Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[dblack]

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

..

That's exactly what I think they are. And no, for an average home owner, they're not that much. But for the banksters selling mortgages, a few percentage points adds up to a lot of money.

 

[Dad2three]

Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!

like your creative math on SS tax rates

Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!

Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?

Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed


HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Rate for employees and employers, each

OASDI HI Total
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700

1990 and later 6.200 1.450 7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts

I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980

50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!



THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!

stop whining that others should pay for your existence. the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.

Sure Bubs, sure, they just capture Gov't BECAUSE they enjoy the power???? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

like your creative math on SS tax rates

Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!

Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?

Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed


HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Rate for employees and employers, each

OASDI HI Total
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700

1990 and later 6.200 1.450 7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??

We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.

but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.

One was "bracket creep,"

Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.

 

[Dad2three]

Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?

Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed


HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Rate for employees and employers, each

OASDI HI Total
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700

1990 and later 6.200 1.450 7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??

We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.

but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.

One was "bracket creep,"

Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.

Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!

 

[francoHFW]

Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts

I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980

50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!



THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!

stop whining that others should pay for your existence. the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.

Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

MORE right wing garbage. Shocking

Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income

LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol



Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!

Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.

True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol

That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts. Or haven't you heard of such a thing?

When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.

REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???

Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours. So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates. There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well then it's not really a flat tax system then. Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS. In other words, nothing would change. A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field. That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax. There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all. Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table. A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.

=================
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.

Of course, the poor and the bottom 49% of all American earners pay no federal personal income tax at all so how much does it hurt them?

Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*

Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?

Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.

Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol

Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride. They pay no actual income tax at all. How much more of a free ride do you want?

 

[SAYIT]

Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?

Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed


HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Rate for employees and employers, each

OASDI HI Total
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700

1990 and later 6.200 1.450 7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??

We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.

but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.

One was "bracket creep,"

Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.

Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!

When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!

 

[SAYIT]

=================
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.

Of course, the poor and the bottom 49% of all American earners pay no federal personal income tax at all so how much does it hurt them?

Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*

Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?

Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.

Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol

Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride. They pay no actual income tax at all. How much more of a free ride do you want?

Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.

 

[SAYIT]

MORE right wing garbage. Shocking

Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income

LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol



Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!

Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.

True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol

That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts. Or haven't you heard of such a thing?

When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.

REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???

Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours. So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates. There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.

True dat and the same dynamic impacts every market. When the gov't intervenes through regulation or taxes or price/wage minimums, we all pay - even the poor - in the form of higher prices. Next time you fill up take a gander at the taxes included in a gallon of gas. In California that amounts to $.63/gal (fed & state) with some municipalities adding on a bit more. That number does not diminish as the price of gas goes down meaning the current tax is over 25% of what we pay at the pump.

 

[SAYIT]

Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts

I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980

50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!



THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!

stop whining that others should pay for your existence. the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.

Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig

Stop being a total whiny *****. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.

 

[francoHFW]

ACT

Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts

I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980

50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!



THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!

stop whining that others should pay for your existence. the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.

Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig

Stop being a total whiny *****. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.

ACTUALLY, dingbat dupe, I see what pander to the greedy racist idiot rich POLICIES have done to the nonrich and the country, and argue for fixing them, you brainwashed, ignorant, functional moron. Try thinking about the facts and good policy for a change, and not stupid gossip your masters use to distract and divide the dupes like you.

All the richest get is 95% of new wealth. 55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT. The poor are poor because Reaganist America doesn't pay or train them while the country falls apart. Shortsighted, selfish stupidity.

 

[SAYIT]

...The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor...

...55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT...

I call BULLSHIT!
So from which whiny, sniveling, loony left rag did you glean that BS?

 

[dcraelin]

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.

as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.

Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM

Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.

In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.

It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.

Read the rest at: Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship

This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.

When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person. I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.

Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead. What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?

So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government. Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.

So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%? Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate. Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today. If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's, I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems. That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.

Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype. Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings. Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam. No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.

good riddance

 

[SAYIT]

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.

businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.

the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.

We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.

Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.

Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.

well if it is so little surely it would be put to better use helping to pay down our deficit.

as for leaving the country. I say BS...........but all the better for those who stay and can buy at fire-sale prices.

Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship
Feb 15th 2015 9:38AM

Americans who live overseas have been renouncing their US citizenship in record numbers over the past several years.

In 2014, nearly 3,500 people bid a permanent adieu to the states, and the year before that about 3,000 did the same.

It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable.

Read the rest at: Record number of Americans giving up their citizenship

This is what we on the right refer to as Action/ Reaction.

When you take an action on somebody or something, it's either positive or negative. For instance, we meet in person. I extend my arm to shake your hand, and you kindly do the same. I took a positive action and was met with a positive reaction.

Now the same scenario takes place but instead of trying to shake your hand, I try to shove you instead. What kind of reaction should I expect from my negative action?

So when you raise taxes, it's a negative action on the part of government. Don't expect people to just sit there and take it.

So why did people just sit there and take in years ago when tax rates were 90%? Well that's because first off, 90% was never the effective tax rate. Secondly is the fact that we didn't have the communication skills we have today. If I moved my business to China lets say back in the 70's, I would have to constantly be traveling for meetings and to take care of problems. That's not to mention that traveling today is much safer than years ago when we didn't have satellites to predict weather.

Most problems for corporations can be solved by going to GoToMeeting.com or even Skype. Businesses can e-mail plans and correspondence in private instead of needing personal meetings. Today you can conduct your financial affairs on the golf course, in the bathroom or Vietnam. No need to constantly be on the phone with your broker or real estate agent any longer.

good riddance

Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?

Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed


HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Rate for employees and employers, each

OASDI HI Total
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700

1990 and later 6.200 1.450 7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??

We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.

but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.

One was "bracket creep,"

Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.

Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!

Liberals hate facts, especially the stupid ones.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed


HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Rate for employees and employers, each

OASDI HI Total
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700

1990 and later 6.200 1.450 7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??

We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.

but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.

One was "bracket creep,"

Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.

Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!

When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!

I beat him like a rented mule.
He needs to get his ADHD treated.

 

[francoHFW]

ACT

...The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.

...55% of giant corps pay NOTHING in taxes. IDIOT...

I call BULLSHIT!
So from which whiny, sniveling, loony left rag did you glean that BS?

Oh, everyone BUT your propaganda service, functional shyttehead...

1. Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income ...
2. www.reuters.com/.../2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations...
3. Cached
4. Aug 11, 2008 · Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes. WASHINGTON. A man holds a wad of money in an undated file photo. Reuters/File.
5. U.S. Business Has High Tax Rates but Pays Less -...
   www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html
   May 01, 2011 · ... United States corporations pay only ... that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal ... way it taxes corporations. ...

 

[francoHFW]

Rate for employees and employers, each

OASDI HI Total
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700

1990 and later 6.200 1.450 7.650

That's weird, he raised rates less than 1%, not 3%.
And that's much, much less than the reduction in all the income tax brackets
between 1981 and 1989. It's almost like you were lying the whole time.

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases?? AND THE FACT HE DOUBLED IT ON THE SELF EMPLOYED? ALMOST LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE, AGAIN BUBS??





Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.



The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading Reaganomist and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities, they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement," and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax increases.


The Myths of Reaganomics

Weird how you choose to ignore his tax increases on the workers didn't just happen between 1982-1988 Bubs? lol

Why would we discuss hikes that occurred before Reagan?

AND you leave out both sides of the tax increases??

We were talking about the impact on workers, not corporations.

but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

LOL! Because the SS hike of 0.95% was so much bigger than the bracket reductions to 15% and 28%.

One was "bracket creep,"

Reagan indexed the brackets for inflation. After reducing inflation from double digits down to 4%.

Go fuk yourself Bubs, Congrats the second guy EVER to make my ignore list. Another poster was correct about you, like a second grader, FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER TO YOU!

When you finally decide to post "FACTS, HISTORY AND TRUTH" please take out a full page ad in the NY Times so I don't miss the strange occurance and your need to ignore Toddster is clearly a function of having been beaten at your own disingenuous game.
As always, LOONY LEFTISTS ARE THE WHINIEST, SNIVELING CREATURES ON THE PLANET!

I beat him like a rented mule.
He needs to get his ADHD treated.

You are totally FOS. Unbelievable. Send up a flare when you have something.