gotten.

Well maybe you should check out Greg Mankiw who was George W Bush's Chairman of Economic Advisors from 2003-05.

"Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

In a post, you also cited Arthur Laffer... I find this quote from Laffer very telling and is a good explanation of a big reason as to were we are today.

"What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."
In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

[ChewaBrave]

I'm betting it is somewhere between the two.

[tornado]

common sense = if I am having trouble paying the bills,
I don't go to my boss and try to squeeze a few more dollars
out of him, I look at what I am spending and find things
not needed and make big cuts

[AZ BU Fan]

Well maybe you should check out Greg Mankiw who was George W Bush's Chairman of Economic Advisors from 2003-05.

"Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

In a post, you also cited Arthur Laffer... I find this quote from Laffer very telling and is a good explanation of a big reason as to were we are today.

"What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right," Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that."
In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer's O.K. with that. "The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes," he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html

IRS data: 2007 Federal Personal Tax Income 14% higher than 2000 Federal Personal Tax Income....Despite the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts on the "rich"....

The truth doesn't need anyone's belief to be true.

[Beninator]

IRS data: 2007 Federal Personal Tax Income 14% higher than 2000 Federal Personal Tax Income....Despite the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts on the "rich"....

The truth doesn't need anyone's belief to be true.

Check out the CBO chart "US Budget Gap 1971-2021" in today's BBC article...
I think that it will clearly illustrate what happened after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts and the 1993 Clinton tax increase. BTW, keep in mind that President Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his Presidency as he thought it was necessary and had concerns about the deficit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14098593

[SFP]

In reality we cannot keep spending on wars without raising more revenue to pay for it. Either we get out of building our military industrial complex or find a way to pay for it. I believe most citizens are tired of our hard earned money being wasted in other countries, while there is plenty of work to be done here. This is a simple economic assumption Guns or Butter.

[tornado]

New data from 2007 shows the top 1% of wage earners paid 40.4% of all income taxes...

"more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined"

The "middle class" the middle "fifth of wage earners" - "paid 4.7% of federal income taxes"

" ..the bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes (2007)
...Today (2011) close to 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax"

per Forbes...


PLUS -- if you're thinking of hitting corporations harder (who naturally just pass any tax increase on to buyers and then foreign competitors gain a larger share of the market..)
"America’s corporate income tax rate is virtually the highest in the
industrialized world at nearly 40% on average, counting state corporate rates.
Even Communist China has a 25% corporate rate, with the average in the
mostly socialist European Union below that. In formerly socialist Canada, the
corporate rate today is 16.5%, scheduled to fall under current law to 15%
next year."

an administration that aims to hammer the main employers can only blame themselves when nobody's hiring...


Forbes also has this story that blows holes in some environmentalists' claims - Link

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/273239/nasa-study-shatters-climate-alarmists-assumptions-mario-loyola

[SFP]

T - I agree that our tax system needs a ton of work. Why can't they just create a flat tax rate, lower corporate taxes to the levels of most industrial nations and eliminate all loopholes? Sorry the Democrats will not support this because it would be perceived as a boom for the wealthy and the Republicans would appose this because closing loopholes would be perceived as raising taxes.

What it does in reality is take away the power they have in helping special interest and the ability to raise revenue as they like and help them raise campaign funds. The system is broken for most hardworking Americans. Until we all join together to demand campaign and special interest reforms above any other measures or issue we will be represented by the extremes.

[algotrader]

How many people in this thread make more than 250k/year? Anyone? Am I the only one? Just curious.

[ChewaBrave]

I don't know if I've participated in this thread yet or not - but are we counting flat salary or investments as well?

[tornado]

As a little humor -- my young kids just watched the cartoon version of "Robin Hood" and I think I saw lots of parallels...

when the good King Richard left and his evil brother John took over,
he taxed the people so heavily they were all in poverty, starving, miserable, unhappy, and unproductive.
This is exactly what will happen when a government taxes the daylights out of its citizens - regardless of what the government says it will do with the money -- most of it is wasted or ends up in the pockets of insiders & politicians..

The best way to make people happy and productive is to let them have the fruits of their own labor and let those who do NOT work experience the fruits of theirs...
...The movie reminded me of what our government is doing now.....

[Beninator]

So now we have a post citing a Peter Ferrara written op-ed piece. The same Peter Ferrara who in the past has admitted to accepting money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write op-ed pieces in favor of the lobbyist's clients.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

"NAIVE PURITY STANDARD." Bandow isn't the only think-tanker to have received payments from Abramoff for writing articles. Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

Ferrara, who has been an influential conservative voice on Social Security reform, among other issues, says he doesn't see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write op-ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles.