64% Of Americans Support Raising Taxes On The Rich

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 3:52 AM GMT
    http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/most-americans-back-buffett-tax-reuters-ipsos-215729476.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

    Nearly 2/3 of Americans support the "Buffett Tax".

    After a decade of the Bush tax cuts for the rich - God knows raising taxes back up on the rich is desperately needed to get our fiscal house back in order!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 9:09 PM GMT
    RickRick91 saidhttp://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/most-americans-back-buffett-tax-reuters-ipsos-215729476.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

    Nearly 2/3 of Americans support the "Buffett Tax".

    After a decade of the Bush tax cuts for the rich - God knows raising taxes back up on the rich is desperately needed to get our fiscal house back in order!


    This is old news and not really news so much as spin from Liberals and their surrogates. The real news would be if you actually looked inside the polls, what you'll find there doesn't match the headlines you're crowing about.

    In a new poll conducted by The Hill, the findings are much different than what Liberals keep telling us they are.. The Hill found:

    1) When asked the simple question "Should the rich pay more in taxes?"
    most people responded yes,but when questioned further the picture
    changes considerably.
    2) When specifically asked what rate the rich should pay in taxes,75%
    chose a lower rate than the current highest Income tax
    Bracket.
    3) 75% of respondents said that a 30% tax rate or lower was appropriate.
    4) Only 4% of respondents thought that a rate of 40% was appropriate.
    5) The hill poll also found that 73% of respondents believe corporations
    should pay a lower rate than the current 35% rate.

    http://thehill.com/polls/212643-hill-poll-likely-voters-prefer-lower-tax-rates-for-individuals-business


    Maybe you and the people over at Yahoo should have taken a closer look at the AP-GfK poll. BTW, the AP isn't exactly considered to be a bastion of conservative thought, maybe that's why all of the continued mental gymnastics in the remainder of the article,in an attempt to support a position that so many favor raising taxes on "the rich" after revealing that most would rather cut government. Very interesting indeed.

    1) 65% of respondents favor requiring people making more than $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30% of their income. Still 30% is lower than the current Income tax bracket of the highest earners, and with deductions most in the highest income tax bracket actually pay around 30% of their income in income taxes already.
    2) 56% of respondents embraced cuts in government services rather
    than higher taxes as the solution to budget shortfalls.
    3) Only 31% chose higher taxes over cuts to government as the solution
    to the nations problems.

    As they say, "the devil is in the details".

    http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-poll-findings


    Here's another poll I'm sure you won't bother taking a closer look at.The results are kind of interesting as well.

    A new Gallup poll about the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate in the Affordable Care Act shows some interesting conclusions.

    1) 47% of respondents favor repeal of the Affordable Care Act while 44%
    oppose repeal.
    2) 87% of republicans favor repeal while 77% of democrats oppose repeal.
    With Republicans holding their views more intensely than Democrats.
    3) 45% thing passing the law was good, while 44% see it as bad. This has
    been pretty constant since passage of the law.
    4) 7 out of 10 said the law had no effect on them personally. 12% say it
    helped, while 16% say it hurt them.
    5) 34% don't expect the law to make much difference in their lives, 38%
    expect it to make the situation worse while just 24% think it will
    make things better.
    6) Overwhelmingly 72% of respondents think the individual mandate is
    unconstitutional to the 20% who think it's constitutional.
    7) 94% of Republicans think the individual mandate is unconstitutional, 70%
    of Independents think it's unconstitutional, while 56% of Democrats think
    it's unconstitutional.

    Given that, overwhelmingly, Democrats favor the Affordable Care Act while a 56% majority think the individual mandate which is central to the whole law, what does that say about Democrats in relation to the Constitution and Constitutionality?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/Americans-Divided-Repeal-2010-Healthcare-Law.aspx

    But carry on with your nonsense!


















  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 2:56 AM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    RickRick91 saidhttp://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/most-americans-back-buffett-tax-reuters-ipsos-215729476.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

    Nearly 2/3 of Americans support the "Buffett Tax".

