Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media, claim that "the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich". Now, I always knew that was a lie, because if you look at the tax tables on a before-and-after chart, you'd see that every single tax bracket, EVERY SINGLE ONE, got a big tax cut. The tax rates for the lowest bracket went from 15 percent to 10 percent. That's a 33 percent tax reduction for folks who ain't "rich".

But now, as those cuts are ready to expire, Dems are saying they want to extend those cuts "except for the wealthy". OK, so if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich, who do the Democrats want to extend the cuts for?

Zero intellectual honesty on that side. Zero.

even funnier the other day was listening to Obama try to explain that not raising the taxes of those that aren't rich was actually a "tax rebate" and that those people could use that money to buy a tv or do home improvements or buy a computer...if you remember...these same people mocked the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets as only being equal to something a pathetic as a muffler for your car, I think was the analogy...now he's trying to tell you, or those in the lower brackets, many of whom are struggling...to go out and take the money that you now magically have because you don't have pay higher taxes on the same income next year and use that additional tax bite that you now get to keep and buy a tv or do a home improvement???? huh??? I'm guessing most people will be thrilled that they will get to keep their current tax rate and not have to pay more in taxes...if you view that as a windfall and a reason to splurge on something...you are a friggin' idiot....or and Obama voter :uhuh:

I guess you have to give him a little credit for being so creatively dishonest

It's the new "Obama-math"

If Johnny paid 30% in taxes last year, his salary doesn't change this year because of a poor economy, and his taxes stay the same next year, how big of a plasma tv can he buy with his new-found wealth?

Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media, claim that "the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich".

Out of curiosity, can you post a link to this?

Now, I always knew that was a lie, because if you look at the tax tables on a before-and-after chart, you'd see that every single tax bracket, EVERY SINGLE ONE, got a big tax cut. The tax rates for the lowest bracket went from 15 percent to 10 percent. That's a 33 percent tax reduction for folks who ain't "rich".

In terms of monetary savings, who benefited the most?

Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media, claim that "the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich"..

Funny, I thought I heard Obama hundreds of times say things to the effect of "we're going to let expire the Bush tax cuts except for families making less than $250K"

I'd like to see a link also - I hate for it to look like you have no credibility or perhaps your not a financial person and didn't understand finance (like my wife who is a creative person).

You can spin tax cuts and tax increases anyway you want. That is why we always have gridlock - spin doctors.

Fact: Unless there are zero taxes, the more you have the more you pay. Do the math, even a flat tax results in the wealthy paying more.

If someone has wealth, they feel taxes means they have to share with others.Anyone making <100K per year who sides with republicans' philosophy on this issue doesn't understand what it's about and anyone making > 200K per year who supports Democrats
philosophy doesn't understand what it's about either.

What the wealthy really want is no taxes, and no program spending because they have the means to take care of themselves.


I see it everyday and there will never be compromise or agreement on this issue.

In terms of monetary savings, who benefited the most?

I'm too lazy to provide a link to prove it so I may be wrong, but I thought I heard from some administration official, or other, that letting the tax break for rich people expire wouldn't hurt them, they have enough money, and the amount of extra tax they would have to pay would not affect them. So, I guess the tax break doesn't really benefit them. Even though the "monetary" amount saved is higher for rich folks than the "monetary" amount saved by those in lower tax brackets, the poorer folks "benefit" more.

Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media, claim that "the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich". Now, I always knew that was a lie, because if you look at the tax tables on a before-and-after chart, you'd see that every single tax bracket, EVERY SINGLE ONE, got a big tax cut. The tax rates for the lowest bracket went from 15 percent to 10 percent. That's a 33 percent tax reduction for folks who ain't "rich".

But now, as those cuts are ready to expire, Dems are saying they want to extend those cuts "except for the wealthy". OK, so if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich, who do the Democrats want to extend the cuts for?

Zero intellectual honesty on that side. Zero.


33% is a nice way to spin it. Fact is the 10% bracket ends around 20K of taxable income (after deductions). So it's a 5% savings on 20K = $1,000.

Lets' compare that to the decrease in top bracket from 39.6% to 35% on someone with taxable income(after deductions) of 250K per year. So it's a 3.6% savings on 250K =$9,000.

Now tell me who benefits from this and why is someone with 20k of taxable income paying any tax?

and the 'rich' don't spend as much of their income, so they don't need it

33% is a nice way to spin it. Fact is the 10% bracket ends around 20K of taxable income (after deductions). So it's a 5% savings on 20K = $1,000.

Lets' compare that to the decrease in top bracket from 39.6% to 35% on someone with taxable income(after deductions) of 250K per year. So it's a 3.6% savings on 250K =$9,000.

Now tell me who benefits from this and why is someone with 20k of taxable income paying any tax?

someone with 20k of taxable income is probably not paying federal tax and potentially getting a tax "bonus" back through the EITC...if for any reason they are not, we should just take some of the income that "the 'rich' don't spend" because they don't "spend as much of their income, so they don't need it"...and just give it to whoever needs it:uhuh:

The Tax Foundation - The Potential Impact of Expiring Tax Cuts on Low-Income Taxpayers (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26766.html)

33% is a nice way to spin it. Fact is the 10% bracket ends around 20K of taxable income (after deductions). So it's a 5% savings on 20K = $1,000.

Lets' compare that to the decrease in top bracket from 39.6% to 35% on someone with taxable income(after deductions) of 250K per year. So it's a 3.6% savings on 250K =$9,000.

