those damn Brits prove the evil Republicans are right

[Trajan]

who gave the marching order?

drudge? malkin?

common sense and that guy named evidence, but hey, don't let that throw you.

 

[Syphon]

if youre a smart investor, you wont take your money out of the market until the time is right to minimize tax liability in the first place. then again, most people do not purchase stocks to get dividends. they purchase stock in the hopes that they price of that stock will rise and they will be able to sell at a profit.

my questions to you, is why should money made off investments be treated differently than money earned through a job? and how does this benefit the middle class?

 

[PoliticalChic]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is?
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.

 

[PoliticalChic]

if youre a smart investor, you wont take your money out of the market until the time is right to minimize tax liability in the first place. then again, most people do not purchase stocks to get dividends. they purchase stock in the hopes that they price of that stock will rise and they will be able to sell at a profit.

my questions to you, is why should money made off investments be treated differently than money earned through a job? and how does this benefit the middle class?

"...why should money made off investments be treated differently than money earned through a job?"

1. Because investment via private vs. government funds is what made the American economy the envy of the world.

2. Individuals have to be recompensed for taking the risk of investing.

3. The money has already been taxed at the point it was earned, and will be taxed again if there is a capital gain.

4. And again if left in an estate.

Get it now?

 

[freedombecki]

Small incremental increases in taxation can increase revenue, but usually this takes years to come to fruition, especially when the economy is stagnating.

Large punitive increases like Obama's plan to increase the tax on dividends by 150% will not raise a penny more in revenue. People will just stop taking the dividends or move them to tax advantaged accounts.

I'm sure all of Nancy Pelosi's relatives who got the $1.3 billion in government-guaranteed loans (that we know about) will not have to pay anything. Businesses headed to the bankruptcy courts when Obama took the trillion dollars for "stimulating" the economy then routed it to Democrats losing big in business gave Nancy's relatives their money back ahead of time.

That used to be against the law. My uncle, who sat on the bench not too far from here was of the opinion that nobody from the president of the country to the newest baby born were equal under the law, which applies the same to everyone.

Now, it seems, politicians screw the taxpayers they're supposed to represent out of money, which they divert to family members through golden parachute guarantees, and I'm mad about it.

It isn't fitting. Nobody is holding Nancy Pelosi's well-shoed feet to the fire for blatant expropriation of other Americans' tax money to her own family enterprises like the solar power outfit in Nevada that is going to have 45 permanent jobs for the $737 the government is forking over to them. That's $16 million per permanent job. I think that is a gross wrongful diversion of people paying taxes. Everyone who has to drive to a job is already paying an average of $1500 in increased fuel costs because the Democrats decided to close down all oil drilling in the gulf. Never mind who is taking up the slack with Obama's craven give-away of American jobs in the drilling field to foreign countries who didn't lift a finger to help this nation when we needed their help, and the likely won't in the future, either.

Obama has frightened all investors and industry in America. He's made the business community sick with worry, and his community-pushing all responsibilities onto everyone except the people getting the benefits keeps people on the dole instead of putting them back to work in a job they can be proud of for taking care of themselves.

In short, it's chaos in this country right now, and people are too worried on account of short-sighted policies that have proven to fail in the past. I was reading that not only are people going on welfare in record numbers, many are filing for welfare under more than one name, bilking taxpayers so much more.

if Obama has frightened all investors away, why has the stock market risen from 5,000 to nearly 13,000 while he has been in office?

I wasn't talking about investors in the stock market. I was talking about small business investors who invest in employees and pay people to work for them.

The number of people out of work is a grim figure still.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Small incremental increases in taxation can increase revenue, but usually this takes years to come to fruition, especially when the economy is stagnating.

Large punitive increases like Obama's plan to increase the tax on dividends by 150% will not raise a penny more in revenue. People will just stop taking the dividends or move them to tax advantaged accounts.

I'm sure all of Nancy Pelosi's relatives who got the $1.3 billion in government-guaranteed loans (that we know about) will not have to pay anything. Businesses headed to the bankruptcy courts when Obama took the trillion dollars for "stimulating" the economy then routed it to Democrats losing big in business gave Nancy's relatives their money back ahead of time.

That used to be against the law. My uncle, who sat on the bench not too far from here was of the opinion that nobody from the president of the country to the newest baby born were equal under the law, which applies the same to everyone.

Now, it seems, politicians screw the taxpayers they're supposed to represent out of money, which they divert to family members through golden parachute guarantees, and I'm mad about it.

It isn't fitting. Nobody is holding Nancy Pelosi's well-shoed feet to the fire for blatant expropriation of other Americans' tax money to her own family enterprises like the solar power outfit in Nevada that is going to have 45 permanent jobs for the $737 the government is forking over to them. That's $16 million per permanent job. I think that is a gross wrongful diversion of people paying taxes. Everyone who has to drive to a job is already paying an average of $1500 in increased fuel costs because the Democrats decided to close down all oil drilling in the gulf. Never mind who is taking up the slack with Obama's craven give-away of American jobs in the drilling field to foreign countries who didn't lift a finger to help this nation when we needed their help, and the likely won't in the future, either.

Obama has frightened all investors and industry in America. He's made the business community sick with worry, and his community-pushing all responsibilities onto everyone except the people getting the benefits keeps people on the dole instead of putting them back to work in a job they can be proud of for taking care of themselves.

In short, it's chaos in this country right now, and people are too worried on account of short-sighted policies that have proven to fail in the past. I was reading that not only are people going on welfare in record numbers, many are filing for welfare under more than one name, bilking taxpayers so much more.

if Obama has frightened all investors away, why has the stock market risen from 5,000 to nearly 13,000 while he has been in office?

The Dow closed at 7,949 on Bush's last day in office.

 

[rdean]

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.

Hilarious!

 

[Syphon]

1 - this has nothing to do with a reason a person invests. a person invests to make money, not because they some civic duty to do so.

2 - individuals are compensated for their risk taking when a stock rises. but why is taking the risk to start a business taxed at a higher rate than the risk it takes to purchase a stock?

3 - Yes money has already been taxed, but if you understood tax law, you would know that you are only taxed on your gain, not your principle. so if you inverst $1000 in stocks, and that stock goes up and you investment is now worth $2000, you are not taxed on $2000. you are only taxed on the new money, which would be $1000 worth of tax liability. you in effect you did nothing to earn this $1000 other than invest in the correct stock. you didnt earn it through performing a job or services. so your claim that the money is taxed twice is inaccurate. but then again if you lose money in the stock market it become a tax write off. so this money has special rules attached to it no matter what. if i work a job and incur a pay cut, i am not able to write that off.

by your logic, why would anyone every want to work a job? if i can make enough money in the stock market, pay half the current tax rate i pay, and sit at home as a fat lazy american, why would i ever want to work?

fyi #4 make no sense at all.

 

[Syphon]

I'm sure all of Nancy Pelosi's relatives who got the $1.3 billion in government-guaranteed loans (that we know about) will not have to pay anything. Businesses headed to the bankruptcy courts when Obama took the trillion dollars for "stimulating" the economy then routed it to Democrats losing big in business gave Nancy's relatives their money back ahead of time.

That used to be against the law. My uncle, who sat on the bench not too far from here was of the opinion that nobody from the president of the country to the newest baby born were equal under the law, which applies the same to everyone.

Now, it seems, politicians screw the taxpayers they're supposed to represent out of money, which they divert to family members through golden parachute guarantees, and I'm mad about it.

It isn't fitting. Nobody is holding Nancy Pelosi's well-shoed feet to the fire for blatant expropriation of other Americans' tax money to her own family enterprises like the solar power outfit in Nevada that is going to have 45 permanent jobs for the $737 the government is forking over to them. That's $16 million per permanent job. I think that is a gross wrongful diversion of people paying taxes. Everyone who has to drive to a job is already paying an average of $1500 in increased fuel costs because the Democrats decided to close down all oil drilling in the gulf. Never mind who is taking up the slack with Obama's craven give-away of American jobs in the drilling field to foreign countries who didn't lift a finger to help this nation when we needed their help, and the likely won't in the future, either.

Obama has frightened all investors and industry in America. He's made the business community sick with worry, and his community-pushing all responsibilities onto everyone except the people getting the benefits keeps people on the dole instead of putting them back to work in a job they can be proud of for taking care of themselves.

In short, it's chaos in this country right now, and people are too worried on account of short-sighted policies that have proven to fail in the past. I was reading that not only are people going on welfare in record numbers, many are filing for welfare under more than one name, bilking taxpayers so much more.

if Obama has frightened all investors away, why has the stock market risen from 5,000 to nearly 13,000 while he has been in office?

I wasn't talking about investors in the stock market. I was talking about small business investors who invest in employees and pay people to work for them.

The number of people out of work is a grim figure still.

can you provide an evidence of your claim? since the economy is expanding and growing that would suggest that your not entirely correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.

Hilarious!

What is really hilarious is the short-sightedness of the politicians.

Every time they pass a confiscatory tax plan, the folks avoid it.

The reason is as simple as the Leftist pols...

they think in static terms,

....people behave in dynamic ways.


"White touched on a subject near and dear to O’Malley’s heart: the “millionaires’ tax.” Enacted in 2008, this taxed income that was greater than $1 million at a higher rate – 6.25%, as opposed to 5.5%. The tax expired at the end of 2010.
White said that the state’s policymakers should be careful to avoid “regrettable unintended consequences” from new ideas.
“With the millionaire’s tax, we lost thousands of millionaires,” White said."

Read more: O

 

[Syphon]

I'm sure all of Nancy Pelosi's relatives who got the $1.3 billion in government-guaranteed loans (that we know about) will not have to pay anything. Businesses headed to the bankruptcy courts when Obama took the trillion dollars for "stimulating" the economy then routed it to Democrats losing big in business gave Nancy's relatives their money back ahead of time.

That used to be against the law. My uncle, who sat on the bench not too far from here was of the opinion that nobody from the president of the country to the newest baby born were equal under the law, which applies the same to everyone.

Now, it seems, politicians screw the taxpayers they're supposed to represent out of money, which they divert to family members through golden parachute guarantees, and I'm mad about it.

It isn't fitting. Nobody is holding Nancy Pelosi's well-shoed feet to the fire for blatant expropriation of other Americans' tax money to her own family enterprises like the solar power outfit in Nevada that is going to have 45 permanent jobs for the $737 the government is forking over to them. That's $16 million per permanent job. I think that is a gross wrongful diversion of people paying taxes. Everyone who has to drive to a job is already paying an average of $1500 in increased fuel costs because the Democrats decided to close down all oil drilling in the gulf. Never mind who is taking up the slack with Obama's craven give-away of American jobs in the drilling field to foreign countries who didn't lift a finger to help this nation when we needed their help, and the likely won't in the future, either.

Obama has frightened all investors and industry in America. He's made the business community sick with worry, and his community-pushing all responsibilities onto everyone except the people getting the benefits keeps people on the dole instead of putting them back to work in a job they can be proud of for taking care of themselves.

In short, it's chaos in this country right now, and people are too worried on account of short-sighted policies that have proven to fail in the past. I was reading that not only are people going on welfare in record numbers, many are filing for welfare under more than one name, bilking taxpayers so much more.

if Obama has frightened all investors away, why has the stock market risen from 5,000 to nearly 13,000 while he has been in office?

The Dow closed at 7,949 on Bush's last day in office.

and it continued to fall all the way to around 6,600 (my mistake i will admit it, in march of 09 it was 6,626 according to google finance) but as of today it was still near 13,000. not exactly bad in less than 4 years.

 

[Syphon]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is?
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.

this math is quite interesting.

Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

explain to me the bolded line. why would anyone be paying 50% to benefits? and what benefits are they referring to.

and im sorry quoting a study by the Cato institute isnt exactly non partisan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1 - this has nothing to do with a reason a person invests. a person invests to make money, not because they some civic duty to do so.

2 - individuals are compensated for their risk taking when a stock rises. but why is taking the risk to start a business taxed at a higher rate than the risk it takes to purchase a stock?

3 - Yes money has already been taxed, but if you understood tax law, you would know that you are only taxed on your gain, not your principle. so if you inverst $1000 in stocks, and that stock goes up and you investment is now worth $2000, you are not taxed on $2000. you are only taxed on the new money, which would be $1000 worth of tax liability. you in effect you did nothing to earn this $1000 other than invest in the correct stock. you didnt earn it through performing a job or services. so your claim that the money is taxed twice is inaccurate. but then again if you lose money in the stock market it become a tax write off. so this money has special rules attached to it no matter what. if i work a job and incur a pay cut, i am not able to write that off.

by your logic, why would anyone every want to work a job? if i can make enough money in the stock market, pay half the current tax rate i pay, and sit at home as a fat lazy american, why would i ever want to work?

fyi #4 make no sense at all.

Did you major in ignornce?
"...why would anyone every want to work a job? if i can make enough money in the stock market, pay half the current tax rate i pay..."

And, that money to invest comes from whence?


#4 Multiple taxation.

1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes.

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!

3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.

4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216.


Pick up a book once in a while.

 

[PoliticalChic]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is?
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.

this math is quite interesting.

Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

explain to me the bolded line. why would anyone be paying 50% to benefits? and what benefits are they referring to.

and im sorry quoting a study by the Cato institute is exactly non partisan.

Welfare benefits!!!!

Housing, medical, child care, food stamps....

Wake up.

 

[Syphon]

1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is?
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.

this math is quite interesting.

Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

explain to me the bolded line. why would anyone be paying 50% to benefits? and what benefits are they referring to.

and im sorry quoting a study by the Cato institute isnt exactly non partisan.

Welfare benefits!!!!

Housing, medical, child care, food stamps....

Wake up.

in what reality is someone paying 50% in taxes? someone making $16,000 will pay an effective tax rate of around 10% and that includes payroll, FICA and such....... did you not even read what you posted originally? she was on welfare at $12k per year, then got a job at $16k per year but was being taxed at 50%....... thats just not possible. even the highest tax bracket is not that much.

