• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is it fair

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
http://ttoes.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/wall-street-journal-stephen-moore-on-fairness-a-must-read/

Yesterday, I received an email from a discussion group with whom I often converse. The day’s discussion was about a youtube type movie that discussed more new ‘facts’ about the Obama eligibility issue. One participant, a College Professor and quite (politically) Liberal woman from Portland, responded to the conversation without any real facts, but based on her beliefs, that Mr. Obama was obviously a natural born citizen and qualified to be President. In fact she stated that he was doing a great job and that she was proud that she would be voting for Mr. Obama this November.

I politely disagreed with her assessment of the job he is doing and stated that he may be qualified to be President based on his birth and citizenship, but, as to his skills, experience, and ethics, he might just be the least qualified person ever to hold the office.

Then, this morning, I read the Wall Street Journal and wished that our Liberal friend would some day read something other than the New York Times. If she did, she might have great difficulty answering the questions posed in Steven Moore’s opinion piece today which is copied in its entirety below:
By STEPHEN MOORE, The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2012






President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

moore

Associated Press Photo

Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes?

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

Is it fair that the three counties with America’s highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized”?

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can’t afford to repay?

Is it fair that thousands of workers won’t have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama’s largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Now the Left will bring up marginal tax rates versus effective tax rates, so:

Top 1%: 18.8% effective rate
Next 19%: 11.8% effective rate (we have now covered the top 20% of filings)
Next 60%: 4.2% effective rate
Bottom 20%: -5.6% effective rate


So the bottom 20% get money "back", that they never paid in
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
This is really interesting. Can we get the average incomes of each of these tax groups?? Golly, I'm wondering why that guy on C-Span representing all those millionaires felt it necessary to appear on national TV in favor of millionaires and above paying more taxes???? His reasoning-- He said they are patriotic enough to want to help America in a time of need, and that they have all the money they need.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
This is really interesting. Can we get the average incomes of each of these tax groups?? Golly, I'm wondering why that guy on C-Span representing all those millionaires felt it necessary to appear on national TV in favor of millionaires and above paying more taxes???? His reasoning-- He said they are patriotic enough to want to help America in a time of need, and that they have all the money they need.


so you want to confiscate his/her property?


Higher taxes is not what is needed....less waste, duplication, corruption and fraud is what is needed.

Have you ever investigated Canada's tax rates? Ever wondered how we can provide everything the Left wants, more cost efficiently?


Do yourself a favour before chasing your inductry and business away and maybe take a look at how Canada's tax system works.



For Canadian-controlled private corporations claiming the small business deduction, the net tax rate is 11%.

For the other corporations, the net tax rate is decreased as follows:

19% effective January 1, 2009
18% effective January 1, 2010
16.5% effective January 1, 2011
15% effective January 1, 2012

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/crprtns/rts-eng.html


Maybe what you want to do first is to take a remedial math course.....


Is 15% of $10,000,000 greater or less than 25% of $6,000,000?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
No dollar amounts huh?? Just wanted everyone to see the relationships.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
No dollar amounts huh?? Just wanted everyone to see the relationships.

I was editing at the time you wrote your post, so you could understand.

Would you like the difference of $ Millions to be in your own Country at the loswer rate, or have the higher rate with the lower dollars?


Seriously take a remedial math course, you might better understand equilibrium, when it comes to tax revenue and the added social benefits it might provide
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Sigh, I guess those millionaires on C-Span need to take a course also, they must be so stupid having earned all that money and want to pay more taxes to the US treasury. If I had only written down the website, Hypo, I'm sure they can use your advise.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
Sigh, I guess those millionaires on C-Span need to take a course also, they must be so stupid having earned all that money and want to pay more taxes to the US treasury. If I had only written down the website, Hypo, I'm sure they can use your advise.


I can tell you why they want a higher rate.....because they are not going to pay it anyway.

What is the marginal now? What will the effective be if you raise the marginal by 5-10% and are in bed with the government?

The rate (%) does not mean one iota, it's the manner in which income is taxed.......


....really, take a remedial math course. :roll:



Most of those millionaires on TV have foreign interests, agreed? Someone like Buffett has railway lines that they profit off more so, than the pipelines they own, correct?


so why not advocate for the pipelines to be taxed more, because they are an environmental hazard, while reaping the profits off the alternative, which is by far more of a hazard?

