Mother of all Tax Bombs

[Tom Schindler]

Bush Jr. Cut Tax's, National Debt is over $9 trillion dollars.



Bill Clinton Raised tax's National debt went down.



Raising tax's is not ALWAYS a bad thing. Some economists, like Alan Greenspan, was against the Bush Jr. Tax cuts and was quoted saying it was a big mistake.



I put a little more faith in Alan Greenspan than some guy on MYST.com that has a minor in economics.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

I consider myself to be pretty conservative, even leaning Libertarian at times. However, I don't mind paying high taxes IF THEY SPEND THE MONEY ON THE RIGHT THINGS.



Government should stick to providing basic services, such as transportation and utility infrastructure, civil and national defense, world-class education, etc. I also agree that government should take care of the disabled and sick who are unable to take care of themselves.



Quit spending money on welfare to prop up lazy peoples' standard of living. I don't feel sorry for Wal-Mart workers or anyone else without skills and ambition to try to better themselves. I worked (and still work) my ass off earning two masters degrees and going above and beyond the call of duty in my jobs to get ahead. It makes me furious that I could also "drop out" of life and get a gravy job stocking shelves at Wal-Mart and/or get on social security, and I could still have a comfortable life with Air Jordans, X-boxes, Cadillacs, cell phones, I-Pods, internet, cable tv, air conditioning, internet and computers, eating out every night, etc. like poor people can do now. When I was a kid, we had none of these things and we did just fine (and we were not considered poor).



I also am furious that the United States by and large has mostly very crappy school buildings, untrained lazy teachers, bad roads, hardly any viable train transportation, etc., but yet we are spending TRILLIONS of dollars building all of this in Iraq and other countries around the world who don't appreciate any of this generosity one bit. Keep the money and fix things up at home before we start supporting, feeding, and generally propping up the rest of the world so they can have the best of everything and not have to work for it.



There is not a good republican or democrat candidate for president.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin,



I agree with everything you say, except I don't think we have "mostly untrained, lazy teachers", if such was your implication.



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

23% total tax (state, federal, local) on EVERYTHING Except:

6% tax on FOOD the qualifies for WIC (eggs, milk, bread, butter, etc)

10% tax on Groceries (meat, vegitables, ice cream, etc. that is not a pre-packaged food that just takes heating)

This is almost exactly the way Poland implements their VAT taxes. Theirs plan is as follows:



Non-Essential items: 22%

Fuel has an additional 22% added as Excise Tax

Essential Items (Food, Clothing and Educational): 7%



It is a pretty simple system. I believe there is also an income tax. I think it is a flat 10%, but it includes a pension plan.

 

[Doctor CAD]

Gee Frank, I got a pretty nice tax break from Pres. Bushes plan...



I don't think I was in the top 1%, hell I don't even think I'm in the top 50%!



What do you say about that?

 

[A K]

Just to go back--my frustration is the forced parity that the democrats seem to espouse (some call it socialism; I think that's going a bit far, although there are similarities).



I'm left wondering--why go to school for seven years, only to have my salary reduced by roughly 30% federal (ignoring state and local) and bound to increase under a democrat president, when I can take a lesser route and lower-paying job, fall into a lower bracket (before or after a tax bubble), and live that way?



If anything, there appears to be an incentive to not work to one's maximum ability.



To put it into more relatable terms, imagine you and your neighbor go to a Ford dealer. You are in the middle class bracket. He's in a lower bracket. You both buy an identical ST. But, you are forced to pay $45,000 for it--because you fall under the tax bracket of $50,000-$100,000--while he can pay $15,000 for it--because he falls in the $15,000-$25,000 tax bracket.



