How Much More In Taxes Do Liberal Want Me To Pay?

[red states rule]

I am fed up and tired of hearing liberals say the "rich" need to pay their "fair share"

What do libs consider rich?

At what income level, if you are single, are you "rich" accroding to liberals?

The top producers pay about 34.3% to the Federal gfovernment. What rate would libs like to see the "rich" pay?

Please remember the follwoing BEFORE you answer
The top 50% of income earners pay a whopping 96.5% of federal income taxes, while the lower 50% pay just 3.5%.
The top 25% pay 83.88% of federal income taxes
The top 10% pay 65.8% (these are people with an adjusted cross income of about $95,000 or higher)
The top 5% pay 54.4%
The top 1% pay 34.3% (these are people with an adjusted gross income of about $300,000 or higher)


These numbers are from the IRS. They should know who pays taxes and who does not

 

[Rico]

The Dems consider all those not currently cashing a government check to be "rich". I own a business and when I cut that quarterly check, as I did last week, it feels like I'm being bled out. I truly believe if the Dems had their way I'd be able to keep only 33% of the money I work hard to earn. They are without scruples, morals, ideas, religion, or any basic understanding of economics. The lot of them won't be satisfied until we all essentially "work" for the government and are left with enough to eat and house ourselves only. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Taxation without representation!!!!!

 

[Mr. P]

How Much More In Taxes Do Liberal Want Me To Pay?

Look at your take home pay...SEND IT IN!

 

[red states rule]

I look at my paystub, and trust me, I say a few cuss words as I look at how much the government is taking.

THEN I think how much worse it would be if the libs were running DC

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I truly believe if the Dems had their way I'd be able to keep only 33% of the money I work hard to earn.

No actually it's probably more like 10%. How do I know that? Because that's what the uppermost tax bracket used to be, right around 90% confiscation.

Not that voting republican is going to reduce the burden of government's yoke around your neck. They certainly haven't shown any desire to cut spending. Let's face it, the 1994 contract with america is dead and buried--if it was actually a sincere desire to begin with. In the end, cutting spending is the only thing that matters, because borrowing and inflation (money printing) will cause just as much pain as high taxes.

 

[red states rule]

No actually it's probably more like 10%. How do I know that? Because that's what the uppermost tax bracket used to be, right around 90% confiscation.

Not that voting republican is going to reduce the burden of government's yoke around your neck. They certainly haven't shown any desire to cut spending. Let's face it, the 1994 contract with america is dead and buried--if it was actually a sincere desire to begin with. In the end, cutting spending is the only thing that matters, because borrowing and inflation (money printing) will cause just as much pain as high taxes.

Libs cannot explain how WITH tax cuts, revenues have INCREASED to the govenment.

The annual deficit is DECREASING

The US economy is GROWING

ALL WITH TAX CUTS!!!!!

 

[gonegolfin]

Libs cannot explain how WITH tax cuts, revenues have INCREASED to the govenment.

The annual deficit is DECREASING

The US economy is GROWING

ALL WITH TAX CUTS!!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I am all for tax cuts. And I do believe that tax cuts stimulate growth. But there is another reason that revenues have increased to the government and it has nothing to do with tax cuts. In fact, I would argue that in this case it is a tax increase. That is, the extremely loose credit policies and excessive inflation (= monetary inflation, not price inflation) that has been taking place, particularly in the last five years (and notably since 1913). This money creation (and it has been excessive in recent years) is a tax. It also stimulates growth, although not real growth, just growth in nominal dollars (as opposed to real dollars).

I would also argue that the GDP numbers (as well as the various inflation indicators) put out by our government are bogus. These formulas have been doctored to the point of insanity (increasingly over the last couple of decades), all in the pursuit of convincing investors (many of them foreign) that our dollar is strong and is not being devalued. When the truth is anything but. Of course, you will not see this in the mainstream financial media or emanating from Wall Street.