Do you Libs ever use anything other than emotion to judge your opinions on?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
Sigh, I guess those millionaires on C-Span need to take a course also, they must be so stupid having earned all that money and want to pay more taxes to the US treasury. If I had only written down the website, Hypo, I'm sure they can use your advise.

most of those who advocate for higher taxes more then likely pay little tax anyways.. and under higher taxes will not see much of a difference from a personnel point of view, but from a business strategic point of view they will see their competitors pay more taxes and have less capital to compete..

any good rich business person can manipulate his earnings.. the richer you are the more ability you have to "game" the system..

and that leaves you with more capital to use in business against a smaller less able competitor..

Buffet is a prime example.. Romney another... both take just enough income to "live" off of an re-invest the rest..

between trusts and other legal "scams" they also provide for their children and have bypassed estate laws..

Do you really think congress is smart enough to tailor the tax code to actually squeeze a few more cents out of these billionaires?

nope.. they will just make it tougher on those who make "over 250,000"

the ones who are for the most part still working to earn the cash.. not collecting carried interest and stock options..
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
Sigh, I guess those millionaires on C-Span need to take a course also, they must be so stupid having earned all that money and want to pay more taxes to the US treasury. If I had only written down the website, Hypo, I'm sure they can use your advise.


I can tell you why they want a higher rate.....because they are not going to pay it anyway.

What is the marginal now? What will the effective be if you raise the marginal by 5-10% and are in bed with the government?

The rate (%) does not mean one iota, it's the manner in which income is taxed.......


....really, take a remedial math course. :roll:



Most of those millionaires on TV have foreign interests, agreed? Someone like Buffett has railway lines that they profit off more so, than the pipelines they own, correct?


so why not advocate for the pipelines to be taxed more, because they are an environmental hazard, while reaping the profits off the alternative, which is by far more of a hazard?

Do you Libs ever use anything other than emotion to judge your opinions on?

Sigh, Again, Sorry You missed the show, they not only wanted a higher rate but specifically referred to the fact they wanted to pay MORE MONEY in taxes. Again their reason-- they earned their money in America from American consumers for the most part and felt the patriotic duty to help in this time of need. They felt the AMOUNT they were paying just wasn't a fair amount relative to their earnings.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Steve said:
TSR said:
Sigh, I guess those millionaires on C-Span need to take a course also, they must be so stupid having earned all that money and want to pay more taxes to the US treasury. If I had only written down the website, Hypo, I'm sure they can use your advise.

most of those who advocate for higher taxes more then likely pay little tax anyways.. and under higher taxes will not see much of a difference from a personnel point of view, but from a business strategic point of view they will see their competitors pay more taxes and have less capital to compete..

any good rich business person can manipulate his earnings.. the richer you are the more ability you have to "game" the system..

and that leaves you with more capital to use in business against a smaller less able competitor..

Buffet is a prime example.. Romney another... both take just enough income to "live" off of an re-invest the rest..

between trusts and other legal "scams" they also provide for their children and have bypassed estate laws..

Do you really think congress is smart enough to tailor the tax code to actually squeeze a few more cents out of these billionaires?

nope.. they will just make it tougher on those who make "over 250,000"

the ones who are for the most part still working to earn the cash.. not collecting carried interest and stock options..


and it works the same with regulations....


Look at small abatoirs. The big companies advocate for regulations they know that the small local abatoir cannot meet financially, so the large do away with their competition.


Regulatory Capture.


Do away with the Federal regulations, that these agencies are not Constitutionally mandated to control, and let the more local regulatory bodies control.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
TSR said:
Sigh, I guess those millionaires on C-Span need to take a course also, they must be so stupid having earned all that money and want to pay more taxes to the US treasury. If I had only written down the website, Hypo, I'm sure they can use your advise.

most of those who advocate for higher taxes more then likely pay little tax anyways.. and under higher taxes will not see much of a difference from a personnel point of view, but from a business strategic point of view they will see their competitors pay more taxes and have less capital to compete..

any good rich business person can manipulate his earnings.. the richer you are the more ability you have to "game" the system..

and that leaves you with more capital to use in business against a smaller less able competitor..

Buffet is a prime example.. Romney another... both take just enough income to "live" off of an re-invest the rest..

between trusts and other legal "scams" they also provide for their children and have bypassed estate laws..

Do you really think congress is smart enough to tailor the tax code to actually squeeze a few more cents out of these billionaires?

nope.. they will just make it tougher on those who make "over 250,000"

the ones who are for the most part still working to earn the cash.. not collecting carried interest and stock options..


and it works the same with regulations....