Now tell me who benefits from this and why is someone with 20k of taxable income paying any tax?

So are you saying that the person with taxable income of 250K should not only get no tax break, but should also pay more to pick up the loss of revenue from those with 20K taxable income? Do you give no credence to the idea that being exempt from taxation relieves you from caring about government spending or the burden it places on those that do pay? Do you really want a society where the vast majority do not have to pay for government "services" and have the power to vote for how much the small minority that drive the economy pay for those services. And do you want a government, empowered by the vast non-paying majority, that can decide what and how many freebies you get?

Out of curiosity, can you post a link to this?



In terms of monetary savings, who benefited the most?

These taxes are so out of control, the more $$ they take, the more $$ they need. It's not about who it is benifiting it's about being fair. They penalize someone who works their a$$ off, takes risks and makes money to pay for free loaders who sit around all day and watch TV all day. Don't kid yourself about that.

How would you feel if you fished all day and caught 4 fish. The government comes in and says, these 3 guys didn't fish today because they don't have a rod and reel but since you have 4 fish, you HAVE to give 3 of them to these guys..................Obama thinks he's Robin Hood. He is a clown. Check out Goolge for links. Here are a few:

Dear 44: The case for reversing the Bush tax cuts - Michael Ettlinger - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11260.html)

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich | NewsBusters.org (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/18/ap-shocker-bush-tax-cuts-didnt-just-help-rich)

I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich.

Certainly there's the well worn argument that tax cuts benefit "mostly" the rich, which may be interpreted as "tax cuts for the rich" in a class warfare context. I think we'd all agree that the top 10% pay a good share of the taxes already.

But, not the same thing.

The issue we should be discussing is this. As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending. Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?

Aside from some fantasy, I've yet to hear a real proposal that makes much sense.

-spence

I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich.


-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:::rotf2: :rotf2::rotf2::

Dear 44: The case for reversing the Bush tax cuts - Michael Ettlinger - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11260.html)

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich | NewsBusters.org (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/18/ap-shocker-bush-tax-cuts-didnt-just-help-rich)

You post basically insano sites that are the left's version of the tea party batsh*t blogs that post about how Obama isn't a citizen and you expect to be taken seriously?

Next you're gonna tell me that Fox News is a respectable news outlet because of its ratings.

You post basically insano sites that are the left's version of the tea party batsh*t blogs that post about how Obama isn't a citizen and you expect to be taken seriously?

Next you're gonna tell me that Fox News is a respectable news outlet because of its ratings.

Do your research dude. Politico is moderate to slightly right. No more right than NBC is Left.

Answer this question, All the liberals whine about the rich not paying their fair share, what's is the poor’s fair share? We as a country are enabling people to rely on the govenment and a small portion of the people to provide for them.

That scare tactic in MA about if the sales tax decreased fire, police and teachers would be cut, guess what, Fire Teacher and Police salaries are paid by our property tax not sales tax. People who are voting don't even know what;s going on and what they are voting for.

So are you saying that the person with taxable income of 250K should not only get no tax break, but should also pay more to pick up the loss of revenue from those with 20K taxable income? Do you give no credence to the idea that being exempt from taxation relieves you from caring about government spending or the burden it places on those that do pay? Do you really want a society where the vast majority do not have to pay for government "services" and have the power to vote for how much the small minority that drive the economy pay for those services. And do you want a government, empowered by the vast non-paying majority, that can decide what and how many freebies you get?


Not advocating a No Tax , No program system or a Big tax Big spend system. Why can't there be a common sense middle ground?

Not advocating a No Tax , No program system or a Big tax Big spend system. Why can't there be a common sense middle ground?



Precisely - why can't there be a middle ground :devil2: ;)

Maybe a flat tax, everyone pays. 'Cept all those CPAs will be out of work and the IRS employees let go. Or will they be needed for the Cap & Trade program :yak5:

Just wait until the feds institute a VAT on steroids.

Out of curiosity, can you post a link to this?



In terms of monetary savings, who benefited the most?

Likwid -

"Out of curiosity, can you post a link to this?"

Do it yourself if you'd like. I follow politics very closely, and I have heard that lie a million times.

"In terms of monetary savings, who benefited the most?"

So you're saying that absolute dollars, not percentages, are what matter? Please. If absolute dollars are what matters, who pays the most? The wealthy. If absolute dollars are what matter (and that's NOT what matters), the rich have an awful lot to complain about.

33% is a nice way to spin it. Fact is the 10% bracket ends around 20K of taxable income (after deductions). So it's a 5% savings on 20K = $1,000.

Lets' compare that to the decrease in top bracket from 39.6% to 35% on someone with taxable income(after deductions) of 250K per year. So it's a 3.6% savings on 250K =$9,000.

Now tell me who benefits from this and why is someone with 20k of taxable income paying any tax?

St Croixman...wow...I mean, wow.

"33% is a nice way to spin it"

It's not spin, it's math. the number 10 is precisely 33.33 percent less than the number 15. I'm sorry if that upsets you, or doesn't support your personal political agenda. But I didn't create that fact, it just is.

Let's walk through the math...

First, we'll look at the lowest bracket. Say my taxable income is $20,000. Still with me? Before the BUsh tax cuts, my tax rate was 15 percent, so I paid $3,000.

After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 10 percent, so I paid $2,000.

$2,000 is 33 percent less than $3,000, therefore my tax obligation decreased by 33 percent.

Now we'll go to the rich guy making $250,000. Before the Bush cuts, my rate was 39.6 percent, so I paid $99,000. After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 35 percent, so I paid $87,500.

