The People Are Taxed To Much!

[ihopehefails]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

 

[Truthmatters]

Its due to a shrinking middle class which was grown by the FDR programs.


The right has worked really hard to diminish the middle class in favor of the 1%.

 

[Luissa]

In Never Never Land, maybe!

 

[VaYank5150]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Simple solutions to complex issues may have unintended consequences. For example, George W. Bush pushed through a tax cut which increased the federal deficit, on which we pay interest. Where is the cost benefit to the taxpayer in that?
I'd rather we pay as we go, as suggested by Obama. But an earmark to one member of congress is a critical need to another (and an emotion based argument in the final anaylysis).
btw, many of the taxes we pay are local and state, and don't forget to include fees charged for many things which once were free.

 

[EriktheRed]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

That usually is the rub, isn't it?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

 

[ihopehefails]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

We can start by eliminating all income taxes.

 

[ihopehefails]

Its due to a shrinking middle class which was grown by the FDR programs.


The right has worked really hard to diminish the middle class in favor of the 1%.

I'm trying to figure where you get your info from because if you actually propose taxing people less then wouldn't that mean that more money in the pockets of those that are being taxed? Its like saying taking no action is an action that harms someone else and I can't see how taking no action can be called as an action that actually harms other people.

Perhaps it is what good communist should say?

 

[Political Junky]

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

52.38% top marginal tax rate: Eisenhower, King of the Socialists
by mbzoltan


Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM PST

Only in 1988 and 1989 (Ronald Reagan's final 13 months in office) was the TOP MARGINAL rate down to 28%. It was 69.13% when he went into office, and went from 69.13%-50% from 1981-1986, then 38.5%, then 28%.

Barack Obama has proposed a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, which was the rate under Bill Clinton. So with the exception of 13 months of Reagan's time in office, Obama's rate is lower than Reagan's.

Furthermore, really look at those rates. Take the Tax Policy Center's historical top marginal tax rate chart. Under previous Republicans:

Taft: (1909-1913)--income tax began in 1913 at 7% for top rate
Harding: (1921-1923): 56%-73%
Coolidge (1923-1929): 24%-56%
Hoover (1929-1933): 24%-63% (63% after Roosevelt took power)
Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%
Nixon (1969-1974): 70-77%
Ford: (1974-1977): 70%
Reagan (1981-1989): 28%-69.13%
Bush I: (1989-1993): 28%-39.6% (39.6% after Clinton took power)

Low taxes for the TOP RATES are the exception even under Republican presidents, not the norm.

Under all Republican presidents since federal income tax began, NOT including the years where the Republican transfered power to a Democrat (i.e the Republican was only in office for 1-3 months at the beginning of the year), the top marginal tax rate average was 52.38%, a full 12%+ HIGHER than Barack Obama's proposal. I took the 49 years during which the Republican was in power for the majority of the time, added the tax rates, and divided by 49 to get the figure of 52.38%.

Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal tax rate to Bill Clinton's former rate, which is 12%+ LOWER than the average for all Republican presidents combined.

People get confused about tax brackets as well. 39.6% tax rates aren't going to apply to ALL income--just to the top tax bracket income.

This handy tax bracket form helps you compute your "effective" tax rate--the percentage of your total income that you actually pay in taxes, considering the first $8,025 is taxed at 10%, the next $8,026-$32,550 is taxed at 15%, and so on.

You do not see the TOP marginal tax bracket--currently 35%, proposed to be 39.6% under Barack Obama--until you reach $357,701 in income.

Everything under $357,701 is taxed between 10% and 33%.

Food for thought. 52.38%.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How can anyone argue that 25% tax rate isn't ridiculous??? 1/4 of your income going to income taxes seems absurd....

 

[logical4u]

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

52.38% top marginal tax rate: Eisenhower, King of the Socialists
by mbzoltan


Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM PST

Only in 1988 and 1989 (Ronald Reagan's final 13 months in office) was the TOP MARGINAL rate down to 28%. It was 69.13% when he went into office, and went from 69.13%-50% from 1981-1986, then 38.5%, then 28%.

Barack Obama has proposed a top marginal tax rate of 39.6%, which was the rate under Bill Clinton. So with the exception of 13 months of Reagan's time in office, Obama's rate is lower than Reagan's.

