Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 279

Thread: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

  1. #171
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    haymarket;1059146433]what were tax rates in the 50's ?

    Are you trying to confuse somebody with actual facts and the historical record?
    Any idea what the budget was for the United States in the 50's and the population? More importantly what was the actual tax rate paid by actual taxpayers?
    Last edited by Conservative; 12-08-10 at 02:22 PM.

  2. #172
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Budget deficits result from spending more than the revenue generated so tax cuts for anyone have no affect on spending but I believe you know that. What I know is that you are doing your best to generate discussion here knowing well that allowing people to keep more of what they earn isn't an expense to the govt, thus has nothing to do with the deficit. I don't hear you or anyone asking where the money is coming from to fund another 13 months of unemployment payments, wonder why? I don't hear you or any one else asking where the money is coming from to fund Obamacare or any other part of the Obama agenda? I don't see you concerned about paying for the Middle class tax cuts or now their extension? Wonder why?
    You should focus less on me and more on the GOP leadership. They are the ones that will be starting economic legislation. They are the ones that are supposedly fiscally responsible. Yet we both know that they won't cut that much spending. They prefer borrow and spend to tax and spend. Debt is an expense in the long run.

    I see the argument for helping those who actually need help in this current economy. I don't see the top 2% as being part of that category.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #173
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,609

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Any idea what the budget was for the United States in the 50's and the population? More importantly what was the actual tax rate paid by actual taxpayers?
    ask and ye shall receive

    Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

    the first column is the year, the second is the percentage taken by the feds, the third is the level of income needed for that percentage to kick in



    1950 84.36 400,000
    1951 91 400,000
    1952 92 400,000
    1953 92 400,000
    1954 91 400,000
    1955 91 400,000
    1956 91 400,000
    1957 91 400,000
    1958 91 400,000
    1959 91 400,000
    1960 91 400,000
    1961 91 400,000
    Last edited by haymarket; 12-08-10 at 02:28 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #174
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    You should focus less on me and more on the GOP leadership. They are the ones that will be starting economic legislation. They are the ones that are supposedly fiscally responsible. Yet we both know that they won't cut that much spending. They prefer borrow and spend to tax and spend. Debt is an expense in the long run.

    I see the argument for helping those who actually need help in this current economy. I don't see the top 2% as being part of that category.
    "They" aren't in charge yet, this is still a Democrat Congress. How much help should the unemployed get, how many years? Do you think that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?

  5. #175
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Top Marginal rates mean nothing, what did the people pay?

  6. #176
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,609

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Top Marginal rates mean nothing, what did the people pay?
    That would be different for every person filing since it depends on deductions.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #177
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    That would be different for every person filing since it depends on deductions.
    Exactly!! And most people in the higher tax brackets had a lot of deductions. Most of those have been taken away over time. People then didn't pay a much different actual tax than they are paying today. the difference is the size of the govt. then vs. now.

  8. #178
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And this is nothing but a ridiculous attempt at fear mongering that "OMG if we don't raise taxes on the top 2% essential portions of society will become destroyed!"

    So the federal government can't give as much to states to do road work. Lets say we even accept your premise. States will then have to learn to be more efficient in what they spend their road money on or find other ways to finance it. Individuals may, gasp, have to actually pay attention to the road for potholes. And hey, at least I'll have more money in my pocket that I can choose to use myself for my repairs if need be.

    Again, accepting your premise that somehow lawlessness will run amock, its assuming that police currently are running at maximum efficiency and thus any cuts at all will result in gross lawbreaking.

    You make the typical, riduclous and idiotic fallacy of equating conservative with anarchist. Of comparing cuts in funding with removal of funding.
    You are making the typical, ridiculous, and idiotic strawman fallacy of what I actually said.

    I never said that lawlessness will run amok. It will increase due to early releases and cuts in police coverage.

    Call your local auto repair shop and ask them what it would cost to replace a tire, rim, tie rod and A-arm assembly. Then compare that to what your think your increase in taxes would be. Sometimes in heavy traffic you can't avoid every pothole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And neither side does the sensible thing and says cut it from all to some extent while identifying which programs and services and spending is considered legitimately "essential" to the function of government and what is a "luxury".

    When you have hard financial times as a family you don't continue to buy expensive grocheries but cut out all luxuries. You also don't severely skimp on grocheries while buying a new X-Box game every week. You, if you're smart, cut back everywhere, though "luxury" things get a larger cut then essential ones. The government needs to do that as well.
    Yet for some reason nobody is seriously talking about reducing spending. Instead we are talking about tax cuts for the top 2%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Incorrect, FAR more than 2% are controlling the issue of revenue. Go take a look at exit pollings on the amount of people for extending the Bush Tax Cuts for all...I assure you, its more than 2%. The mistake you're making here is thinking that everyone gloms onto class warfare and its only those evil 2% that are putting a stop to this. That's simply not the case.
    Those people in the polls aren't controlling anything. They support cutting spending, but they won't make it happen. They certainly don't control the media cycle which has us talking about tax cuts instead of spending cuts. I blame the politicians and the spin doctors in the media. They fit into the top 2%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here's the thing. We KNOW the government has no problem raising taxes. George H.W. Bush implimented new taxes, Clinton implimented new taxes, Bush implimented new taxes, Obama implimented new taxes and wanted the tax rate for some to go up. The government has proven, time and time again, that is has ZERO issue with raising taxes utlimately.