    After a decade of the Bush tax cuts for the rich - God knows raising taxes back up on the rich is desperately needed to get our fiscal house back in order!


    This is old news and not really news so much as spin from Liberals and their surrogates. The real news would be if you actually looked inside the polls, what you'll find there doesn't match the headlines you're crowing about.

    In a new poll conducted by The Hill, the findings are much different than what Liberals keep telling us they are.. The Hill found:

    1) When asked the simple question "Should the rich pay more in taxes?"
    most people responded yes,but when questioned further the picture
    changes considerably.
    2) When specifically asked what rate the rich should pay in taxes,75%
    chose a lower rate than the current highest Income tax
    Bracket.
    3) 75% of respondents said that a 30% tax rate or lower was appropriate.
    4) Only 4% of respondents thought that a rate of 40% was appropriate.
    5) The hill poll also found that 73% of respondents believe corporations
    should pay a lower rate than the current 35% rate.

    http://thehill.com/polls/212643-hill-poll-likely-voters-prefer-lower-tax-rates-for-individuals-business


    Maybe you and the people over at Yahoo should have taken a closer look at the AP-GfK poll. BTW, the AP isn't exactly considered to be a bastion of conservative thought, maybe that's why all of the continued mental gymnastics in the remainder of the article,in an attempt to support a position that so many favor raising taxes on "the rich" after revealing that most would rather cut government. Very interesting indeed.

    1) 65% of respondents favor requiring people making more than $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30% of their income. Still 30% is lower than the current Income tax bracket of the highest earners, and with deductions most in the highest income tax bracket actually pay around 30% of their income in income taxes already.
    2) 56% of respondents embraced cuts in government services rather
    than higher taxes as the solution to budget shortfalls.
    3) Only 31% chose higher taxes over cuts to government as the solution
    to the nations problems.

    As they say, "the devil is in the details".

    http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-poll-findings


    Here's another poll I'm sure you won't bother taking a closer look at.The results are kind of interesting as well.

    A new Gallup poll about the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate in the Affordable Care Act shows some interesting conclusions.

    1) 47% of respondents favor repeal of the Affordable Care Act while 44%
    oppose repeal.
    2) 87% of republicans favor repeal while 77% of democrats oppose repeal.
    With Republicans holding their views more intensely than Democrats.
    3) 45% thing passing the law was good, while 44% see it as bad. This has
    been pretty constant since passage of the law.
    4) 7 out of 10 said the law had no effect on them personally. 12% say it
    helped, while 16% say it hurt them.
    5) 34% don't expect the law to make much difference in their lives, 38%
    expect it to make the situation worse while just 24% think it will
    make things better.
    6) Overwhelmingly 72% of respondents think the individual mandate is
    unconstitutional to the 20% who think it's constitutional.
    7) 94% of Republicans think the individual mandate is unconstitutional, 70%
    of Independents think it's unconstitutional, while 56% of Democrats think
    it's unconstitutional.

    Given that, overwhelmingly, Democrats favor the Affordable Care Act while a 56% majority think the individual mandate which is central to the whole law, what does that say about Democrats in relation to the Constitution and Constitutionality?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/Americans-Divided-Repeal-2010-Healthcare-Law.aspx

    But carry on with your nonsense!




    LMAO
    Speaking of true NONSENSE.
    Re: the individual mandate:

    A.) given the fact that Mitt Romneycare signed into law Romneycare - WHICH CONTAINS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

    and

    B.) given the fact that in a USATODAY op-ed in July of 2009 Mitt Romneycare - URGED PRESIDENT OBAMA TO INCLUDE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IN OBAMACARE!
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/romney-urged-obama-to-embrace-individual-mandate-in-2009.php?m=1

    you Repubs CANNOT claim the upper hand on the individual mandate issue.