87,500 is 11.6 percent less than 99,000, so my tax obligation decreased by 11.6 percent.

The guy making 20,000 got a bigger tax decrerase (33 percent) than the guy making 250,000 (11.6 percent).

In tennis, they call this game. set. match.

You can spin tax cuts and tax increases anyway you want. That is why we always have gridlock - spin doctors.

Fact: Unless there are zero taxes, the more you have the more you pay. Do the math, even a flat tax results in the wealthy paying more.

If someone has wealth, they feel taxes means they have to share with others.Anyone making <100K per year who sides with republicans' philosophy on this issue doesn't understand what it's about and anyone making > 200K per year who supports Democrats
philosophy doesn't understand what it's about either.

What the wealthy really want is no taxes, and no program spending because they have the means to take care of themselves.


I see it everyday and there will never be compromise or agreement on this issue.

Stcroixman...

"Anyone making <100K per year who sides with republicans' philosophy on this issue doesn't understand what it's about"

When I graduated from college I made a lot less than $100,000, and I was a Republican. I knew what it was about. The Republican party isn'y about helping the rich and screwing the poor. In my opinion, it's the Democratic agenda that screws the poor. Liberals want to give poor people just enough welfare to survive, not nearly enough to get ahead. That addiction to welfare makes those folks unable to escape poverty. Conservatives want to give poor people good jobs so that can climb out of poverty.

"What the wealthy really want is no taxes"

Says who?

Now we'll go to the rich guy making $250,000. Before the Bush cuts, my rate was 39.6 percent, so I paid $99,000. After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 35 percent, so I paid $87,500.

Nobody who makes $250k pays that much in taxes, no matter how hard you spin it.

Nobody who makes $250k pays that much in taxes, no matter how hard you spin it.

OK, I see. Any irrefutable fact which prioves you wrong is "spin".

Likwid, what I posted is not "spin", it's irrefutable, mathematical fact. You dismiss it as "spin" because it doesn't support your agenda. Seems to me like you're pretty brainwashed.

OK, I see. Any irrefutable fact which prioves you wrong is "spin".

Likwid, what I posted is not "spin", it's irrefutable, mathematical fact. You dismiss it as "spin" because it doesn't support your agenda. Seems to me like you're pretty brainwashed.

you have successfully identified part of the problem :uhuh:

The guy making 20,000 got a bigger tax decrerase (33 percent) than the guy making 250,000 (11.6 percent).

In tennis, they call this game. set. match.

Here's a scenario:

Two guys at a company get raises. One gets a 20% raise, the other gets a 15% raise. Which would you rather be?

Using your out-of-context utilization of statistics, I'd much rather be the guy making $20,000/year and getting a 20% pay raise to $24,000/year; than the guy making $200,000/year and only getting a measly pay raise of 15% to $230,000/year.


Statistics without context are meaningless.

You're arguing that the person saving $1k made out far better than the person who saved $11.5k.

In reality, they call this nonsense.

OK, I see. Any irrefutable fact which prioves you wrong is "spin".

Likwid, what I posted is not "spin", it's irrefutable, mathematical fact. You dismiss it as "spin" because it doesn't support your agenda. Seems to me like you're pretty brainwashed.

The issue is, you just look at the tax rate itself, you're stuck in the box of "they pay this much".

Well, I can tell you, even over 6 figures, with a halfway decent CPA you WILL get back 3/4 of that or more depending on how good they are and what they tell you to do with your money.

There's so many loopholes in the system that allow you to pay virtually nothing that you can scream and hollar about how much the rate is, but is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I refuse to disclose my income because well, its none of your business, but I can tell you after taxes are done, I probably paid an actual amount of around 1/3 of my 'supposed' tax bracket.

Nobody who makes $250k pays that much in taxes, no matter how hard you spin it.

Quite possibly the MOST moronic statement I've seen. ever.
There is no spin, there are dollars. I dont make that much, but trust me, you'd puke if you saw how much my wife and I pay. If I was allowed to not pay just FED taxes in for 2 years. I'd pay both off my kids college expenses off in FULL. Never mind state taxes.
All of you clueless f;ers think you know so much. Research the Alternative Minimum Tax - there are no loopholes, no fancy deductions, no hiding, you get WHACKED regardless of your deductions. WHACKED. My dollars are real.

You want solutions to lowering the deficit. Here you go
- reduce ALL foreign aid (humanitarian and military) - 25%
That means we still give them 75% of our hard earned $
- eliminate all fed and state pensions - move to a 401k with a match
- Allow 529 contributions up to 3K a year to be PRE_TAX. That will push people to save for college and will pump more money into the stock market which will bump up the returns and thus cap gains tax to the govt.

theres a start.

I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich.

Certainly there's the well worn argument that tax cuts benefit "mostly" the rich, which may be interpreted as "tax cuts for the rich" in a class warfare context. I think we'd all agree that the top 10% pay a good share of the taxes already.

But, not the same thing.

The issue we should be discussing is this. As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending. Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?

Aside from some fantasy, I've yet to hear a real proposal that makes much sense.

-spence

Spence -

"I don't think I've ever hear anyone say the Bush tax cuts "only" benefited the Rich."

I have a million times. We all know it's not true.

"As the Bush Tax Cuts are to expire, renewing them "in full" will have a significant impact on deficit spending."

You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?

"Which elected officials are willing to offer up realistic spending cuts that will offset the decreased revenues?"

That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.

The issue is, you just look at the tax rate itself, you're stuck in the box of "they pay this much".