Brian

 

[Annie]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for tax cuts. And I do believe that tax cuts stimulate growth. But there is another reason that revenues have increased to the government and it has nothing to do with tax cuts. In fact, I would argue that in this case it is a tax increase. That is, the extremely loose credit policies and excessive inflation (= monetary inflation, not price inflation) that has been taking place, particularly in the last five years (and notably since 1913). This money creation (and it has been excessive in recent years) is a tax. It also stimulates growth, although not real growth, just growth in nominal dollars (as opposed to real dollars).

I would also argue that the GDP numbers (as well as the various inflation indicators) put out by our government are bogus. These formulas have been doctored to the point of insanity (increasingly over the last couple of decades), all in the pursuit of convincing investors (many of them foreign) that our dollar is strong and is not being devalued. When the truth is anything but. Of course, you will not see this in the mainstream financial media or emanating from Wall Street.

Brian

Not that I'll understand it, but others will; can you post more specifics and links to your 'facts'?

 

[red states rule]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for tax cuts. And I do believe that tax cuts stimulate growth. But there is another reason that revenues have increased to the government and it has nothing to do with tax cuts. In fact, I would argue that in this case it is a tax increase. That is, the extremely loose credit policies and excessive inflation (= monetary inflation, not price inflation) that has been taking place, particularly in the last five years (and notably since 1913). This money creation (and it has been excessive in recent years) is a tax. It also stimulates growth, although not real growth, just growth in nominal dollars (as opposed to real dollars).

I would also argue that the GDP numbers (as well as the various inflation indicators) put out by our government are bogus. These formulas have been doctored to the point of insanity (increasingly over the last couple of decades), all in the pursuit of convincing investors (many of them foreign) that our dollar is strong and is not being devalued. When the truth is anything but. Of course, you will not see this in the mainstream financial media or emanating from Wall Street.

Brian

Tax cuts help all of us

Since the first round of the Bush tax cuts the following has happened

GDP up 20%

Jobs up 6.2 million

Tax receipts up 30%

Tax cuts worked for JFK. They worked for Ronald Reagan. They are working for Pres George W Bush

 

[gonegolfin]

Tax cuts help all of us

Since the first round of the Bush tax cuts the following has happened

GDP up 20%

Jobs up 6.2 million

Tax receipts up 30%

Tax cuts worked for JFK. They worked for Ronald Reagan. They are working for Pres George W Bush

I think you misunderstood what I said as well as the central point of my reply.

Brian

 

[gonegolfin]

Not that I'll understand it, but others will; can you post more specifics and links to your 'facts'?

Nonsense. You are a smart girl. At the focal point of all of this is uncovering the mystery to how money works (particularly monetary science, fiat currencies, and how it is all implemented today).

The following is some good reading material along with a website that examines various economic indicators used by our government.

The Creature from Jekyll Island -> http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html
The Coming Collapse of the Dollar -> (Review article: http://www.kitcocasey.com/displayArticle.php?id=85) (Website info: http://www.dollarcollapse.com/)
Empire of Debt -> http://www.dailyreckoning.com/CongressionalLetter.html
Shadow Government Statistics -> http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/

This is a modest start. But it is all relatively recent material. There are many other good repositories of information once you have somewhat of a grounding in the subject.

Brian

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Let me continue where gonegolfin left off if I may.

First, I am a big fan of lower taxes. If it were up to me, there would be no income taxes, no death tax, and no property taxes. And above all, no capital gains tax.

Second, the supply-siders do have some good things to say. Tax cuts can definitely cause revenues to go up. If we raise taxes to 99%, what would happen to revenues collected? They'd drop to practically zero, that's what. Even the most diehard leftie socialist has to admit this. The only debate is, exactly what tax percentage does the peak of the Laffer curve lie on?

Supply-side guru Jude Waninski belived that it was somewhere around 15%. It's important to keep in mind that you have to consider tax loopholes here to, which makes comparisons between two countries tricky. In his book The Way The World Works (awesome book, everyone should read it), one of the examples he gave was postwar Japan. Lefties will sometimes point out the higher tax rates of a country like Japan, but they overlook the gigantic loopholes.

Another important point he makes: not all tax cuts will have the same supply-side revenue-enhancing effect. The most potent tax cut for enhancing revenue is the capital gains tax. He believes the correct rate should be zero. It impedes capital formation and discourages new investment.

