What to Expect if Bush Tax Cuts Expire

The lowest tax rate increases the most. I did the math out on another article and would have to look it up again!

It does. Doesn't it go from 10 to 15%? I've posted that a few times as well. You'd think I'd have it memorized by now. :-)

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978411717

Ms Spunky Spanky ~ Live Free or Die Jul 31, 2010, 9:08am EDT
Here is the tax rates that Texas Rocks posted:

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BH140_TAXES_NS_20100722194018.gif

19.7% are currently at the 10% level and will increase 50% (.5) to 15%

36% will see no change.

16.4% will go from 25% to 28%, an increase of 12% (.12)

3% will go from 28% to 31%, an increase of 10.7% (.107)

1.2% will go from 33% to 36%, an increase of 9.1% (.0909)

.7 will go from 35% to 39.5% and increase of 12.9% (.1286)

The people hit the hardest are the poorest. The child deduction reverts to $500/child from the current $1000/child. The marriage penalty returns. Then the new and improved W-2s will show how much your employer paid for you health insurance, add that to your taxable income.

I think there will be some serious "rethinking" come tax time next year.

Marilyn, you presented this, and it was a service. But why did you present it as just information. You and I are not restricted by Gather or any other news organization to Just the Facts. You could have done us all a service with a link to Congress.Org combined with a suggestion that we let our own representatives in Congress and the Senate Know how we stand on the tax changes. OBAMA has already made his position quite clear, and the GOP leadership has ALSO made it clear that they will obstruct any efforts to change the tax rates...they want the Bush Tax Cut either extended as is, or allowed to die. The Democratic Leadership has made it clear that they want to retain portions of the Bush Tax Cuts, as they apply to Taxable incomes of less than 200 thousand for individuals. or 250 thousand for married couples filing jointly. If you are married, and both your and your spouse make 125 thousand or more in taxable income per year. File separately no matter what happens in Congress.

BUT, You did not so I will

Congress.org will give you a form that asks your zip code plus four. That will redirect you to a list of ALL your representatives. In some cases down to the State Legislature. EACH of them will have a contact path, and with a minimal amount of time and effort you can trigger their "You've Got Mail" signal.

And Marilyn I have no idea why more people don't provide that link on articles like this one. It is INVALUABLE for both the constituent and the representative to have a line of communication open.

Thanks, Karl. I'm with the Republicans on this one. Let ALL the tax benefits continue.

Congress has to let it expire or renew it. Any changes will have to be in a new bill and it has not been introduced.

We also will gain $300 billion revenue in the USA. Those taxes under Clinton created 23 million jobs and paid down the deficit in the US Treasury.

Therefore over a bit of time say 3 or 4 year, I see the same thing happening, therefore, I would see that as a very good thing,

Austerity is an overall good thing at this point in time.

Under which math?
If I am a business owner and my taxes went higher, I'd create LESS jobs, not more.

Joy, it is obvious that you are not a business owner.

If your taxes went higher, you would immediately start looking for ways to cut your tax burden. One way to do that is to INVEST in the business...as an expense of expansion. So, while you would keep your 100 thousand dollar Salary from the company, you would put the profits into the company instead of your taxable income column. And that Lil Darlin' is how tax raises create both jobs and increased revenue. EVEN AT 10 PERCENT A WAGE puts more money in the treasury that an unemployment check.

But Joy. THE BUSINESS OWNERS DON'T WANT US TO THINK THAT WAY...BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO ENJOY THE SECURITY PUTTING THAT PROFIT IN THE BANK PROVIDES.

And that Joy is today's lesson on how taxing the rich creates jobs.

REALLY?
Why not come over to Michigan to see just what MORE TAXES have done here?
That would be too easy.

Joy, they don't get it. Most have never owned or managed businesses. (Neither have the Dems who keep wanting to raise taxes.)

Joy,

I feel for you in Michigan.
I lived there, and vowed to never return.

Lots of Michigan has become nothing more than Ghost towns......people are leaving because there is no growth there.....

Lets hope the buyers of the SilverDome can change that.

Mooch

Marilyn,

You are aware, are you not, that the Administration and the Democrats are trying to retain all the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 per year. Of course the Republicans will try to block that and they may succeed. So if you make less than $250,000 and have your taxes go up you can thank the Republicans for having to pay more.

My source for this is the Wall Street Journal who's article on the matter was posted here on Gather a few days ago. Perhaps you missed it. There were graphs and everything.

um, in case you ain't noticed, there kinda ain't enough repubs there to do it all on their own.
If it does go up, it's more on the heads of those who voted for things like higher welfare payments, "free" healthcare, more unemployment extentions, and letting illegals overrun our country.

The Repubs would need the Blue dogs.

Joy,

The filibuster and the rules would require every non-Republican in the Senate to support the bill. Look at how much trouble the Democrats have had in getting anything past the Republicans so far.

Also, the lower taxes are responsible for over a trillion in our national debt with most of that amount being retained by the rich. We know what they did to "earn" their pay, don't we. Remember all those big salaries on Wall Street for those failing banks and insurance companies and the auto industry?

Larry,
the healthcare is passed, isn't it?
Even though a majority of the country DIDN'T want it.

