Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Krauthammer: Deception at Core of Obama Plans


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#16 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,181 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:37 PM

I like Krauthammer.

#17 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,564 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:37 PM

Jase, I am sure the Bush tax cuts will trickle down to the poorest Americans real soon - right after Reagans.


No, I mean directly.

This seems to sum it up pretty well:

http://allfinancialm...favor-the-poor/

In 2001 and 2003, President George W Bush signed into law various tax cuts. I’d like to quote the following from a May 2008 Kiplinger magazine article by Knight Kiplinger entitled “Fuzzy Tax Talk:”

Those laws slashed tax bills of low- and middle-income families, sometimes down to zero for those with several children (each of whom is now worth a $1,000 tax credit). The percentage declines for upper-income people were much smaller; but in terms of actual dollar amounts, the wealthy received the bulk of the savings because they pay the most income taxes.

Specifically, with regard to the wealthy, Bush lowered the marginal tax rates for those with incomes over $350,000 (the top tax rate, admittedly on the rich) from 40% to 35%. He also approved the lowering of the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% (which helps everyone who owns stock, real estate, or any other sell-able asset, but admittedly most benefits the wealthiest members of society since they own more of those assets).
That’s what he did for the “rich.” But he also lowered every OTHER tax bracket (from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent) and added other of tax credits and breaks for the “poor” such as the child care tax credit, AMT, and earned income tax credit. The following data is taken from the articleBush’s Tax Cuts Are Unfair…:

If you and your spouse have a taxable income of $60,000 a year, you’ve had almost a 24 percent income tax cut since President Bush took office. (And ditto if your income was just $20,000.) Meanwhile, the folks who make $350,000 a year got a cut of only about 12.5 percent; those who make $1 million a year got an even smaller cut. Pre-Bush, the $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as the $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much.

Overall, the biggest percentage cuts went to the poorest of the poor (those with incomes in the $10,000 range) and the next biggest to those making about $60,000. Surprised? I bet not; you’re wondering about the other cuts - the ones on dividends, capital gains, and inheritance taxes that allegedly skew gains to the rich. Well lets add all those changes in, along with all the other Bush tax breaks such as the child-care tax credit, the earned income tax credit, the AMT, etc.:

The biggest percentage tax cut—about 17.6 percent—went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

[Click the article above for a chart of this data.]
Here’s the real kicker. The data shows that the tax code has gotten even MORE progressive since Bush took office (skewed so the richer pay a bigger percentage of their income to taxes than the poorer), and that kind of change is really hard to undo. But federal spending dramatically increased as well; eventually (soon and very soon) Americans are going to have to pay for that. Taxes will rise again no matter who next takes office.



#18 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,181 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:39 PM

I guess you have never heard of payroll taxes.


What about those not legally on the payroll that will be getting alot of the construction jobs that are supposed to be created by the bridges and roads Obama is funding with his stimulus?

#19 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,564 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:42 PM

I think when obama lets the bush tax cuts expire, republicans should publicize it as "obama's tax increase on the poor".

It's only fair. :)

#20 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,804 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:45 PM

I'd like to agree with the data, as I know that the poorest did get some breaks. But the problem is that the rich people have a lot of ways they employ to get out of paying their share of taxes; the poor do not. From the comments:

Stephen Landsburg's contention that Bush gave his largest tax cuts to the poor is obviously wrong, but his statistical slight of hand -- to assume that the federal income tax is the only tax -- is just stupid.

To illustrate: Bush has increased the exemption from the estate tax (on the way to full repeal for one year in 2010). Almost all of the tax savings from the higher exemption go to the best-off one percent. But because the higher exemption entirely wipes out estate taxes for the "poorest" taxable estates, the share of the estate tax paid by the top one percent has gone up. Does that make the estate tax cut progressive? Of course, not.

Likewise, Bush's income tax cuts have sharply reduced the progressive income tax, but haven't touched regressive taxes like payroll taxes and excise taxes. So while Bush may have reduced income taxes by a greater percentage for people in the middle and low ends of the income scale than for people at the top, the income tax was already very low for low- and middle-income people. So let's look at some more valid measures:

o As a percentage of all federal, state and local taxes, Bush's reductions equal 12% for the top 1%, 3% for the poor, and 7-8% for everyone else.

o As a percentage of income, Bush has cut taxes by 4.3% at the top, 0.7% at the bottom, and 2-3% for everyone else.

Landsburg also says he rejects the idea that taxes should be based on either ability to pay or on the benefits that people gain from our society -- either of which would call for much, much more progressive taxes than we have now. Instead, he says that everyone, poor or rich, should pay the same dollar amount in taxes. That would either bankrupt tens of millions of families (and impoverish others) or destroy the United States as a functioning nation. It's also morally indefensible.

--Robert McIntyre


Robert McIntyre is director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit research group that promotes progressive taxation.


I guess you are going to believe what you want to believe on this one; however, cutting taxes and starting a war never have mixed too well and it was a big mistake to do both at the same time.

#21 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,564 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:46 PM

We're in agreement on that.

#22 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:47 PM

Jase, I am sure the Bush tax cuts will trickle down to the poorest Americans real soon - right after Reagans.


They gotta be willing to get off their lazy ass and get them, CWG. Why do you think we have so many Mexicans in this country right now?

#23 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:48 PM

I'd like to agree with the data, as I know that the poorest did get some breaks. But the problem is that the rich people have a lot of ways they employ to get out of paying their share of taxes; the poor do not. From the comments:



I guess you are going to believe what you want to believe on this one; however, cutting taxes and starting a war never have mixed too well and it was a big mistake to do both at the same time.


Who started it?

#24 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,034 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:06 PM

I guess you have never heard of payroll taxes.


Yeah ... to pay them, you actually have to be on a payroll.

#25 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,034 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:07 PM

I like Krauthammer.


Yep. He's an extremely intelligent man.

#26 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:11 PM

Yep. He's an extremely intelligent man.


With a face made for radio. LOL

#27 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,181 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:11 PM

With a face made for radio. LOL


I have to close my eyes to watch, but he is wise.

#28 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,034 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:14 PM

I'd marry him in a heartbeat!

#29 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:17 PM

I'm anxious to see the trickle up philosophy play out.

Wall Street aint diggin the CHANGE!

#30 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,181 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 06 March 2009 - 04:19 PM

I'm anxious to see the trickle up philosophy play out.

Wall Street aint diggin the CHANGE!


Trickle up never works.


Dick Trickle is the man though.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.