Tax Cuts

[Steel_Magnolia]

Congressional Democrats rammed a bill through the House of Representatives Thursday permanently extending the Bush-era tax cuts only for families making $250,000 a year or less. It would maintain the current Alternative Minimum Tax limit for two years.
The measure, which passed on a sharply polarized 234-188 vote, would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire after December 31 for the wealthiest Americans. Most Democrats backed the bill, while most Republicans opposed it....

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/02/tax.vote/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

 

[Birchtree]

I'm reading it but I don't believe it - we need full extension of Bush tax cuts for everyone - now if they would like to cap it for two or three years I can live with that but I prefer a permanent solution.

 

[MohammadXX]

Can you really compare $250,000 earned in the Bay Area or NYC with $250,000 earned in rural Maine?

If a family grosses $250,000, what is their net take-home pay? Are they upper-class (rich)?

What line of IRS-1040 are you talking about when you say $250,000? Is it only earned income or does it include: e.g., withdrawals from TSP?

 

[James48843]

I'm reading it but I don't believe it - we need full extension of Bush tax cuts for everyone

WHY?

Why on EARTH is it so important that rich people get tax breaks that will cost us $700 BILLION dollars over the next ten years?


Why not simply let the tax breaks for those earning over $250,000 a year, so we can make a tiny dent in the deficit?

I have not heard ANYONE argue a good reason why the rich should continue to pay lower taxes than at any time in the entire 20th century.

If a top tax rate of 38% was good enough for Eisenhower (He would have LOVED a rate that low) , AND Kennedy, AND Johnson, AND Nixon, AND Ford, AND Carter, AND Reagan, AND Bush I, and AND Clinton,....

then why is it too much today, so much that you would shut down the operation of the entire legislative branch of government to throw a hissy-fit like a little child?

 

[Birchtree]

You bet, it's called fair play. Everyone earnes their money - some more than others. Then you have the welfare crowd.

 

[burrocrat]

not deep enough in my opinion.

if you're gonna cut then cut it deep. halfway solutions are rarely successful. if you're gonna shoot down the tax break then grow some balls and hit it where it counts the most, take it down, what kind of sick bastard (oops i meant legislative body) likes to just shoot it in the leg and watch it squirm?

 

[Show-me]

The people have spoken, live with it. You told many of us something similar when President Obama won the election. Your beginning to look like a sore loser. The people have spoken and you might see a one term President and then a Republican controlled Congress in two years if your constituents are not careful.

Everyone should pay a equal amount regardless of income. The people have spoken, get over it and move on.

 

[burrocrat]

The people have spoken, live with it. You told many of us something similar when President Obama won the election. Your beginning to look like a sore loser. The people have spoken and you might see a one term President and then a Republican controlled Congress in two years if your constituents are not careful.

Everyone should pay a equal amount regardless of income. The people have spoken, get over it and move on.

oh thank the lard, i thought i was the only one who saw the failed leadership thingy, for having such big ears he don't hear so good.

 

[James48843]

The people have spoken, live with it. ....

Everyone should pay a equal amount regardless of income. The people have spoken, get over it and move on.

Everyone should pay an equal amount? Ok- sure. We have a progressive income tax in this county. If you make $15,000 a year, you don't pay any income tax. If you make $150,000, you do. So your answer is that the guy making $15,000 pay the same taxes as the guy who makes $150,000? No, no one voted on that.

The people have spoken? Bull. Without agreement, the taxes expire January 1st. I'm ok with that. The dems still control the Senate. Even if the new House passes tax breaks for rich people in January, the dems still hold enough seats to prevent that from going anywhere. Then there is the President. Without a signature, the tax rates go back to full bore.

Here is your choice- extend them for those below $250K, and let the higher income people rates go back to their previous levels- or simply let them all expire.


That's your choice.

 

[Buster]

Here is your choice- extend them for those below $250K, and let the higher income people rates go back to their previous levels- or simply let them all expire.


That's your choice.

I don't think you or I or anyone on the MB has a choice in the matter actually... YOU are gonna get whatever THEY choose to give YOU..Period.

While you are trying to understand Tax Brackets based on income level..

chew on this from your fearless 'still in control' leaders..