The debt could be easily reduced by CUTTING SPENDING.
Do you know how many of those road signs I saw between here and Chicago this weekend (paid for by the taxpayers with the stupid stimulus)
How much did those signs cost?
Were they really neccessary?
How many other unneccessary things are they spending OUR money on?
My guess is too many to even imagine.

My mom and dad raised 9 kids with low income.
They never borrowed money, even bought their house and cars with cash.
It's called buckle your belt and make due with what you got.
Not keep finding more things to spend someone elses money on.

Even prisoners are provided better amenities than I can afford to give my children, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

If I stole money from someone and went out and blew it, I'd be punished for it, but the US Government does not have to answer to anyone for doing it.

Actually, Joy, the debt could not be reduced by cutting spending.

What works for a family (it worked beautifully for me) does not necessarily work for a government.

Let's say that the government cut spending by half. (Sound like a nice round number?) And, to keep the numbers simple, lets say that the government spends $4 trillion on the current budget and cuts back to $2 trillion on the reduced spending budget.

Let's say that we fire half the folks who work for the government (that will add several million to the unemployed). And let's say that the government buys only half as much stuff. (There goes about $1.5 trillion at least in government contracts.) Naturally, with a reduction of $1.5 trillion in sales, private business will have to cut their labor force since they have lost lots of income. That's another several million unemployed.

Now with those folks losing their jobs, that's lots of mortgages that stop being paid, lots of vacations not taken, lots of children not going to college after all and prices dropping like a rock. In other words a depression that is much worse than 1932. Plus, tax revenues drop greatly since so may people have lost their incomes and so many businesses have gone bankrupt.

Well the money supply will also contract greatly since lots of money is paying off those government loans and lots of people aren't able to repay their loans (an average of about $10,000 per family in the U.S. and most of them unable to pay so those go into default.) Banks failing all over the place due to what are now bad loans. So the money supply crashes. Unemployment would easily go over 50%. Social security and medicare would stop being paid. (Remember the government cuts spending by half and Social Security and Medicare would be cut in half as well.)

Thousands of service men and women would be discharged from the military but unable to get work.

In other words, the economy would collapse. That's why the government cannot cut spending by a significant amount. In fact, if it cuts it at all bad things will happen. The government can only realistically cut spending when the economy is booming. You don't see the economy booming just now do you.

Joy, you don't seem to be aware of the several TRILLION dollars in deficits created by CUTTING TAXES. Of course those deficits would have been lower if at the same time the Fat Cats and their Lobbiests had managed to starve off half the population, instead of paying them ??????? Social Security is financed by a tax that was not cut, Welfare was cut ten years ago to a point where no one is able to get if for more than 24 months...in a lifetime...unless they are disabled and can't work. Or Children. Medicare is financed by a set aside tax just like Social Security. There must be some entitlement that is paid from general revenue funds...I wonder what it might be?

Anyone?

OK I confess, I know where most of those "entitlements" paid from general revenue funds go. THEY GO TO SUBSIDIES. The major portion go to subsidies on Farms, certain "vital" Manufacturing, and federally guaranteed insurance on certain kinds of real estate loans.

SO, for example, one small portion of the Department of Agriculture Budget is to "Enhance International Competitiveness of American Agriculture." That expenditure in 2009 FIVE BILLION DOLLARS.

To "Enhance the Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Farm Economies" the bill is 32 billion. AND THAT is a cut of more than 3 billion from the 2007 BUSH budget.

ALL I CAN SAY IS...http://www.congress.org/

Larry, what you never add into the equation is that if the government lowered taxes and spending, it would help us all. Businesses would be more apt to expand than they are - waiting to see what this government is going to do to them next.

I read today that the rich are also holding onto their money for the same reasons. They're waiting to see if this tax increase goes through before spending. And that, my friend, is what economists are now blaming our NOT ending the recession on - that the rich will not spend.

No, Marilyn, it would not help us all.

Business can expand now. The major corporations have huge cash reserves now. They don't need less taxes. They will not expand until there is more money being spent by customers. If we cut back on government spending there is less money available to those customers. Cutting income taxes does not increase consumer spending because most of the money is retained by those whose income is so large that their consumer decisions are not affected. It is the poor who do not spend because they don't have the money. The rich already have the money.

The rich are waiting for nothing but customers. What you read was wrong. What will the rich spend their money on? Art? A big boat? Another antique car? What difference will the return to the former tax rate make to them?

If the economists are actually saying that they are fools or liars.

Actually, they're neither fools or liars, Larry. I've thrown the paper away (well, recycled it), but I think it was an AP article. Perhaps I can find it. Perhaps not. It said that the continued financial problems we have are because luxury spending - which is mostly done by the rich - is way down. Those are factors easily traced, Larry. They know how many yachts and other luxuries are being sold compared to what's usually sold.

Someone I know who falls into the "rich" category said that she's putting 15% more money in savings than usual. That means she's spending that much less as well. I think that the study said that the rich were spending 14% less, so that falls into the study I read.

And then you have the rest of us. I know more people who have started savings accounts in the past 2 years than since I was a kid and it was normal for everyone to have one.