    Not when you Repubs are nominating THE ARCHITECT OF OBAMACARE AND A SUPPORTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 9:47 PM GMT
    JWalker said
    shybuffguy said Maybe you and the people over at Yahoo should have taken a closer look at the AP-GfK poll. BTW, the AP isn't exactly considered to be a bastion of conservative thought, maybe that's why all of the continued mental gymnastics in the remainder of the article,in an attempt to support a position that so many favor raising taxes on "the rich" after revealing that most would rather cut government. Very interesting indeed.

    1) 65% of respondents favor requiring people making more than $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30% of their income. Still 30% is lower than the current Income tax bracket of the highest earners, and with deductions most in the highest income tax bracket actually pay around 30% of their income in income taxes already.
    2) 56% of respondents embraced cuts in government services rather
    than higher taxes as the solution to budget shortfalls.
    3) Only 31% chose higher taxes over cuts to government as the solution
    to the nations problems.

    As they say, "the devil is in the details".

    http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-poll-findings


    This whole section is baffling. "At least" does not mean the same thing as "at most." When 65% of respondents said they wanted them paying at least 30% of their incomes, it doesn't mean that 30% will be the ceiling.
    Either you just don't read well or you failed to look at The Hill study that shows that 75% of respondents said the rate on "the rich" should be 30% or less.
    By the way, you left these two parts out for some reason:
    "Illustrating the wide acceptance for Obama’s tax proposal for the rich, the poll showed it was supported by nearly two-thirds of independents and 4 in 10 Republicans. It also won backing from 6 in 10 whites and half of conservatives, two groups that traditionally are more likely to support the GOP, as well as by 6 in 10 people earning at least $100,000 a year."
    I didn't leave anything out. You just reinforced what I said, early in the article it points out that a majority of respondents would prefer cutting government to increasing and then goes through mental gymnastics to point out how popular the Obama plan of raising taxes is, when it already established that cutting government instead of raising taxes was more popular.BTW, I didn't leave them out,because I posted the web address for the study. But I'm glad you pointed them out as you proved my point exactly.

    "The poll showed that overall, more people have a positive view of Democrats than Republicans, a ray of hope for Obama and his fellow Democrats with the approach of November’s presidential and congressional elections. Fifty-four percent in the poll gave Democrats favorable ratings compared to 46 percent for Republicans, similar to results in January 2011, at the start of the newly elected Congress in which Republicans have run the House and Democrats wield a slender Senate majority."
    Again you prove my point, what the poll showed is that overall the people support cutting government more than they support raising taxes."Yet by 56 percent to 31 percent, more embraced cuts in government services than higher taxes as the best medicine for the budget, according to the survey, which was conducted Feb. 16 to 20. That response has changed only modestly since it was first asked in the AP-GfK poll last March. The question on Obama’s tax on the rich was not asked previously." Yet somehow all you get from the poll is that Obama's taxing the rich is popular, without looking at the other part of the question and without qualifying "how much more" in taxes.


    shybuffguy said Given that, overwhelmingly, Democrats favor the Affordable Care Act while a 56% majority think the individual mandate which is central to the whole law, what does that say about Democrats in relation to the Constitution and Constitutionality?


    That public opinion literally has no bearing on whether or not it's constitutional? 90% of respondents could say they don't think it's constitutional, but that won't change whether it is or isn't.

    Try reading what I said again. Again, either you aren't reading or you have a problem with your comprehension. What I said is, if a majority of Democrats support the Affordable Care Act, yet 56% of them think it's unconstitutional what does that say about how Democrats regard the Constitution and the rule of law in this country. Maybe that's easier for you to understand.I said nothing about what bearing their opinion had on the constitutionality of the law I was just pointing out how Democrats view the Constitution.Maybe that's easier for you to understand.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 19, 2012 5:53 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    ...

    1) 65% of respondents favor requiring people making more than $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30% of their income. Still 30% is lower than the current Income tax bracket of the highest earners, and with deductions most in the highest income tax bracket actually pay around 30% of their income in income taxes already. ...