Well, I can tell you, even over 6 figures, with a halfway decent CPA you WILL get back 3/4 of that or more depending on how good they are and what they tell you to do with your money.

There's so many loopholes in the system that allow you to pay virtually nothing that you can scream and hollar about how much the rate is, but is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I refuse to disclose my income because well, its none of your business, but I can tell you after taxes are done, I probably paid an actual amount of around 1/3 of my 'supposed' tax bracket.

dumb ass comment - research alternative minimum tax. No way around it.

dumb ass comment - research alternative minimum tax. No way around it.

maybe you should research "alternative minimum tax loopholes" dumb ass. :rotf2:

Likwid -

"Nobody who makes $250k pays that much in taxes, no matter how hard you spin it."

As RIJIMMY said, that's so absurd it's hard to describe.

Just for ha-ha's, here is a link to a CNN website that says that Pres Bush paid over $220,000 in federal income taxes in 2007.

Bush earned $719,000 in 2007 - CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-11/politics/bush.taxes_1_tax-return-income-tax-payments?_s=PM:POLITICS)

Is that just "spin"?

dumb ass comment - research alternative minimum tax. No way around it.

Jimmy is drinking the strong coffee this morning :jump1:

duhhh,,,,,


Under the AMT, no deduction is allowed for personal exemptions, nor is the standard deduction.[7] State, local, and foreign taxes are not deductible. However, most other itemized deductions apply at least in part. Significant other adjustments to income and deductions apply.

Individuals must file IRS Form 6251 and corporations must file Form 4626 if they have any net AMT due. The form is also filed to claim the credit for prior year AMT.

Other individual adjustments in computing AMT include:[8]

Status Single Married Joint Married Separate Trust Corporation
Tax Rate: Low 26% 26% 26% 26% 20%
Tax Rate: High 28% 28% 28% 28% 20%
High Rate Starts $175,000 $175,000 $87,500 $87,500 n/a
Exemption 2009 $46,700 $70,950 $35,475 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption 2010 $33,750 $45,000 $22,500 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption phase out starts at $112,500 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000
Zero 2009 exemption at $299,300 $433,800 $216,000 $165,000 $310,000
Zero 2010 exemption at $247,500 $330,000 $165,000 $165,000 $310,000
Capital gain rate 25% 25% 25% 25% 20%


Miscellaneous itemized deductions are not allowed. These include all items subject to the 2% "floor", such as employee business expenses, tax preparation fees, etc.
The deduction for charitable contributions of property is limited to the basis of the property.
The home mortgage interest deduction is limited to interest on purchase money mortgages for a first and second residence.
Medical expenses may be deducted only if they exceed 10% of Adjusted Gross Income, as compared to 7.5% for regular tax.
Many AMT adjustments apply to businesses operated by individuals or corporations.[9] The adjustments tend to have the effect of deferring certain deductions or recognizing income sooner. These adjustments include:

Just for ha-ha's, here is a link to a CNN website that says that Pres Bush paid over $220,000 in federal income taxes in 2007.

Bush earned $719,000 in 2007 - CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-11/politics/bush.taxes_1_tax-return-income-tax-payments?_s=PM:POLITICS)

Is that just "spin"?

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

Here's a scenario:

Two guys at a company get raises. One gets a 20% raise, the other gets a 15% raise. Which would you rather be?

Using your out-of-context utilization of statistics, I'd much rather be the guy making $20,000/year and getting a 20% pay raise to $24,000/year; than the guy making $200,000/year and only getting a measly pay raise of 15% to $230,000/year.


Statistics without context are meaningless.

You're arguing that the person saving $1k made out far better than the person who saved $11.5k.

In reality, they call this nonsense.

Johnny, I never said I'd rather be the guy making $20,000 than the guy making $250,000. I said the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease than the guy making $250k.

If I said the guy making $20,000 is better off than the guy making $250,000, that would indeed be "nonsense". If I say the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease, I am stating mathematical fact. Again, that fact may not serve you lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Put down the Kool-Aid and think clearly for two seconds...

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

Likwid, you said no one making that much pays that much in taxes. You never said anything about scrutinized people. Your changing your arguments afetr I refute them.

Im wating for likwids brilliant rebuttle to my AMT FACTS.
Whats the matter, reality doesnt figure into your liberal talking points?
PS - My degree is in acctg and I passed the CPA exam.

Here - read up some more. See how people making 200-500k get screwed. See how people with kids get screwed and also since ther parents make good moeny, they'll get screwed on finacial aid for college too! Screw, screw, screw the people who work hard, take chances and want to provide for their families! Millionaires actuall benefit! How about closing THAT loophole! But its not big headlines, it wont make Dems look good with the F the Rich crowd.

Who pays the AMT? (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/amt/who.cfm)

I refuse to disclose my income because well, its none of your business, but I can tell you after taxes are done, I probably paid an actual amount of around 1/3 of my 'supposed' tax bracket.


Likwid, you whine that the rich use loopholes to avoid paying tax, then you admit you do the same thing. I'm confused...what is your beef, exactly, and who is it with?

I take it you don't get invited to too many MENSA picnics...

the 99 grand that Jim stated as the amount he paid in taxes is so much more $$$ than Likwid can imagine earning that it's much easier for him to call Jim a liar and refuse to accept that someone actually has to hand that much of their hard earned income over to the government...:uhuh:

need one of those Tim Geitner tax preparation programs...