Marilyn,

What has happened to the spending of the middle and lower classes over the last three years? Why have retail sales dropped at each of the last two Christmas seasons? The rich are a tiny minority of Christmas shoppers.

But they're not such a tiny representation of spending year-round, Larry. And they're not spending.

Rich aren't spending because they're waiting to see what the Dems are going to do about taxes. I can't blame them at all.

Marilyn,

How many clothes and TVs and cell phones and so forth does a rich family buy in a year? Now remember that they are out numbered by about 100-1 if we just talk about those $250,000 income folks. If we are talking about the millionairs its over 1000 to one. Who buys more of those consumer goods?

I surely wish I had kept the article, Larry. I believe it said that normally, the rich buying luxuries accounts for 14% of total spending in the US. That's a pretty big chunk just for luxuries and doesn't count the other items they buy.

Marilyn,

Things like jewelry and art and country club memberships?

But those items are often things which have high prices for their scarcity. Their production often does not employ many people. If one rich guy sells a painting to another rich guy that's spending and it has a high dollar value but how many people does it employ?

Can you debate anything without insulting someone, Clark?

I seem to remember you making a post awhile back where you were going to be a kinder, gentler Clark Kent. How long did that last before you had to go back to your true nature of being a butt hole?

No, he cannot, Lera. He is incapable of anything civil.

Clark, you're the fool if you think I will answer one more of your stupid comments that call me names.


When and if you can have a civil conversation, I will respond. But not until then.

Same goes for all of your lib friends.

Clark; in case you didn't know, Marilyn is dealing with some difficult situations in the world outside of Gather. Your insults are inappropriate.

Insults are never appropriate.

I wish people were debating whether there should be an income tax at all.

That said, I don't understand why the government should discriminate based on wealth. Everyone should pay the same percentage rate.

We can't have legitimate tax cuts without spending cuts. Increasing taxes is a sedative, and we don't need any more of that. The solution is cutting spending a lot and then cutting taxes.

You are right on the $$$ Matthew.

Matthew I agree, why not put the tax on Profits. Or added Value, like the socialist governments of Germany, France and England do...and we do with the Excise Tax on nearly everything anyone buys.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM MATT.

The Federal, State, County and Local Government COSTS about 27% of all the money generated by the economic activity of the nation. Without an income tax, even a graduated income tax is spread fairly evenly through the economy, part of the economy would be over taxed, and parts would be under taxed. The result would be movement to the under taxed from the overtaxed. We would have a capital flow much like the labor flow we are seeing from Mexico...or From Detroit to Alabama.

Matthew, the income tax was inaugurated in 1913 because it works. It has been in use in this country for 97 years now, and we have not gone bankrupt, we enjoy an exceptional standard of living. AND we are the envy of much of the world.

Matthew you don't see American workers immigrating to Mexico illegally, now do you?

Oh one other thing, Matt, what we would see is American Jobs being outsources faster than supporters and opponents of NAFTA, CAFTA and GAT could imagine. And talk about lost tax revenue ... which we should consider ... in any tax scheme that tends to drive capital out of the country ... about the only thing you can't make in a foreign country for consumption in the USA is payroll.

John I don't know about that but cutting military spending will be necessary for sure.

you don't see American workers immigrating to Mexico illegally, now do you?

We will soon. In fact, some are already leaving.

Matthew, the income tax was inaugurated in 1913 because it works. It has been in use in this country for 97 years now, and we have not gone bankrupt, we enjoy an exceptional standard of living. AND we are the envy of much of the world.

We are going bankrupt right now.

Are you suggesting our high standard of living is at least partially due to the income tax?

When you tax something you get less of it. Thus taxing income is taxing economic growth. It's the worst way to collect revenue.

I could go on about the income tax, but this video, starting at about 1:50, says it much better.

You're right, Matthew. We should do away with income tax. Many states run quite well without it. But if we have to have it, it SHOULD be equal to all no matter what the income.

During the presidential campaign, I saw where someone proposed 10% for everyone. We would all pay our 10% to our local government. They would pay 10% of what they collected to the state and they would spend 10% of what they collected to the federal government. And everyone would know exactly what they had to work with and would be required to work within what they had.

Imagine that.

But that's too simple, Marilyn!

I know. Besides, one part of our country loves not paying any taxes. :-) (Hint: It's not the rich.)

It's everybody?

Once in a while I run into a 'progressive/liberal' that says they don't mind paying (high) taxes, but that's rare.

Getting rid of the income tax takes revenue levels back to something like the year 2000. Yep, that's on par with Somalia.

Additionally, if we 'must' have the revenue, replace the income tax with a consumption tax.

How much does the income tax collect? About a trillion dollars.

Cut that revenue and the federal government still has over one trillion (They currently collect over $2 trillion in revenues; as of 2009) to spend. And you compare that to Somalia?!?!?

Oh yeah, so that poor and middle class Americans could pay an even LARGER percentage of their incomes

First, we don't really have a very progressive income tax to begin with, according to David K.

Second, certain goods, like food, might not be included in such a consumption tax.

Third, an income tax is the worst way of all to collect taxes. It's incredibly expensive, an invasion of privacy, and it retards economic growth.