But what do we say when one tax goes down, while another goes up? This happened during the Reagan years. Income taxes went down, but SS payroll taxes went up. So which was responsible for the increased revenue stream? It's kind of hard to say.

And finally, here's something else to consider. Low taxes are good because it leaves more resources in the private sector instead of in the hands of government. But what if government is increasing it's share of the GDP while taxes are cut? Where is government getting the increased money from? It might be from lower taxes, that's true. Or, it might be that they cut income taxes, but raised hidden taxes. It's hard to say. The hidden "stealth" tax I'm thinking of is either borrowing or inflation.

You will hear some supposed supply-siders claim that borrowing isn't that big of a deal, because we're deferring the taxes into the future, when we will have a bigger economy. This is misleading. When the government borrows money to pay the bills here and now, they aren't stepping into a time machine to travel into the future and take money from our wealthy descendants. They are soaking up dollars here and now, crowding out money that could have been channeled into private investments. This causes economic pain just like taxes, only it's more hidden. Then of course, future generations have to feel economic pain as they pay back the debt (if we could eliminate just the payments on the national debt, we could eliminate the income tax).

The other thing they do is print money, the stealth tax of inflation. They don't directly print it and spend it; that would be too obvious and people would be outraged. No, it's a convoluted process designed to induce MEGO syndrome amongst the voters (Makes my Eyes Glaze Over). As John Kenneth Galbraith said, “The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.” (Money: Whence it came, where it went - 1975, p15) The bottom line is, without the power to create cheap credit (money) out of thin air, heavy government borrowing would suck up enough money to make interest rates go up. People would really take notice then, and raise hell.

Then there's the issue of fraudulent government statistics. Gross national product and consumer price index numbers are notoriously bad. Don't take this as a jab against republicans; it's been a bipartisan effort. I'll post some sources in a minute.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Okay, I have a bunch of articles, but it may take me a while to post specific quotes. Most of my sources are from financialsense.com, kitco.com, dailyreckoning.com, etc. These are not exactly commie-lib pinko-queers!

From my "CPI is bunk" article list:

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/78/1595/October-1-2004.asp?wid=78&nid=1595
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/willie/2004/1108.html
http://www.safehaven.com/article-1458.htm
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/12/11/bhead.htm
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Schiff/may192006.html
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Daughty/jun142006.html
http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0614b.html

Strong economy myths, CPI myths
http://financialsense.com/Market/puplava/2005/0307.html

Supposed deflation threat during late 90's was a myth
http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0518.html

1970's = 2000's
http://financialsense.com/editorials/weiss/2006/0522.html

Monetary expansion actually pushes official inflation numbers DOWN, because of the fraudulent way CPI is calculated:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/willie/2006/0523.html

Unemployment is probably 12%, if calculated with the old method
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Issues/2006/DRUS022706.html

 

[gonegolfin]

Let me continue where gonegolfin left off if I may.

First, I am a big fan of lower taxes. If it were up to me,

Excellent post, as usual.

Brian

 

[Max Power]

I am fed up and tired of hearing liberals say the "rich" need to pay their "fair share"

What do libs consider rich?

At what income level, if you are single, are you "rich" accroding to liberals?

The top producers pay about 34.3% to the Federal gfovernment. What rate would libs like to see the "rich" pay?

Please remember the follwoing BEFORE you answer
The top 50% of income earners pay a whopping 96.5% of federal income taxes, while the lower 50% pay just 3.5%.
The top 25% pay 83.88% of federal income taxes
The top 10% pay 65.8% (these are people with an adjusted cross income of about $95,000 or higher)
The top 5% pay 54.4%
The top 1% pay 34.3% (these are people with an adjusted gross income of about $300,000 or higher)


These numbers are from the IRS. They should know who pays taxes and who does not

I always like this kind of quote. The Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily are so fond of it they repeat it endlessly. Surprisingly, they never mention that "top producers" also make more than 34.3% of all income - and that we tax "income."

