Should the Bush taxcuts be extended?

[JoeV]

I stand corrected... sort of... figure I'd seen may have been top 5% of tax payers.

2009 data...

Source: IRS

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

So it's 40%, not 80%... I should have remembered the analogy about 5 men eating dinner and two of them footing the entire bill... the rest getting upset when those men get tired of the unfair distribution and choosing not to eat with the group.

At what point are the top 1 or 5 or 10 or 25% paying a 'fair share?' I argee entirely that there need to be protections for those without for whatever reason. But endless unemployment depresses job levels, because those receiving something for nothing choose to continue receiving that something instead of taking employment (even at a higher income level than is being received) until that support is running out [Swedish study].

And throwing money at the problem as is being done for health care will not work. There is the issue of supply that is too often ignored.

In short, as long as someone is paying nothing, I do not believe anyone should be paying more than half of what they earn in a year.

Pax RA

So you just went from 80% to 40%?

Fact is all the data on the wealthy and what they pay is bullshit. Most wealthy people and corporations find tax loopholes. For example Google only pays about 2.5% in taxes. They move their money around and benefit from loopholes. The top rich do this also.

 

[xfire]

No offense, but that is an incredibly simplistic explaination to the mortgage crisis

Occam's razor. You don't get how these things are connected? Because the greedy rich shipped American jobs overseas people were fired and couldn't pay their bills. You're right that it's simple. The right explanation usually is.

 

[meesterperfect]

Nice potty mouth from a guy that supports the party of religion, meester. The more you open your mouth the less doubt there is to your intellect.

who said i support anyone ?
i dont like the democrat party and youve got a problem with it
and there you go again with the insults.
i said to you exactly what i would say to you in person.
and in fact if you said to me what you just said above in person i'd probably have to belt ya.
who the hell are you to call people stupid for not agreeing with you?

again, go use someone else as an excuse to go off about how bad the republican party is and how good the dems are.

people like you, and ive seen many, its impossible to discuss anything with.
you must
either agree with you 100% or youre gonna cheap shot insult them and say that theyre stupid.

blind arrogance.

 

[RogueAlan]

So you just went from 80% to 40%?

Fact is all the data on the wealthy and what they pay is bullshit. Most wealthy people and corporations find tax loopholes. For example Google only pays about 2.5% in taxes. They move their money around and benefit from loopholes. The top rich do this also.

Uhm... now who is over-generalizing.
Yes, the WEALTHY, the Al Gores, profiting on copper mining and then decrying global warming and trumpeting enviornmentalism... Yes, no government will ever touch their money.

Whatever business tax level the government sets, it is you and I who pay those taxes, through increased fees and prices. States like Florida and Texas that have done away with personal income tax or property tax or that have favorable property tax rates compared to neighboring states have all realized increased tax income based on the simple truth that if you can save more of your money by doing business or living in a place with lower taxes, you will.

BUT, the people I know who fall in the 1% category... remember that's those earning more than $380,000 (top 5% over $160,000) also have bigger expenses then I do... home businesses, bigger homes, better cars, more kids going to better schools... wives spending more $$ on redocrating past redecorations... or on 'maintaining the lifestyle' to which ex-wives had 'become accustomed.' Oh, and bigger school bills. So they are not saving specifically any more than we are. And they are decidedly not aided by accountants and attorney's shuffling monies to the Caribbean or Switzerland.

Choosing the top 1% hits people not so different from you or I. And my '20 80' rule was for the top 10% who pay 70% of total tax burden. So apologies if you are so aghast at my misremembering which data point was which... i'm not running for office, or teaching a class, and my point still stands....

in 07 and 08, top 1% of wage earners paid more than the bottom 95% of tax payers. And yet that is 'not enough' according to many. Talking heads have championed the 'maximum rate ever in the past' of something like (see, can't be exact without more research, & I'm too lazy to do more of that on something I'm not gonna change) 79%... If for every dollar you make Uncle Sugar takes even 70 cents, why make the effort? It's a real issue of diminishing returns, ask New York, or look at the response in the wake of past tax increases.

anyway, i'll choose to be amused at the tenor being 'i went from 80 to 40' instead of 'top 1 pays more then bottom 95?'

