Does everyone understand the tax issue?

lol

I was going to say the same thing. The OP is becoming more ironically humorous as it goes on.

US Federal Deficit as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History
OK 12% for Obama
2% W
you still think all of this funny?
it is a very weired sense of humor you have

I don't think the debt is funny. I think someone starting a thread asking if other people understand debt and taxes when they don't is funny though, no offense.

I am still waiting
by the way your comment on Cheney Has everything to do with % of GDP
He made that comment when we were fighting 2 wars as well as 2% of GDP
not while it is wll over 10% of GDP with 1 war won and done

Toro i am still waiting
Do you feel that the tax system we have works?
I mean really dude
you think that our president telling us that the rich needs to taxed more when for the most part the rich is a person who is in a place in which he or she can pass that on to the middle class?
Knowing he is mis leading the masses does not bother you?
only that the tax table I choose to use you think is funny dude?

enlighten us with your wisdom
 
Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

Does it?

The price of steel goes up, the cost of the refrigerators goes up....agreed

The price of gas goes up, the price of flying goes up....agreed

Corporate taxes go up, all prices go up....

:confused:

What you talking about, Willis....

I hear you, very confusing isn't it?
 
Somewhere, an irony meter is pegging. Where in the wide world of sports did you get those 2% / 20% figures from?

lol

I was going to say the same thing. The OP is becoming more ironically humorous as it goes on.

US Federal Deficit as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History
OK 12% for Obama
2% W
you still think all of this funny?
it is a very weired sense of humor you have

I see what you did there, but I suspect you don't.
 
Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

Does it?

The price of steel goes up, the cost of the refrigerators goes up....agreed

The price of gas goes up, the price of flying goes up....agreed

Corporate taxes go up, all prices go up....

:confused:

What you talking about, Willis....

I hear you, very confusing isn't it?

When I do an estimate
I have a cover sheet
it covers tax rates
state
federal
payroll
as well as Insurance
etc....

You plug in the rate for the state, what craft it is for Workman's comp, etc...
it kicks out a build up rate that in theory covers all of that
if it does not, I will go out of business
tax rates go up
the rate goes up
the product cost more
torrro was going to explain all of this to me
I have not heard from him

Torro and those like him including our president thinks either this stuff is funny or taxing the rich will fix it
they are still thinking that Clinton had something to do with some surplus in the 90s and that has something to do with the 18000 jobs we got last month, I think
this is why the "shovel ready" comment caught on tape with people laughing will cost Obama 11/2012

I am not sure what either of them are thinking, neither do they

I do know that it is not funny
it is a mess
and all that raising taxes on corporations is going to do is make the very things we buy every day cost more

I also know that raising income tax is not going to help anything either
we need jobs
If I have less wealth to spend, how can I create any jobs
Obama and those like torrooooo have spent trillions and we got 18,000 jobs for it
6/2011

ask again
does anyone really understand this tax issue?
how about you TOooororororo?
 
Another item green beard
I may be clearly 2% off
I maybe 5% off
But I have more class in my little finger about the way I treat my fellow american than you have in your entire body


Despite your evident classiness, one wonders why you feel the need to overestimate someone's income tax burden by ~40% to make your "taxed enough already" argument.
 
Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough

Who pays 70,000 in income tax on 200,000 in earnings?
 
That does not include state or local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc etc.
He could easily be paying $70k or more.

Yes, by "give up 70,000 a year in income tax" he clearly was talking about property and sales taxes.

He multiplied a $200,000 income by 0.35 because he doesn't know how tax brackets work (or, apparently, where they begin). Spotting someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about isn't rocket science.

The federal income tax on 200,000 dollars of taxable income (AFTER all deductions, credits, exemptions, etc.)

is about 51,000.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
 
Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

Does it?

The price of steel goes up, the cost of the refrigerators goes up....agreed

The price of gas goes up, the price of flying goes up....agreed

Corporate taxes go up, all prices go up....

:confused:

What you talking about, Willis....

