Democrats have known that the Paul Ryan Plan benefits very wealthy Americans. It's no wonder Mitt Romney whole-heartedly endorses the plan. He would see a $300,000 tax cut under the plan as written.
The latest report by Senate Democrats states that every tax payer would benefit from the new brackets, 25 percent and 10 percent. However, federal tax collections would decrease by $4.5 billion over the next ten years. That money has to come from somewhere. Republicans aren't saying what "loopholes" they would eliminate to make up that difference in tax revenue, but it sure ain't gonna be from those earning over $1 million a year. Those people, Romney's people, would see a tax decrease!
"If you want to cut taxes on the rich and not raise the deficit, you're going to have to basically clobber the middle class," says Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York.
Here's how it breaks down:
- $1,000,000+ earners get a tax cut
- $200,000+ earners get a tax cut of about $7,000
- Less than $200,000 earners, the majority of Americans, "...will see their taxes rise significantly," according to the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
This report on the Ryan Plan was reviewed by a group of nonpartisan tax experts at the Tax Policy Center, and they agree that the report is "largely accurate."
Republicans don't understand a lot, it seems, but they are really deficient in basic math skills. You simply cannot keep cutting tax revenues, lower the national debt, and kill the middle class. That is a formula for disaster, although, it looks great to Mitt Romney and his zombie followers. They all get richer while America collapses. What's the definition of class warfare again?
This Republican tax plan is a prime example of the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats care about people and have a long-term vision for the country. Republicans care only about money and can't see beyond their current net worth.
This "Romney-Ryan" plan is short-sighted and downright insulting to anyone with a working calculator.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 116
Currently approx 50% of congressfolk are millionaires (or better.)
Only 1% of the population meets that level. How is it that we think millionaires will pass legislation for the working folks in America? It is diametrically opposed to their own best interest. But....that is exactly how they want the working class repubs to vote. Against their own best interest.
And, I hate to say it, but it is not all repugs. There are some dems in office who, perhaps shouldn't be #occupying a senate / house seat.
Good article. Needs to be said, on every possible street corner, and in livingrooms, at kitchen tables, etc. The problem is, most Americans can't be bothered to read legislation. It needs to be written in real language, not legal-speak.
Used to be, we got bills printed in the daily newspapers. A section of a bill at a time; and the family could discuss it over coffee. Now families tune in to the major media channels (owned by only 5 companies, and ALL run by billionaires.)
Pretty deep problems we've got.
Used to be, we got bills printed in the daily newspapers. A section of a bill at a time; and the family could discuss it over coffee. Now families tune in to the major media channels (owned by only 5 companies, and ALL run by billionaires.)
That's interesting. I do sometimes feel like none of us are getting the real, true story as to what's happening in Washington.
What I do know for sure is that reducing taxes for millionaires while raising them for lower and middle class is not going to work. It's absurd.
:)
During the Reagan era? I know there were a lot of dirty dealings going on with Reagan and Bush at the helm.
There have been dirty dealings under every Administration. Money does that to people. But the "class warfare" aspect became blatantly one sided during the Reagan Administration. All the governmental actions related to it were "decided" in favor of the rich during those years giving them advantages and preferences which pretty much took all power from any group other than the rich.
Warning, the world is not a fair place and no one should have told you otherwise as they lied!
Fact, half of the country is paying into the government less than they get back.
Fact, we are about 16 Trillion in debt.
Fact, we are spending at the rate where we must barrow 40 cents on the dollar, adding to the debt.
Fact, this country has not had a budget passed in over 3 years.
Fact, Someone will have to pay for the debt and the Democrats seem to think that the rich have enough money. If you take 100% of the income from those who earn over $250,000, you will fund the government for about 140 days.
Fact, we don't have a rich vs poor problem, we just spend more than we have.
Who will pay for this debt, you, me, the rich???
Fact, if we all pay a little, then we will all think more about what we are buying, and are we getting our money's worth? That is called skin in the game.
The Ryan plan was not intended to make life easy for those who help spend the money that is taken from tax payers. It is a plan to work toward balancing the budget.