Democrats sought to expand the package with other provisions that officials said would accelerate the nation's sluggish economic recovery. They included a tax break providing as much as $400 for individual working people and $800 for couples — even if they pay nothing to the IRS.

the Democrats want this..so it MUST be okay then..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/...ge/us_tax_cuts

 

[James48843]

I don't think you or I or anyone on the MB has a choice in the matter actually... YOU are gonna get whatever THEY choose to give YOU..Period.

While you are trying to understand Tax Brackets based on income level..

chew on this from your fearless 'still in control' leaders..

the Democrats want this..so it MUST be okay then..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/...ge/us_tax_cuts

Yep. That's just fine.

Give a person a $400 check to stimulate the economy.

George W. Bush did it back in 2008, with a $300 Single- or $600 a couple check. You remember that? The republicans thought it was a good idea then. But now that the democrats want to do it with a $400 check to jump start things- it's a bad idea, right?

Hypocrits. Bah. Humbug.

 

[burrocrat]

Here is your choice- extend them for those below $250K, and let the higher income people rates go back to their previous levels- or simply let them all expire. That's your choice.

oh jeez, sounds like another poll coming on,

hey, there's a place over on beltway where you can vote on crazy ideas like that...

http://www.beltwaytalk.com/showthread.php?535-Rlt02&p=8654

 

[Boghie]

Yep. That's just fine.

Give a person a $400 check to stimulate the economy.

George W. Bush did it back in 2008, with a $300 Single- or $600 a couple check. You remember that? The republicans thought it was a good idea then. But now that the democrats want to do it with a $400 check to jump start things- it's a bad idea, right?

Hypocrits. Bah. Humbug.

Nope, not a good idea in 2008...

It wasn't a good idea in 2001 when Bush II did the same thing during the .dotCom bust - but the libs wouldn't allow a real tax cut...

And, it still wasn't a good idea in 2009 when President Obama did it...


Also, James,

If a top tax rate of 38% was good enough for Eisenhower (He would have LOVED a rate that low) , AND Kennedy, AND Johnson, AND Nixon, AND Ford, AND Carter, AND Reagan, AND Bush I, and AND Clinton,....

What was the top tax bracket under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II?

1988 28.0%
1989 28.0%
1990 28.0%
1991 31.0%
1992 31.0%
1993 39.6%
1994 39.6%
1995 39.6%
1995 39.6%
1996 39.6%
1997 39.6%
1998 39.6%
1999 39.6%
2000 39.6%
2001 39.1%
2002 38.6%
2003 35.0%
2004 35.0%
2005 35.0%
2006 35.0%
2007 35.0%
2008 35.0%
2009 35.0%
2010 35.0%
​

So, Bush II's tax cut left the top bracket paying the highest percentage excepting the Clinton era.

And, only President Clinton had an income tax as high as 38% over the past 22 years and 5 administrations - now to be matched (if successful) by President Obama.

And, all those big tax bracket percentages before Reagan (and through part of Reagan) were offset by silly writeoffs (like credit card debt and tax shelters) than are no longer available.

 

[James48843]

No, actually your Bush I tax rates are not correct. According to THIS IRS TAX PUBLICATION, the rates in 1988 to 1991 included phase outs of additional personal income exemptions that were in the system before that, leaving a net effective tax rate of 33%, for the highest rate, except for a castly higher income bracket- not the 28% shown there. Most earners had a highest rate of 33%. The lower 28% rate didn't kick in until after the person hit a much higher income. The effective rate for those earning over $79,000 a year in 1988 to 1991 wasn't 28%, it was 33%. Source: Footnote number 34: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf


So the actual data is:

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
View attachment 10277

View attachment 10278

*For 1988-1990, some taxpayers (Over $71,900 earned) faced "temporary tax surcharge" above the 28%, of an additional 5% , for a total a 33% marginal tax rate in an income bracket above the one cited for the 28% rate. However, the marginal rate returned to 28% above this 33% bracket. That is, for all sufficiently high incomes, 28% was the marginal rate.

 

[Boghie]

James,

You are right - I guess. I kinda like the debt solution the panel came up with because it seems to have taken much of the complexity out of the system. All that stuff about phase outs made my brain bubble...