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

All I've read of your posts are you scutinizing others posts with one sentence questions and no answers or opinions with substance. Why not provide some substance instead of one line questions?

Likwid, you whine that the rich use loopholes to avoid paying tax, then you admit you do the same thing.

Would you like to point out where I 'whined' about the loopholes that rich people use? Please.

All I've read of your posts are you scutinizing others posts with one sentence questions and no answers or opinions with substance. Why not provide some substance instead of one line questions?

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

tis so much more $$$ than Likwid can imagine earning .

Scott:
I think somethings would surprise you.

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

Fair question Paul S. I watch Foxnews, CNN, and MSNBC regularly, and I've heard that claim a zillion times. I don't work in a TV studio, so I don't have access to years' worth of video footage. I googled it, and found a ton of sites that said "despite the fact that liberals claim the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, here is the proof that's not true...". Alas, I couldn't find a site that listed all of the people who have told that lie.

So my opinion (I can't prove it with physical evidence) is that the liberals invented that lie to further their cause. If you say you never heard anyone say that, I can't do anything about it.

Here are some of these sites I described. None listed specific liberals who said that lie, but all address it in general...

AP Shocker: Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Just Help The Rich (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2591904/posts)
Why do so many liberals say that Bush's tax cuts only helped the wealthy? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070320104036AAyVl2p)
Aren't liberals ignoring facts when claiming that Bush tax cuts helped the rich? - Yahoo! Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100912122239AA2OaUZ)
Tax cuts "for the rich" - Living Lake Country (http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/45007147.html)
American Thinker: Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html)
Letting The Bush Tax Cuts Expire Will Only Hurt The Rich, Right? | Right Wing News (http://rightwingnews.com/2010/08/letting-the-bush-tax-cuts-expire-will-only-hurt-the-rich-right/)
The Absurd Report Income Taxes: Liberal vs. Present (http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/income-taxes-liberal-vs-present/)
Did The Bush Tax Cuts Favor The Wealthy | Media | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA (http://www.ncpa.org/media/did-the-bush-tax-cuts-favor-the-wealthy)

from the last link...

""It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy," said Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report. "The accusation does not match the reality."

There are a ton of sites out there that dispel the lie that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the rich. It stands to reason that something motivated all those people to do the research...i.e., there were those that claimed that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy.

As I said, I can't get youtube clips. But I've heard a million people say it, and it always bothered me. Take it or leave it, your choice.

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

In my humble opinion, if yuo deny that the Democrats and the media have been making that claim for years, you have no credibility. Because it was everywhere, until the cuts were about to expire, causing 100 percent of us to see tax increases, and thus that myth was exposed as the lie it was.

If you say I have no credibility, I'll have to try and soldier on somehow...

Jim is right, its been all over the media for years

The Democrat Party has for years decried the Bush Tax Cuts as one of the most egregious acts against the middle class and the working poor. Democrat Progressive mouthpieces from Julian Epstein to Representative Anthony Weiner NY (D) have accused former President Bush’s tax cuts of being a benefit for the wealthy and a yoke for the rest of America. On January 1, 2011 those supposedly oppressive tax cuts are set to expire. The tax bill owed by every American will revert to rates that existed under those gloriously wonderful Clinton days. The difference between the tax rates during the Clinton Era and the Bush Era are highlighted below in a chart from the non-partisan Taxfoundation.org.

Jim is right, its been all over the media for years

.

Thanks, it's nice to know someone else out there lives in the real world...

In my humble opinion, if yuo deny that the Democrats and the media have been making that claim for years, you have no credibility. Because it was everywhere, until the cuts were about to expire, causing 100 percent of us to see tax increases, and thus that myth was exposed as the lie it was.

If you say I have no credibility, I'll have to try and soldier on somehow...

The pres. said it correctly hundred of times. If you can't back up your original statement you have no credibility. Seems your the only one lying in this post.

Scott:
I think somethings would surprise you.

absolutely...like why you reply to my post after you so proudly put me on your "ignore list" :confused:

what a surprise!:bounce:

Why not ask the OP to provide some backup to his original statement that every single democrats has said that the tax cuts only benefit the rich.

B/c if he doesn't, he has no credibility in anything he ever posts.

oooops...I think he got ya Jim...clearly only most single democrats and Barney Frank has said this....:rotf2:

was that classy??:confused:

The pres. said it correctly hundred of times. If you can't back up your original statement you have no credibility. Seems your the only one lying in this post.

Your problem is, I'm not lying. Thousands of sites are out there to dispel that lie. A professor of economics said that it's "politically popular" to suggest that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy (see the link I posted before). What do you think he meant by that?

I think Jim put up plenty of evidence.
Heres more....anyone remember the 2004 campaign

1. Senator John Kerry (D)
The following quotes are from the John Kerry for President web site unless otherwise indicated.
George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future. John Kerry's priority will be middle class families who are working hard to cover the mortgage, pay the high cost of health care, child care and tuition, or just trying to get ahead.

2. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush have cost middle-income U.S. residents $3,500 in higher state and local taxes, health care costs and college tuitions.

``Rain or shine, surplus or deficit, George Bush's economic plan begins and ends with tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans with special connections,'' Kerry said in remarks
3. Dateline: WASHINGTON Sen. John Edwards, in calling for a series of measures to keep the country safe, says the Bush administration's policy of favoring tax cuts for the wealthy over adequate funding for domestic security are "out of whack."

I could keep going but its tiresome. Jim is right on, you guys are whacked. Its been the democrats mantra for the past 6 years or so.