Oh, and I've heard that ALL the "charity giving/donations" will NOT be able to be deducted anymore....what a royal ripoff THAT is......our family gives a LOT of $$$$ to help various organizations, as well as to our two churches.....so, NONE of it will count anymore, I guess? Is that right?
Hmmmmm, I guess I'm going to close down my IRA (plan to buy a new(er) car next year anyway, so will shut it down and close all of our mutual fund/stock market accounts...why even have them if the tax is gonna go sky high?
The marriage penalty.....hmmmmmm, guess my hubby and I will get "divorced" (we've only been married 32 years this month) and just live together.......much cheaper that way, I guess...yeah, right.
What a big bunch of hogwash........the middle class will, once again, get shafted the most.
Well, we have been getting huge income tax refunds....guess this will be the last year and we can kiss them goodbye, as well.
Too darn bad there's even an income tax at all!!!!!

I honestly think that's the administrations plan-- people stop giving so they can move to a socialist plan where you are FORCED to give your money.
It's a well known fact that repubs donate much more to charities than dems do.
Can't wait for November. It can't come soon enough for me. And this is all coming from a disgusted independant.

It's nobody's business, especially this government's, about how much $$$ I/we give to charities....whether or not we give $100 a month, or $1,000 a month.....it is NOT the government's business......it just makes me seething mad.......we are always giving, and I've always taught our son that "it's much better to give than to receive," as we've always been so blessed....I LOVE helping other people.
You and me both...can't wait till November!!!!!! I'm so sick of it all....am about ready to yank all the t.v. cords out and not watch anything till after the elections!

Nora D. The plan is to LIMIT, not eliminate the amount of charitable giving that can be deducted. And, if you are sincere in wanting that limit to be taken out of the plan http://www.congress.org/ also has a contact form for the President of the USA.

OH, Nora, if you give to a Church or Charity...is your donation dependent on being allowed to DEDUCT THE GIFT FROM YOUR INCOME SO YOU DON'T PAY TAX ON IT?

Are you saying that you will give to the LDS pantry fund, BUT NOT the government of all the people?

Karl, people may not give more because they can deduct it. But if they don't have that benefit, they will have less to give. Do you really want the government to have to pick up every soup kitchen and every food pantry? Do you want the free clinics that are run by donations to disappear? Really?

It doesn't matter to the dems anyway, most of them don't even bother to pay their taxes unless somebody calls them on it. The current administration is full of tax cheats.

DUH Joy, that would make at least 30 percent of Americans delinquent in their taxes.

Spiro Agnew, Vice President of the United States under R M Nixon RESIGNED OVER A TAX EVASION CHARGE. He is the highest ranking member of the US government EVER CONVICTED OF TAX FRAUD.

Karl, do you really want a list of the people in the Obama administration who have been tax cheats? We've done that before, so repeating it makes little sense. But really...

Well Karl, at least he had the decency to resign. No such "decency" in this administration and its czars.

Did you bother to look at the article linked?

Marilyn,
These are properly called the "Democratic & Obama Tax Increases". It is a disingenuous fairy tale to refer to them by any other name. Pet Peeve, sorry. Otherwise, we are allowing the con-man-in-chief and his cohorts-in-crime leading the Congress to continue to find stuff they claim they are not responsible for. They do have sizable Congressional majorities and they must be held accountable. Notice as an aside that not a one of them is campaigning on the fantastic health care takeover.

Excellent point, Ken. I saw recently that the Dems are actually trying to call this a Bush tax increase because they weren't permanent tax cuts...and Dems (including ones here) are buying that.

Obama campaigned on getting rid of ALL Bush tax cuts and the people cheered....because they were dumb enough to believe that only the rich benefited.

I saw recently that the Dems are actually trying to call this a Bush tax increase because they weren't permanent tax cuts

LAMO! Please tell me you're kidding...

Not kidding, Matthew. I think I posted about it.

I must have missed that, or I am having a senior moment.

First off the economic growth during the Clinton administration was fueled by the technology boom, not by anything that he did.
Next, the current time is NOT an appropriate time for increasing taxes.
Third, these tax increases will not succeed in creating economic growth (only in inflating the false belief in the feeble minds of progressives that they can invoke even more government spending). The President seems to be wiling to bet my house that he is right (without any explanation) but I am not so willing.

Critically thinking minds recognize that government can't spend the country out of recession.
Critically thinking minds recognize that distinctly anti-business actions, policies, and threats by the Federal government foster uncertainty and doubt in the business community and impede a recovery.
Critically thinking minds recognize that poorly understood, little explained and haphazardly designed 2000+ page behemoths of legislation passed on narrow partisan grounds recognize the worst in goverance and common sense.

And yet, Clark, the DEPRESSION of 1920 only lasted for about 18 months because the government cut spending and taxes. Unemployment went from over 11% to the lowest it's ever been - under 2%.

Then, of course, when we had the next depression - the big one - it was only the big one because of government expansion and spending.

Yep. History tells us what works and what does not.

Nice rebuttal Clark. You don't even address what she said, instead you go on a red herring rant.

Don't be too hard on ole Clark now. He never lets facts or history or good sense interfere with him throwing a good rant. See this article.