The idea of taxing higher earning capacity individuals and couples at different percentages than lower, as opposed to a flat tax, which I wholeheartedly support, is a concept that fosters (a) decreased use of one's abilities, (b) a culture looking to "cheat the system" (is it cheating, or trying to achieve payment of one's FAIR share), and (c) furthers the divide between classes. When we all bear the same burden, we cannot complain about paying more--what we pay is tied to what we earn. But disproportionate burdens breed discord, when an artificial boundary (be it $50,000, $150,000, or $1,500,000), upon crossing, determines that we should pay more than a fair share.

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

RSHEK Wrote:



Carter: Tax Hike

Reagan: Tax Cut

Bush Sr.: Tax Hike

Clinton: Tax Hike

Bush Jr: Tax Cut



This is complete BULL *%#@



I do believe that you are on drugs RShek. Thats a Limbaughesque spin job. They cut taxes for the top earnings bracket sonny. Which equates to 2 percent of the population at best. When you say they (Reagan, Bush) cut taxes you are SPINNING.



ATTENTION: Every Democrat is going to make the big boys pay higher taxes. AND it wont even be at a rate NEAR what everyone else pays.



RShek I think you are a borderline "corporate media" GOP pundit.

Why is it that your buddy Bush has the LOWEST approval ratings in recorded history? It aint because we are all making mo money dude. He is taking care of his BASE instead of his country.



My goodness I hate being right all of the time.

 

[A K]

I do believe that you are on drugs RShek. Thats a Limbaughesque spin job



RShek I think you are a borderline "corporate media" GOP pundit.



My goodness I hate being right all of the time.

Ironic. Your bare accusations read like the speech of Bill O'Reilly and the Maha Rushi. And your ego is somewhere up there, too.



With crap like that, shouldn't you be posting on MoveOn's boards instead?



That being said, time for a civics lesson, folks: We can blame the Executive, but no Internal Revenue Code section ever became law without trodding through Congress, and no Internal Revenue Regulation ever became a regulation without the work of individuals in the Dept. of the Treasury. Make sure blame is apportioned correctly.



I said I would vote for a republican because I know that a health care plan like Hillary's and a tax plan like that cited in the article would die at the desk of a republican, either because of partisan politics or true disagreement with its contents.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

The Bush tax cut was across the board...right?



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Raising or lowering taxes is not the real problem !! That is only an issue during elections for political brownie points. Neither party has raised or lowered taxes enough to make an issue out of it. It's all a big ploy to mak rich voters to suppor the Republicans and those with less to vote for the Democrates.



The real problem is spending! It makes no difference the amount of revenue comming in into the treasury, the more that comes in, the more Congress spends.



Taxes, Social Security, Healthcare, and Immigration are political buzzwords us to polorize the citizens.



The vast majority of Americans are very moderate in their politcal views, but we have allowed two groups of extremists create friction in order to attact votes. Politician use the buzzword issues to point the finger at the other side and say that they are the cause of all the problem, when in fact it is the politician who are creating all these problems not the impoverished, or the rich, not the illegal aliens or the uninsured, nor is it the taxpayes or those on welfate. It's the system that is broken and the ones who broke it are the politicians.



Congress and the Senate can't get any decent legislation passed regarding these issues because they are too busy having special hearings about who did what, when and how it happened and when they knew about it. Either that or they are investigating each other (usually the other party) for some criminal or illegal activity.



What happened to compromise?? That has always been the way our government worked up until about 40 years ago. Over that time things have gone steadily down hill. I used to think there was a time when Congressmen or Senators would argue a bill on the floor and then they would go to lunch together, come back and continue to argue about the pros and cons of a specific bill. In the end they would agree to disagree and reach a compromise that was a win-win situation for both sides. Todays politicians do believe in compromise. If their party does not win it all, then nobody gets nothing !!



The name of the Politcal game now is MONEY. If you run for political office now, you better have a big war chest full of money. That itself breeds "Special Interest" and lobbyist willing to pay big money to a candidate willing to see things their way.