A professor of economics said that it's "politically popular" to suggest that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy (see the link I posted before). What do you think he meant by that?

dangerous question:morons:

im bored today...

1. Ex-president Bill Clinton is blasting President Bush's economic policies as "immoral" and "unethical," saying he blames administration tax cuts for increasing hostility towards the U.S. around the world.

"I hear all this talk about family values and all this stuff," Clinton told an audience at the University of Minnesota on Saturday, before explaining how an old friend had been hurt by cuts in subsidies for Americans in need while the wealthy got tax cuts.

yawn....

I guess libs never heard that knowledge is power.

yawn....

I guess libs never heard that knowledge is power.

lol... never been the liberal's strong suit. They prefer picking a 'victim' to defend and then arguing like its a filibuster until everyone has left the room, then declare victory.

YouTube - Republicans Want to Tax YOU, But Breaks for the Rich! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Qvotf4I3k)

YouTube - Pr. Obama - 'GOP WANTS YOU TO PAY THAT $700B TO RICH' - Congressional Black Caucus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-0HsFZlUNs)


and lastly!

Nothing to do with it, but god I love Selma! Happy Friday everyone!

YouTube - Salma Hayek - Dancing in 'From Dusk Till Dawn' [1996] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdvwQPbhq1E)

Salma.....:drool:

yawn....

I guess libs never heard that knowledge is power.

they're all on factcheck.org right now :gh:

oooops...I think he got ya Jim...clearly only most single democrats and Barney Frank has said this....:rotf2:

was that classy??:confused:

for you?:rotf2:

Your problem is, I'm not lying. Thousands of sites are out there to dispel that lie. A professor of economics said that it's "politically popular" to suggest that the cuts only benefitted the wealthy (see the link I posted before). What do you think he meant by that?

you said "every single democrat", not thousands of sites. See you have no credibility.

It must suck to have so much hate.

Johnny, I never said I'd rather be the guy making $20,000 than the guy making $250,000. I said the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease than the guy making $250k.

If I said the guy making $20,000 is better off than the guy making $250,000, that would indeed be "nonsense". If I say the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease, I am stating mathematical fact. Again, that fact may not serve you lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Put down the Kool-Aid and think clearly for two seconds...

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!

See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.

you said "every single democrat", not thousands of sites. See you have no credibility.

It must suck to have so much hate.

how do you always end up at the same, predictable dead end?

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.

ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!

See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.

Yup, benefited. He benefited by being able to keep more of his hard-earned money.

Listen, I'm all about lower taxes on the people. I completely agree with your suggestions on how to cut costs, but forgot to include social services as an area where a lot can be saved. I'd also support closing that large number of easily exploited tax loopholes, along with removing a lot of deductions and then instituting a flat tax.

It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?

You want to switch from percentages (which is all that matters) to absolute dollars? That's where you REALLY get blown out of the water. We have a progressive tax system. The rich should pay more, and they do.

Likwid, you whine that the rich use loopholes to avoid paying tax, then you admit you do the same thing. I'm confused...what is your beef, exactly, and who is it with?

I take it you don't get invited to too many MENSA picnics...

Hypocrite....plain and simple. Everyone should pay more for the poor except me.

It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.

People forget that Bill Clinton pulled it off, and the left still worships him. He was extremely conservative with fiscal policy, no reason why we can't go back to that.

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

I'm sorry...where's Spence...off on another revisionist history conference?...these arguments are moronic, sorry JohnnyLesbaru( it's OK, he never sees my posts because I'm on his ignore list too:buds:) but that is some pathetic rationalization :yak5:

benefited more? no, both are keeping more of the income that they earn...the difference between the two is the level of compensation based on the value or the amount of the work being performed, you can't set the numbers side by side and say that one is benefiting more than the other...unless you are fostering class envy


"look...he got to keep more than you....KILL HIM!"

Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?

.

Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.
Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;808316]If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill

QUOTE]

if you are truly a liberal you will take a hundred dollar bill from your neighbor and give it to the bum...:uhuh: and then congratulate yourself....see, you both benefit

now to debate who benefits more...the bum or the liberal

Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.

If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct.

Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.

If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct.

back to factcheck.org :gh:

George Bush hates black people.
















I just thought I'd throw that in there for Kanye West.

Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.

You're all over the place. You even sort of proved my point.

Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to).

A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet.

Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing.

Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?

In civilian life? No. Way too much waste drains my taxes.

When I was a Marine, I felt like I was part of a system that worked the way it was supposed to, I really felt like we had all the support we needed. And because I was wounded, I received some pretty nice healthcare benefits. I feel like that system worked the way it's supposed to...probably because politicians don't run the military, the military runs the military.

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.


i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.

No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.

duhhh,,,,,


Under the AMT, no deduction is allowed for personal exemptions, nor is the standard deduction.[7] State, local, and foreign taxes are not deductible. However, most other itemized deductions apply at least in part. Significant other adjustments to income and deductions apply.

Individuals must file IRS Form 6251 and corporations must file Form 4626 if they have any net AMT due. The form is also filed to claim the credit for prior year AMT.

