Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Ugh. That's pretty damning.

Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you go with an article based on opinion or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you go with an article based on opinion or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.

Isn't that the democratic motto?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you go with an article based on opinion or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.

When I say it's pretty damning, I'm referring to the repeated comments coming from McCain insinuating that the current economic hardships facing many American families are "just in their head." Doesn't say a lot about someone who is claiming to fix issues he doesn't seem to believe truly exist. To me, that kind of double talk is damning.

As for tax percentages and breakouts among varying income levels, that's not my area of expertise and I can't speak intelligently on it, so I won't try.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Looks like this is flying over people's heads.

I'll toss out a clue.

McCain’s head games on taxes - Ari Melber - Politico.com

This is a great post by Mr. Solar:

Since the lower income 50% of taxpayers pay only 3% of federal income taxes, they really don't need a tax break. And many get lots of money back with the earned income credit and additional child tax credit. Bush's tax cuts did lower rates on the top brackets. Result? The highest-income taxpayers had incentive to make more money, and they paid MORE taxes. The deficit, as a percentage of GDP, went down. And lower-income tax payers got jobs. I would love to see high-income athletes and actors pay way more tax, but a tax cut on the wealthy who create jobs (directly, or through investments) is good for everyone, even the jealous. Want out of the recession? More jobs? Better-paying jobs? Support McCain's proposal to cut the corporate income tax, which is higher than that of most other countries. Add drilling offshore and in ANWR, cut red tape (and useless government workers), and lower taxes on upper tiers, and the recession will end.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Looks like this is flying over people's heads.

I'll toss out a clue.

McCain’s head games on taxes - Ari Melber - Politico.com

Ha ha.
<Homer Simpson>I get jokes</Homer Simpson>

I am usually smarter than that. Damn.

[The Goat]

This article looks like it came out of the WSJ Editorial board rather than the WSJ. There's a huge difference. The editorial portion is pure shit, not journalism, and it's been that way for decades. The actual WSJ is high quality.

I say the article looks like editorial because it says editorial at the bottom and because it refers extensively to the voodoo economics known as supply side. Bob Bartley, the most famous chief editor of the WSJ editorial, was a major advocate of supply side (along w/ Jude Wanniski). Believe it or not supply side has never been an economics based theory. Bartley and Wanniski said tax cuts for the rich, beyond JFK's in the early sixties, would yield so much in tax revenue that America would see a budget surplus. Economic studies have shown GDP would have to grow by 10 to 12 percent (annually) to achieve surplus alongside Reagan's tax cuts. Any idiot who pays even the least bit of attention to public policy knows that each time supply side tax cuts have been implemented the budget collapses into deficit. When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

As to the merits of the article, there is no there there. All good macroeconomics is founded in microeconomics, and to get at the micro picture you've got to ask what percentage of household income is going to the federal government. Sadly, the percentage of household income among the working poor (blue collar, service sector, etc) has climbed dramatically over the last 3 decades to have nearly doubled. Think about out social security was saved in the 80's. The tax was doubled for W-2'd workers. If you're wondering how this group is somehow paying a lesser portion of income taxes, it's because they're earning significantly less real income than 30 years ago. The real income, when adjusted for inflation, has fallen for blue collar and service sector workers. Meanwhile, the percentage of household income taken away from the top decile in the form of taxes is lower than at any other time since WWII (when the modern tax system was implemented). Again, if it seems curious that this group is now paying a larger percentage of income taxes, all you have to look at is their enormous gain in real income. At the micro level, where it really counts, the poor are paying more than ever before (percentage of household income) and the rich are paying less than any time since WWII (percentage of household income).

Lastly, the WSJ editorial here is pure bullshit for an entirely different reason. Notice it talked about income taxes and not payroll taxes. Most families (4 out of 5) live w/ the payroll tax, levied at 15.3%, as their primary tax. The income tax only accounts for about 10% of what the median family pays in total tax. In simple terms, the editorial completely ignores the tax paid by the vast majority of American households. This is a slick little way of distorting the reality, but it's not a new trick by any means. The reason we can say that the bottom 50% of workers paid just 2.9% of the income tax is because they don't make enough to pay much in income tax, but you can be quite sure that they're not escaping the payroll tax which is counted separately.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This article looks like it came out of the WSJ Editorial board rather than the WSJ. There's a huge difference. The editorial portion is pure shit, not journalism, and it's been that way for decades. The actual WSJ is high quality.

I say the article looks like editorial because it says editorial at the bottom and because it refers extensively to the voodoo economics known as supply side. Bob Bartley, the most famous chief editor of the WSJ editorial, was a major advocate of supply side (along w/ Jude Wanniski). Believe it or not supply side has never been an economics based theory. Bartley and Wanniski said tax cuts for the rich, beyond JFK's in the early sixties, would yield so much in tax revenue that America would see a budget surplus. Economic studies have shown GDP would have to grow by 10 to 12 percent (annually) to achieve surplus alongside Reagan's tax cuts. Any idiot who pays even the least bit of attention to public policy knows that each time supply side tax cuts have been implemented the budget collapses into deficit. When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

As to the merits of the article, there is no there there. All good macroeconomics is founded in microeconomics, and to get at the micro picture you've got to ask what percentage of household income is going to the federal government. Sadly, the percentage of household income among the working poor (blue collar, service sector, etc) has climbed dramatically over the last 3 decades to have nearly doubled. Think about out social security was saved in the 80's. The tax was doubled for W-2'd workers. If you're wondering how this group is somehow paying a lesser portion of income taxes, it's because they're earning significantly less real income than 30 years ago. The real income, when adjusted for inflation, has fallen for blue collar and service sector workers. Meanwhile, the percentage of household income taken away from the top decile in the form of taxes is lower than at any other time since WWII (when the modern tax system was implemented). Again, if it seems curious that this group is now paying a larger percentage of income taxes, all you have to look at is their enormous gain in real income. At the micro level, where it really counts, the poor are paying more than ever before (percentage of household income) and the rich are paying less than any time since WWII (percentage of household income).

