Who Are Paying Taxes?

[red states rule]

True, nothing is free, and there is a definite cost to entitlement programs. However, in looking at the overall health of the country, I think most people believe that entitlements are part of that overall health. It is the reason that no government, Republican or Democratic, has attempted to change the overall system of government entitlements.

BTW - did you keep your tax cut or did you send it back to the government?

 

[ReillyT]

Dems promised they would not raise taxes on the :middle class" - yet they did just that

They promised they would reduse the prok and cut spending - they are doing the opposite

And they expect the producers to pay the bill

It will not help the economy - it will hurt it

Did the democrats raise taxes on the middle class this term?

If they did, I really wasn't aware of it. I didn't think that they had done much of anything this term.

 

[red states rule]

Did the democrats raise taxes on the middle class this term?

If they did, I really wasn't aware of it. I didn't think that they had done much of anything this term.

Democrats pass largest tax increase in US history
House Republican Whip lists who will experience a tax increase if the Democrats' scheme becomes law
Thursday, March 29, 2007By Roy Blunt

Writing a budget is about setting priorities -- priorities like keeping the tax burden low, encouraging the creation of new, good-paying jobs, and making it easier for American families to plan for and invest in their future.

Unfortunately, the budget Democratic leadership narrowly passed this afternoon puts the quality of that future in serious risk. It extends our new obligations to unprecedented new levels. And it imposes a $400 billion tax increase -- the largest in American history -- in a short-sighted attempt to cover it.

Read through this budget from preface to postscript, and you'll find new taxes and an awful lot of new spending. You'll find faulty assumptions and misguided premises. You'll find a house of cards stacked on a bed of worms.

But nowhere will you find honest answers to honest questions about our future. And in instituting the largest tax increase in American history, what you may just find are the instruments of its undoing.

Among those who will experience a tax increase if the Democrats' plan becomes law:

-- 26 million small business owners, by an average of $3,960.
-- 48 million married couples, by an average of $2,899.
-- 42 million families with children, by an average of $2,181.
-- 12 million single women with children, by an average of $1,082.
-- 17 million senior citizens, by an average of $2,270.

Roy Blunt (Mo.) is the House Republican Whip

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idcategory=35&idSub=169&idArticle=8732

 

[ReillyT]

BTW - did you keep your tax cut or did you send it back to the government?

Oh no. I kept it. I am not so much a disinterested actor that I won't keep a tax cut given to me. However, I still don't think that I should be getting these tax cuts.

To salve my conscience, I did give more money to charities that I support this year.

 

[red states rule]

Oh no. I kept it. I am not so much a disinterested actor that I won't keep a tax cut given to me. However, I still don't think that I should be getting these tax cuts.

To salve my conscience, I did give more money to charities that I support this year.

Libs do believe in paying for their programs with OPM

 

[ReillyT]

Democrats pass largest tax increase in US history
House Republican Whip lists who will experience a tax increase if the Democrats' scheme becomes law
Thursday, March 29, 2007By Roy Blunt

Writing a budget is about setting priorities -- priorities like keeping the tax burden low, encouraging the creation of new, good-paying jobs, and making it easier for American families to plan for and invest in their future.

Unfortunately, the budget Democratic leadership narrowly passed this afternoon puts the quality of that future in serious risk. It extends our new obligations to unprecedented new levels. And it imposes a $400 billion tax increase -- the largest in American history -- in a short-sighted attempt to cover it.

Read through this budget from preface to postscript, and you'll find new taxes and an awful lot of new spending. You'll find faulty assumptions and misguided premises. You'll find a house of cards stacked on a bed of worms.

But nowhere will you find honest answers to honest questions about our future. And in instituting the largest tax increase in American history, what you may just find are the instruments of its undoing.

Among those who will experience a tax increase if the Democrats' plan becomes law:

-- 26 million small business owners, by an average of $3,960.
-- 48 million married couples, by an average of $2,899.
-- 42 million families with children, by an average of $2,181.
-- 12 million single women with children, by an average of $1,082.
-- 17 million senior citizens, by an average of $2,270.

Roy Blunt (Mo.) is the House Republican Whip

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idcategory=35&idSub=169&idArticle=8732

Well, I need a more neutral source than the House Republican Whip. Is there a CNN, or Washington Post article discussing this?

 

[red states rule]

Well, I need a more neutral source than the House Republican Whip. Is there a CNN, or Washington Post article discussing this?