    Yet presidential candidate Romney said he pays only a 15% rate.

    Most wealthy people hire tax accountants to minimize the amount of taxes they pay. Because many millionaires in the past paid 0% of their income in federal taxes, the alternate minimim tax was enacted. Yet Romney still only paid 15% of his income in taxes, and many other millionaires and billionaires pay only 15% (or less, if they move their income offshore) in federal income taxes.

    The 1950's were generally thought of as a prosperous time. During the 1950's the top marginal federal income tax rate was 90%.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 19, 2012 7:12 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    RickRick91 saidhttp://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/most-americans-back-buffett-tax-reuters-ipsos-215729476.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

    Nearly 2/3 of Americans support the "Buffett Tax".

    After a decade of the Bush tax cuts for the rich - God knows raising taxes back up on the rich is desperately needed to get our fiscal house back in order!


    This is old news ...


    The results were first published on March 13, 2012, hardly old news.

    shybuffguy said ... and not really news so much as spin from Liberals and their surrogates. The real news would be if you actually looked inside the polls, what you'll find there doesn't match the headlines you're crowing about. ...


    So, the debate changes from one poll, to "polls." It looks like you, too, use spin. The actual poll results in question do match the Yahoo headline.

    shybuffguy said ... In a new poll conducted by The Hill, the findings are much different than what Liberals keep telling us they are ...


    Imagine that, a different poll had different results. That never happened before!!

    shybuffguy said ... Maybe you and the people over at Yahoo ...


    The poll was actually conducted by Reuters/Ipsos. Either you aren't reading or you have a problem with your comprehension.

    You might have skipped over the first sentence of the article:

    "(Reuters) - Nearly two-thirds of Americans support imposing a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on those who earn $1 million or more a year, according to Reuters/Ipsos poll results released on Tuesday."

    see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/us-usa-poll-tax-idUSBRE82C1CD20120313
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2012 11:00 AM GMT
    tokugawa said
    shybuffguy said
    ...

    1) 65% of respondents favor requiring people making more than $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30% of their income. Still 30% is lower than the current Income tax bracket of the highest earners, and with deductions most in the highest income tax bracket actually pay around 30% of their income in income taxes already. ...


    Yet presidential candidate Romney said he pays only a 15% rate.
    Let me see if I can make this easy for you since you are having such a difficult time understanding how taxation in the U.S. works.
    1) Income-tax is paid on income you earn from working
    2) Capital gains is a tax on savings. When one invests money, it is savings as the person can not spend that money.

    Now, let me try to explain how the capital gains tax works.
    1) When a person makes an investment he does so with money he has earned through working, so he has already paid Income taxes on the money he has invested at the applicable Income tax rate at which he earned it.
    2) When the company he has invested in earns a profit it pays a corporate income-tax. Once the company pays it's taxes and pays it bills, what is left is called profit. When the investor realizes a gain on his investment and receives a cash payment he pays a capital gains Tax because he has realized a capital gain on monies invested, not compensation for work performed..
    3) The reason that the capital gains tax is at a lower rate than the Income tax is :
    A) to encourage people to save and invest in order to expand the economy and create jobs that otherwise would not exist if there were no one investing capital into businesses to keep them running.
    B) The capital gains tax is at a lower rate because, as I pointed out already and elsewhere, moneys earned through capital gains are subject to multiple layers of taxation, including an Inheritance Tax upon the death of the investor should he hold those investments until his death as well as taxes on losses.