Where is the Democrats plan to do the same?
Fact, Democrats have not written or submitted a plan to congress.
If congress does not have it, then it is as good as talk and talk is cheap.
If you are going to cry about someone's plan, you had better have one of your own.
Your plan would increase taxes on the poor and middle class far more than the Ryan plan. It would also lower taxes on the rich more than the Ryan plan. But you think yours is fair and his favors the rich? Interesting logic.
Single making > 1,000,000:
Ryan Plan -> -440090 + 108546 = -331544 in taxes
Lora Plan -> -1100225 + 217092 = -883133 in taxes
The analysis your article used already eliminated the several of the largest deductions. I doubled that number to estimate deduction elimination effect.
Poor:
Ryan Plan -> 10% with some deductions
Lora Plan -> 10% with NO deductions
The poor pay more under whose plan?
FYI, under current tax code (according to tax policy center, 2009 numbers) the bottom 20% pay -10.2%. That's a negative number. That means they currently collect money from that tax code instead of paying. How do you achieve your idea of fair without increasing taxes on the poor?
The code was made flatter in '86 (bipartisan effort).
Obama's Bowles-Simpson commission recommended flattening the tax code.
Ryan plan flattens the tax code.
Rick Perry's plan flattens the tax code.
Newt Gingrich plan flattens the tax code.
Obama and Senate Democrats don't want a flatter tax code.
But somehow you take issue with Republicans and not the Democrats on this issue? How does that make sense?
I am one of the people carrying the weight of the wealthy on my back.
2009 Effective income tax rates (Tax Policy Center which you referenced):
quintile %
Lowest -10.2
2nd -4.1
3rd 2.3
4th 5.7
Top 13.4
Top 1% 17.9
Top .1% 18.3
Please tell me how the middle class is carrying the weight of the wealthy.
What I take issue with is Ryan's plan of elimination. I don't agree with what he wants to eliminate in order to pay for his tax plan.
I agree that the poor and the very wealthy should all be paying the same taxes (not the same amount, but the same percentage) as everyone else. It angers me to hear that the poor or the rich are not paying income tax or not paying social security tax.
I don't think a progressive tax code is fair. What is the motivation to earn more money if the government is going to take more of it?
It's not right that I make $1,000,000 and the government takes $600,000 of it. Unless that government is providing free healthcare and free university for me and all American citizens.
It's not my responsibility to pay our national debt. I didn't vote to go to war with Iraq for 10 + years. I would suggest taking 80% of Congress person and Senators salaries to pay down the debt. Along with DOUBLE taxes on the millionaires that all enjoyed tax breaks during the past decade. How many days can the country run on that money?
The suffering to get us back to fiscally positive needs to start at the top, not the bottom.
I'll get back to you on the tax math.
The Rich did NOT pay 78-90% in taxes. The tax code was filled with loopholes leading to a much lower effective tax rate. Taxes on the poor were much higher then. The redistributive aspect was put into the tax code in the 1970's. How's that for a coincidence with the ending of your proclaimed most prosperous era?
You don't agree with eliminating "the special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code", but you want to eliminate all deductions? I don't understand your argument.
Personally, I favor eliminating the income tax. I think we would be better off taxing consumption rather than production. I would support the Fair Tax for funding the government.
It's not my responsibility to pay our national debt. I didn't vote to go to war with Iraq for 10 + years.
I didn't support most the increased spending of the last 30 years. Unfortunately there is no practical way to just tax those who caused and benefited from the profligate spending, but the bills need to be paid for somehow. In addition to the FairTax, I would support an estate tax to pay down the debt. While it certainly wouldn't be fair for everyone, I think it's more fair than passing on the full debt to future generations.
Assuming we had a balanced budget (which we obviously don't), it would take 211,894 years to pay down the national debt by taking 80% of Congressional salaries.
Along with DOUBLE taxes on the millionaires that all enjoyed tax breaks during the past decade. How many days can the country run on that money?