    What is hasn't shown though is that it is willing to make spending cuts, or interested in using the money that is gained from raising taxes for anything other than MORE spending.

    You're right, we need to do both. We absolutely do. However, just doing one...raising taxes...and not the other, mixed with what we know historically happens with increased taxes (additional spending, not paying down the deficit with that money), is WORSE in my mind than doing neither of those two things.

    Essentially for the current situation doing both > reducing spending alone > doing neither > just raising taxes.

    Raising taxes and just raising taxes does nothing but feed the addiction. This is like saying that a person is having financial problems because they always are buying cartons of cigerettes, so since you can't get them to stop buying so many cartons you decide to give them extra money every month to help with their finances. However, if they end up going out and buying more cigerettes all you've done is given yourself less money and continued enabling their bad habit.
    I understand your point. But voters really have no power. You get to vote for one of 435 House Representatives. You can unanimously vote your representative in or out, but it won't change the other 434 representative's minds. Term limits aren't a fix-all, but perhaps that would help.

    Using your addiction analogy. You can't help someone until they have hit their bottom. Collapse is the only thing that will change how Washington operates. Unfortunately, a balanced budget amendment isn't even being considered. Not even by the Tea Partiers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    However, outside of a short period of time during the perhaps the most prolific technological boom of the previous century while having a staunchly conservative congress and a center leaning democratic president, it has generally been the norm. And unless we're banking on a once in a lifetime type of economic miracle that was the technology explosion of the late 90's, then politicians are going to have to actively work towards a government that isn't running a gigantic deficit.

    I won't speak for other Conservatives but I would be willing to accept a small tax increase, ACROSS THE BOARD, if it was tied directly with reductions in the federal budget. I'd even accept it to be "progressive" to your tax bracket as long as it was across the board and wasn't huge in disparity from the lowest to the highest percentage. But unless you're giving me some kind of guarantee that the government is going to do ITS part if we citizens do ours, and that our money will actually be going to fighting the deficit not just helping them add to it, then you will never get me on board with any sort of tax raise.
    The problem is that there are no guarantees that the government will do its part.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  9. #179
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yet tax cuts have grown revenue everytime rates were cut so higher revenue doesn't increase deficits, but higher revenues do increase spending. Bush withholding tax reduction July 2003

    Yr Tot Rev Income Tax
    2000 3,132 2202.8
    2001 3,118 2163.7
    2002 2,987 2002.1
    2003 3,043 2047.9
    2004 3,265 2213.2
    2005 3,659 2546.8
    2006 3,996 2807.4
    2007 4,197 2951.2
    2008 4,072 2790.3
    Sorry for not responding soon, I was out doing some research. Took me forever to find actual credible statistics for US federal income tax revenue (Google was astoundingly little help, and when it did find some, the author never sourced em)

    Anyway, I finally found some on Office of Management and Budget website, then I personally standardized the income tax revenue against 2009 dollars. I made a graph and added in the presidents, and the locations of the Bush/Reagan tax cuts.

    I'm not trying to make any sort of point. This is just data. Data that I'd been wanting for a while and I thought I'd share with you guys. Sorry for it being a bit large, I couldn't shrink it and it needs the pixels anyway:



    This is only revenue from Federal income tax.

    You can find a larger version of my graph here.

    You can find the OMB stats on Revenue from 1934-2009 here.

    You can find the Seattle.gov stats on Federal CPI here.

    A comparison with income rates are suggested, unfortunately there is little way to graph them, as they vary according to income class, nonetheless, I highly recommend you check them out here. This is by far the most detailed review of income tax levels I've seen.

    You can find the exact values for Federal income tax revenue adjusted to 2009 dollars here. I created it, so it's hosted here. Unfortunately the forum won't let me post excel files, so I chucked it in a .zip, which can be found below:

    Federal income tax revenues in 2009 dollars.zip

    Apart from that... good day. If you have any questions just gimme a yell.
    Last edited by SirPwn4lot; 12-08-10 at 03:00 PM.

  10. #180
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Obama Announces 'Framework' for Deal With Congress to Extend Bush-Era Tax Cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    "They" aren't in charge yet, this is still a Democrat Congress. How much help should the unemployed get, how many years? Do you think that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?
    Are they going to change the deal once they are in charge?

    The unemployed should get help until the economy recovers.

    The budget deficit is an expense.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •