Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related
He wasn't talking about income taxes, he was talking about capital gains taxes. And that's a red herring because of course folks are more likely to cash in on capital gains when their tax rate is low.
Duh!
You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related
Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.
Are you talking Inheritance tax or estate tax they are not the same thing and inheritance tax is a state level tax.
obama said it and he beleives it. He is a socialist. As far as I am concerned he is a traitor for wanting to give the U.N. more authority over our taxes, guns, or anything else.Your video is cut into sound bites, it isn't even in sinc, so I have no idea who is saying what to whom, or about what. Frankly it belongs at Comic Central. Have anything with credibility to share, do let us know.
But then I am concerned with the 100 million stock holding parasites sucking the profits out of workers, which is just another way of "spreading the wealth around," and denying hard working Americans a fair share and benefits to protect their families with. If we eliminate the stock market the wages & benefits can increase for the workers who actually spend their money. Stocks are bought and sold and held onto, taking billions of dollars out of circulation needed to stimulate the economy. Stock holders and the stock market are anti-worker and anti-American welfare parasites.
Raising taxes worked for Reagan and Clinton.
And Bush 41.
Thats why I didn't vote for him yet you support obama. pitty you you will believe a lie if the lies comes from a democrat.
And Bush 41.
Thats why I didn't vote for him yet you support obama. pitty you you will believe a lie if the lies comes from a democrat.
sorry, fool. I am a non partisan.
Only idiots are partisans.
"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice.
When have the rich helped the poor and middle class? They haven't even paid for their war yet.
I bet most of you are too young to remember a time before huge federal budget deficits. Until Reagan cut taxes on the rich the total debt accumulated from President Washington up through President Carters was less than on trillion dollars. Carters largest budget deficit was around 65 billion and that was during a minor recesion (when tax revenue inevitably falls). Reagan pushed through his cuts and set off the era of soaring deficit and mounting federal debt.
From the 1950's until 1980 taxes on income over about three million dollars a year were no less than 70 percent, yet the economy had a great run, and wages rose with gains in productivity. Since then wages have been flat with the vast majority having no gain in real wages (adjusted for inflation).
You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related
"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice. Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group. For example, in 1981, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was close to 45%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17% of total income taxes. In 2005, with a top income tax rate of 35% and capital gains at 15%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23 http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122143692536934297.html
We need to relearn the lessons of the 1990s, when tax cuts helped ignite growth. Take the Giuliani administrations elimination, in 2000, of the tax on clothing purchases under $110. The next year, employment at city stores that sold clothing jumped by 7,000 jobsand collections from the sales tax actually increased by $52 million, as more New Yorkers stayed in the city to shop for taxable as well as nontaxable items.
The Citys Finances, Part 1: Life in Taxopolis by Steven Malanga, City Journal 10 July 2009
A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared. Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."
Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut. 1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues | Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
Ah yes, all these nice theories. So why did the economy crash? You had your tax cut for the rich, why are we all not doing great at present?
And why did the economy boom after Clinton raised taxes in 1993? According to all this nonsense, that should have been impossible.
Laffer curve? Really good for a laugh.
Lower taxes don't bring in more money. It's a comical post hoc fallacy that even more comically has become the foundation of modern conservative economic lunacy.
Argue that with Charlie Gibson. He made the statement and asked the question.
No I want to argue it with YOU, unless of course you 1) don't believe it or 2) believe it but aren't man enough to defend it...
I bet most of you are too young to remember a time before huge federal budget deficits. Until Reagan cut taxes on the rich the total debt accumulated from President Washington up through President Carters was less than on trillion dollars. Carters largest budget deficit was around 65 billion and that was during a minor recesion (when tax revenue inevitably falls). Reagan pushed through his cuts and set off the era of soaring deficit and mounting federal debt.
From the 1950's until 1980 taxes on income over about three million dollars a year were no less than 70 percent, yet the economy had a great run, and wages rose with gains in productivity. Since then wages have been flat with the vast majority having no gain in real wages (adjusted for inflation).
I was born in 1961 I knowexactly how things were when Carter was President and Reagan you are a liar.
You can watch the whole video or cut to time frame 3:49 Charlie Gibson asked obama in the 2008 democratic debat. "why raise taxes when lower taxes brings in more money" Or something like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM&feature=related
He wasn't talking about income taxes, he was talking about capital gains taxes. And that's a red herring because of course folks are more likely to cash in on capital gains when their tax rate is low.
Duh!