    Most wealthy people hire tax accountants to minimize the amount of taxes they pay. Because many millionaires in the past paid 0% of their income in federal taxes, the alternate minimum tax was enacted. Yet Romney still only paid 15% of his income in taxes, and many other millionaires and billionaires pay only 15% (or less, if they move their income offshore) in federal income taxes.
    Again you are wrong.
    1) The AMT was not enacted because "many millionaires in the past paid 0% of their income in federal taxes". The AMT was enacted in 1969 because just 155 high-income households had taken advantage of legal tax deductions so as to reduce their tax liabilities to 0. Excuse me for questioning your "many", but I think that even back in the good old prehistoric days of 1969 there were far more high earners than just 155 households, hell there were far more than that just in the two houses of congress! What you fail to point out is that, an unintended consequence of the AMT is that many people of middle class are caught up by the AMT because of phenomenon called "Bracket Creep".
    2) Since you obviously don't understand what the AMT is, I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. The AMT is a parallel Income tax system. The AMT is imposed on an individual rather than the regular income-tax rate if the AMT is higher than tax liability under the regular income-tax, one could argue that the AMT is unconstitutional as it doesn't afford one equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. The AMT for capital gains and certain dividends was limited in 2003.
    3) As I already explained, Romney did not pay 15% of his income in taxes, because he didn't earn an income. What he did, was to earn a capital gain on investments made with previously earned and taxed income.
    4) My suggestion would be that you check into that moving "their income offshore" thing, because it isn't anything near as simple a tax shelter as you suggest it is.


    The 1950's were generally thought of as a prosperous time. During the 1950's the top marginal federal income tax rate was 90%.

    Since you seem to be having a problem understanding taxation, I would suggest that you check into what the tax receipts from income-taxes was in the 1950s and see just how much money wealthy families hid in tax shelters (investing in government bonds which are tax free is always a favorite place to park money when taxes are high).

    Since you aren't so good at history, let me enlighten you a bit.
    1) By the end of WWI the top Income Tax rate was 77% and GNP fell by 16% between 1919 and 1921.
    2) As a result of the Harding/Coolidge/Mellon tax cuts beginning in 1921, personal income taxes rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1.164 billion by 1928. That's an increase of more than 61%. Between 1922 and 1929 GNP grew at an annual rate of 4.7% and unemployment fell from 6.7% to 3.2% and they didn't even have "created or saved jobs" back then.
    As tax rates were reduced, the share of the tax burden paid by the rich ( in those days $50,000 or more/yr was rich) rose from 44.2% in 1921 to 78.4% in 1928. More importantly taxes paid by those earning more than $100,000/yr went from $300 million to $700 million per year. Much the same as what has happened each time the tax rates were lowered.
    3) After the dramatic increases in tax rates under Hoover in the 1930s and FDR pushed the marginal tax rates to more than 90% the economy foundered and stagnated.
    4) J.F. Kennedy recognized that the high income tax rates were hindering the economy.As a remedy he proposed across the board tax reductions. The top tax rat fell from 91% to 70%.
    As a result of the Kennedy tax cuts, federal tax revenues jumped from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968. That was an increase of 62% (33% adjusted for inflation).
    Similarly, as with the tax cuts of the 1920s, the share of the income-tax burden of the rich rose by 57% from 1963 to 1966, at same time the tax collections from those earning less than $50,000/yr rose by only 11%. Higher income earners saw their portion of the income tax climb from 11.6% to 15.1%.
    5) Due to the inflation of the 1970s, millions of Americans were forced into higher tax brackets (even though inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising...bracket creep). President Reagan's solution was a 25% across the board tax cut enacted in 1981.
    The Reagan tax cuts resulted in a 99.4% jump in federal government revenues during the 1980s. The average annual GDP growth rate from 1983 to 1989 was 3.8%/yr, compared with the 2.8% from 1974 to 1981 under President Carter. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was nearly 1/3 larger than it was before he came into office. From 1981 through 1989 17 million new jobs, or 2 million new jobs per year were created, again I would point out that there was no such thing as the unmeasurable "saved jobs".
    The share of income taxes of the top 10% of earners climbed from 48% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Likewise, the top 1% of earners saw their share of the income tax bill jump from 17.6% in 1981 to 27.5% in 1988.
    6) The G. W. Bush administration passed income-tax cuts that reduced rates by 7.4% on the low end and by 9.3% on the high end. In 2003 the capital gains rates were reduced from 20 and 15% to 15 and 5%. Together these tax cuts resulted to a period of prosperity that lasted until the housing crisis of 2008.
    In the six quarters prior to the 2003 cuts GDP had grown at a rate of just 1.7%; in the six quarters after the tax cuts, the growth rat had jumped to 4.1%
    In the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts the S&P 500 dropped 18%, but in the six quarters following the
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 20, 2012 11:19 AM GMT
    Repuglicans, like Homer J. Simpson, beleive that "you can explain ANYTHING with statistics!"