Yea, libs will not accept the truth unless it comes from a liberal source


The Coming Democratic Tax Increase
By W. James Antle III
Published 4/3/2007 12:09:01 AM
The Democrats just can't resist. Whenever they get control of the nation's pocketbook, they end up exposing their political Achilles' heel by trying to raise taxes. Just months into their new majorities on Capitol Hill, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are already playing to type.

Last week, House Democrats passed a budget blueprint that would wipe out existing tax cuts while mostly ignoring the rising costs of the alternative minimum tax. With an anticipated take of $400 billion over five years, the result would be a bigger tax increase than Bill Clinton's in 1993 -- the one that helped cost Democrats control of Congress the following year.

And Clinton was a bit savvier about his tax-hiking. After scrapping his promised middle-class tax cut, the Man from Hope vowed that he would only raise taxes on the richest 1 percent of income earners who weren't "paying their fair share." While that wasn't exactly true -- the boost in the gasoline tax and other levies hit taxpayers across the board -- the rise in marginal income tax rates was mostly skewed toward the upper-income taxpayers (and more than a few job-creating small businesses).

Clinton even sweetened the medicine with an expanded earned income tax credit, so he could claim, however tendentiously, to be cutting taxes for the poor as well as raising them for the rich.

But the House Democrats' plan is straight out of Walter Mondale's across-the-board tax increase handbook. The bottom income tax rate would jump from 10 percent to 15 percent. More than five million families and individuals with no income tax liability would be added back to the tax rolls.

Come 2011, many families will be hit by a renewed marriage penalty. Consequently, 23 million Americans will then be hit with an average tax increase of $466. That same year, the child tax credit will be cut in half, costing 31 million Americans an average of $859 in more taxes.

When the damage is tallied, 115 million working Americans would watch their taxes climb an average of $1,795, with 26 million small business owners being hit more than twice as hard at $3,960. The fact that these are average figures, incidentally, does not change the reality that taxes paid by middle-class families, not just the richest 1 percent, would be scheduled to go up under the Democratic plan.

Taxpayers won't fare any better under the Senate's budget blueprint. The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl estimates that the plan championed by Democratic Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad would raise taxes by $2,641 per household over the next ten years. All of the Bush tax cuts would either expire in 2011 or have to be offset by tax increases elsewhere, in order to extract nearly $900 billion more from the private economy than under current tax rates.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11239

 

[ReillyT]

Libs do believe in paying for their programs with OPM

No. I want them to tax me and others in my income bracket more. Not OPM, just MM.

 

[red states rule]

No. I want them to tax me and others in my income bracket more. Not OPM, just MM.

Well, you are getting your wish

They plan to tax you until your eyeballs pop

 

[ReillyT]

BTW - did you keep your tax cut or did you send it back to the government?

BTW, it is not a philosophical thing. I don't want to pay more individually just for the hell of it. My personal contribution is nothing in the grand scheme. However, if everyone who was in my general position paid more, it could make a difference. I want the result, and am only selecting the best means that I currently see available to me.

 

[red states rule]

BTW, it is not a philosophical thing. I don't want to pay more individually just for the hell of it. My personal contribution is nothing in the grand scheme. However, if everyone who was in my general position paid more, it could make a difference. I want the result, and am only selecting the best means that I currently see available to me.

But if you are so worried about the common good - you should not be so meanspirited by keeping the money

 

[ReillyT]

Yea, libs will not accept the truth unless it comes from a liberal source


The Coming Democratic Tax Increase
By W. James Antle III
Published 4/3/2007 12:09:01 AM
The Democrats just can't resist. Whenever they get control of the nation's pocketbook, they end up exposing their political Achilles' heel by trying to raise taxes. Just months into their new majorities on Capitol Hill, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are already playing to type.

Last week, House Democrats passed a budget blueprint that would wipe out existing tax cuts while mostly ignoring the rising costs of the alternative minimum tax. With an anticipated take of $400 billion over five years, the result would be a bigger tax increase than Bill Clinton's in 1993 -- the one that helped cost Democrats control of Congress the following year.

And Clinton was a bit savvier about his tax-hiking. After scrapping his promised middle-class tax cut, the Man from Hope vowed that he would only raise taxes on the richest 1 percent of income earners who weren't "paying their fair share." While that wasn't exactly true -- the boost in the gasoline tax and other levies hit taxpayers across the board -- the rise in marginal income tax rates was mostly skewed toward the upper-income taxpayers (and more than a few job-creating small businesses).

Clinton even sweetened the medicine with an expanded earned income tax credit, so he could claim, however tendentiously, to be cutting taxes for the poor as well as raising them for the rich.

But the House Democrats' plan is straight out of Walter Mondale's across-the-board tax increase handbook. The bottom income tax rate would jump from 10 percent to 15 percent. More than five million families and individuals with no income tax liability would be added back to the tax rolls.