Look at small abatoirs. The big companies advocate for regulations they know that the small local abatoir cannot meet financially, so the large do away with their competition.


Regulatory Capture.


Do away with the Federal regulations, that these agencies are not Constitutionally mandated to control, and let the more local regulatory bodies control.

Why is this so hard to understand?

If you're a liberal is is a concept you will not grasp...
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
So you are saying that the IRS/Federal treasury, in the past, never gained anymore revenue due to higher tax rates?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
So you are saying that the IRS/Federal treasury, in the past, never gained anymore revenue due to higher tax rates?


show me where they did?


Liberals like to quote the 90% tax rates of years gone by, but they don't quote what that tax rate was applied to.


Maybe you can do it....why not give it a try?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Go to Wikipedia and look up Historic Tax revenues as a % of GDP. Oh well believe what you want HYPO, I'm retiring for the night.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
So you are saying that the IRS/Federal treasury, in the past, never gained anymore revenue due to higher tax rates?

typically there is a revenue bump or increase before the tax goes into effect as corporations and individuals make the first effort to avoid the new tax increase..

then revenue increases slightly as the increase is put in to effect..

then as corporations and individuals adjust to the new tax rate it traditionally drops off and actual revenue declines..

chart_nugent6-28-06.gif

There are two zones to the Laffer curve: prohibitive and normal. In the prohibitive zone, reductions in tax rates contribute to higher, not lower, tax collections. Conversely, when you raise taxes on individuals in this zone, you get lower, not higher, tax revenues.

To summarize,

1. Reducing tax rates on the rich increases tax revenues;



2. Raising tax rates on poor and middle-income earners increases tax revenues.

simple economics..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
Go to Wikipedia and look up Historic Tax revenues as a % of GDP. Oh well believe what you want HYPO, I'm retiring for the night.


So if you raise the tax rates, but smother business, it will be the same as a lower tax rate on increased business?


How long will the business stay around, before moving offshore, or to Canada?

If you are a business that does $ 10 billion /year of business, would you stay in a country that charges you 1% more tax than the adjoining Country?


What would the added profit mean to your unionized middle class shareholders, or pension holders?



History of top rates
President Coolidge signing the Mellon tax bill. Andrew Mellon is on left.In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million 2007 dollars).

During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars).

Under Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, top tax rates were reduced in 1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928. Mellon argued that lower rates would spur economic growth.[29] By 1928, the top rate was scaled down to 24% and the income threshold for paying this rate fell to $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars). During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

Since 1964, the threshold for paying top income tax rate has generally been between $200,000 and $400,000. The one exception is the period from 1982–1992 when the top income tax brackets were removed and incomes above around $100,000 (varies by year) paid the top rate. From 1981 until 1986 the top marginal rate was lowered to 50%.

From 1988–1990, the threshold for paying the top rate was even lower, with incomes above $29,750 to $32,450 ($51,000 in 2007 dollars) paying the top rate of 28% in those years.[30]

Top tax rates were increased in 1992 and 1994, culminating in a 39.6% top individual rate applicable to all classes of income.

Top individual tax rates were lowered in 2004 to 35% and tax rates on dividends and capital gains lowered to 15%, with the Bush administration claiming lower rates would spur economic growth.


Hauser's LawHauser's Law is a theory by one economist that postulates that in the United States, federal tax revenues will always be equal to approximately 19.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), regardless of what the top marginal tax rate is. From fiscal year 1946 to fiscal year 2007, federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP averaged 17.9%, with a range of 14.4% to 20.9%.[34] During the years referred to by Hauser (FY 46 to FY 93), the actual average was 17.7%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States



So from a high of 91% on the "rich" in '46 to a low of 33% on the same income bracket in 2010, the tax revenue remained about 18% of GDP.....imagine :roll:


YOu wanted the Wiki numbers, correct?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
TSR said:
Sigh, I guess those millionaires on C-Span need to take a course also, they must be so stupid having earned all that money and want to pay more taxes to the US treasury. If I had only written down the website, Hypo, I'm sure they can use your advise.

I don't believe any of that for a second. You can bet your last dollar that every one of those individuals has their accountants doing all they can to minimize taxes and always has. They are taking all of their deductions, depreciation, etc.... If they want to pay more in taxes, all they have to do is tell their accounts - or they can simply cut a check and mail it to the treasury.
 

Latest posts

Top