Pax

RA

 

[Rey C.]

There is no contradition. The money would not have to be borrowed if we stopped spending. We already generate enough to cover the NECESSARY expenses of our government. Elimiante ear marks and wasetful spending and your are done.

And there is the rub. Wouldn't you say that's a mighty big "if"? It is a nice thought though.

In realistic terms, based strictly on history, do you think it's likely that government will actually cut spending? At best, they might cut the growth of spending in a handful of programs, which is what has been passed off as "cutting spending" in the past.

You're using subjective buzzwords and terms like "necessary expenses" and "wasteful spending". What do they really mean though? Do they mean the same thing to all people? Is your representative going to vote to kill the military contract that provides say, 2,000 jobs to your area... and if he does, will you continue to support him? Will other people? And let's say it's for a project like the C-17 - which many/most in the military don't even want? But Boeing wants it. And so they've sent lobbyists to tell the congressmen and the constituents that if we don't fund that program, well, hordes of bad people will be able to overrun the nation and hell, they might try to unplug poor old grandma or something. Grandma always seem to be in imminent danger these days, doesn't she?

The "if" of these people actually cutting spending is almost a fantasy. Sure, we do need to do that, but until it's done, why would we want to spend money that we don't have giving tax breaks to people who will not be contributing all that much to GDP? Why? Is that not fiscally irresponsible? There's a greater chance that Ivanka Trump will leave her little husband and run off with me. So what is going to happen? If these tax cuts are allowed to remain exactly as they now exist, we will be borrowing another $700 billion or so from the Chinese to pay for the cuts and credits, the deficit will be that much larger and GDP will not be affected enough to even begin to justify the cuts.

I have to go now. The phone is ringing. I bet it's Ivanka inviting me to a secret love nest for New Year's Eve. Or... it's someone from work asking me why I'm not answering my emails this weekend. Wanna take odds?

 

[xfire]

who said i support anyone ?

You're really good at making a lot of noise without saying anything. That's part of your method, though, to take shots at everyone without standing for anything and as such you leave your positions open to interpretation.

Do you or do you not stand with republicans, and by proxy with the religious right? If not, where is your condemnation of the GOP?

i dont like the democrat party and youve got a problem with it

It's the democratic party, not "democrat" party. Use of democrat as an adjective is purely right-wing rhetoric. Another solid reason to lump you in with them.

So, are you or are you not a republican? If not why do you have a propensity for trashing democrats and letting republicans off the hook?

and there you go again with the insults.

An honest assessment of your intellect based on your dialog isn't an insult. If you had exhibited more than trollish behavior I would duly note as much.

i said to you exactly what i would say to you in person.
and in fact if you said to me what you just said above in person i'd probably have to belt ya.

I would say to you in person everything I've posted. And no, you wouldn't belt me. It's one thing to sit behind a keyboard and play internet tuff guy, and I've seen you do it more than once, and it's another to look another man in the face and play juvenile tuff guy games. I don't threaten people online or in real life because adults don't act that way. Imbeciles that try to solve problems with their fists end up in jail.

who the hell are you to call people stupid for not agreeing with you?

If you were making arguments and explaining your reasoning that would be one thing, but you're just throwing around slogans, jingos, and talking points. If that's the depth of your substance than the shoe fits.

again, go use someone else as an excuse to go off about how bad the republican party is and how good the dems are.

Giving up, are you? I don't blame you because you've got nothing but talking points, jingos, and slogans. You've had every opportunity to lay out your positions, but you refuse.

I ask you again, what issues do you take exception to to the Democrats with? What do you support that's "republican"?

people like you, and ive seen many, its impossible to discuss anything with. you must either agree with you 100% or youre gonna cheap shot insult them and say that theyre stupid.

I'm open to discussion but you refuse. What more can I do? I'm not going to let your slogans, jingos, and talking points go unanswered just because you refuse to participate in dialog.

blind arrogance.

Really? Because I call B.S. on your blathering? Yeah, I'm sure it seems that way.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Uhm... now who is over-generalizing.
Yes, the WEALTHY, the Al Gores, profiting on copper mining and then decrying global warming and trumpeting enviornmentalism... Yes, no government will ever touch their money.