Furthermore, really look at those rates. Take the Tax Policy Center's historical top marginal tax rate chart. Under previous Republicans:

Taft: (1909-1913)--income tax began in 1913 at 7% for top rate
Harding: (1921-1923): 56%-73%
Coolidge (1923-1929): 24%-56%
Hoover (1929-1933): 24%-63% (63% after Roosevelt took power)
Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%
Nixon (1969-1974): 70-77%
Ford: (1974-1977): 70%
Reagan (1981-1989): 28%-69.13%
Bush I: (1989-1993): 28%-39.6% (39.6% after Clinton took power)

Low taxes for the TOP RATES are the exception even under Republican presidents, not the norm.

Under all Republican presidents since federal income tax began, NOT including the years where the Republican transfered power to a Democrat (i.e the Republican was only in office for 1-3 months at the beginning of the year), the top marginal tax rate average was 52.38%, a full 12%+ HIGHER than Barack Obama's proposal. I took the 49 years during which the Republican was in power for the majority of the time, added the tax rates, and divided by 49 to get the figure of 52.38%.

Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal tax rate to Bill Clinton's former rate, which is 12%+ LOWER than the average for all Republican presidents combined.

People get confused about tax brackets as well. 39.6% tax rates aren't going to apply to ALL income--just to the top tax bracket income.

This handy tax bracket form helps you compute your "effective" tax rate--the percentage of your total income that you actually pay in taxes, considering the first $8,025 is taxed at 10%, the next $8,026-$32,550 is taxed at 15%, and so on.

You do not see the TOP marginal tax bracket--currently 35%, proposed to be 39.6% under Barack Obama--until you reach $357,701 in income.

Everything under $357,701 is taxed between 10% and 33%.

Food for thought. 52.38%.

Thanks for the info. Isn't the reason the gov wants to raise taxes because it is SPENDING TOO MUCH? (I did not use the partisan approach, all parties in DC are responsible).

 

[Vast LWC]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

OR, every Republican should have their taxes raised, to pay for the wars that they love so much.

Since Republicans use the services that are part of "Big Government" as much as Democrats do.

 

[Luissa]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

We can start by eliminating all income taxes.

It is like you guys forget how well that worked out, when our country was starting out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

Obama Seeks $44B Increase for Pentagon; $5B for Nuclear Arsenal

President Obama is unveiling a record $3.8 trillion budget for 2011 today. The budget would boost war spending while trimming domestic expenditures. Obama is seeking a $44 billion increase in the military’s budget. If approved, this will bring the Pentagon’s budget to $708 billion. The Obama administration is also asking Congress to increase spending on the US nuclear arsenal by more than $5 billion over the next five years. Obama is seeking the extra money despite a pledge to cut the US arsenal and seek a nuclear weapons-free world. The Obama administration argues that the boost in spending is needed to ensure that US warheads remain secure and work as designed as the arsenal shrinks and ages.

Democracy Now! | Headlines for February 01, 2010

Good place to start.

 

[Conspiracist]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

OR, every Republican should have their taxes raised, to pay for the wars that they love so much.

Since Republicans use the services that are part of "Big Government" as much as Democrats do.

You feel the military is a part of "Big Government"? I see it as necessary, unlike welfare or the post office.

 

[Vast LWC]

You feel the military is a part of "Big Government"? I see it as necessary, unlike welfare or the post office.

Aside from the amount of the military needed to defend our borders?

Yes, any military that costs more than all the rest of the militaries of the world, COMBINED, is certainly part of "Big Government".

And though the post office was recently mostly made obsolete by the Internet, you seriously did not see the necessity of it over the last 2 centuries?

 

[Dr Gregg]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

no, you guys have to pay for the Iraq war you supported, billions and billions

 

[Vast LWC]

We can start by eliminating all income taxes.

How is that cutting spending?

And how would that help the deficit?

Of course, I actually think the idea of a flat tax that includes all taxes, like capital gains, payroll tax and sales tax is a fine idea, but I don't think it will necessarily help the deficit.

 

[Vast LWC]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

no, you guys have to pay for the Iraq war you supported, billions and billions

Plus the small states need to pay the Big States back all the money they got in extra federal funding while not paying as much in taxes. Per person.

And since most small states are Republican...

Just saying.