Even if the economic question is unsettled (which I'm not sure that it is when the full range of effects and impacts on decisions are factored in), there is an indisputable reason for keeping government spending and taxes low - namely control. I would rather the Federal government have cut capital gains for three years broadly than target ie CONTROL (via their partisan legislative chicanery) where stimulus funds are to be spent. In short, our huge government is poison to the freedoms and liberties of citizens.

[Note that this comment was prepared without calling anyone a derogatory name- Take a lesson]!

Clark, I have provided information about the 1920 depression quite a few times. But I doubt you bothered to look at it since it was an hour long college lecture. Clown? Yes, I believe that you can claim that one, since you refuse to learn anything that isn't shoved upon you by liberal media.

Marilyn,
SAve your breath
What's his name will only twist your words to suit his purpose and twisted way of thinking. Talking to him is worse than talking to a brick wall. Remember a brick wall doesn't throw insults back and call people names.

He's blinded by his 'god' Barry Boy, and wants us all to bow down and worship him......

Not a chance for me.

Mooch

I don't debate people who wallow in partisan and twisted pretzel logic. And, in fact, I DID very specifically spell that out for her, if you'd have bothered to actually read what I'd written. Way to make yourself look like an idiot as well.

Marilyn brought up the 1920 depression. You completely failed to address it. Like I said, you went on a red herring rant.

Ken -- your statement that the job growth (23 million jobs) during the Clinton years was due only to a technology boom does not address the poor job growth during the Bush years (3 million jobs). Considering that the tax cuts, and trickle down is the answer, why did US economy perform better after the tax cuts? Perhaps because the benefit of the "stimulative" Bush tax cuts didn't work.

Baby (no disrespect intended),
The Dot com bubble burst in roughly 2000. 911 happened early in the Bush presidency. Both together are significant reasons why impact of tax cuts was muted.

Bush tax cuts didn't work? You're kidding, right?

George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

You need to read this, Baby J: Blame Bush?

Well, perhaps with the supposed plan to let those who are under $250,00/yr keep the cuts but impose the skyrocketing increases on the "fat cat" millionaire's might be a good thing in that the super million dollar music and movie stars and atheletes will be in that basket. Maybe they'll get off their Bama wagon!

Haha, Nora.

Don't forget the rain of blood, the plague of frogs, the aspartame shortage, and the tainted mayonnaise.

Guess you're in the wrong place, Nippy.

NIppy, was that all your doing?

Bush should have expired long ago. His damn personal feuds cost us.

Silly....

10 Republican Lies About the Bush Tax Cuts

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-republican-lies-about-bush-tax-cuts


''So it's come down to this. On Saturday, David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous."

Sadly, Stockman and Greenspan are just about the only voices in the Republican Party speaking the truth about the fiscal devastation wrought by the expiring Bush tax cuts. After all, the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again during the tenure of George W. Bush. And as it turns out, the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit''

Notice that the article said, "Bush tax cut for the wealthy". When will you get that EVERYONE got tax cuts.

Sorry, Charlie. Obama is the biggest spender we've ever had and he's only just begun.

We already have had tax cuts. In fact, the percentage paid by the middle class is lower than that paid by Europeans.

Now let's call back all the $12 to 20 trillion sheltered overseas by the wealthy elite. That will solve the Republican created deficit. All it takes is just the president signature and the Republican created problems will be solved. Any real patriot will readily approve.

Give me a break, luckky. What about the financial mess caused by Obama? Have you been keeping track? Our grandkids' grandkids will be paying for Obama's mess.

Actually, luckky, if you're such a patriot, how about making sure that ALL income earners pay SOME income tax? That would help us tremendously. One thing that Bush did that was absurd was giving tax refunds to people who pay no taxes at all. (That's not a tax refund; it's welfare.)

How about if we all pay an equal amount? That would simply things so much. If everyone paid 10 or 15%, it would make filing so much more simple. And it would help our economy.

Step up and be a true patriot, luccky.

Already am - in fact, as I have written on this forum previously, I OPPOSE the Republican created income tax. After all, it was first created by your party in 1862 (thereafter ruled unconstitutional), and then Nelson Aldrich pushed through a Constitutional Amendment in order to entrench it.

Let's do as our Founding Fathers did and use a consumption tax which will be fair to everyone. So much better to use the good ideas of our Founders rather than the ideas of the Republican America haters.

LIES and more LIES! Clark~ Fannie mae,freddie mac. more and more welfare to buy votes, more and more port to buy votes, more and more bail outs to get union votes, more and more subsidizing illegal aliens to buy votes... What a whore your party is.

You're soooooooooooooooo wrong, Clark. I thought you were smarter than that than to be sucked into the lies perpetrated by this administration and the liberal news media. That's sad.

Nora, Please. The Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Debacle you are SCREAMING ABOUT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF BUSH POLICY RUN WILD.

Clark, I see you know the truth, and the truth will set US free.

Make conservatives MAD AS HELL. TELL THE TRUTH.

When will you libs do some real research and learning about what has happened. You have been so deceived.

Karl, we know differently and so do you. The mortgage problem is a direct result of people who didn't qualify for mortgages getting them and that was caused by liberal/progressive/socialist/Democrats....and specifically by community organizers like Obama (many probably trained by Obama) claiming that it was racist not to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.