Other individual adjustments in computing AMT include:[8]

Status Single Married Joint Married Separate Trust Corporation
Tax Rate: Low 26% 26% 26% 26% 20%
Tax Rate: High 28% 28% 28% 28% 20%
High Rate Starts $175,000 $175,000 $87,500 $87,500 n/a
Exemption 2009 $46,700 $70,950 $35,475 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption 2010 $33,750 $45,000 $22,500 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption phase out starts at $112,500 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000
Zero 2009 exemption at $299,300 $433,800 $216,000 $165,000 $310,000
Zero 2010 exemption at $247,500 $330,000 $165,000 $165,000 $310,000
Capital gain rate 25% 25% 25% 25% 20%


Miscellaneous itemized deductions are not allowed. These include all items subject to the 2% "floor", such as employee business expenses, tax preparation fees, etc.
The deduction for charitable contributions of property is limited to the basis of the property.
The home mortgage interest deduction is limited to interest on purchase money mortgages for a first and second residence.
Medical expenses may be deducted only if they exceed 10% of Adjusted Gross Income, as compared to 7.5% for regular tax.
Many AMT adjustments apply to businesses operated by individuals or corporations.[9] The adjustments tend to have the effect of deferring certain deductions or recognizing income sooner. These adjustments include:

I am scoring this battle. I 'll give you an A , with a couple of small mistakes.

i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.

No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.

Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.

In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation.

You disagreed.

I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15".

I'm glad you are not my accountant.

You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...

:fence::lurk:

I have a million times. We all know it's not true.
Then I'd expect you to be posting a million quotes. To day I've not seen you post one.

You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?
No, I'm simply looking at the balance sheet for this fiscal year. The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues at a time we're running a large deficit. It's basic math right?

Now certainly when earnings are up it's possible to see an uptick in net revenues with lower rates, but there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated.

You could also argue that tax incentives for lower brackets are much more likely to be pushed back into the economy than those at the top who will just park it long-term. It's not like we're talking about a massive restructuring of the tax code that could cause a shift in how people invest, this is just an increase back to about where things were 10 years ago when I seem to remember the economy doing quite well. Besides, businesses (bigger) have tons of cash right now...a lack of money at the top isn't the problem with the economy.

Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. Any potential gain from stimulative effects has to be balanced against the increasing costs of servicing that debt.

I think the fair question for Obama would be, if you're going to argue the rich need to pay more because we can't afford it, why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?

That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.
Aside from some making election cycle hay, I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs. Most of the GOP (elected, not punditry) are just as glued to the fat they can suck for their own interests as the Democrats.

It's going to be fun watching the incoming Republicans play with the old guard.

-spence

Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that...

"there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated."

You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress.

"those at the top who will just park it long-term."

Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump.

"why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?"

Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend...

" I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs."

When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns.

Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him.

Good, fair, probing questions.

Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. -spence

A lot of people in the Oval Office, and in Congress, would disagree. I don't see how you can disagree, but they do...

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;808490]Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

this is because they already have the money spent that they were planning on getting when the tax cuts expire, so in their minds they are "losing money" the same way that they raced to spend the supposed budget surplus projections at the end of the Clinton admin. before the surplus ever even materialized.....

they need to be cut off like addicts

Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.

Sorry, meant to say that the tax cuts "if maintained in full" will cause a lack in revenues that's currently not planned for.

-spence

Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.

Look On a mathematical basis I didn't say your marginal % decrease was wrong. By using the % you are misleading most people.

Fact is you make it seem like the US Gov't is doing big favors to those in the low bracket. We all know the tax code favors those with wealth.

I was at a tax seminar in Sept where this tax attorney from Chicago
coud not believe George Steinbrenner and this oil baron from TX died in 2010 and their estates paid ZERO TAX! BTW estate tax in '11 reaches 55% on top end.

I lost 2 blue collar uncles this year and they also paid ZERO ESTATE TAX(and would have paid zero in '09 and '11)

I guess that is the same benefit huh?

Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.I'm glad you are not my accountant.You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...

Wow. you just played the I'm smarter than you card. I think that's the first blatant use of it here in the PF. Usually it is just veiled a bit more than that...

So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that...
See addendum in previous post.

You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress.
Sure they will. Household savings are way up and I'd think that a lot of this is in cash or safe low yield investments. It might as well be in the mattress.

Obviously people can't spend if they don't have any money, but what they do with it and the time of the benefits isn't an easy equation.

Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump.
The point I made above is that big business already has a lot of cash but isn't expanding for other reasons. If it's uncertainly or just a more realistic picture of our economic picture I'm not sure...probably a factor of both.

Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend...
The agenda isn't to spend, it's to provide beneficial services in a manner deemed to be most effective. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to like to spend while at the same time they argue over what's most effective and or constitutionally appropriate.

Don't see a lot of difference between the two in practice.

When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns.
Seniors have a reasonable expectation of necessary benefits from a system they paid into. Just simply stating you must cut isn't a solution to the problem, which is really the point. How do you apply conservative thinking to transform the system rather than just bitch about how good things would be if liberal ideas never existed.

Ultimately, it's probably more a matter of good management over ideology.

Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him.
Agree you have to play hardball with the unions as they are very effective in using centralized power.

-spence

Wow. you just played the I'm smarter than you card....

yeah, that's Spence's forte...this could mean war :horse:

how do you always end up at the same, predictable dead end?

The one trying to make this a kinder, gentler place?:uhuh:

The one trying to make this a kinder, gentler place?:uhuh:

[QUOTE=PaulS;808553]"See you have no credibility.

It must suck to have so much hate"QUOTE


great strategy :uhuh:

We all know the tax code favors those with wealth.

?

How can you say that? When something like 35% of the population pays nothing, and others pay 10% federal tax, and those at the top pay 35%, how does that favor the rich?

I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe the wealthiest SHOULD of course pay more, and in our current system, they do. If our system gets any more progressive, we become an awful lot like socialist europe, and all of those countries are facing collapse.