    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2012 11:27 AM GMT
    tokugawa saidHTTP ADDRESS GOES HERE
    shybuffguy said
    RickRick91 saidhttp://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/most-americans-back-buffett-tax-reuters-ipsos-215729476.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

    Nearly 2/3 of Americans support the "Buffett Tax".

    After a decade of the Bush tax cuts for the rich - God knows raising taxes back up on the rich is desperately needed to get our fiscal house back in order!


    This is old news ...


    The results were first published on March 13, 2012, hardly old news.
    Since 2009 all we hear from Liberals is how they want to raise taxes on successful people, it's old news now! If you ask anyone if people making more than them should pay more in taxes I doubt few would think they shouldn't. What is news is that after more than three years of asking Liberals to tell us what they think a "fair share" is, people are finally asking that question and it isn't matching up with the Liberal rhetoric!

    shybuffguy said ... and not really news so much as spin from Liberals and their surrogates. The real news would be if you actually looked inside the polls, what you'll find there doesn't match the headlines you're crowing about. ...


    So, the debate changes from one poll, to "polls." It looks like you, too, use spin. The actual poll results in question do match the Yahoo headline.
    I'm not spinning anything. It doesn't matter whether it's one poll or 50 polls, what changes the debate is when you look inside the polls at what questions are asked and how they are asked! The debate changer is, once you look inside the poll or polls the story being presented, or in the case of Liberals spoon fed, doesn't match what is actually inside the poll/s!

    shybuffguy said ... In a new poll conducted by The Hill, the findings are much different than what Liberals keep telling us they are ...


    Imagine that, a different poll had different results. That never happened before!!
    Again, follow along closely with me. Look beyond the headline and actually get a copy of the poll or polls and see how they are conducted, what questions are asked and how they are asked and the picture that emerges as to this issue is far different than the picture presented by a biased news media!

    shybuffguy said ... Maybe you and the people over at Yahoo ...


    The poll was actually conducted by Reuters/Ipsos. Either you aren't reading or you have a problem with your comprehension.

    You might have skipped over the first sentence of the article:

    "(Reuters) - Nearly two-thirds of Americans support imposing a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on those who earn $1 million or more a year, according to Reuters/Ipsos poll results released on Tuesday."

    But, the link posted was a Yahoo link. If Yahoo is going to report that as if it were irrefutable, if they are a reputable news organization, they have an obligation to vet their source! I skipped nothing. I apologize that you weren't able to follow along.

    see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/us-usa-poll-tax-idUSBRE82C1CD20120313
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2012 11:29 AM GMT
    rnch saidRepuglicans, like Homer J. Simpson, beleive that "you can explain ANYTHING with statistics!"




    icon_lol.gif


    We just believe in making our decisions based on facts and not rhetoric and trapped gas! We live in a reality based in fact and not in unreality based on emotions based on nothing!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2012 11:32 AM GMT
    rnch saidRepuglicans, like Homer J. Simpson, beleive that "you can explain ANYTHING with statistics!"




    icon_lol.gif


    86_marginalgrowth.jpg
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_fraud.single.htmlA caveat—obvious but critical—is in order. Simultaneity does not equal causation. Annual growth rates are a consequence of many factors, macro and micro, and the isolated impact of marginal tax rates on growth is hard, if not impossible, to discern from these numbers alone.