Whatever business tax level the government sets, it is you and I who pay those taxes, through increased fees and prices. States like Florida and Texas that have done away with personal income tax or property tax or that have favorable property tax rates compared to neighboring states have all realized increased tax income based on the simple truth that if you can save more of your money by doing business or living in a place with lower taxes, you will.

BUT, the people I know who fall in the 1% category... remember that's those earning more than $380,000 (top 5% over $160,000) also have bigger expenses then I do... home businesses, bigger homes, better cars, more kids going to better schools... wives spending more $$ on redocrating past redecorations... or on 'maintaining the lifestyle' to which ex-wives had 'become accustomed.' Oh, and bigger school bills. So they are not saving specifically any more than we are. And they are decidedly not aided by accountants and attorney's shuffling monies to the Caribbean or Switzerland.

Choosing the top 1% hits people not so different from you or I. And my '20 80' rule was for the top 10% who pay 70% of total tax burden. So apologies if you are so aghast at my misremembering which data point was which... i'm not running for office, or teaching a class, and my point still stands....

in 07 and 08, top 1% of wage earners paid more than the bottom 95% of tax payers. And yet that is 'not enough' according to many. Talking heads have championed the 'maximum rate ever in the past' of something like (see, can't be exact without more research, & I'm too lazy to do more of that on something I'm not gonna change) 79%... If for every dollar you make Uncle Sugar takes even 70 cents, why make the effort? It's a real issue of diminishing returns, ask New York, or look at the response in the wake of past tax increases.

anyway, i'll choose to be amused at the tenor being 'i went from 80 to 40' instead of 'top 1 pays more then bottom 95?'

Pax

RA

Actually the top rate at least on paper was over 90% from the end of ww2 to the early 60s.There were more loopholes then as well though.

But to argue that the tax system in the US is fair or that the top pay their fair share in an way does not stand up to scrutiny IMO.
Warren Buffet who is very wealthy has discussed this mentioning that when you figure in things like the social security tax which stops being collected at $106,000 for this year ( I am a tax preparer btw ) his secretary who makes in the 30k range is paying a higher % tax rate then he is.The disparity of wealth and it's concentration among the few at the top has been growing since the 70s reversing the trend that had been seen after ww2 where the vast majority was seeing growth of incomes.This was just made even worse when under Reagan rates were dropped and have stayed low for the wealthy.Look at something like the capital gains tax which is only 15%.What that means is someone who makes money on just thier investments pays only 15% no matter the amount while somone who works could pay in 30% range.Thats surely not fairness. IMO the country was much better off for all concerned economically when we had broad based income growth instead of the narrow and extreme growth we have seen at the top.

Bottom line is the only reason you can site numbers of how high a percentage the top pays of all taxes paid is now more then ever is that they have ALL the money now more then ever!!!

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

haven't read every post yet, sorry if I repeat anything.
what about a flat sales income tax (7% maybe) right down the board.
so a few douche bags want to be ridiculously wealthy, why make them work hard to screw up the lives of the rest of us to achieve that?
if the rest of us are allowed to keep our money and not needing to shell out what basically amounts to rent money to keep the property we worked so hard to get in the first place, the insanely wealthy bastards won't have any power over us - just more crap than anyone else.
stop tailoring the economy to manipulate people and start designing it for prosperity.
imagine if medicine and doctors were about making people well instead of getting rich, imagine if people worked because they loved what they do not because they fear being forced in the street. what a concept.
let people keep the money they worked hard for.

 

[meesterperfect]

You're really good at making a lot of noise without saying anything. That's part of your method, though, to take shots at everyone without standing for anything and as such you leave your positions open to interpretation.

Do you or do you not stand with republicans, and by proxy with the religious right? If not, where is your condemnation of the GOP?




It's the democratic party, not "democrat" party. Use of democrat as an adjective is purely right-wing rhetoric. Another solid reason to lump you in with them.

So, are you or are you not a republican? If not why do you have a propensity for trashing democrats and letting republicans off the hook?




An honest assessment of your intellect based on your dialog isn't an insult. If you had exhibited more than trollish behavior I would duly note as much.