When you add up all the money made by all the people who earn more than $1 million a year, it amounts to around $700 billion. But since the millionaires already pay close to $200 billion in taxes, the government would have to increase rates to nearly 100 percent — which is about the worst idea ever — for it to have any real impact.
Doubling taxes would add $200 billion which would run our federal govt for about 19 days.
a) reduce the size of the IRS to a fraction of what it is today - the current IRS budget is $13.3 billion
b) eliminate Congress's babbling over whether to raise taxes, lower taxes, etc. - Congress might actually do something worthwhile instead - Unknown estimated savings
c) eliminate Grover Norquist
d) eliminate the cost of paying a tax preparer
e) could be phased in by setting the progressive tax back to pre-Bush and phasing in fewer progressive brackets
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $388,350.
Mitt Romney paid an effective rate of 13.9% in 2010. He earned $21.7 million.
In 2010, my effective rate was around 20% . I earned less than $100,000. I am single with no dependents.
So, I still don't see how a flat tax can help the rich.
I can see that I would need to adjust my original figure of 10% to 15%, as Rory also pointed out that 10% was too low.
Giving the poor a break on necessities, not taxing anyone below the poverty line but taxing middle, upper-middle and upper class all an equal 15% still seems like the best and fairest option to me.
A flat tax code would
a) reduce the size of the IRS to a fraction of what it is today - the current IRS budget is $13.3 billion - YES
b) eliminate Congress's babbling over whether to raise taxes, lower taxes, etc. - Congress might actually do something worthwhile instead - Unknown estimated savings - YES
c) eliminate Grover Norquist - ?
d) eliminate the cost of paying a tax preparer - YES
e) could be phased in by setting the progressive tax back to pre-Bush and phasing in fewer progressive brackets - YES
Wow, you might even like the 999 plan...
A Progressive structure is designed to hurt the rich more than it helps the poor.
My numbers were based on a flat tax of the 10% (not 15%) you proposed. I already posted the average effective rates provided by the group you referenced:
quintile %
Lowest -10.2
2nd -4.1
3rd 2.3
4th 5.7
Top 13.4
Top 1% 17.9
Top .1% 18.3
These are averages. So the average person earning income in the top 1% will pay less in taxes with your revised 15% flat tax. The vast majority of people will pay more with a flat tax of 15%. How do you not see that?
You chose to compare 2 individual cases which don't represent the norm. "While Romney is not thought of as a great philanthropist, his rate of giving is considered high. For example, in 2010 he gave $2.9 million or 14 percent of his income to charity. A typical person gives 2 to 3 percent of their income. And people who made $10 million or more typically gave 6.5 percent to charity, according to Roberton Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington."
I'm not against a flat tax as it is preferable to the monstrosity we have today. I should point out that it is inconsistent with some of your other statements: "What I do know for sure is that reducing taxes for millionaires while raising them for lower and middle class is not going to work. It's absurd." Going from -10.2% to 15% in taxes would be a rather large tax increase for the lower class.
I think the combination of the FairTax and an estate tax is a far better option. Or even a slightly progressive tiered system with no deductions.
So no more flat tax? If you are not taxing anyone below the poverty line, what would "a break on necessities" entail? We already have programs for that outside of the tax code.
"But for some reason people think that because you exist, and others make more than you, then somehow you are entitled to what others have earned."
that is not the argument that is being made by the left wing in the USA. NOBODY is arguing that the federal government needs to take all the money of the 1% and GIVE it to the 99%. It's such an absurd exaggeration of what is actually being suggested!
In reality, we have a national debt of 16 trillion. There are two avenues to address that debt: one spend less. Two, tax more.
Spending is a separate topic. Clearly spending must decline, and that decline will be terribly painful in countless ways.
But the topic at hand, taxation, clearly is not comprehended by Tea Party folk. Who have gotten richer over the past 10 years, despite the recession? The rich. Who are getting poorer over the past ten years? The middle class and the poor. SO- if you shift more of the tax burden away from the rich, it lands on the middle class. And the middle class can't hold up that burden up- their knees will buckle and they will join the ranks of the poor, who do not have enough money to actually pay income tax.