I hear you, very confusing isn't it?

If corporate taxes go down, somebody else has to pay that tax. Who do you suggest pay it?
 
There were no surpluses in the 90's bub. The closest Clinton got was a $10,000,000,000 deficit. When he left office there was a $5,800,000,000,000 debt.

rofl

yeah ...

:thup:


Next up, why the world is 6,000 years old, followed by Obama was born in Kenya.

The world is about 4,500,000,000 years old smart-ass and as for Obama, he was born in Hawaii. And guess what, there were still no surpluses.. Clinton spent more than he toook in for eight years. Try researching Public Debt vs. Intra-Governemntal Holdings rather than regurgitating MoveOn.org talking points.

You're regurgitating a now classic Rightwing nut talking point.
 
Libs debt is the cost of doing business
taxes is a punishment for doing business

all you guys have left is those couple of years the GOP congress balanced to budget in the late 90s
like that really has allot to do with what the entire 8 years under Clinton looked like

Hell with 2 wars gong on in 2007 we got within 162 billion of breaking even. The last budget done by the GOP

That's the same GOP congress that abandoned PAYGO as soon as they got Clinton out of the way?

And then proceeded to pass legislation that couldn't have passed under PAYGO,

resulting in the return of the massive deficit.
 
Dude, I do
what does any of your babble have to do with understanding why raising taxes is going to help?
and the table I provided, has a link
debate them, not me
Toro as a liberal your losing all respect
Tax Tables

I'm not a liberal.

Your link is proof that we should not rely too much on what's on the Internet. Kind of like that "there were no surpluses in the 90s" thing.

There were no surpluses in the 90's bub. The closest Clinton got was a $10,000,000,000 deficit. When he left office there was a $5,800,000,000,000 debt.

Usually the unwritten rule of these kind of threads is that if you don't know the difference between debt and deficit,

you remain silent.
 
I'm not a liberal.

Your link is proof that we should not rely too much on what's on the Internet. Kind of like that "there were no surpluses in the 90s" thing.

There were no surpluses in the 90's bub. The closest Clinton got was a $10,000,000,000 deficit. When he left office there was a $5,800,000,000,000 debt.

Usually the unwritten rule of these kind of threads is that if you don't know the difference between debt and deficit,

you remain silent.

Attack the messenger
never debate the message
deficit
Main Entry:def·i·cit
Pronunciation:\ˈde-fə-sət, British also di-ˈfis-ət or ˈdē-fə-sət\
Function:noun
Etymology:French déficit, from Latin deficit it is wanting, 3d singular present indicative of deficere
Date:1782
1 a (1): deficiency in amount or quality <a &#8764; in rainfall>
(2): a lack or impairment in a functional capacity <cognitive &#8764;s> <a hearing &#8764;> b: DISADVANTAGE <scored two runs to overcome a 2–1 &#8764;>
2 a: an excess of expenditure over revenue b: a loss in business operations
Main Entry:deficit spending
Function:noun
Date:1938
the spending of public funds raised by borrowing rather than by taxation
Main Entry:attention deficit disorder

Now what exactly is your point?
Are do you even have one?
 
It becomes obvious the hanger ons have run out of anything to add to the discussion.
GWB should have funded the 2 wars with a separate tax that went into a separate fund and done a better job with his Medicare reform

His performance other wise was excellent

See Libs this is where your in trouble with Obama
Its not personal to the conservative, it is business

To you, well you have nothing left to stand on, your 'messiah" became human and has failed
 
Another item green beard
I may be clearly 2% off
I maybe 5% off
But I have more class in my little finger about the way I treat my fellow american than you have in your entire body


Despite your evident classiness, one wonders why you feel the need to overestimate someone's income tax burden by ~40% to make your "taxed enough already" argument.