I would say to you in person everything I've posted. And no, you wouldn't belt me. It's one thing to sit behind a keyboard and play internet tuff guy, and I've seen you do it more than once, and it's another to look another man in the face and play juvenile tuff guy games. I don't threaten people online or in real life because adults don't act that way. Imbeciles that try to solve problems with their fists end up in jail.



If you were making arguments and explaining your reasoning that would be one thing, but you're just throwing around slogans, jingos, and talking points. If that's the depth of your substance than the shoe fits.



Giving up, are you? I don't blame you because you've got nothing but talking points, jingos, and slogans. You've had every opportunity to lay out your positions, but you refuse.

I ask you again, what issues do you take exception to to the Democrats with? What do you support that's "republican"?



I'm open to discussion but you refuse. What more can I do? I'm not going to let your slogans, jingos, and talking points go unanswered just because you refuse to participate in dialog.



Really? Because I call B.S. on your blathering? Yeah, I'm sure it seems that way.

yeah i'll respond to all that, ok.

i dont like anything about the democratic party and i dislike most of the people who support them.
deal with it and leave me the fuck alone.
i havent tried to make any other points other than that.
yeah i give up, you win ok, happy now freak?

 

[CunningStunts]

Bottom line is the only reason you can site numbers of how high a percentage the top pays of all taxes paid is now more then ever is that they have ALL the money now more then ever!!!

While i sympathize with the angst many of you are expressing, taking all of the "rich people's" money in the entire world wouldn't help when you are talking about giving it to a bumbling, corrupt government than can't do basic math... they would just piss it away, and then, who's money do they take next? It would set up an Atlas Shrugged scenario where the government has no one left to steal from... :dunno:

BTW, I'm interested to hear what you people think is "rich". $200k a year? A million?

 

[Rey C.]

In short, as long as someone is paying nothing, I do not believe anyone should be paying more than half of what they earn in a year.

Pax RA

Who is paying, and who has proposed that anyone pay more than half of their income in income taxes??? Maybe I missed some of your point, but I'm kind of confused.

No offense, but that is an incredibly simplistic explaination to the mortgage crisis and the economic promblems in general. A much bigger factor to the mortgage mess was government pressuring the industry to give loans to people who couldn't get them, all in the name of trying to help people live the "American dream" of owning a house. There's no getting around reality... the same people who couldn't qualify for a mortgage could pay them once they got them. Buying a house you either know you can't afford or that your too dumb to know you can't pay for has nothing to do with "the rich."

With all due respect, what you're saying is pretty simplistic as well. True, there was an enabling effect, as FNMA and FHLMC turned a blind eye to the fraud that was taking place in the bundling and trading of MBS's - and FNMA was running its own fraudulent game. But the (actual) reason that mortgage bankers placed people in subprime mortgages was simply because they were as much as 500% more profitable than placing that same person in a prime mortgage. Last year I posted a pretty detailed explanation of how mortgage fees and points are figured, and how & why certain mortgage products are more profitable to the banks than others. I won't post that lengthy explanation again, but a Fed study from 2009 found that roughly 60% of the people placed in subprimes actually qualified for prime mortgages. But unless you know the industry, chances are the average person wouldn't know a prime product from a subprime product. It's not likely that your banker is going to tell you that he's putting you in an overpriced, shit deal, is it? In the early/mid 2000's, from Greenspan to W. Bush to Barney Frank, the leadership of this nation was touting rising homeownership rates as something fantastic. Everybody should buy a tulip. They're such pretty flowers. Even the President says so! :nanner:

Don't get me wrong; I'm not letting those people off the hook, who were obviously unqualified/unprepared to own a home and pay a mortgage. But I am saying that the reason that mortgage bankers, appraisers and real estate agents fluffed and stuffed loan applications and purchase contracts had to do with the $ that they could put in their pockets... not anything the government wanted or didn't want them to do. The government did encourage a lowering of the standards, but the banks took them even lower! The false belief that the banks were forced or coerced into anything has become an urban legend that runs contrary to the facts. The government has put a LOT more pressure on the money center banks to lend to small businesses (and because of TARP, has a LOT more control over them now than before), yet they've all but refused to do it. Why? Because there is not the same level of profit in low margin small business lending as there was in shoveling out high margin subprime mortgages.