>LL income earners pay SOME income tax? That would help us tremendously. One thing that Bush did that was absurd was giving tax refunds to people who pay no taxes at all. (That's not a tax refund; it's welfare.)<<br>
One way to help the U.S Citizens, is to cut giving welfare to Illegal Immigrants. I've said it time and time again. Stop giving them welfare, give them an option become a citizen and pay taxes legally, or go home.

And to the employers who are employing these people.....
Stiff sanctions PER DAY in the thousands of dollars for hiring illegal immigrants.

Mooch

Agreed, Mooch. Illegals cost us so much and the libs don't care.

it's sooo much better to borrow trillions of dollars from China, right Marilyn? I am appalled.

... and it is oh so easy for Republicans to blame Democrats for trying pay for all borrowing and the interest rates charged.

Dems borrow and spend and borrow and spend and borrow and spend and bailout unions and... ad nauseum...

How about we CUT SPENDING, Chris?

And this one Democrat Socialist is ruining our country with his outlandish spending. When will you wake up, Clark?

Chris,
No its not. But Obama has also borrowed millions, if not billions of dollars from China as well. Its one of the countries that has take our jobs. People working for 5.00 a day......long slave hours.

In order to get America out of htis mess, we need to get the jobs back from over seas. Which I just don't see happening.
Mooch

This is the Republican proposal, in 1968, to redefine the Kennedy Johnson Tax package Passed in 1964.

FROM "TIME" magazine.

Despite its 19-item brevity, the Nixon package calls for changes of considerable social—and perhaps political —consequence. It revives the nation's dormant movement toward greater income equality by proposing to tax rich tax avoiders more and to excuse the very poor, students and summer-job holders from paying any federal income taxes at all. In two surprise proposals, the President asked that the 1968 income tax surcharge be cut from 10% to 5% next January and that the 7% tax credit now allowed businessmen who invest in new productive capacity be repealed. That amounts to a sophisticated redistribution of tax burdens, with business losing and consumers gaining. Recognizing that taxation is a powerful instrument for setting and reaching national goals, the President pledged that the next step would be a "start" on two "high priority programs": tax credits to encourage investment in the turbulent ghettos and the sharing of federal revenues with hard-pressed state and local governments.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900833,00.html#ixzz0w8VVUawb

The way I see the thinking of the politicians is that the economy needs the taxes, problem is with so many not working, and so many knowing loopholes to avoid taxes, or those just chose not to pay them, the rest of America will be shouldered.

Sounds like another broken promise by Obama to me.
Mooch

You're an idiot.

You won't get anywhere tearing others down. This endless habit of name calling makes you look more like a troll.

Matthew that is exactly what he is.
He builds himself up by putting others down.

I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of reading what he has written, I did that enough already his name calling disgusts me. Truthfully I think he goes by a few names on here.

Mooch

Yes, Mooch, you can tell by the phrases this person uses that he (or it could be she) has a few memberships here.

Clark Kent, this is your public notice. If you cannot post comments on my posts without using the words "moron" and "idiot" or any other demeaning words and phrases you are not welcome here. I am finished with those kinds of comments about me or any one else.

If you want to offer real debate, fine. If you are into name calling, go somewhere else.

how about call others names that include cuss words. I commend you, I would have hit the delete button a few times. You've got more patience than I do with this person.

I'm just about out of patience with these types as well.

Marilyn,
I was talking to my husband about this, and the marriage tax breaks should they expire are going to drive a lot of couples probably to divorce, they will live together as a couple, but I have a feeling the divorce rate is going to skyrocket.

I think we are going to see a lot of not very good repricusions(sp) should the tax breaks expire.
Mooch

Yes, Mooch, I think you're right. Up until recently, libs pretended that there were no benefits to anyone other than the rich under Bush. But if they allow even half of the tax cuts to expire, we're all going to be paying dearly.

Republicans sure are full of complaints but, as always, can never come up with any solutions to the mess created by their party.

Actually, we've had plenty of solutions. I'm sorry the liberal media forget to tell you.

Who destroyed the economy? It was the Republicans according to David Stockman - architect of Reaganomics:


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1


ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."
Jobs recovery could take years

In the wake of Friday's disappointing jobs report, Neal Lipschutz and Phil Izzo discuss new predictions that it could be many years before the nation's unemployment rate reaches pre-recession levels.

Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.

But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened?

We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.

Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:
Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too."

No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy.

Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:"
Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon's gold policies get Stockman's first assault, for defaulting "on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world." So for the past 40 years, America's been living "beyond our means as a nation" on "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale ... an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves."

Remember Friedman: "Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct." Friedman was wrong by trillions. And unfortunately "once relieved of the discipline of defending a fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors."

And without discipline America was also encouraging "global monetary chaos as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve." Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president listening to a misguided Nobel economist's advice.


continued .........

Funny.

Congress all knew that Fannie and Freddy were in trouble for years and did nothing. It was liberals who insisted that people who had no business owning homes were able to buy them, and then homes far more expensive than they'd ever be able to keep. (Note: Was Obama to blame? He did train some of the community organizers who pushed this, right? Banks who wouldn't go along were called racist.)