Green beard have you ever had to sit down and count out 50,000 dollars on tax day and have the person sitting across from you, who has no job and has no intent of getting one, looking at you and saying they demand more?
40%?
30,000?
15,000?
This about the entire system is broke and the liberal who like you pays very little to no income tax could care less

Green Beard if you understand what I am talking about you would make this about resolve
to start with the best example I can give on how broke this system is, is the amount of an issue you liberals are making about tax tables
the damn whole system is broke


I2010 Tax Computation Worksheet&#8212;Line 44
See the instructions for line 44 on page 35 to see if you must use the worksheet below to figure your tax.
CAUTION
!
Note. If you are required to use this worksheet to figure the tax on an amount from another form or worksheet, such as the Qualified Dividends and
Capital Gain Tax Worksheet, the Schedule D Tax Worksheet, Schedule J, Form 8615, or the Foreign Earned Income Tax Worksheet, enter the amount
from that form or worksheet in column (a) of the row that applies to the amount you are looking up. Enter the result on the appropriate line of the
form or worksheet that you are completing.
Section A&#8212;Use if your filing status is Single. Complete the row below that applies to you.
Tax.
(a) (b) (c) (d) Subtract (d) from (c).
Taxable income. Enter the amount from line Multiplication Multiply Subtraction Enter the result here and
If line 43 is&#8212; 43 amount (a) by (b) amount on Form 1040, line 44
At least $100,000 but not over
$171,850 $ × 28% (.28) $ $ 6,290.75 $
Over $171,850 but not over
$373,650 $ × 33% (.33) $ $ 14,883.25 $
Over $373,650 $ × 35% (.35) $ $22,356.25 $
Section B&#8212;Use if your filing status is Married filing jointly or Qualifying widow(er). Complete the row below that appl

Are you liberals going to ever make this about the problem?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

I have an accountant do my taxes every year
the Liberal makes it always about the messenger
never about the message
 
Last edited:
Tax law is a hodgepodge of interests and assumptions. What I personally find the most interesting about the topic is how ideas about the rich have created a sort of cult of believers. We had our best economies when taxes were highest and yet to raise taxes today is a kiss of death. Even Reagan raised taxes many times. Odd how ideas conflict with reality, especially in the minds of conservatives and republicans?

Reagan and Clinton raised taxes, Reagan many times.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth

"But the record shows just the opposite. The national rate of job growth during George W. Bush&#8217;s tenure was the worst since the government starting counting in 1939....The tax changes didn&#8217;t do much for Vermont, either. Job growth so far this decade is worse than any decade since the 1940s. We have fewer jobs today than we had in 2000." Hoffman: Did tax cuts create jobs?

"I&#8217;m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn&#8217;t just that they don&#8217;t help, or that they&#8217;re ineffective&#8212;THEY REALLY HURT!" Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01

"In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts have been a miserable failure.
Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an eight-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and GDP fell by 10.9 percent, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover." The Bush Tax Cuts: Failure Analysis by David Fiderer ? Failure magazine |


"Baker predicts a recession this year because of the housing bubble. Lets see how accurate he is. I'm betting on Baker. Don't bank on the Wall Street guys, they seem more interested in protecting their clients than getting you truth." from amaz review 2007

And the stats to prove it: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/United-States-since-World-Since/dp/0521677556/]Amazon.com: The United States since 1980 (The World Since 1980) (9780521677554): Dean Baker: Books[/ame]


""Reagan was coming from this very simple proposition: If you lower the tax rate, then more people will work, there will be more income in the economy and everyone's lives would be better. Despite a 25 percent income tax cut, by 1982 Reagan faced a deepening recession, mounting unemployment and homelessness."" Ken Duberstein, Reagan Chief of Staff Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake


The Conservative Nanny State
 
Last edited:
Tax law is a hodgepodge of interests and assumptions. What I personally find the most interesting about the topic is how ideas about the rich have created a sort of cult of believers. We had our best economies when taxes were highest and yet to raise taxes today is a kiss of death. Even Reagan raised taxes many times. Odd how ideas conflict with reality, especially in the minds of conservatives and republicans?