It's an unrealistic plan. You can talk all you want about everybody sharing the pain- but hey, that's a given, because the cuts in government spending are going to hurt the lower middle class and the poor. If you try to increase their taxes on top of taking away some of their services, no way they can stay out of poverty.
He negotiated with terrorists to get hostages freed.
Our country suffers after a Republican has been in power and wheeling and dealing with dictators to line their own pockets.
And before you rightwingnuts wax eloquent on Sweden's reliance on others for defence and the expense of the American armed forces... just stop throwing your money away on militarism. No one asked America to play world police and no one wants you guys to interfere in every country in the world. That is your choice and you do it in defense of your interests, not any one else's.
According to who?
and a healthy manufacturing sector that includes world respected automotive manufacturers Volvo and Saab
Not all that healthy
FALSE!
Debt
Bush II - $1.7B per day; $4.9T total
Obama - $4.1B per day; $5.2T total
*No one else is even close to either of these spendthrifts.
Corky, no matter how many times he is called, loves to spread these myths!
Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, reviewed the Joint Economic Committee report. Although the numbers are rough, he said, the conclusions are largely accurate.
“Even with eliminating fairly major tax preferences, the Ryan tax plan remains regressive. That’s the bottom line,” he said. “Unless you go after the tax preferences that benefit the wealthy” — capital gains, dividends, tax-free interest on municipal bonds — “it’s really hard to undo the regressivity of the rate changes. You’ll be shifting the burden of the tax code toward the middle class.”
Liberal double speak. The Ryan tax plan is progressive. It's just less progressive than the current tax code (assumes he eliminates the same deductions which the Democrats claim he will eliminate). They also consider his cuts in spending as draconian even though he is NOT proposing cutting spending. His budget calls for spending INCREASES of 4% per year. That 4% is just less than current projected spending increases.
Again, Mike, well-done!
Only a partisan could believe this. Neither party has a long term vision, hence the fiscal catastrophe approaching.
Democrats "care" about people often involves ideas that harm people.
As far as the Ryan plan, it's lousy.
They are willing to take every last dime from the middle class by taxing them to death, then they will be screaming about the increase in welfare recipients when IT'S THEIR OWN TAX PLAN THAT FORCES PEOPLE INTO WELFARE.
And if you cut that too, you're going to have anarchy.
EPA was created by Nixon.
Patrick Moore (Greenpeace founder) resigned from Greenpeace because the left cared more about anti-capitalism than ecology.
Under Reagan the middle class effective income tax rate was lowered from 8.3% to 5.9%
Under Bush it was lowered from 5% to 2.3%
Can you actually provide some evidence of your facts?
And I'm not sure where you get the part about the republicans wanting to tax the middle class to death. I would agree they want to overtax, but so do the democrats.
Both parties offer pretty much the same thing: a bad choice for America.
Read through the Republican party platform and the Democrat party platform and make an assessment.
Party platform? Do you really accept what politicians tell you they will do as fact?
The party platform is not what any given politician will or will not do. It is the values of the party. What they stand for as a group. Their goals for America.
The platform is read aloud at the convention and voted on by the delegates. Delegates are given the opportunity to oppose things if they like. At least that's how it works for us Democrats.
Not sure how the other side does it. Wouldn't be surprised if it's less diplomatic.
It's not their values. It's a piece of propaganda.
Democrat platform:
Affordable, Quality Health Care - Yet they refused to implement tort reform because trial lawyers support Democrats
We will fulfill our obligation to strengthen Social Security - They have refused to fix Social Security which now faces depletion earlier than when they took office.
Democrats are committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. - still waiting
We will restore fairness and responsibility to our tax code. - When did they do this?
And we will encourage personal savings, so that our economy remains strong - ???
Fiscal Responsibility - They refuse to produce a budget
Win in Afghanistan - Nope
De-Nuclearize North Korea - No
Expand the Armed Forces - No
Open, Accountable and Ethical Government - Not even close
Do you really believe these are the VALUES of the Democrats in office?
I haven't looked at the Republican platform, but I'll bet when they were in power they upheld theirs about as well as the Dems have.
Republicans in Congress and Grover Norquist won't allow it. Otherwise, it would already be done.
Do you really believe these are the VALUES of the Democrats in office?
Yes, if you agree with these things, you register as a Democrat. If you believe more of the Republican values, you register as a Republican.
It's a high-level grouping but these values are the values of the parties.
I haven't looked at the Republican platform, but I'll bet when they were in power they upheld theirs about as well as the Dems have.
Probably true but neither party can walk into Washington and implement every policy they desire with no opposition. There has to be compromise. There is none in Washington now.
Norquist and the Republicans had no power in Obama's first 2 years.
Yes, if you agree with these things, you register as a Democrat.
You can believe the lies all you want, but that doesn't make them true.
Which Democrats in office all pushing to expand the Armed Forces?
Which Democrats in office are promoting strategies to with in Afghanistan?
Where are the Democrat proposals to strengthen Social Security?
Where is the Democrat's budget?
The Dems control the Senate. The Reps can't stop them from proposing bills which support their values.
The Koch-owned tea party and its Republican political wing that supports Romney is all about one thing - give more money to the rich and somehow this will translate into jobs for the middle class.
The first Bush tax break immediately took the budget surpluses under Clinton and turned them into unrelenting - and annually escalating - deficits. The second Bush tax break skyrocketed the debt by benefiting largely the super-rich while borrowing money from the Chinese and dishonestly "not counting" all the billions of dollars spent fighting two wars (one of which he started based on his own lies). The tea party wants to continue, and even expand, that money drain and debt-booster - but mainly for the super-rich since there is agreement to continuation of the middle class tax cuts. [Indeed, the tea party held the middle class hostage in December 2010 when they wouldn't let any tax cuts be extended for the 99% of us unless the super-rich 1% got their tax breaks expanded.]
The Republicans are for the 1%; the Democrats are for the 99%.
Is there such a thing as a poor or middle class Republican? I cannot think of one single reason why anyone below the $200,000 wage earner limit would vote for a Republican -- unless it's religion. The "almighty, God-fearing" Republican politicians shall save us all. Amen.
For Gods sake...
I don't support the Republican Party.
Who said you did, MJK? Not everything is about you,
You have misunderstood MJK's point of view, that being, he's a Christian and we all know that everything is about Christians. The whole world revolves around the Christians and their self annoited/appointed hierarchy position within the world's society.
The topic is TAXATION. If you want to talk about something else, find a thread about it.
2009 Effective income tax rates (Tax Policy Center):
quintile %
Lowest -10.2
2nd -4.1
If taxation is not redistribution, then how would the tax rate be negative for the lowest 40% of income earners?
Taxation is the Leftists plan to REDISTRIBUTE.
Period.
Romney's plan to decrease taxation for the wealthy would accelerate a process of wealth polarization- but the trend is already there. The super wealthy actually MADE MORE MONEY during the 2008 recession, while the lower middle class dropped to the edge of poverty. And you want to tax them, and excuse the wealthy some more? pls explain in rational practical terms, not in Ayn Rand sound bites.
When you've finished finding the Truth on that subject, do the research on this:
Reagan "inherited" an Economy that was every bit as bad from the previous incompetent Leftist, Carter; he turned it, the deficit, the Economy, the unemployment rate, the Tax Rate, and the Job Creation Category AROUND in less than two years.
Reagan did it through Conservative Principles and Tax Cuts.
Reagan would not be elected Dogcatcher by the current Republican Party. Not if they actually were to look at his record in office and realize horror of horrors that he signed a tax hike. Oh the Humanity.....
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
Every year of Reagan had lower spending than every year of Obama.
Prior to his first term in office from 1947 to 1980, spending was never more than 33.72% of GDP.
The average spending for Reagan's years was 35.21% of GDP
1981 3126.8 228.670 33.64
1982 3253.2 230.815 36.25
1983 3534.6 232.979 36.31
1984 3930.9 235.164 34.44
1985 4217.5 237.369 35.48
1986 4460.1 239.595 35.71
1987 4736.4 241.842 35.09
1988 5100.4 244.110 34.73
(each of these values is i - interpolated between actual reported values)
The numbers for Obama are actual reported values.