Anyone who TRIES to say that Republicans are to blame at this point is dreaming.

Look at what Obama has done since taking office. The money he spent has not been for "stimulus" or for saving the economy. It HAS been pay backs for votes.

I guess you got your share.

The GOP’s Intellectual Dishonesty About Bush Tax Cuts


http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/11/republicans-intellectual-dishonesty-regarding-bush-tax-cuts.html


''Republicans say tax cuts for the wealthy must be kept to protect the economy and small businesses, but neither would be affected by their lapse.
It has become an article of faith among Republicans that cutting taxes on the wealthy always generates economic growth and subsequently increases government revenue. The theory, a subset of trickle-down economics known as the Laffer Curve, holds that tax revenues go down when tax rates go up beyond a certain point. If, for example, the highest marginal tax rate is 91 percent, as it was in the 1950s, then hedge-fund managers hardly have an incentive to make that extra million dollars, what with the government keeping most of it.

And that is the argument Republicans make when advocating for extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, which are due to expire. As House Minority Leader John Boehner told NBC on Sunday: "The only way we're going to get our economy going again and solve our budget problems is to get the economy moving, get more people back to work where they can care for their own families and begin to expand the tax rolls to bring more revenue to the federal government."


Over at Ezra Klein’s blog, Dylan Matthews recently polled an ideologically diverse group of economists on what tax rate they think would begin to reduce, rather than increase, tax revenue. The answers generally ranged between 60 and 80 percent. There was a broad consensus that the Laffer effect does not kick in at the level of taxes we would revert to, which at the highest would likely be less than 40 percent. (Matthews also asked some members of the Republican congressional leadership, but none responded.)

This punctures a hole in the Republican claim that it is OK to cut taxes without offsetting spending cuts because the increased economic growth will in turn increase tax revenue. To be fair, conservatives worry not only that high tax rates will decrease government revenue, but also that it will slow economic growth. As several conservative economists pointed out to Matthews, the tax rate that maximizes government revenue may be higher than the rate that maximizes economic growth. Thus, if you raise taxes too high, you may increase revenue now but decrease it over the long term.

Tax Attacks This is a concern worth being mindful of, notwithstanding the fact that economic growth in the 1950s was fairly healthy. And Republicans are eager to make the case. Boehner again: "You can't raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy without risking a double dip in this recession." But the argument that because of this principle the two highest marginal rates should not be allowed to revert from 33 percent to 35 percent, and from 36 to 39.6 percent, respectively, has little relation to macroeconomic reality. The economy performed better under those slightly higher Clinton-era rates than during the Bush era.


Even in the abstract, the claim that increasing by a few percentage points a few rich citizens’ tax rate will harm economic growth is implausible. Outside of yacht manufacturers, Bentley dealers, and real-estate agents on Martha’s Vineyard, not many workers depend on the slight variations in disposable income of the very wealthy for their livelihood.

But wait, what if owners of small businesses reported their income as individuals? Then wouldn’t raising their taxes decrease their desire to expand their business at this precarious juncture in our economic recovery? Perhaps, and that is precisely the argument Republicans have glommed onto. But as The New York Times reports, “Analyses from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization, show that less than 3 percent of filers with small-business income pay at the top two income tax rates, and many of those are doctors and lawyers in partnerships.” So, when presented with this objective fact that the factual basis for their arguments are hogwash, presumably Republicans will retract their demand for extending the Bush tax cuts on top earners, right?

Don’t count on it. But doctors and lawyers do buy cars and houses. So if Republicans get their way, maybe at least some Bentley dealers and real-estate agents will be happy.''


Only the deluded will deny these truths.

You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the butt. Try using common sense.

If you over tax the rich, they move. Many are doing that very thing. Ask the states that have raise income taxes, especially on the rich. Ask the counties that have made real estate taxes too high. People who can afford to move, do. The states without income tax are showing growth. Celebs are moving out of the country.

If you tax businesses too much, they also move. We are not the most business friendly country because of taxes and regulations, so businesses are moving to more business friendly countries.

And you're wrong if you think that only yacht manufacturers benefit from purchases by the wealthy. Seriously. Again, use common sense. They have to buy the same necessities as everyone else.

What I always ask people who think it's right to steal from the rich, is "how much is right" and "what percentage would be too much"?

I've had liberal/progressive/socialist/Democrats actually say that 90% would be okay in their books. And, when they say stupid things like that, I realize that they know nothing about math at all. And, most likely, they are persons to whom George Bush gave tax refunds for paying no income taxes.

What incentive does anyone have to work harder if the government will take that much to give to those who don't work as hard?

What a ridiculous thing to say. If you bothered to read your history, you would know taxes were MUCH higher in the 1950s and in Clinton's time. In those days we experienced far greater growth and expansion of the middle class. Do yourself a favor and do your homework before you make such ignorant comments as you are embarassing yourself with your partisan ignorance.

luckky, you are also put on notice. If you cannot have a civil discussion, then do not bother to come to my posts. You saying that people are ignorant does not make it so. We HAVE studied these things. We DO understand. And it is obvious that you DO NOT and that you have chosen to believe everything that the libs feed you.