Come 2011, many families will be hit by a renewed marriage penalty. Consequently, 23 million Americans will then be hit with an average tax increase of $466. That same year, the child tax credit will be cut in half, costing 31 million Americans an average of $859 in more taxes.

When the damage is tallied, 115 million working Americans would watch their taxes climb an average of $1,795, with 26 million small business owners being hit more than twice as hard at $3,960. The fact that these are average figures, incidentally, does not change the reality that taxes paid by middle-class families, not just the richest 1 percent, would be scheduled to go up under the Democratic plan.

Taxpayers won't fare any better under the Senate's budget blueprint. The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl estimates that the plan championed by Democratic Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad would raise taxes by $2,641 per household over the next ten years. All of the Bush tax cuts would either expire in 2011 or have to be offset by tax increases elsewhere, in order to extract nearly $900 billion more from the private economy than under current tax rates.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11239

Well, that is a better source, but still a slanted one. I don't know the Spectator, but the article didn't seem very even-handed. It says in the article that the Democrats deny they are raising taxes. Without a more indepth article, or some left-leaning rebuttal, I just don't know. Maybe you are right about an increase in the income tax for the lower and middle classes, but I will have to find a more detailed analysis of this plan before I cast judgement on it. When I have time, I will check and see what the WP has to say about it.

 

[ReillyT]

But if you are so worried about the common good - you should not be so meanspirited by keeping the money

That is just the point. The common good doesn't benefit from any one individual's tax contribution. The common good can only be served through a tax policy, that would collect not just my extra tax dollars, but also those of persons like me.

 

[red states rule]

Well, that is a better source, but still a slanted one. I don't know the Spectator, but the article didn't seem very even-handed. It says in the article that the Democrats deny they are raising taxes. Without a more indepth article, or some left-leaning rebuttal, I just don't know. Maybe you are right about an increase in the income tax for the lower and middle classes, but I will have to find a more detailed analysis of this plan before I cast judgement on it. When I have time, I will check and see what the WP has to say about it.

How can it be even handed when you support higher taxes on folks who are already paying half their income in taxes?

The point is, Dems are out to screw every taxpayer regardless of income

 

[ReillyT]

How can it be even handed when you support higher taxes on folks who are already paying half their income in taxes?

The point is, Dems are out to screw every taxpayer regardless of income

Well, actually, according to your original post, they are paying on average 31.1% of the income, excluding their lower capital gains taxes.

I meant that the article didn't seem even-handed, and it happened to be from early April. So, I just want to learn more about this before I come to a decision whether I agree with it or disagree with it.

Surely if I quoted you a passage from Salon, you would want to double check with other sources before you formed an opinion.

 

[red states rule]

Well, actually, according to your original post, they are paying on average 31.1% of the income, excluding their lower capital gains taxes.

I meant that the article didn't seem even-handed, and it happened to be from early April. So, I just want to learn more about this before I come to a decision whether I agree with it or disagree with it.

Surely if I quoted you a passage from Salon, you would want to double check with other sources before you formed an opinion.

Dems passed the tax hike on 3/31

The 31.1% is only their Federal income tax. You have to add in SS tax, Medicare tax, sales taxes, state income tax, local income tax, property taxes, and excise taxes

On avergae the producers are easily paying about half of their income in taxes

 

[red states rule]

That is just the point. The common good doesn't benefit from any one individual's tax contribution. The common good can only be served through a tax policy, that would collect not just my extra tax dollars, but also those of persons like me.

Oh, so you suppotr the common good as long as it does not cost you anything

 

[ReillyT]

Oh, so you suppotr the common good as long as it does not cost you anything

Well, actually, since I am in the upper class bracket, it would cost me directly if there were a tax increase.

 

[ReillyT]

Oh, so you suppotr the common good as long as it does not cost you anything

Are you okay? Since I have already explained to you that I fall in that tax bracket, this statement seems a little bit stupid even for you.

 

[Angel Heart]

Heck it's not even the Feds I'm pissed about when it comes to taxes. It's the damn state. Oregon has some screwed up tax laws.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_OR.html

How Oregon State income tax rates are structured

The tax table below will show in detail the Oregon state income tax rates by income tax bracket(s). There are 3 income tax brackets for Oregon.

If your income range is between $0 and $2,600, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 5%.
If your income range is between $2,601 and $6,500, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 7%.
If your income range is $6,501 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9%.


Income tax brackets data as of December 31st, 2004.

Granted... We have no sales tax.


OH... And we don't pump our own gas.