2009 13939 306.051 42.63
2010 14526.5 308.746 40.75
Obama's average of GDP is 41.69%
We are not comparing actual number to actual numbers but yes, spending has been higher under Obama.
NOTE: Reagan had a Democrat controlled House beginning in 1982. Obama has a do-nothing, lazy Republican controlled House. The Democrats worked with Reagan to lower unemployment (which was 9.6 and 9.7 percent when he took office - Obama's 9.3 and 9.6). Remember that it is CONGRESS that appropriates funds, not the President.
Also, Clinton had a Republican controlled House and he left office with a surplus.
The balance of powers WORKS when they are actually working. The Republicans in this Congress need thrown out on their asses.
NOTE: Reagan had a Democrat controlled House beginning in 1982. Obama has a do-nothing, lazy Republican controlled House.
You quoted Obama numbers from 2009 & 2010. Dems had complete control with a large majority in the House and filibuster-proof majority in Senate. Try again!
Reagan brought down unemployment significantly -- due to the balance of powers.
Obama cannot -- due to the balance of powers -- aka the "do-nothing, lazy Republican congress"
Reagan never had his party in control of the House. Obama and Dems had solid majorities in the House and Senate for 1st 2 years.
It is 1932 all over again.
Twelve years of Republican policies that favor the rich.
A Supreme Court that votes against people and for big business.
How did we solve the problems in 1932? A progressive income tax, fair labor laws to help workers get fair wages. Social Security to help the aged and infirm who could no longer work. Government spending to compensate for failed factories and missing jobs. Regulations on banking and Wall Street.
Today instead of moving toward the solutions of 1933 and the years that followed, we have a Republican congress that seems determined to make situation worse. During the Clinton years Glass Steigal that regulated banking was revoked. Deregulation seems the path of today. The progressive income tax has gone away. Government is cutting jobs instead of creating them, Organized labor is losing its battle to help workers and even Social Security is threatened.
It seems we do no learn from our past.
One of our biggest problems.
Indeed. None of the government interventions you listed solved any problems, they created many more problems. The Depression continued over a decade after 1932, remember. I wouldn't dream of calling that success. Fact is, we have never fully recovered from what happened then. What recovery we had came in the wake of a massive cutting back in government interventions after the Second World War.
Notice the economy has been very lousy, moving from bubble to recession, for all of our lives. And notice that it has been accompanied by massive government interventions every step of the way.
Then look back at the 1920 Depression. It's time we draw lessons from something that actually worked, we can't afford to continue this.
"Redistribution"...Distributing again...What part of that is difficult to understand?
Without such documentation, a claim of "redistribution" is invalid.
"Republicans care only about money and can't see beyond their current net worth." That comment tells me all I need to know about this message. It is not about the rich, the middle class, or even the poor. It is about the Republicans...
Redistribution is taking from one and giving to another. Aren't our tax dollars supposed to be going to run the country. That doesn't mean that some millionaires tax dollars land in my lap. THAT would be redistribution.
Raising taxes on people that are barely getting by, with no extravagances (such as the rich enjoy) would cut their income even further -- killing the middle class.
That doesn't mean I know where every cent of my tax money goes.
And come on, Vic. It's simple math. The Republicans in Washington either can't figure it out or refuse to. Which is it?
And as for Republicans caring about money -- when is the last time a Republican proposed a healthcare bill? It's the Democrats that care about your health and well-being.
Their very words ensnare them.
Well, you had better figure it out! I'm sure you don't, Lora, but you had better give it some thought. Those who are opposed to the Re-Distribution of Wealth DO...and that is why they are opposed.
You are only slightly correct; our Tax Dollars are SUPPOSED "to be going to the running of the Country." Taking pregnant 16-year-old Girls fishing, building light-rail systems that nobody wants or uses, paying the lazy to sit on their asses, unsustainable entitlements to Government Employees, stealing from the People to fund Cadillac Entitlements to Politicians, AND A MILLION OTHER WASTEFUL EXPENDITURES are NOT functions of "Running the Country."