That is why we need major campaign reform where you cannot give anything to a candidate except your vote. All politcal campaigns should be financed through taxes or donations made only to government (not directly to the candidate) The governement will distribute the money only to pay for TV adds equally amoung all candidates. Any candidate found in violation of the campaign funding laws would be forced to give back any moneys collected and bar from ever running for office again.



Now the biggest problem with this idea is where are you going to find enough honest, non-partisan people to run this circus ???



...Rich

 

[Rich Stern]

Fair Tax is the way to go.



Aside from the simplicity and solid fiscal rationale, there is a huge silver lining: Privacy.



How much money you make is your business. Your life is your business. The way we are living now, the government is invited to just about any signficant financial event in your life.



The second silver lining: Government transparency.



Just look at this thread. We could argue for days about who cut or who raised taxes. We could hire PhD's to have the argument for us and still not settle it. That's because the tax code is purposely complex, to the advantage of government and disadvantage of the people, so we can be lied to about what a tax code change means.



Imagine, there is only one tax rate: The Fair Tax percentage charged at retail. If the government wants more revenue, they can raise the rate. But they can't hide it or play games with it, because with only one number to manipulate, we will see it in the light of day (and vote accordingly in the next election).



Fair Tax. It can free us.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I do believe that you are on drugs RShek.

I have NEVER taken illicit drugs. I am not currently prescribed any drugs of any sort. I have given up alcohol several months ago. Any alligations of such conduct, sir, are blatent falsehood and slander.

ATTENTION: Every Democrat is going to make the big boys pay higher taxes. AND it wont even be at a rate NEAR what everyone else pays.

Percentage wise? Probably not, depends on who you call "big boys". If by that you mean Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates... yeah, you're right. But if you mean the "big boys" making $200,000 a year, like the school teacher married to the firefighter in New York... get a clue.



Do you work for a small business? Maybe one with 2-3 employees? They will be hardest hit by any tax increase and you could realistically expect to lose your job.



The Top 10% of wage earners in this country pay around 90% of the income tax. The bottom 40+% of the wage earners pay nearly 0% income tax with all the deductions and programs available.

Raising tax's is not ALWAYS a bad thing. Some economists, like Alan Greenspan, was against the Bush Jr. Tax cuts and was quoted saying it was a big mistake.

Go back and read all the comments that Greenspan made. He said that if spending were to remain the same as it is now, a tax hike would be necessary. Guess that means that what the Democrats want to do to SCHIP and simlar programs require tax hikes to. No thanks, I'll take care of my own family and keep my money.

This is complete BULL *%#@

Carter:

Bottom Rate: 14% - No Change

Top Rate: 70% - No Change



Reagan:

Bottom Rate: 13.825% (1981) 12% (1982) 11% (1983-1988) - Decrease

Top Rate: 69.125% (1981) 50% (1982-1986) 38.5% (1987) 28% (1988) - Decrease



Bush:

Bottom Rate: 15% - Increase

Top Rate: 28% (1989-1990) 31% (1991-1992) -Increase



Clinton:

Bottom Rate: 15% (1992-2000) - No Change

Top Rate: 39.6% (1992-2000) - Increase



Bush:

Bottom Rate: 15% (2001-2002) 10% (2003-Present) - Decrease

Top Rate: 39.6% (2001-2002) 33% (2003-Present) - Decrease



So, who's full of BS now? So I called Carter a Tax hiker and he kept taxes the same. Booo Hooo. 4 years and the anti-semite did what exactly but empower Iran?

RShek I think you are a borderline "corporate media" GOP pundit.

Why is it that your buddy Bush has the LOWEST approval ratings in recorded history? It aint because we are all making mo money dude. He is taking care of his BASE instead of his country.

I wouldn't join the GOP if you had a gun to my head. The GOP is as bad as the Democrats in many ways. Why the hell would I put myself down by joining them? They put up candidates much closer to my personal values, but that does not mean that I am one of them and resent the remark.

The Bush tax cut was across the board...right?

