• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Checking Gingrich that Dodd-Frank is destroying community banks

2002 rates decreased another 0.5%, while 2003 rates decreased even further.


Code:
Table 2.
Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under Current Tax Law, Based on 2001 Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014
        Year 	2001 	2002 	2003 	2004 	2005 	2006 	2007 	2008 	2009 	[...] 

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate
 
All Quintiles 	21.5 	20.7 	19.9 	19.6 	21.4 	21.6 	21.7 	21.7 	 	[...] 

[url=http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5746&type=0&sequence=1]Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014[/url]



_________________________
Signed, a proud Googler
Go back and read exactly what I wrote about the tax code changes. I started off saying MOST of the Bush tax cuts took place in 2003, that is why I think it's the best base to use when looking at that change in tax policy and it's effect on tax revenues. But for some odd reason you think the hyper progressive 2001 tax cuts that slashed the taxes of the low income earners, protected many low income earners from AMT taxes and barely moved the other brackets by .5% somehow contradicts what I said. It doesn't.

I will give you credit for providing a half answer.

For the other taxtards, the fact of the matter is the full impact of the Bush tax cuts took place in 2003, he signed a law in 2003 to accelerate the drop in marginal taxes for almost everybody. After the drop in revenue in 2003, tax revenues soared to record levels after those cuts. Accept the facts. If you are going to bitch about the Bush tax cuts, at least try to use marginally relevant data to make your argument.


Percentage of Returns by the Highest Applicable Statutory Marginal Tax Rate, 1958-2009
 
Go back and read exactly what I wrote about the tax code changes. I started off saying MOST of the Bush tax cuts took place in 2003, that is why I think it's the best base to use when looking at that change in tax policy and it's effect on tax revenues. But for some odd reason you think the hyper progressive 2001 tax cuts that slashed the taxes of the low income earners, protected many low income earners from AMT taxes and barely moved the other brackets by .5% somehow contradicts what I said. It doesn't.

I will give you credit for providing a half answer.

For the other taxtards, the fact of the matter is the full impact of the Bush tax cuts took place in 2003, he signed a law in 2003 to accelerate the drop in marginal taxes for almost everybody. After the drop in revenue in 2003, tax revenues soared to record levels after those cuts. Accept the facts. If you are going to bitch about the Bush tax cuts, at least try to use marginally relevant data to make your argument.


Percentage of Returns by the Highest Applicable Statutory Marginal Tax Rate, 1958-2009

OH GOD!!I hope you rolled your pants-legs up with all of that back peddling.:2rofll:
 
I am pretty certain I pay in one year what you will pay in your lifetime. Save the "Fair Share" silliness for someone it applies to.

heh...that means you keep more in a month that he will make in a lifetime...dude your waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over paid.:lamo:lamo....
 
Back
Top Bottom