I guess we just disagree, and I apologize for throwing my career choice in yoru face, that was uncalled for.

[QUOTE=PaulS;808553]"See you have no credibility.

It must suck to have so much hate"QUOTE


great strategy :uhuh:

Yup, always directed at one individual (the one who made the broad outlandish statement).

How can you say that? When something like 35% of the population pays nothing, and others pay 10% federal tax, and those at the top pay 35%, how does that favor the rich?

I believe in a progressive tax system, I believe the wealthiest SHOULD of course pay more, and in our current system, they do. If our system gets any more progressive, we become an awful lot like socialist europe, and all of those countries are facing collapse.

I guess we just disagree, and I apologize for throwing my career choice in yoru face, that was uncalled for.

But then there is a drop off, right? Like the ubber rich (I forget the number, 100's of millions?) who make a majority of their money as hedge fund manager, who pay capital gains rather than income on a lot if it. I heard Robert Riech talking about the drop off.

Are we also still WELL below the % (I think, I'm not a CPA or Actuary) of tax from pre-Clinton? (including the Regan years that had a higher tax % even without the Bush tax 'cuts'?) I thought I remember hearing in the same piece that in the 50's the tax % was over 50% for upper income, so it seems we've come a long way to benefit everyone, including the upper 1% of the population, no?

Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.

Ahh... there it is. That self-defining pretentious attitude I encountered during my years living in CT from Connecticut residents who graduated from UConn.




Hunted trout all weekend... gotta catch up on the nonsense in here.

Ahh... there it is. That self-defining pretentious attitude I encountered during my years living in CT from Connecticut residents who graduated from UConn.




Hunted trout all weekend... gotta catch up on the nonsense in here.


Seems to me that he's pointing out what he does for a living to explain his point. I'd consider an actuary a subject matter expert when it comes to tax discussions.

Do you think RIRockhound is being pretentious when he's explaining things having to do with science? To me, he's an SME because of what he does for a living.

Seems to me that he's pointing out what he does for a living to explain his point. I'd consider an actuary a subject matter expert when it comes to tax discussions.



But don't you think he lost all credibilty when he started out with

"Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media....."

As soon as I hear "every single" anything and I know its not true, I tend to tune that person out.

Sorry, but I hate "SME".

But don't you think he lost all credibilty when he started out with

"Over the last few years, I have heard every single Democrat, and everyone in the Media....."

As soon as I hear "every single" anything and I know its not true, I tend to tune that person out.

Sorry, but I hate "SME".


No, he didn't lose credibility with me. I understand when someone uses a statement like that which although is hyperbole, it's not expected to be taken literally.

I don't blame you for hating SME's. Experts can be annoying when they know more about a topic than you.:grins:

Seems to me that he's pointing out what he does for a living to explain his point. I'd consider an actuary a subject matter expert when it comes to tax discussions.

Do you think RIRockhound is being pretentious when he's explaining things having to do with science? To me, he's an SME because of what he does for a living.

There's a whole lot of ribbing that goes on around here as we bust each other's chops. However, RIRockhound doesn't try to lift himself up by demeaning another person's career throwing out comments like "You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds... ", and if so, I've missed them.

Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.

In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation.

You disagreed.

I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15".

I'm glad you are not my accountant.



You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...

my final comment:

Jim if you are such a tax expert why do you need an accountant? Obviously you are an internet tax expert.

I I want an opinion on a DB plan's unfunded obligation or whatever you call it - then you'll get a call.

There's a whole lot of ribbing that goes on around here as we bust each other's chops. no, there are many here that LOVE to take their own shots and then whine indignant when responded to in kind, and particularly when shown to be wrong...this is a good example However, RIRockhound doesn't try to lift himself up by demeaning another person's career throwing out comments like "You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds... ", and if so, I've missed them.

actually it's Spence that throws the "Brian is a scientist so he can't be wrong" thing in you face...not so much recently given the state of the global warming debate....ahhhhh...climate change.......ehhhhh......ummmmm......errrrrr....no oooo....wait for it........YES....the new and improved term to scam the planet...GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION...we'll try that for a while and see if it catches on :uhuh:

hope it fares better than "man caused disasters"...a term that most aptly describes Obama

Jim, don't worry about these clowns, when they start insulting you at the end of an argument it means they lost miserably on substance and they hope you'll go away so you won't be around to continue to prove them wrong...note that the quality of the insults were pretty pathetic and unintelligible in JD's case...which isn't unusual

it's a little sad that you even have to explain some of these things

Jim, don't worry about these clowns, when they start insulting you at the end of an argument it means they lost miserably on substance and they hope you'll go away

Thanks, that's usually how I take it.

I can be smug too, and I need to work on it, because it takes away from the dialogue. I just got pretty frustrated when a CPA tried to pull, WHAT I THOUGHT WAS, some numeric "slight-of-hand" on me. Posting my profession wasn't bragging (being a number cruncher isn't exactly a line I use at singles bars), I said that to establish that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to math, finance, and statistics.

I concede that not "every single democrat" said the cuts only benefitted the rich. I was using hyperbole to illustrate the point, and only one or two of you took that literally.

they only took it literally because there was no other argument they could make.

.

Do you think RIRockhound is being pretentious when he's explaining things having to do with science?

Yes:)

Yes:)

I pick up a rock and throw it in the water, it sinks. Is there really anything more we need to know about geology?
The stone age has been over for 5000+ years!

Yes:)

that'll get you put on his ignore list...he's very sensitive...and clairvoyant:spin: