Bush Era Tax Cuts

[byteware]

I know this is an extremely sensetive subject to all. Who wants to pay more money?

Here is my view:

I feel that we should allow all the taxes cuts to expire for those making more than 250k, but also look at the taxes of those making 100k+ individually and consider their tax situation. Now before anyone burns me in effigy, let me point out that I only make 45k per year. I currently pay 30% in taxes.........but someone making 1 million per year only pays 19% in taxes.....so how is that right? 30% of my 45k is huge compared to 19% of 1 million. Most of us middle classers start having trouble when taxes keep going up, but the guy making 1 million per year loses money, but his lifestyle doesnt change. They dont need to worry if they can afford the next bill or mortage payment.

I've got to wonder where in the world you are getting your information?

The highest tax bracket is 35%.

Your tax bracket is only 25%.

Someone who makes a million dollars this year will pay $327,643.8 in income tax. This doesn't include any other taxes like Sales tax. (32.8%)

Someone who only makes $45,000 will pay $7,431.25 in income tax. This doesn't include any other taxes like Sales tax. (16.5%)


I don't see how you think you pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than they do, but I hate to be the one to break it to you. You don't. Not by a LONG shot.

 

[copestag]

actually if you earned $45K in 2009 your tax liability was at max $5,106

if you take a look at just the next tax bracket up, not even the highest tax bracket..........

a person who earned $82,250 (less than twice your income).......... this persons tax liability would be at max $14,419 ( nearly 3 times your liability)

of course this is all based on being single w/ no dependants....... if your married or have dependants your liability is much lower........ and in most cases you actually get a refund higher than the amount you paid in if youre filing on $45K

lets just break that out in some easy to read examples of rates and proposed changes (again using single /w no dependants):

Current-
$45K pays about $5K (in most cases this number is $0)
$82K pays about $14K
$250K pays about $67K

Proposed-
$45K pays about $5K (no increase.... in most cases this number is $0)
$82K pays about $14K (no increase)
$250K pays about $82K ($15K increase)

the problem is people dont look at the big picture....... they see those taxes taken out of their check each week and think "man Im gettin hosed".... in reality in most cases you are getting all that money back at the end of the year (and in many cases youre actually earning more money)........ so to even begin to compare yourself to the tax liabilities of the 'rich' is ridiculous........of course calling someone who earns $250K 'rich' is ridiculous to begin with

I agree its always easier to spend someone elses money....... but to quote the line used above.... "how is that right?"

 

[ElasticNinja]

Sorry, but surely earning $250K a year would make you quite wealthy, it would in EU

 

[copestag]

earning $1K makes you rich in Zimbabwe too......... so we should tax the hell out of anybody who earns more than $1K

 

[Azzurri]

Sorry, but surely earning $250K a year would make you quite wealthy, it would in EU

It's makes you comfortable, not wealthy. My uncle in an architect in southern Italy who owns his own business. He makes about that much and by no means would I consider him rich, he's comfortable but not "rich"

And I'm sorry but 250k a year isn't rich, if you're making millions then you're rich, but 250k here in the USA is not rich.

 

[wiretap]

$250k is pretty standard for two educated married couples. Trust me, it isn't rich and definitely not very comfortable in the current economic climate. Putting kids through college, inflation causing everything to be ridiculously expensive, threats of job loss, bills, taxes, etc. Being in a $250k income bracket is nearly the same as someone in a $80k-$100k income bracket after it is all said and done.

Now on the other hand if it was just one person making that much with no family and a very conservative lifestyle, that would be totally different.

 

[TheBeardedMann]

$250k is pretty standard for two educated married couples. Trust me, it isn't rich and definitely not very comfortable in the current economic climate. Putting kids through college, inflation causing everything to be ridiculously expensive, threats of job loss, bills, taxes, etc. Being in a $250k income bracket is nearly the same as someone in a $80k-$100k income bracket after it is all said and done.

Now on the other hand if it was just one person making that much with no family and a very conservative lifestyle, that would be totally different.

It shouldn't be different. It's your earned money.
Flat tax. Make it fair, equal, same, blah blah. It's earned money. Not given money. Someone somehow earned that money. No one can print their own money. Just because someone makes more than me, doesn't mean they are not equal to me. They just did something better than I did. Maybe college, trade school, maybe they invented the pet rock. Whatever it is, someone traded their money for that person's goods/services. If I trade my 25% taxed dollar to another person, it shouldn't change to a 39% taxed dollar. Money is just a means of trading goods and services.

 

[wiretap]

I'm in agreement. I didn't mean it was different in terms of we should tax different. I meant the fiscal situation is much different in a single person household versus a family household.

 

[TheBeardedMann]

Didn't mean to sound offensive if I did.

 

[JPFX]

While the 2 sides of the isle disagree on tax cuts, it is very simple and I will prove it.
Tax cuts = more money in your paycheck.
Raise taxes = less money in your paycheck.
Remember, every dime the government spends, comes from our taxes. They spend 'our' money. My wife and I both have government jobs and both of us are furloughed to about 10% (total) of what we were making 2 years ago. We are making less $$$ and because of it, we are now spending less. That means we don't go out to eat as much, to the movies, camping/fishing trips etc.
To say the rich need to pay more taxes simply because they make more is absurd! Remember everyone, the rich pay the majority of the taxes in this Country, not the middle-class, and definetley not the lower-middle class.
It is a huge trickle down effect.
The answer is to cut government spending on pork barrel projects, social services, I better stop here.

 

[Weazol]

$250k is pretty standard for two educated married couples. Trust me, it isn't rich and definitely not very comfortable in the current economic climate.

I make roughly 50k (in the military this is housing included.. crappy pay. I know. But I love what I do.)
My wife makes 60k as a teacher in elementary school...

so 110k a year. We live in California and I find our pay very comfortable. \
We go out to eat once a week (anymore and I'd be sick)
I spend money fairly easy on things I want with money still going into savings
(also buying clothes and stuff for my children.)
We do have to watch our budget but it is nothing we worry about.

So to say 250k is not very comfortable is a big stretch. I wouldn't call it rich but it would be plenty of comfortable.

 

[wiretap]

Everyone's situation varies. I guess two government jobs would be a little more comfortable than the private sector though. Government sector = expanding. Private sector = contracting.

 

[copestag]

comfortable is a matter of personal life choices........

a single person w/ no dependants can live quite comfortably on $20K a year in many areas.... buying things he wants and going out to eat as he wants...... that same single person couldnt pay for housing let alone other expenses and afford to eat in other areas of the country

the same holds true for someone earning $250K.... in many areas of the country that might seem like a lot of money...... in some areas thats just enough to get by

it isnt really a matter of comfortable....... its a matter of principle.....

why exactly is it someone elses responsibility to make sure the country is funded simply because they made the choice to do what it takes to earn more money or because they are "comfortable"

 

[dark4181]

The problem with cutting spending is, as always, what do you cut? The services that the government provides are there for a reason, yes there is plenty of fat to be shed which would help, but no where near enough of that to fix the problem. Letting the cuts expire for the top brackets seems quite reasonable to me with my teachers salary. What real effect is bringing home 240k instead of 250k going to have on them? Or even 125k instead of 135k assuming 50% taxes (no clue what they actually are) I can't even contemplate what I'd do with over 100k a year of profit.

First, you cut out the ~85% pay premium that most government employees get over their private sector counterparts. That alone should save billions per year. Then you make the government employees actually pay their taxes (~$1.5 billion a year in unpaid taxes, to give you an idea.)

You institute term limits for all government officials (4, 6, or 8 years) to put an end to incumbency and bribing.. sorry, lobbying. You abolish the IRS and all income, life, death, estate, etc., taxes and institute a consumption tax of 10-15%. You buy something? You pay the tax then. You make less than [some amount]? That's fine, you get a non-perpetual, limited monthly credit from Uncle Sam. You make more than [some amount]? That's fine, pay more voluntarily or give some away to charity with no tax deductions.

You abolish the Federal Reserve and base the value of the dollar on something tangible (i.e.- precious metals, gems) rather than basing it on pipe dreams.

Abolish the drug war, release nonviolent drug offenders, legalize responsible marijuana use. Regulate, tax, profit. Just keep the green free of additives. We don't need another version of Big Pharma or Big Tobacco. (read: Marijuana Law Reform - NORML)

Secure the border against illegal immigration, while at the same time reforming and refining the process of legal immigration. Perhaps 2 years of military service = granted citizenship.

Rewrite NAFTA, copyright & IP laws, telecommunication laws and regulations to bring them into parity with new and future technologies (digital media, p2p, cell/telecom service, length of copyright, etc). The writings of Franklin and Jefferson should be consulted heavily here (they weren't fans of perpetual copyright ownership.)

Rewrite, reduce, and consolidate all social aid programs. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, et al; all of these programs are flush with bloat, fraud, corruption and waste. They need serious help. There is no reason but laziness for mentally competent people that get on government aid and stay there for life.

Move society away from the credit-consumer mindset. Debt is slavery, and "I want it now!" is childish. This is why the next president needs to make Dave Ramsey secretary of the Treasury (or Federal Reserve chairman.)

Bit of a rant, but I think I got it all out

p.2.- Heh, it actually took me so long to type this that the forum logged me out. Good think I have a form fill add-in.

 

[ntrddragn]

To me its really funny how we as citizens fall for these politician propaganda. Lets tax the rich, those evil bastards! Thats the sentiments of all broke people. Do you really think these politician make less the $100K a year? Probably a bottom feeder politicians. Why would I (a politician) want to increase my taxes? It doesnt make sense but they go on tv and shout "those rich people are hogging the pie". Why? So they can stay in office and continue to make a 6 figure+ income off of our "tax" dollars. "Rich" people create jobs! Think about it, if I was a millionaire, I would need someone to clean my house, wash my car, cook my food, nice clothes, nice cars etc. Some one would see the 'need' and fill it by opening a cleaning service, car washing service, open a restaurant, open a supermarket, open a dealership etc...then that "someone" would hire people to help run those places hence jobs creation. And now imagine it on a bigger scale (not just 1 millionaire but LOTS).

Millionaires dont just make the money and then bury it. In a sense they dont hog the pie but make more pies. So if you tax the crap out them they wouldnt be able to spend as much and they will start to cut back on stuff like cutting their own grass. They fired the gardener, who then fired his employees, who then file a complaint about being out of work to a politician, who then promise them that he will make the rich pay more taxes so the employee can get a break.

Check the out the 80/20 law. In this case, 20% of the population is paying 80% off all the taxes and the 80% is paying the rest. This is AMERICA, you have the RIGHT to be broke. Im sorry to say. its no one else faults that you work in a job that doesnt pay much, its your fault. It was your decision.

I'll end with a story about why this country will make or break you and it all depends on YOU. I have a few friends who served 10+ yrs in prison (not going into details). Came out and of course NO one would hired them. They finally found someone (a friend of a friend) who would. So they did janitorial work @ grave yard shift. Did it for 2 yrs. They saved their money by sharing rooms. After 2 yrs decided they should open their own service, and with the help of the friend they did it (in a different city as to not compete with their friend). With no bank loans (ex con so no loans) Did that for 3 yrs and sold the business. Took that money open a computer store, sold that. Move to a different state open a mechanic shop. Thats was 12 yrs ago. Now they are making well into the 250K+ figures with the shops they have. Along the way hired people (created jobs). They go on vacation all over the place still. They paid to take us out, paid for rooms on our vacations (even though we can afford it. We also do the same for them). They didnt do it janitorial work because they 'love' it, they do what works. Its a step to a goal. MOST American deem its below them to clean toilets or flip burgers after they get laid off. They get all caught up in their 'title' and 'status'.

oh man, wall ol' text! =/ Let the battle begin

 

[Potvin63]

Just to chime in here. I see some of the conversation got into tax brackets and personal incomes. First and foremost, it's nice to see so many people on here have a job. I am a very well educated individual (I have three degrees including a law degree and passed the bar last summer) but it took me nearly a year to find a good job. Even then, that job is with a huge multinational company, on a 4 month contract, and I am an Adjunct Professor teaching 2 politics classes at a low end (inexpensive) state school in a city with poverty and other issues.

If I extrapolated what I get at my 40 hour a week contract job over a full year plus teaching 4 classes a year, I would net $52,000 a year + $14,400 from teaching BEFORE taxes. I get no health benefits so that comes out of my pocket too. I think a lot of people already in the work force don't realize that going to school is great but once you get out it's hard to get a job, even with advanced degrees, because you lack real world experience many employers want.

Now I only hope after my 4 months are up that I get a full time offer.

To circle back to the original thread topic, I would say extend the tax cuts for everyone for 2 years because I think it's the most reasonable expectation to get both parties to agree to it. Cutting taxes is great but with the large deficit we are already ringing up that's even more money not going into the coffers. The economy is still fragile so say the tax cuts are to put more money into people's pockets. To say that these tax cuts will result in job creation or will "trickle down" is to be shortsighted. Previous tax cuts have not resulted in any kind of wealth distribution or trickle down effect.

Even though I am a Democrat I find myself agreeing with some of the ideas just released by the Republican party to cut spending to 2008 levels and no more government hiring of non-security personnel. I disagree with the notion that you need to find constitutional authority to justify new spending because that document is over 220 years old and purposely vague in some of the powers it delineates to the branches. The Constitution needs to be sharpened because it never could have foreseen the population explosion and technological advancements.

 

[wiretap]

To say that these tax cuts will result in job creation or will "trickle down" is to be shortsighted. Previous tax cuts have not resulted in any kind of wealth distribution or trickle down effect.

Economic reports beg to differ. The only thing driving this horrible economic climate is trillions in spending, endless wars, forced loans which collapsed, house flipping, and numerous currency manipulations.

Don't get caught up in the Republican versus Democrat rhetoric. It is all a media driven smokescreen. Deep down they are all the same, pushing larger government onto the people. If you want real positive change you have to look to the emerging leaders who have core principles of an 18th century classical liberal.

 

[byteware]

Previous tax cuts have not resulted in any kind of wealth distribution or trickle down effect.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

I see from your statement that you haven't actually done any research on the topic and simply believe what you've been told by people who share your political persuasion.

Check the link out for some facts about the Bush Era Tax Cuts.

Even though I am a Democrat I find myself agreeing with some of the ideas just released by the Republican party to cut spending to 2008 levels and no more government hiring of non-security personnel. I disagree with the notion that you need to find constitutional authority to justify new spending because that document is over 220 years old and purposely vague in some of the powers it delineates to the branches. The Constitution needs to be sharpened because it never could have foreseen the population explosion and technological advancements.

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to near half of what it HAS done.

Congress gets around it, by not doing any of the stuff that it has done. Congress holds the money that it collected from the states and will not give them the money that it collected from them, unless they do what Congress wants.

The States make the policy changes, and then Congress releases the money.

So, yes, through backhanded dealings, Congress has the authority to do what it's done.

However, I am greatly disheartened by your statement about the Constitution. It doesn't matter how old the document is. It is the law of this land. It is what guarantees your rights. If we can circumvent it for anything, then our rights are no longer guaranteed.

 

[dark4181]

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts | The Heritage Foundation

I see from your statement that you haven't actually done any research on the topic and simply believe what you've been told by people who share your political persuasion.

Check the link out for some facts about the Bush Era Tax Cuts.



The Constitution does not authorize Congress to near half of what it HAS done.

Congress gets around it, by not doing any of the stuff that it has done. Congress holds the money that it collected from the states and will not give them the money that it collected from them, unless they do what Congress wants.

The States make the policy changes, and then Congress releases the money.

So, yes, through backhanded dealings, Congress has the authority to do what it's done.

However, I am greatly disheartened by your statement about the Constitution. It doesn't matter how old the document is. It is the law of this land. It is what guarantees your rights. If we can circumvent it for anything, then our rights are no longer guaranteed.

Furthermore, the Constitution only authorizes the Federal government to to do things that it states explicitly that they are allowed to do.

James Madison, explaining the Constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated

 

[byteware]

Furthermore, the Constitution only authorizes the Federal government to to do things that it states explicitly that they are allowed to do.

James Madison, explaining the Constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated

 

[Potvin63]

@Byteware: Did you really just post a link from a conservative think tank to discredit myths about the Bush tax cuts? I don't really tend to believe what I read from think tanks backed by political parties. To claim both political parties are totally corrupt and then point to something written by a right leaning think tank doesn't exactly reassure me.

Now granted my initial statement about the tax cuts may have been overbroad, but two of the biggest tax cuts in history, came right before the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Entitlement spending is certainly out of control but so is all the money we are spending on two wars based on questionable facts and logic.

I understand the way the Constitution was written but it's naive to think the States will ever have enough power (or money) to be on equal footing with the federal government. A lot of what the federal government does is from an extension of their enumerated powers or their implied powers but they were given the power of the purse strings and that still speaks louder than the states.

In terms of changing or amending the Constitution I just think currently it's too hard to amend it even if there was enough of a consensus to call a constitutional convention and send an amendment to the states for ratification.

Also as you pointed out, the Constitution is the law of the land so while states can pass laws (like the immigration bill Arizona passed) if the federal government passes a similar bill that will trump any state's bill. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make but everyone is biased in some way. The founding fathers were biased by the fact they believed they were smarter and had to comes up with rules and laws to govern the people. These are also the same men who owned slaves and thought they were only worth 3/5 of a white man so I took what they say a little less seriously.

 

[wiretap]

The founding fathers were biased by the fact they believed they were smarter and had to comes up with rules and laws to govern the people.

No they weren't. They made a setup a very limited federal government that left the rules and laws up to the people to decide and vote on.

 

[byteware]

@Byteware: Did you really just post a link from a conservative think tank to discredit myths about the Bush tax cuts? I don't really tend to believe what I read from think tanks backed by political parties. To claim both political parties are totally corrupt and then point to something written by a right leaning think tank doesn't exactly reassure me.

I'm going to assume you didn't read it. Every one of the 10 points they made was supported by the economic data. You can look at the IRS reports, and see for yourself. If they have lied about any of their data, I can't find anything to refute it.

Just because it comes from conservatives... doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Read it, and then tell me what you think about it.

Now granted my initial statement about the tax cuts may have been overbroad, but two of the biggest tax cuts in history, came right before the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Entitlement spending is certainly out of control but so is all the money we are spending on two wars based on questionable facts and logic.

2 things:

First, there was no tax break prior to the Great Recession. The tax break you are referring to were passed nearly a decade earlier.

I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to make here. Giving people more money to spend destroys the economy?

Secondly, one war is based upon established fact, and unquestioned logic.

The other is based upon false facts, and horrible logic.

Both of these are established knowns. Leaving Iraq capable of handling it's own security concerns at least begins to put right the wrong we have done by invading Iraq.

Afghanistan is a war that is justified and should be won in order to prevent a repeat of 9/11.

I understand the way the Constitution was written but it's naive to think the States will ever have enough power (or money) to be on equal footing with the federal government.

This statement shows how little you've thought this through.

Where do you suppose that the Federal Government gets the money that it spends? From the citizens of the states. It takes the money FROM the states, and then refuses to give it back unless the states do what the Federal Government wants them to. That's an obvious abuse of power.

A lot of what the federal government does is from an extension of their enumerated powers or their implied powers but they were given the power of the purse strings and that still speaks louder than the states.

Wrong. Their enumerated powers have nothing to do with 1/100 of what they actually do. Have you read through the list of enumerated powers for Congress? It's disturbingly short.

What they do is from a misuse of their ability to spend money.

In terms of changing or amending the Constitution I just think currently it's too hard to amend it even if there was enough of a consensus to call a constitutional convention and send an amendment to the states for ratification.

Are you referring to amending the constitution in order to restore balance between the Federal Government and States? If so, you are correct. Are you referring to amending the Constitution in general? If so, I see no reason to believe this. There have been no amendments with enough popular support to actually pass, but that doesn't make it "too hard". I think it is designed to be prohibitively difficult to get an amendment through. This prevents us from amending the constitution for stupid reasons like preventing burning the flag...

Also as you pointed out, the Constitution is the law of the land so while states can pass laws (like the immigration bill Arizona passed) if the federal government passes a similar bill that will trump any state's bill.

Actually, that's not true. If Congress were to pass a law that required states to have an 8 hour school day, this law would be unconstitutional, and would NOT supercede state law. The Federal government is severely limited in what laws it CAN pass.

The founding fathers were biased by the fact they believed they were smarter and had to comes up with rules and laws to govern the people. These are also the same men who owned slaves and thought they were only worth 3/5 of a white man so I took what they say a little less seriously.

This is an idiotic viewpoint. Do you even know why that as put in there? Do you even know how that compromise was reached? An education on the past and our history would do you a great deal of good.

 

[byteware]

No they weren't. They made a setup a very limited federal government that left the rules and laws up to the people to decide and vote on.

Not only that, but they screwed up the first time, and had to start over.

 

[wiretap]

Thankfully.