I suspect that if we raised most of our taxes from gasoline, we would find that people who buy more gasoline would pay more taxes. Big surprise. Hey! I just figured out that the 33% of people who smoke pay 100% of tobacco taxes! Wow, is that ever unfair!

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=24226939
(Changed it slightly for different numbers)

 

[gonegolfin]

Okay, I have a bunch of articles, but it may take me a while to post specific quotes. Most of my sources are from financialsense.com, kitco.com, dailyreckoning.com, etc. These are not exactly commie-lib pinko-queers!

I regularly read these sites as well. Additionally, I often peruse goldseek.com and silverseek.com, which feature many of the same articles found at financialsense.com, kitcom.com, and dailyreckoning.com. The goldmoney.com site also has good content. The inflation vs. deflation arguments are often interesting. Usually the differences are centered around when deflationary forces (Inflation vs. Deflation argument) will overwhelm our financial system.

As for myself, I am in the camp that the Fed (and central banks in general) will continue to inflate until the dollar collapses and deflationary forces subsequently take over to rectify the previous excesses. Some evidence to support this theory is illustrated by the massive monetization of debt that is currently occuring (and has been consistently for the past several years). Where is this monetization of debt occuring? I believe on the long end of the yield curve.

I believe the Federal Reserve is creating money out of thin air to purchase bonds on the longer end of the yield curve in an attempt to supplement the drop in foreign investment of our debt (foreign investors are becoming more wary of the US Dollar and are looking to trim their dollar reserves). Yes, you read that right ... creating money (inflation) to purchase our own long term debt, lest long-term interest rates get out of control. This is needed to keep longer term rates low enough such that overextended homeowners can move out from under their risky and exotic mortgages (ARMs, Interest-only, ...). That is, attempt to orchestrate a "soft landing" in housing. Even a reasonable move in long term rates (1 -> 1.5%) is going to put enormous pressure on the housing market, and I believe, collapse the economy into a non-trivial recession (which will undoubtedly be addressed by more loose credit and the accompanying inflation). The Fed knows of this long-term interest rate risk and is taking action my monetizing its debt. Of course, this increases the money supply (creates more inflation). All of this is happening behind the scenes while the Fed and other Central Banks talk tough about containing inflation and raising interest rates. Of course, the manipulation of interest rates is but one tool used by Central Banks to implement monetary policy.

Brian

 

[Mr. P]

I always like this kind of quote. The Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily are so fond of it they repeat it endlessly. Surprisingly, they never mention that "top producers" also make more than 34.3% of all income - and that we tax "income."

I suspect that if we raised most of our taxes from gasoline, we would find that people who buy more gasoline would pay more taxes. Big surprise. Hey! I just figured out that the 33% of people who smoke pay 100% of tobacco taxes! Wow, is that ever unfair!

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=24226939
(Changed it slightly for different numbers)

No, not unfair at all. It is unfair to tax achievers though just because they achieve. Prove me wrong, you can't.
The answer is the Fair tax or as some call it The retail sales tax.
Everyone gets what they want.. Pay for what you buy, not for what you make.

 

[dilloduck]

No, not unfair at all. It is unfair to tax achievers though just because they achieve. Prove me wrong, you can't.
The answer is the Fair tax or as some call it The retail sales tax.
Everyone gets what they want.. Pay for what you buy, not for what you make.

I think it's a great idea. ( and you could bust shop lifters for tax evasion too!)

 

[Max Power]

No, not unfair at all. It is unfair to tax achievers though just because they achieve. Prove me wrong, you can't.
The answer is the Fair tax or as some call it The retail sales tax.
Everyone gets what they want.. Pay for what you buy, not for what you make.

"Prove me wrong, you can't"
That's because fair is subjective.

With respect to the fair tax...
It's the same thing. Make 30% more money, everything costs 30% more.

BFD.

 

[Mr. P]

"Prove me wrong, you can't"
That's because fair is subjective.

With respect to the fair tax...
It's the same thing. Make 30% more money, everything costs 30% more.

BFD.

Show me.

EDIT: As far as fair being subjective ask around, that 1040 form ain’t so subjective.