Why did the economy crash? no regulation of freddy and fanny the pet projects of the democrats
LOL!! Yep, Bush removed regulation and everything went to hell in a handbasket. But there is more, Bush had a ton of bailouts and taxcuts for the rich. I really don't care, but at least be honest about what happened.
So.. How many people think GROSSING $250,000 a year is rich? Since I have a small business, I'll let you know... Nobody with a brain thinks that. After paying expenses and taxes what do you actually make? $100,000 if that? How many people think that if you've worked all your life paid you're taxes and saved a little money, had a little property, when you die and your assets add up to over a million dollars the government should come in and take half? "Death Tax"
The dirty little secret is very wealthy people have their money already. they don't really care if their taxes increased. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet ect.. Theyve already made their money, It's the people that want to become wealthy, people that want to build their businesses to that point, and the people they would have employed, they are the ones really being hurt "taxes on the wealthy You Libs should wake up and quit falling for the talking points use you're friken brain
Why did the economy crash? no regulation of freddy and fanny the pet projects of the democrats
LOL!! Yep, Bush removed regulation and everything went to hell in a handbasket. But there is more, Bush had a ton of bailouts and taxcuts for the rich. I really don't care, but at least be honest about what happened.
Yes, let's do...Democrat-liberal policies from the 1938 GSE's Freddy & Fanny, through 1979 Carter-CRA, and then Clinton-Cuomo HUD policy did the trick:
"During Bill Clinton's first term, government housing policy changed substantially. After decades in which liberal politicians and thinkers devoted themselves to arguments for expanding the number of public-housing units, the disastrous condition of those units led the President, a "new Democrat," to a dramatic ideological shift in emphasis. No longer would public housing be at the top of the liberal Democratic agenda. Instead, borrowing from conservative ideas about the inestimable benefit of home ownership to the striving poor, the Clinton administration and members of his party in the House and Senate decided to use government power to achieve that aim.
In 1994, the "National Homeownership Strategy" of the Clinton administration advanced "financing strategies fueled by creativity to help homeowners who lacked the cash to buy a home or the income to make the down payments" to buy a home nonetheless. It became U.S. government policy to intervene in the marketplace by lowering the standards necessary to qualify for mortgages so that Americans with lower incomes could participate in the leveraged purchases of homes.
The goal of expanding home ownership led to the creation of new mortgage subsidies across the board. The loosening of standards became the policy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the pseudo-private "government-sponsored enterprises" that bought mortgages from originating lenders. A particular change in the tax law in 1997 encouraged many households to make buying and improving a home the primary vehicle by which they enhanced net worth. By eliminating any capital-gains tax on the first $500,000 of profits from the sale of an owner-occupied residence once every two years, Washington encouraged enterprising American families to purchase homes, fix them up, re-sell them, and then repeat the process. Flipping became a financial pastime for millions because this special advantage created a new incentivewhich didn't exactly fit the model of encouraging people to remain in a stable home for many years and thereby help to stabilize the neighborhood around them.
The housing bubble was thus a fully rational response to a set of distortions in the free marketdistortions created primarily by the public sector. The heads of large financial institutions, as Prince's remark suggested, recognized the risk-taking subsidy inherent in public policy, but felt they had no choice but to play along or fall behind the other institutions that were also responding rationally to the incentives created by government intervention.
The long-term solution is for government to stop playing favorites, as it has for decades with housing. Home ownership should neither be penalized nor favored under government policy.
A Government Failure, Not a Market Failure - WSJ.com
Wise up.
Thousands of would-be home buyers without any money for a downpayment would be eligible for government-insured financing under a proposal that will be offered by President Bush in his fiscal 2005 budget.
Hailing the "zero down mortgage" as "the most significant initiation by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade," federal housing officials said the plan to eliminate the normal three percent minimum downpayment will remove the single greatest barrier facing potential first-time home buyers.
"Offering FHA mortgages with no downpayment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," Alphonso Jackson, acting secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said in a statement released in Washington.
The FHA was created during the Depression to help moderate-income and first time homebuyers obtain a mortgage. However, as subprime lending took off, banks fled from the FHA and its business fell by almost 80%. Under the Bush Administration, the FHA then began a bizarre initiative to "regain its market share." And beginning in 2007, the Bush FHA, Congress, the homebuilders and Realtors teamed up to expand the agency's role.
Even more foolish has been the campaign to lower FHA downpayment requirements. When FHA opened in the 1930s, the downpayment minimum was 20%; it fell to 10% in the 1960s, and then 3% in 1978. Last year the Senate wisely insisted on raising the downpayment to 3.5%, but that is still far too low to reduce delinquencies in a falling market.
In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.