Lastly, the WSJ editorial here is pure bullshit for an entirely different reason. Notice it talked about income taxes and not payroll taxes. Most families (4 out of 5) live w/ the payroll tax, levied at 15.3%, as their primary tax. The income tax only accounts for about 10% of what the median family pays in total tax. In simple terms, the editorial completely ignores the tax paid by the vast majority of American households. This is a slick little way of distorting the reality, but it's not a new trick by any means. The reason we can say that the bottom 50% of workers paid just 2.9% of the income tax is because they don't make enough to pay much in income tax, but you can be quite sure that they're not escaping the payroll tax which is counted separately.

Don't agree

[firstdown]

When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

Deficits are based off what comes in and what is spent and you seem to leave those numbers out. With what your saying is that with the Regan and Bush tax cuts revenue to the IRS went down which is totaly not true. The proplem is that Regan went along with Congress way too much and the Dems (with the help of Regan) spent more than the goverment was taking in and the same with Bush (with the help from both parties).

[dmek25]

oh god. so we aren't really in a recession? im just dreaming that gas prices, food prices, and every other thing under the sun prices are rising? and first down, i love your look on politics. if its someone you like, or have voted for, in your eyes things that go south is never their fault. it always congress, or Bill Clinton's fault. and if something good comes out of someone you don't like, you do everything you can to deflect the praise. your loyalty is commendable

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

oh god. so we aren't really in a recession? im just dreaming that gas prices, food prices, and every other thing under the sun prices are rising? and first down, i love your look on politics. if its someone you like, or have voted for, in your eyes things that go south is never their fault. it always congress, or Bill Clinton's fault. and if something good comes out of someone you don't like, you do everything you can to deflect the praise. your loyalty is commendable

Ok, please find when I have blamed Bill for todays problems. Maybe you can go back and find one but thats about it. Are times tough sure, is the media all over it because its an election year HELL YEA!!!!!!!!! I could sit at home and dwell on whats wrong or I can MOVE ON WITH LIFE AND MAKE THE BEST OF WHATS IN FRONT OF ME. I perfer a low tax pres. but if someone gets elected that wants to raise my taxes I'll just keep on doing what I have to do to provide.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok, please find when I have blamed Bill for todays problems. Maybe you can go back and find one but thats about it. Are times tough sure, is the media all over it because its an election year HELL YEA!!!!!!!!! I could sit at home and dwell on whats wrong or I can MOVE ON WITH LIFE AND MAKE THE BEST OF WHATS IN FRONT OF ME. I perfer a low tax pres. but if someone gets elected that wants to raise my taxes I'll just keep on doing what I have to do to provide.

Obama is not going to raise taxes on small businesses and he's not going to raise taxes on people with income over 250K. McCain on the other had will exacerbate the deficit by continuing the war and at the same time cutting taxes. Sure some will get a lower tax bill today but future generations will be the one who get screwed at the end.

I'm not sure if you are aware but we currently pay 260 billion dollars in national debt interest annually and just the other day congress had to increase the debt cieling by 800 billion to 10.6 trillion. What does that mean? It means if you can't pay, increase your credit limit.

This isn't complicated folks, it's common sense 101.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Obama is not going to raise taxes on small businesses and he's not going to raise taxes on people with income over 250K. McCain on the other had will exacerbate the deficit by continuing the war and at the same time cutting taxes. Sure some will get a lower tax bill today but future generations will be the one who get screwed at the end.

I'm not sure if you are aware but we currently pay 260 billion dollars in national debt interest annually and just the other day congress had to increase the debt cieling by 800 billion to 10.6 trillion. What does that mean? It means if you can't pay, increase your credit limit.

This isn't complicated folks, it's common sense 101.

Well if the article is correct which started this thread that the Rich are paying even more taxes sense the Bush tax cuts isn't Obama going to reverse this trend my reversing those tax cuts? Then he says he is going to cut taxes for the working Joe cutting even more taxes so how will he pay for all these goverment programs that he wants to expand and create?

[mlmpetert]

What's-Your-Share-of-the-Nation's-Tax-Bill: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Heres another artical stating some of the same things, lets you know wher you fit in, and has less of a bias tone to it. Also the chart at the bottom is pretty nice.

Single filing tax payers need to be extra weary when listening to politicians say who is going to be affected by their proposed tax changes, as they rarely drop filing statuses when siting numbers. If Obama says he only wants to raise taxes for the top quartile of all income earners, and then backs it up with just a number, for married filing jointly, of 131k, that sounds like Robin Hood talk to someone like my mom. She’s a single teacher in Fairfax Co. which makes it tough for her. But more importantly she’s a single filer with limited deductions and shell likely fall into the category of top quartile.

[dmek25]

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

that happens to every bill. so we don't take care of our vets, because there is too much pork attached? these guys don't get anywhere close to the respect that they have earned. the whole political system is turning into a joke. and as far as McCain saying that, i saw it in an interview on CNN

To clarify firstdown's numbers that was $ 23 Billion in unecessary pork. Over 2% of the total spending bill of $ 933 Billion. Where do you draw the line, 3%, 5%? How about none or under 1%, sounds good to me. It isn't the government's job to provide pet subsidies to localities, individuals, or corporations that keep them in office with the money we as taxpayers earned. If I want to keep a politician in office, I'll contribute to the campaign.

But the record deficits are all Bush's fault