    That said, it's obvious that there is no correlation between higher marginal tax rates and slowing economic activity. During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak—91 percent or 92 percent—the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent. The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm—just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent.

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 23, 2012 1:39 PM GMT
    shybuffguy saidThe Reagan tax cuts resulted in a 99.4% jump in federal government revenues during the 1980s. The average annual GDP growth rate from 1983 to 1989 was 3.8%/yr, compared with the 2.8% from 1974 to 1981 under President Carter.


    Since Reagan became President in 1981, it's funny that you leave out the years 1981-1983, the years of the Reagan recession due to what Reagan's Budget Director David Stockman described as "the pigs getting greedy at the trough."

    That is, the Reagan 1981 tax cuts were way too big, and immediately after their enactment in August 1981, the stock market took a dive, as did the U.S. economy. The Reagan recession resulted in worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, with unemployment peaking at over 10%; this caused Republican losses in the 1982 midterm elections. Because the enormous 1981 tax cuts, left untouched, would have bankrupted the U.S. Treasury, the necessary adjustment enacted in 1982 was the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, up to that point. And poor Senator Bob Dole, the floor manager for that tax increase; as Republican nominee for President in 1996, voters were repeated reminded by the Clinton campaign that Bob Dole supported the biggest tax increase in U.S. history.

    It's also funny that you extend Carter's term retroactively back to 1974, the year Ford became president. Carter's term started in 1977, after his election in 1976. You should really try to improve your knowledge of U.S. history so you don't make so many mistakes. Or maybe you intentionally fudged the years so your numbers would look better; that's not just spin, it's dishonesty.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Mar 23, 2012 2:13 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    This is old news and not really news so much as spin from Liberals and their surrogates. The real news would be if you actually looked inside the polls, what you'll find there doesn't match the headlines you're crowing about.



    Exactly!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:17 PM GMT
    Charts, graphs, "news reporters", republicans & democrats can and do all spin the facts to support their view.

    My take, it's immoral to take money legally earned to pay for common services that can not be equally (as a percentage) shared by all. This is why I don't support mult tax & taxation. In my view there should be only one type of tax and everyone should pay the same percentage period. No deductions, no loop holes, no exceptions.

    This stops those who earn from investments from getting off easy and provides "equity" for those that pay little or no percentage.

    One thing I've never seen? A true effective tax rate...think about what we actually pay in taxes. Income tax for federal, state, local & county, gas tax, sin tax, property tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, wheel tax, gas guzzler tax, FICA, medicare (really just transfer taxes), special tax etc.... The list goes on and on. Now look at all the deductions...at least as long a list.

    I say one tax (percentage) for all based on whatever system we want to use (income, sales or other), no exception, no deductions.

    I can't help but wonder what people are thinking with all the waste in our country and their answer is raise taxes on a select few. Like I've said before, I'm not a republican or democrat, I can't stand either. I also don't understand why people tow the line of either of these two parties when their actions should cause true American shame.

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 23, 2012 3:57 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    tokugawa said
    shybuffguy said
    RickRick91 saidhttp://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/most-americans-back-buffett-tax-reuters-ipsos-215729476.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

    Nearly 2/3 of Americans support the "Buffett Tax".

    After a decade of the Bush tax cuts for the rich - God knows raising taxes back up on the rich is desperately needed to get our fiscal house back in order!


    This is old news ...


    The results were first published on March 13, 2012, hardly old news.

    Since 2009 all we hear from Liberals is how they want to raise taxes on successful people ...


    What a truly absurd assertion.

    "all we hear?" Really? REALLY?

    I think I heard Liberals also promote such concepts as:

    1. Stimulus Payments to prevent even more unemployment, and to repair decaying roads and infrastructure,

    2. Reducing the number of Americans who lack health insurance and preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions,

    3. Opposing further tax cuts for the very wealthy and opposing the shifting of the tax burden to the poor and middle class.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    Again brothers & sisters, I'm not a republican or a democrat and I refuse to follow the bullshit either side puts out.

    http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    We can debate all day long but if this data is correct, IMO, some people are way over paying & some are not paying enough. Please have a look at the data and judge for yourself how fair our tac system is...