Reagan and Clinton raised taxes, Reagan many times.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth

"But the record shows just the opposite. The national rate of job growth during George W. Bush’s tenure was the worst since the government starting counting in 1939....The tax changes didn’t do much for Vermont, either. Job growth so far this decade is worse than any decade since the 1940s. We have fewer jobs today than we had in 2000." Hoffman: Did tax cuts create jobs?

"I’m fully aware that I risk excommunication from the Church of Economic Science when I argue exactly the opposite: Tax cuts actually hurt the economy. It isn’t just that they don’t help, or that they’re ineffective—THEY REALLY HURT!" Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01

"In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts have been a miserable failure.
Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an eight-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and GDP fell by 10.9 percent, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover." The Bush Tax Cuts: Failure Analysis by David Fiderer ? Failure magazine |


"Baker predicts a recession this year because of the housing bubble. Lets see how accurate he is. I'm betting on Baker. Don't bank on the Wall Street guys, they seem more interested in protecting their clients than getting you truth." from amaz review 2007

And the stats to prove it: Amazon.com: The United States since 1980 (The World Since 1980) (9780521677554): Dean Baker: Books


""Reagan was coming from this very simple proposition: If you lower the tax rate, then more people will work, there will be more income in the economy and everyone's lives would be better. Despite a 25 percent income tax cut, by 1982 Reagan faced a deepening recession, mounting unemployment and homelessness."" Ken Duberstein, Reagan Chief of Staff Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake


The Conservative Nanny State

Reagan raised tax rates after he cut them
his raise left rates far lower than they were previously

t would take fireside chats with the American people, deals with boll-weevil Democrats in the House of Representatives, pep talks with discouraged aides, and even near death from an attempted assassination, but on August 17, 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Act (ERTA) into law. It was the tax reform Reagan had been urging for decades. Newsweek called it a "second New Deal potentially as profound in its import as the first was a half century ago."[vii]

The measure cut all income tax rates by twenty-five percent, with a 5 percent cut coming that October, the next 10 percent in July 1982, and the final 10 percent in July 1983. The law also reduced the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, indexed tax rates to offset the impact of inflation, and increased the tax exemption on estates and gifts. Conservatives have consistently argued that ERTA was a prime factor in the economic growth that prevailed throughout the 1980s.

There followed sixty straight months of economic growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since the government began keeping such statistics in 1854. Nearly fifteen million new jobs were created -- a total of eighteen million by the time Reagan left office. Just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services, measured in actual dollars, were produced from 1982 to 1987. To give some notion of how much that is, by the end of 1987 America was producing about seven and a one-half times more every year than it produced in John Kennedy's last year as president.[viii]

The expansion was felt everywhere, as conservative economists had predicted, including in the government's own income. Total federal receipts in 1982 were $618 billion. Five years later, federal receipts were just over $1 trillion, an increase of $398 billion. More than enough, one would have thought, to satisfy all but the most eager advocate of the welfare state.7
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers


as far as job growth/income tax cuts vs housing bubble
this speaks volumes
and 9-11
Liberals ignoring the impact of 2 wars and what 9-11 did to the economy on top of Clinton,s recession Bush inherited is nuts
lets do not forget 4 major hurricanes 05 in Florida
Katrina and Igor in 06
100s of thousands of jobs lost

2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
post tax cut cut 2001-03
from 03-07 7.5 million jobs jobs created
82-08
40 million
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,40
 
There were no surpluses in the 90's bub. The closest Clinton got was a $10,000,000,000 deficit. When he left office there was a $5,800,000,000,000 debt.

Usually the unwritten rule of these kind of threads is that if you don't know the difference between debt and deficit,

you remain silent.