I left the mortgage banking industry over a decade and a half ago. But the motivation for doing things now is no different than it was 15 or 20 years ago: MONEY! The first time I met my cousin's (now ex) husband about 10 years ago, his mortgage office was doing steady business and he was driving a Lexus. The last time I saw him about 4 years ago, he had relocated his "headquarters" to a fancy new office building on Wilshire Blvd. and he was driving a Bentley GT. He was energetic, but trust me, he wasn't all that sharp that he could rise so far so fast - and his current sad situation proves me right. But he was not the exception, he was more the rule. The market was so frothy that former pizza delivery boys, ex-cons and used car salesmen were hawking subprime mortgages and making small fortunes doing it. Given the chance to own/lease a Ferrari 430 or a Bentley GT, when you were driving a tarted up Toyota (Lexus) last year... do you think the government has to twist anybody's arm to make them go that route?

But none of this really has much to do with why we should or shouldn't extend some or all of the tax cuts... except that extending ALL of the tax cuts is going to put us deeper into the deficit hole. That is quite simply a fact.

 

[CunningStunts]

RC, good post, there's certainly a LOT of blame to go around, I was simply countering the argument made earlier.

And it's not lack of taxes that are driving us into the gaping maw of debt, it's spending... When we as individuals spend more than we make, we don't go marching into the boss and demand more cash. We SPEND less. Individuals in the US are finally getting that simple fact as private saving are up and personal debt is down, but our governments (except for a few smart states) are addicted to borrowing money to buy people's good will, and in the process enslaving them IMHO, while driving the nation into a hole that we may never get out of at this point... with NO sings of stopping! It's the very definition of insanity...

 

[Rey C.]

RC, good post, there's certainly a LOT of blame to go around, I was simply countering the argument made earlier.

And it's not lack of taxes that are driving us into the gaping maw of debt, it's spending... When we as individuals spend more than we make, we don't go marching into the boss and demand more cash. We SPEND less. Individuals in the US are finally getting that simple fact as private saving are up and personal debt is down, but our governments (except for a few smart states) are addicted to borrowing money to buy people's good will, and in the process enslaving them IMHO, while driving the nation into a hole that we may never get out of at this point... with NO sings of stopping! It's the very definition of insanity...

OK, I understand. :hatsoff: And I don't disagree with you at all that spending has gotten us to where we are. Whether it's the government, companies or individuals, it is true that we all have to learn to live within our means.

But what I'm saying is that in order to get us out of this debt hole (remember, the deficit is just an annual figure that adds to the debt - there is still the national debt itself that has to be serviced), not only are we going to have to address spending, but we will have to address revenues... whether we like the sound of that or not. In the 80's, there was the belief that we could grow our way out of the debt hole. Growth (GDP expansion alone) would/could/should do it, or so it was claimed. I now know of not one legitimate economist that believes that any longer.

But with the entitlement mentality that is engrained into the (entire) American psyche, I just don't see that there is going to be that many (true) spending cuts... not when every major program is a sacred cow to some powerful special interest group. With a former company, I worked on several projects related to a defense contract that has had nothing but cost overruns and tragedies since its inception. It's located in a state where the governor claims to be a "fiscal conservative". But everytime talk has come up of trimming (just) the fat from that program, he sounds more like Chuck Schumer arguing for gun control. And he's not an exception, especially when it involves someone in the House and a program that affects their district.

Ya know, I do make fun of some of these Tea Party people from time to time. But I do believe that some of them are legitimate and sincere in their beliefs. But given that so many of the leaders they're backing seem to be (very) recent converts to this new religion, I have to question the sincerity of those leaders. I used to work with a guy who claimed to be a born again Christian. But while we were at a high school football game one Friday night, he was taking upskirt photos of the teeny bopper/jailbait cheerleaders. Back at work that Monday, he was back to quoting scripture though. I've learned to judge people by their actions, not by their claims. And right now, I'm solidly in "I'll believe it when I see it" mode with most of these born again fiscal conservatives. I think most of them are still prone to steal crotch shots of young girls, given the opportunity.

But... we'll see. :2 cents:

 

[xfire]

yeah i'll respond to all that, ok.