But, I am right as well. You have to go back to dead Presidents and Carter to find a top marginal rate over 35% (excepting Clinton). You stated that 38% seemed to be a norm for the top brackets in all of recent history. Not really, President Clinton's top bracket was an outlier...

Those high pre-Reagan rates were never paid by the rich - they had significantly more writeoffs than we have now. And, if taxed more they will simply find more writeoffs. I will do so - and, I'm not even rich. In fact, when California jacked up my income tax rates for 2010 I zeroed them out. Already got my pencil sharpenned for 2011.

 

[Show-me]

Everyone should pay an equal amount? Ok- sure. We have a progressive income tax in this county. If you make $15,000 a year, you don't pay any income tax. If you make $150,000, you do. So your answer is that the guy making $15,000 pay the same taxes as the guy who makes $150,000? No, no one voted on that.

The people have spoken? Bull. Without agreement, the taxes expire January 1st. I'm ok with that. The dems still control the Senate. Even if the new House passes tax breaks for rich people in January, the dems still hold enough seats to prevent that from going anywhere. Then there is the President. Without a signature, the tax rates go back to full bore.

Here is your choice- extend them for those below $250K, and let the higher income people rates go back to their previous levels- or simply let them all expire.


That's your choice.

Just for two more years. Go ahead a seal the deal for the one term President.

 

[Show-me]

Yep. That's just fine.

Give a person a $400 check to stimulate the economy.

George W. Bush did it back in 2008, with a $300 Single- or $600 a couple check. You remember that? The republicans thought it was a good idea then. But now that the democrats want to do it with a $400 check to jump start things- it's a bad idea, right?

Hypocrits. Bah. Humbug.

It does NOT stimulate the economy!!! Bush used it to buy voted and so is BHO. Quit blaming everything on Bush, whiner.

I remember the exact day my check arrived and thinking what BS!!!

James, you did not stimulate the economy with your check, you gave it to BHO Presidential campaign. You pissed it away and some marketing or media firms shareholders or some campaign cronies took the money. You were just a money laundering phase for the government to pass money to the shareholders through you. At least I paid down my debt with it.

Why stimulate the economy? Who profits from stimulating the ECONOMY? SHAREHOLDERS YOU IDIOTS!!!! LOL You are just throwing money at the companies that are out to take it from you. Save the money to survive on, buy gold, silver, save it and hid it.

 

[Show-me]

So when did it become popular to discriminate against people based on the amount of money they earn?

I guess it is only bad to discriminate against color, sex, sexual orientation, or religion. People that work hard to make their fortune, the American Dream, you can screw as much as you want.

Then we force them to give the government their money and then **** it away on overly generous entitlement programs that we can not pay for or earmarks, then force them to give even more of their earnings to shore it up.

 

[Show-me]

I don't think you or I or anyone on the MB has a choice in the matter actually... YOU are gonna get whatever THEY choose to give YOU..Period.

While you are trying to understand Tax Brackets based on income level..

chew on this from your fearless 'still in control' leaders..

the Democrats want this..so it MUST be okay then..

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/...ge/us_tax_cuts[/URL]

The last lines of the article is very reveiling.

McConnell said the Senate should "stop wasting time on political show-votes and focus on our priorities. It's time to get serious. It's time to extend the current tax rates and fund the government while cutting spending. Every day spent on a political show-vote is another day that Democrats won't be able to debate items that should actually pass."

Reid said, "We believe it's important the American people understand where we stand."

Now Harry Reid does not care what the PEOPLE said in the mid-term election. He just want to make damn sure the American people know that he has the power and where the elite politicians and the Democratic Party stand and will do what ever it takes to muddy the water.

 

[Mike]

George W. Bush did it back in 2008, with a $300 Single- or $600 a couple check. You remember that? The republicans thought it was a good idea then. But now that the democrats want to do it with a $400 check to jump start things- it's a bad idea, right?

Hypocrits. Bah. Humbug.

The extension is idiotic, and the rebates or whatever they are calling them these days are equally stupid. I like the deficit commission's idea of lowering rates and gutting the bulk of the credits/deductions. Just tell us what effing rate we are going to be paying, and get rid of all this idiocy about documenting what we spent on mortgage interest and whatever else.

We need to raise revenue and cut spending before the various foreign investors lose confidence in our debt sales and drive up our rates.