    In a group the screams they want to be treated equal, should that equal treatment be applied across the board and on all areas?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:41 PM GMT
    joe_diesel1 saidAgain brothers & sisters, I'm not a republican or a democrat and I refuse to follow the bullshit either side puts out.

    http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    We can debate all day long but if this data is correct, IMO, some people are way over paying & some are not paying enough. Please have a look at the data and judge for yourself how fair our tac system is...

    In a group the screams they want to be treated equal, should that equal treatment be applied across the board and on all areas?


    Looking just at income tax is a false equivalency as is looking at marginal rates versus effective rates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 5:18 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    joe_diesel1 saidAgain brothers & sisters, I'm not a republican or a democrat and I refuse to follow the bullshit either side puts out.

    http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    We can debate all day long but if this data is correct, IMO, some people are way over paying & some are not paying enough. Please have a look at the data and judge for yourself how fair our tac system is...

    In a group the screams they want to be treated equal, should that equal treatment be applied across the board and on all areas?


    Looking just at income tax is a false equivalency as is looking at marginal rates versus effective rates.


    Care to detail your response?

    I believe the numbers in the attached url are actual income tax paid, as a percetage, by what percentage of income earners. Granted, I don't know if it's gross or adjusted which could be very different.

    As far as just looking at income tax I would agree as I would be somewhat comfortable guessing that those in higher income tax rates, again I would guess, pay more in other types of taxes as well.

    Am I understanding you correctly?
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Mar 23, 2012 5:37 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    tokugawa said
    shybuffguy said
    RickRick91 saidhttp://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/most-americans-back-buffett-tax-reuters-ipsos-215729476.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

    Nearly 2/3 of Americans support the "Buffett Tax".



    shybuffguy said ... Maybe you and the people over at Yahoo ...


    The poll was actually conducted by Reuters/Ipsos. Either you aren't reading or you have a problem with your comprehension.

    You might have skipped over the first sentence of the article:

    "(Reuters) - Nearly two-thirds of Americans support imposing a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on those who earn $1 million or more a year, according to Reuters/Ipsos poll results released on Tuesday."

    But, the link posted was a Yahoo link. If Yahoo is going to report that as if it were irrefutable, if they are a reputable news organization, they have an obligation to vet their source! I skipped nothing. I apologize that you weren't able to follow along.


    You don’t have a clue about journalism, do you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 8:11 PM GMT
    JWalker saidShybuffguy, you really shouldn't condescend to other people, especially as it becomes more and more clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

    Why don't you challenge him on specific points and we'll see who is shooting blanks? Is posting and keeping your profile hidden your security blanket?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 8:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    JWalker saidShybuffguy, you really shouldn't condescend to other people, especially as it becomes more and more clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

    Why don't you challenge him on specific points and we'll see who is shooting blanks? Is posting and keeping your profile hidden your security blanket?





    Why don't you stop acting like Mother Superior and post your own opinion instead of trying to tell other people what they may or may not post according to you.

    And given the fact that you have ZERO face pics on your profile - you're in no position to be bitching at anyone else about the secretiveness of their profile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2012 1:00 AM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    JWalker saidShybuffguy, you really shouldn't condescend to other people, especially as it becomes more and more clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

    Why don't you challenge him on specific points and we'll see who is shooting blanks? Is posting and keeping your profile hidden your security blanket?

    Why don't you stop acting like Mother Superior and post your own opinion instead of trying to tell other people what they may or may not post according to you.

    And given the fact that you have ZERO face pics on your profile - you're in no position to be bitching at anyone else about the secretiveness of their profile.

    Why don't you mind your own business? Doing exactly what you criticize me for doing. Did the hypocrisy even occur to that massively intelligent brain of yours?