Please, Covrett, think.
Oh, yes, you already have. You're all in FAVOUR of the things I've mentioned...
H.R. 3400
Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills
Are you becoming a conservative?
:)
When it comes to money, I am probably far right in my political thinking.
It's the rest of the Republican principles that keep me far, far, far to the left on everything else.
Healthcare didn't even enter a Conservative's mind until after 1992.
I'm pretty sure there would need to be an audit done to provide that information.
And once published, there would be public hangings of politicians before angry mobs of citizens in Dupont Square. ;)
Historical Tables, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2013 provides data on budget
receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and
Federal employment over an extended time period, generally
from 1940 or earlier to 2013 or 2017.
We had (and continue to have) this economic crisis. Dems wanted to focus on Obamacare. The Reps wanted to focus on jobs, but offered 3 alternatives. I didn't matter what the Reps wanted to focus on they had no power; the Dems had filibuster-proof majority in Senate, control of the House and White House.
Healthcare didn't even enter a Conservative's mind until after 1992.
I guess you've never heard of COBRA which was passed under Reagan?
And I didn't see my name anywhere in that document with how much I paid in and where every dime went. ;)
Did you look at it? You should at least look at the TOC. Sections 3 & 4 have breakdowns of spending going back to 1940.
Congress has not passed a budget in 3 years.
The Republican controlled House has. The Democrat controlled Senate has NOT. Obama's budgets haven't gotten a single vote from either party: losing 0-97 & 0-99 in the Senate and 0-414 in the House.
Well-done, Vic.
When asserting that to lower the assessed rate of taxes earned by people having an income over one million dollars, would mean that the person who's taxes were lowered, would invest that money in creating jobs, is not only absurdly unrealistic, it is nonsensible reasoning.
No business person, absolutely no one, takes their returned taxes and utilizes those monies to create jobs. They, if substantially well off financially, will either place that lowered tax rate money into government bonds, Wall Street investments, trust funds, personal bank accounts etc. Not one wealthy person who is given a lowered tax rate will ever use that money to create a job within private industry, to believe otherwise is delusional.
The only entities which create jobs within America, is the industrial business complex. However, at the present time, large industrial, corporate and manufacturing businesses are already paying little to no taxes whatsoever. In fact, some of the largest corporations, such as Exxon Oil and General Electric Corp. actually receive tax refunds from the IRS even though those companies paid no taxes to the IRS. Notably, the Exxon corporation received 4 Billion and General Electric received 1 1/2 billion as tax refunds from the IRS in 2010. But did either corporation use the windfall of extra cash received from IRS to create new jobs, the answer is "NO".
Since lowering tax rates on the personal income of wealthy Americans, as has been done under each Republican administration following that of President Eisenhower when the rate was around 88% continuously down to about 25% under the Bush Jr. Administration and with corporate America already paying little to no taxes whatsoever, neither of which having created any substantial number of new jobs for the past 3 years, why would/could anyone argue/claim that it would now, when it never has before ? Common sense tells you that it will not.
Further, common sense dictates that to lower taxes on the wealthy, will only result in less needed revenue to government and increased wealth for those who are already wealthy, with no lowering of the number of those in the unemployment, government assistance and welfare lines.
For the Republicans in Congress to demand lower tax rates for the rich, is ludicris. For the common man to argue tfor he same issue, because he/she are members of the Republican and/or Teapublican Parties, is self destructive and demonterously insane.
Common sense ain't so common in the Republican party.
It was just such common sense in JFK, Reagan, GW that led to greater growth to our economy. What they knew/know that you progressives reject is that "trickle down" works.
As for the top tax rate during the Eisenhower terms, the top tax rate applied to those making 400K or more, which in todays dollars is around 3.2 million.
Corporate taxes;
The only reason we should be taxing business is to control their behavior because it is the people who buy their products and services who are actually paying those taxes, it is just another way to tax, we the people.