Attack the messenger
never debate the message
deficit
Main Entry:def·i·cit
Pronunciation:\&#712;de-f&#601;-s&#601;t, British also di-&#712;fis-&#601;t or &#712;d&#275;-f&#601;-s&#601;t\
Function:noun
Etymology:French déficit, from Latin deficit it is wanting, 3d singular present indicative of deficere
Date:1782
1 a (1): deficiency in amount or quality <a &#8764; in rainfall>
(2): a lack or impairment in a functional capacity <cognitive &#8764;s> <a hearing &#8764;> b: DISADVANTAGE <scored two runs to overcome a 2&#8211;1 &#8764;>
2 a: an excess of expenditure over revenue b: a loss in business operations
Main Entry:deficit spending
Function:noun
Date:1938
the spending of public funds raised by borrowing rather than by taxation
Main Entry:attention deficit disorder

Now what exactly is your point?
Are do you even have one?

The point is, saying Clinton never had a budget surplus is idiocy.
 
It becomes obvious the hanger ons have run out of anything to add to the discussion.
GWB should have funded the 2 wars with a separate tax that went into a separate fund and done a better job with his Medicare reform

His performance other wise was excellent

See Libs this is where your in trouble with Obama
Its not personal to the conservative, it is business

To you, well you have nothing left to stand on, your 'messiah" became human and has failed

Otherwise his performance was excellent?

So, other than starting an unnecessary war, not paying for 2 wars, passing a massively expensive drug bill without paying for, other than bringing back huge deficits with irresponsible tax cuts,

Bush did an excellent job?

lol, you pretty much excepted most of the significant components of his presidency.

What is left over that you rate excellent?
 
Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough
By now, everyone should already know.....


....and....


The Choice is obvious.....except to History-challenged "conservatives".

We HAVE no obligation to subsidize/excuse "conservatives'" stupidity.​
 
Another item green beard
I may be clearly 2% off
I maybe 5% off
But I have more class in my little finger about the way I treat my fellow american than you have in your entire body


Despite your evident classiness, one wonders why you feel the need to overestimate someone's income tax burden by ~40% to make your "taxed enough already" argument.

Green beard have you ever had to sit down and count out 50,000 dollars on tax day and have the person sitting across from you, who has no job and has no intent of getting one, looking at you and saying they demand more?
40%?
30,000?
15,000?
This about the entire system is broke and the liberal who like you pays very little to no income tax could care less

Green Beard if you understand what I am talking about you would make this about resolve
to start with the best example I can give on how broke this system is, is the amount of an issue you liberals are making about tax tables
the damn whole system is broke


I2010 Tax Computation Worksheet&#8212;Line 44
See the instructions for line 44 on page 35 to see if you must use the worksheet below to figure your tax.
CAUTION
!
Note. If you are required to use this worksheet to figure the tax on an amount from another form or worksheet, such as the Qualified Dividends and
Capital Gain Tax Worksheet, the Schedule D Tax Worksheet, Schedule J, Form 8615, or the Foreign Earned Income Tax Worksheet, enter the amount
from that form or worksheet in column (a) of the row that applies to the amount you are looking up. Enter the result on the appropriate line of the
form or worksheet that you are completing.
Section A&#8212;Use if your filing status is Single. Complete the row below that applies to you.
Tax.
(a) (b) (c) (d) Subtract (d) from (c).
Taxable income. Enter the amount from line Multiplication Multiply Subtraction Enter the result here and
If line 43 is&#8212; 43 amount (a) by (b) amount on Form 1040, line 44
At least $100,000 but not over
$171,850 $ × 28% (.28) $ $ 6,290.75 $
Over $171,850 but not over
$373,650 $ × 33% (.33) $ $ 14,883.25 $
Over $373,650 $ × 35% (.35) $ $22,356.25 $
Section B&#8212;Use if your filing status is Married filing jointly or Qualifying widow(er). Complete the row below that appl

Are you liberals going to ever make this about the problem?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

I have an accountant do my taxes every year
the Liberal makes it always about the messenger
never about the message

Your message was that someone making 200,000 pays 70,000 in federal income taxes. Your own figures above prove that is horseshit.

Quit crying about 'attacking the messenger' when your message is being attacked.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top