Another dodge. How unsurprising.

i dont like anything about the democratic party and i dislike most of the people who support them.
deal with it and leave me the fuck alone.

Ah, how nice. I can tell that you've thoroughly studied both parties platforms and have made informed and well thought out choices. If only that were true. More likely you're just another Fox Hayrider. Keep your uninformed opinions out of politics and I'll be more than happy to leave you the fuck alone.

i havent tried to make any other points other than that.
yeah i give up, you win ok, happy now freak?

No, you haven't tried to make any points, I'll give you credit for that. What you have done is repeat a bunch of right-wing talking points, slogans, and jingos. Thanks for clarifying how full of shit you are, loser.

 

[pete rose]

I think my dick should be extended

 

[pornobsession]

You don't cut them during a recession just wait for things to settle out.

 

[meesterperfect]

Another dodge. How unsurprising.



Ah, how nice. I can tell that you've thoroughly studied both parties platforms and have made informed and well thought out choices. If only that were true. More likely you're just another Fox Hayrider. Keep your uninformed opinions out of politics and I'll be more than happy to leave you the fuck alone.



No, you haven't tried to make any points, I'll give you credit for that. What you have done is repeat a bunch of right-wing talking points, slogans, and jingos. Thanks for clarifying how full of shit you are, loser.

man you really are a troll.
stop using me to promote your opinions as if i'm the spokesperson for the republican party because your assuming too much.

i dont like democrat and i dont have to or want to write a bunch of reasons why to you .
back off.

this was my original post that got you all wound up, which was a response to another member, not you.


my conservative point of view is keep em and cut and eliminate more, then spend less.

your liberal point is yes, let them expire and create more, then spend spend spend the future and the present away.

feed the beast, make it grow even more.

me , i say put that bitch on a diet

i dont see the words republican or democrat in there.
no talking points or slogans either.

 

[xfire]

i dont like democrat and i dont have to or want to write a bunch of reasons why to you .
back off.

You don't like democrat but can't say why. Probably because you let other people think for you, people like Glenn Beck, ergo, you can't say why because you haven't put in the thought process to be able to defend your position. That's fine, I'll "back off" because it's obvious that you're out of your depth.

my conservative point of view is keep em and cut and eliminate more, then spend less.

That's nothing but a talking point/slogan. You offer no specifics as to what you want to cut and eliminate but hey, it sounds good. That's the whole problem with cheerleaders such as yourself; you spew out a bunch of hollow rhetoric with no clue how to achieve your lofty ambition.

your liberal point is yes, let them expire and create more, then spend spend spend the future and the present away.

Again, nothing more than a right-wing slogan. There's no substance, just inflammatory rhetoric especially when you consider that a "conservative" president ran up the biggest deficits in history while cutting taxes.

I digress. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were well enough versed in what you think you believe to be able to offer up some measured reasons as to why you do. I apologize as I was obviously wrong. You haven't got a clue why you believe what you think you believe. You just know that the Fox Hayride do a great job of filling your head full of right-wing rhetoric. Alas, you're young. Some day You Might engage in a little self-reflection and really start questioning the noise that you've filled your head with. Good day, sir.

 

[meesterperfect]

dude do you have emotional problems or something?

i believe in smaller government, less laws, less taxes, less spending.
thats not dem, thats not repub, thats not fox , thats not msnbc
thats me.

save your speeches for someone who it applies too because you dont know shit about me.

can you stop now?
finished?
you won, you beat me, you told me the way it is, put me in my place.
you should be proud, maybe go celebrate with a ladyfriend.
you can tell her, "you should have seen me today on freeones, i put this republican guy in his place something fierce"

 

[Hot Mega]

dude do you have emotional problems or something?

i believe in smaller government, less laws, less taxes, less spending.
thats not dem, thats not repub, thats not fox , thats not msnbc
thats me.

save your speeches for someone who it applies too because you dont know shit about me.

can you stop now?
finished?
you won, you beat me, you told me the way it is, put me in my place.
you should be proud, maybe go celebrate with a ladyfriend.
you can tell her, "you should have seen me today on freeones, i put this republican guy in his place something fierce"

What about tax cuts financed by deficit spending?