Absolutely. The marginal rates went from 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% to 10%, 15%, 25% and 33%, plus the Child deduction went from $600 to $1000, amungst other changes.

They cut taxes for the top earnings bracket sonny.

Don't you dare call me sonny. I am not related to you and would be ashamed if I was. Atleast I have the FACTS to back up what I say.

Which equates to 2 percent of the population at best. When you say they (Reagan, Bush) cut taxes you are SPINNING

I smell something. Oh yeah. That was the $300 that you got from your tax pre-bate in 2003 burning a hole in your pocket. But then again, I'm sure that you sent your check back didn't you? You know, if you feel you're not paying enough now. you can ALWAYS pay MORE voulentarily. Until then, keep you filthy hands out of my and my chil

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Oh, by the way, if there is a God Forbid Clinton: The Second Comming Presidency, I hope you and your wife don't make more than $250,000 or work for a small company that makes the same, youre rates WILL go back up to the 36% or 39.6% bracket as she has repeatedly stated she would recind the top two bracket changes.



That was to pay for her "Hillary-care"...



Or was it the $5,000 baby-bond?



Or was it the $1,000 401(k)?



Or was it the increase in Social Security benefits?



Here's the Real Deal on Greenspan by the way:



The former chairman emphatically emphasized cutting entitlements and other spending more than tax increases. He mentioned taxes only 6 times in his testimony before congress - everytime scrutinizing taxes and spending. By contrast he mentioned cutting entitlements and similar spending 17 times. Thats a ratio of nearly 3:1. So what does he recommend more? In his book, he bashed the president, yes. But it is much more on the over-spending rather than the tax cuts.



A little bit of research and you can really find out all kinds of TRUTH.



Or was it the one of 15 other programs she has proposed. "We cannot afford to be in Iraq", but we CAN afford all her bull crap programs? Which is it, Senator?

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

RShek>>>>

You said Bush cut taxes again. Hmmm Is your last name Microsoft or Exxon?



What world are you living in?



That extreme right wing lying piece of sheep dung did not cut my taxes, he RAISED em> Thats right. RAISED> Just like everyone else who makes less than 250K. (which is STILL 99 percent of the population of the United states) I bet when you pass the plate on Sunday and put less and less in there to make up for your higher tax bill, you somehow justify that the "man up-stairs" wants it this way. GO BUSH 4 more years! Praise him! HA



RShek=Joke

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Frank,



I will ask again...Bush cut taxes across the board, for everyone, right? If not, do you have proof that shows different?



TJR

 

[TomT]

Fair tax IS the only solution. Republicans are always going to keep taxing people instead of big business and wasting our money and Democrats are going to tax everybody that works for a living and give it to lazy f*ckers that don't want to work, just to get their votes. Thats your two party system in a nutshell.

 

[Jeffrey Travis]

Not having the time to read all of the above, all I can say is why should I have to pay more if I make more. I do not use more of the road that my taxes pay for, I do not use more of the schools that my taxes pay for, I do not use more of my local, state and national governments (which paying for most of this - local - is like paying for those that could not cut it in the real world).



FLAT tax meaning FLAT, 1 fee, if you want to live in this country you pay the tax. Live in a gutter, pay the fee, live in a mansion and have 3 summer homes pay the same fee.



Those with the money are stuck carrying the load for the deadbeats and the deadbeats are the ones bitching about tax cuts for the rich. The rich pay the majority of the overall tax base. See IRS proof below.

New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.

So when I run for president it will be on the 'get your ass up out of the gutter (and/or off welfare) and pay your taxes because we are sick of covering for you' platform - and if you cannot pay - go to Canada! (Take off, eh? - nothing against Canada other than that they are all pumped up because their dollar recently became equal in sorts to the American dollar and they are bragging about it, please.)



Nuff said.



