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

[Daseal]

Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.

Why are you saying $10 million? The top 1%, per this article, make above $388,000. There's a huge difference between that and $10 million

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.

I'm for anything better then what we have in place today. Either a flat tax or a consumer tax which I believe is around 22% and the lower income receives back tax credits. Neil Bortz (spelling) has a book out on the consumer tax which I have not read but have heard about. Your example of someone making $100,000 is not very good because they do not pay that much in taxes. I agree that yes the rich can afford to pay more (which they do) but that upper bracket starts with families with incomes around 350,000. While that is very well off its far from your example and they end up paying around $140,000 in taxes. So now they are bringing home 210,000 which just doe not seem right. Think they have to work almost 5 months just to pay their Federal Taxes and this does not even enclude state and other taxes. The main problem is Federal, State, and local goverment has become to big and way to waistful. We have plenty of money to meet the needs of the people we just need to cut out the waist in all three.

[BleedBurgundy]

Why can't they just add more tiers to the current system, so that the "ultra-rich" (the ones Daseal is referring to...) are taxed heavily, but the people making "only" $350k don't give up a disproportionately large chunk of their income. It seems as if the official definitions of "rich" are far outdated.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'm for anything better then what we have in place today. Either a flat tax or a consumer tax which I believe is around 22% and the lower income receives back tax credits. Neil Bortz (spelling) has a book out on the consumer tax which I have not read but have heard about.

Neal Boortz actually has two books out, the first is "The Fair Tax Book", the second is "The Fair Tax Answers the Critics" (I believe). I highly recommend you read them both. I read the first and haven't finished the second. Fair Tax is a great program. More info at: www.fairtax.org

A tax structure which fully funds the government, protects the poor, eliminates corporate and capital gains taxes, taxes earnings of the underground economy (drugs, other illegal activity, illegal immigrants) and most importantly takes a great deal of power away from the lobbyists on K St. and out of DC has my support.

[FRPLG]

I'd prefer if we just figured out how spend less money rather than raise taxes. I am pretty convinced we can get the same level of shitty services out of our gov't for 75% of our current collective tax burden is. Hell if done right we could probably get fair to middlin' services for 75% if we had competent politicans in charge of putting competent people in charge of our programs and got special interests out of the game.

[saden1]

Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.

Huh? I am not sure what you mean. I think taxes are pretty real. I know when I get my paycheck every other Friday it says I got paid XXX but they only sent YYY to my bank because of taxes.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Huh? I am not sure what you mean. I think taxes are pretty real. I know when I get my paycheck every other Friday it says I got paid XXX but they only sent YYY to my bank because of taxes.

Perhaps you need a psychological stimulus to get you to see the light?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps you need a psychological stimulus to get you to see the light?

Apparently so.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.

Well it seems pretty real each month when I have to write a check to the IRS and then one to the state to pay my taxes. I think everyone should have to pay their own taxes each month and write a check the IRS. It hits home much harder when you have to take money allready in your checking account than to have your boss just taking it out of your check.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

Taxes are all psychological. You lot need to stop whining.

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

[BleedBurgundy]

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

Ugh. That's pretty damning.

[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.

[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.