It's high time that EVERY American pays taxes. Bush was wrong about one thing. He should have never started giving "tax refunds" to people who already paid no taxes. That's not tax refunds, it's welfare.

If you think it's so patriotic to pay taxes, then let every single income earner pay SOMETHING. But don't expect the rich to pay more.

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. 50% of Americans pay no income taxes. And they are the ones clamoring for the rich to pay more. It has to stop.

When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

What’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.

Lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.

And...when taxes increase for the rich or for businesses, the opposite happens. Right now, the rich and businesses are holding off doing anything until they know for sure what will happen with Obamacare and cap and trade. Some are already moving.

The United States now has the second-highest corporate income tax in the developed world, after Japan. That does not make us the most business friendly country, does it?

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

May I remind you that it was YOU who made the following disrespectful comment:

''You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the butt. Try using common sense.''

Write in a civil manner and people will respect you.

As for the issue I raised you have yet to address it. And that is the fact that taxes were much higher under Eisenhower and Clinton and the USA experienced far greater growth than we see today.

As for tax refunds made by Bush, this is called subsidies when made to the wealthy, to corporations, and to farmers. It did not begin under him but has gone on since the Republican created Great Depression. Why didn't Bush and Reagan put an end to that corporate socialist nonsense?

How do you account for that?

Luckky, here's the deal. You're in my playground. I get to decide if your comment stays or not. I expect civil comments or you're gone, get it?

I have addressed taxes many times. Yes they were higher at one time. And what I've posted many times shows that was not a good thing.

Lower taxes helps create jobs. It's been proven.

I'd rather know why Bush stupidly starting giving "tax refunds" (welfare) to people who don't pay taxes. That's what I'd like to know. And that Bush tax benefit is one that I do hope stops immediately.

As many of TEA party brothers and sisters do, I believe that all persons with income - of any kind - should pay some taxes. It isn't fair that so many pay absolutely nothing, then have their hands out thinking that the rich need to pay more. Nope. They need to pay something.

''I expect civil comments or you're gone, get it?''

I expect no less from you as well. Remember, you threw the frist shot. Practice what you preach and you will have no problem from me or anyone else.

As for taxes and the unfairness of it all, nobody knows that better than I who worked in the tax field for over 20 years (including a long stint as an IRS agent). I have writen several professional articles on the subject, taught the subject, conducted law school seminars, and have influenced the creation of leguislation designed to alleviate some of that unfairness. Like it or not, there simply is no one more qualified to discuss this subject than I do.

Lower taxes do not automatically create jobs. The Eisenhower and Clinton administrations records prove that fact.

As for certain people not paying their share of taxes, that is plainly evident based on numerous articles discussed on this forum. Moreover, the sheltering of multitrillion dollar amounts began under Reagan as I have documented previously on other threads. While both political parties share in the blame for this unfairness, it is the Republicans who are primarily responsible:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/29/
the_politics_of_stupidity_106520.html


Those are the facts. Voting Republican will only aggravate the problem because it is one they created.

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. 50% of Americans pay no income taxes.

Marilyn, it just can't be said any better than that................although the Socialists on this site will try to shout you down for saying it so well.

Yes, that does tell the tale, Bret. And the ones who are the loudest about letting the government spend more and more are those who pay no taxes.

"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax."

What you fail to mention is that the wealthiest 1% of Americans receive 57% of capitol income. The disparity between the top and bottom incomes in this country has widened.

In 1960 the ratio of CEO to factory worker pay was 42:1 while in 2000 the ratio of CEO to worker pay was 531:1. This ratio is 25:1 in Europe.

CEOs' pay increased almost 300% (adjusted for inflation), while production workers gained a 4.3%.

The middle class has been losing ground. Considering the trend, letting the tax rate of the top 2 percent reset back tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent will not hurt millionaires and billionaires.

Amen to that, jj. The Bible tells us that it's a sin to covet. Rather than being envious, people should strive to make more of and for themselves. But that requires work, and they'd much rather have the government hand them what their neighbor has worked hard to get.

Personally, I think that ALL incomes should be taxed at the same rate. That would be fair.

The Bible also says to obey the law and pay your taxes. If the wealthy elites did that they wouldn't be sheltering $12 to $20 trillion overseas. If Obama had the guts to Federalize that capital (an authority he has under the Constitution) that would end the financial problems created by the Republicans and we could end the income tax which is precisely what I want.

luckky, you've been so deceived. Perhaps you should ask those rich Democrat politicians to first pay their taxes, since so many have been deemed tax cheats.

And these problems were not created by Republicans. Blame Bush?

Oh, and luckky, check this out:

Thanks to The Washington Post, the venerable newspaper has now revealed that some 41 Obama aides have not paid $830,000 in back taxes either! Now, now, don’t judge since that’s only $21,000 in back taxes owed per Obama aide. However, if you calculate the total amount of taxes owed by delinquent government employees, the number comes out to over $2 billion dollars! Let’s be fair here, as I’m sure that both parties owe tons of back taxes. That said, if your party is for big government and higher taxes, shouldn’t you be a little more honest? Nah.

Click here to read more: Why Pay Taxes When Government Employees Don't?