 

[PoliticalChic]

this math is quite interesting.

Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

explain to me the bolded line. why would anyone be paying 50% to benefits? and what benefits are they referring to.

and im sorry quoting a study by the Cato institute is exactly non partisan.

Welfare benefits!!!!

Housing, medical, child care, food stamps....

Wake up.

in what reality is someone paying 50% in taxes? someone making $16,000 will pay an effective tax rate of around 10% and that includes payroll, FICA and such....... did you not even read what you posted originally? she was on welfare at $12k per year, then got a job at $16k per year but was being taxed at 50%....... thats just not possible. even the highest tax bracket i not that much.

She loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax!

OMG!!! Loses benefits as her income rises!!!!


“Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor…(non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population)…in 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions…$522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds.”
Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor


Do you understand the phrase "Means-tested"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.

Hilarious!

Why is it hilarious? I keep telling you that, if you increase taxes on rich people they will find a way to avoid the taxes.

 

[kiwiman127]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

This Joint Economic Report that is being used as fact is actually an opinion report by a committee made up entirely of Republicans!
"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is?
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.

You should read books that aren't written by authors that represent just one ideology! Peter Ferrara, whose book you quoted is a columnist for the strong right wing resource, The American Spectator

So your post uses nothing but opinions of the the Right,,nothing new here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

This Joint Economic Report that is being used as fact is actually an opinion report by a committee made up entirely of Republicans!
"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is?
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.

You should read books that aren't written by authors that represent just one ideology! Peter Ferrara, whose book you quoted is a columnist for the strong right wing resource, The American Spectator

So your post uses nothing but opinions of the the Right,,nothing new here.

Only the weak-minded Leftist...oops...was I just redundant???...attempts to dispense with facts by objecting to the one who presents same.

So...rather than the sophomoric attempt you've proposed...

...how about attempting to show any errors in the post...

...can you?

I didn't think so.


So, let's review: the simple-minded folks argue against reading, and offer nothing by way of rebuttal...merely moan about who offers the evidence, not the authenticity of said evidence.

I'd laugh at you if you weren't so sickening.


But the way...just to prove what an idiot you are, one of the books I'm reading is

"Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality" by
Richard Thompson Ford


Another is
"Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back" by Amy Goodman and David Goodman

Others I've read this year include
Glenn Greenwald's “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”

and
“Why We’re Liberals,” by Eric Alterman

Every on is way Liberal, dope.


Now you....did you finish the "Cat in the Hat" yet???

 

[Syphon]

Welfare benefits!!!!

Housing, medical, child care, food stamps....

Wake up.

in what reality is someone paying 50% in taxes? someone making $16,000 will pay an effective tax rate of around 10% and that includes payroll, FICA and such....... did you not even read what you posted originally? she was on welfare at $12k per year, then got a job at $16k per year but was being taxed at 50%....... thats just not possible. even the highest tax bracket i not that much.

She loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax!

OMG!!! Loses benefits as her income rises!!!!


“Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor…(non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population)…in 2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions…$522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds.”
Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor


Do you understand the phrase "Means-tested"?

you are failing to recognize or fail to accept that no american rich or poor pays a 50% tax rate. can you prove that hypothetically a person making $16k would pay 50% in taxes? no because it is impossible. maybe if you threw in sales tax, property tax and a few others you might get close. but federal deductions are capped at a certain percentage of you pay.


#4 Multiple taxation.

1. ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, …several times in federal and state tax codes. so are you arguing that states should not be able to tax people, only the fed should or vice versa?

2. Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
the corporate tax rate is only 35%. your math is quite hilarious. as the money a corporation gets from IPO's and stock purchases is not the same as money an individual investor earn. i cant even begin to explain how terrible your argument is. ill try to put it in simple words. a man invests a dollar. he earns 10 cents in a dividend, he is taxed on the 10 cents, not the original $1 principle. if the stock rises to say $2 and the investor cashes out, he pays taxes on the $1 in capital gains, not the $1 in principle. the money that a company operates on is not the same money the investors put in the market. your argument is way off base.

3. A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock….If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
wow, your comment make 0 sense.

4. The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 215-216."

a person earns money in their lifetime, not a family. if my father was wealthy because he had a business and did well for himself, he earned that money. thus HE has already paid taxes on it. if he leaves that money to you upon his death, that money is now transferred into you name. you (personally, as an individual) have never paid taxes on it. only your father has. thus this is akin to winning the lottery, it is new money thus it is subject to taxes. if youre argument held true, why would a rich person every keep their own money? why not pass on everything you earn to you kids and avoid paying any taxes all together?

FYI the heritage foundation is not exactly a non partisan website.