JT#14



JT#14

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Bill Clinton signed into law only ONE federal income tax increase -- OBRA in 1993. OBRA instituted two new, upper-income tax brackets: a rate of 36 percent applied to couples making between $140,000 and $250,000 annually, and a rate of 39.6 percent applied to couples with an annual income of more than $250,000. So 39.6 percent is not even close to the high rates during World War II. In 1955 it was 59 percent, in 1965 it was 53 percent, in 1975 it was 60 percent, and in 1985 it was 50 percent. 2006 statistics state (the last figures published by the UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT) that Americans are shouldering the tax burden at all time high rates. Thanks G Bush and thanks RShek and AdamCKach you are the type of spun sheep that make fair elections and the American dream go 'bye bye"



I will state again: Democrats CUT "your" taxes and Republicans RAISE "your" taxes. It all depends where you stand. The Dems lower taxes for people making less than 200K and Republicans lower taxes for the upper income bracket folks...you know the 1 or 2 percent of Americans (the elite) who dont need tax breaks. They need to pay thier %*@*ING share!



Now that I have laid out the proof any dummy who wants to contradict what I say may do so sure...but you CANNOT lie to yourself: you are HURTING us all.

 

[A K]

frank:



Read:

I said I would vote for a republican because I know that a health care plan like Hillary's and a tax plan like that cited in the article would die at the desk of a republican, either because of partisan politics or true disagreement with its contents.

The idea of taxing higher earning capacity individuals and couples at different percentages than lower, as opposed to a flat tax, which I wholeheartedly support, is a concept that fosters (a) decreased use of one's abilities, (b) a culture looking to "cheat the system" (is it cheating, or trying to achieve payment of one's FAIR share), and (c) furthers the divide between classes. When we all bear the same burden, we cannot complain about paying more--what we pay is tied to what we earn. But disproportionate burdens breed discord, when an artificial boundary (be it $50,000, $150,000, or $1,500,000), upon crossing, determines that we should pay more than a fair share.

Or, let's just break it down a little more.



You:

The Dems lower taxes for people making less than 200K and Republicans lower taxes for the upper income bracket folks...you know the 1 or 2 percent of Americans (the elite) who dont need tax breaks. They need to pay thier %*@*ING share!

And compare it to my thoughts.

as opposed to a flat tax, which I wholeheartedly support

Now, consider why I said what I said.

I said I would vote for a republican because I know that a health care plan like Hillary's and a tax plan like that cited in the article would die at the desk of a republican, either because of partisan politics or true disagreement with its contents.

Using just a little logic, can you see the conclusion? We're on the same page. I did not say I'd vote for a republican because I applaud the inequitable burden placement and redistribution of societal wealth. My implication is that a democrat-sponsored tax bill that only furthers the inequitable placement of the burden likely would die at the desk of a republican.



I believe that if you make $10,000 or $10,000,000, you should pay a standard rate, whether it's 10, 20, whatever percent on gross income. Do away with deductions, credits, etc. But, maintain basis and realization (i.e., other methods of attaining gross income). That way, the $10,000 earner and the $10,000,000 pay their *fair* share. No breaks to the highest bracket, and no unreasonable burdens on the middle bracket, and no methods by which individuals can take advantage of the system (ignoring under the table payment, etc.).



I also encourage you to be a bit more civil on MyST.com. We're no different than your neighbors, coworkers, fellow parishoners, etc. Many of us have met each other, and most of the regular posters have been in the same conference room together at some point or another. Folks with more than an edge have been here before, too. But note the past tense.

 

[Gavin Allan]

I also encourage you to be a bit more civil on MyST.com. We're no different than your neighbors, coworkers, fellow parishoners, etc. Many of us have met each other, and most of the regular posters have been in the same conference room together at some point or another. Folks with more than an edge have been here before, too. But note the past tense.

You don't get it, Adam. The media has trained us to HATE anyone with a different belief than ourselves, and especially we are to HATE anyone of the other political party.



Hatred is what it is all about these days...