Weicher says the change is aimed at potential home buyers whose credit excludes them from the private mortgage market. Borrowers would need sufficient income to meet monthly payments. But, he said, the plan would eliminate the single largest impediment to homeownership for millions of households lack of money for a down payment.
The most recent government figures show a national home ownership rate of 68.4%, the highest ever. But less than half of black and Latino householders own the home in which they live. Bush has a goal of 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade.
FHA loans carry higher risks of delinquency and foreclosure than do private mortgages, and the proposed change presumably will lead to greater losses to the government than the current program does.
Are you talking Inheritance tax or estate tax they are not the same thing and inheritance tax is a state level tax.
What is the Death Tax?
The death tax (a.k.a., the federal estate tax) is a tax applied to the transfer of a persons assets at death. It is defined by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.[1]
Under current law, the estate tax was repealed for one year on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2011 the estate tax is set to return at a rate of 55 percent on all assets above a $1 million exemption amount. See The Current Fight for more information.[2]
The estate tax is imposed on any and all life-savings. This includes:
personal property (such as a home, cars, furniture, artwork)
business assets (property, machinery and inventory)
investments (stocks, bonds and real estate)
The estate tax is paid by the recipients of an inheritance most often family heirs and is due within 9 months of the decedents death. If the heirs do not have sufficient cash, personal property and business assets must be sold to pay the tax.
In the case of family business owners and farmers, the tax often exceeds the ability of the family to pay. These heirs are consequently forced to sell off part, if not all, of their enterprise in order to pay the tax.
See Repeal the Death Tax for further explanation of how the death tax destroys family businesses, farms and jobs.
No Death Tax » What is the Death Tax?
Are you talking Inheritance tax or estate tax they are not the same thing and inheritance tax is a state level tax.
What is the Death Tax?
The death tax (a.k.a., the federal estate tax) is a tax applied to the transfer of a persons assets at death. It is defined by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.[1]
Under current law, the estate tax was repealed for one year on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2011 the estate tax is set to return at a rate of 55 percent on all assets above a $1 million exemption amount. See The Current Fight for more information.[2]
The estate tax is imposed on any and all life-savings. This includes:
personal property (such as a home, cars, furniture, artwork)
business assets (property, machinery and inventory)
investments (stocks, bonds and real estate)
The estate tax is paid by the recipients of an inheritance most often family heirs and is due within 9 months of the decedents death. If the heirs do not have sufficient cash, personal property and business assets must be sold to pay the tax.
In the case of family business owners and farmers, the tax often exceeds the ability of the family to pay. These heirs are consequently forced to sell off part, if not all, of their enterprise in order to pay the tax.
See Repeal the Death Tax for further explanation of how the death tax destroys family businesses, farms and jobs.
No Death Tax » What is the Death Tax?
Wealth Transfer Taxes: How many people pay the estate tax?
The 2001 tax act, The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA), raised the estate tax exemption to $1 million in 2002 and to $3.5 million in a series of steps through 2009,
How many people pay the estate tax?
In 2001 R's controlled the house, the senate was 50/50 split and a republican was president. Why did they set up EGTRRA to expire?
What is the Death Tax?
The death tax (a.k.a., the federal estate tax) is a tax applied to the transfer of a persons assets at death. It is defined by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.[1]
Under current law, the estate tax was repealed for one year on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2011 the estate tax is set to return at a rate of 55 percent on all assets above a $1 million exemption amount. See The Current Fight for more information.[2]
The estate tax is imposed on any and all life-savings. This includes:
personal property (such as a home, cars, furniture, artwork)
business assets (property, machinery and inventory)
investments (stocks, bonds and real estate)
The estate tax is paid by the recipients of an inheritance most often family heirs and is due within 9 months of the decedents death. If the heirs do not have sufficient cash, personal property and business assets must be sold to pay the tax.
In the case of family business owners and farmers, the tax often exceeds the ability of the family to pay. These heirs are consequently forced to sell off part, if not all, of their enterprise in order to pay the tax.
See Repeal the Death Tax for further explanation of how the death tax destroys family businesses, farms and jobs.
No Death Tax » What is the Death Tax?
Wealth Transfer Taxes: How many people pay the estate tax?
The 2001 tax act, The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA), raised the estate tax exemption to $1 million in 2002 and to $3.5 million in a series of steps through 2009,
How many people pay the estate tax?
In 2001 R's controlled the house, the senate was 50/50 split and a republican was president. Why did they set up EGTRRA to expire?
Because of some fake ass Republicans in the Senate They set it up to expire because thats the only way they could get it passed idiot.
