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

So much for trickle down economics

A

Anonymous

Guest
So much for trickle down economics

According to new IRS data, during the first six years of the Bush presidency, the 400 richest Americans saw their average income double. At the same time, the average tax rate that they paid fell by a third, to 17.2%, the lowest rate since the IRS started tracking this data. Yes, that’s right, if you are a normal middle-class employee who works for a living, you almost certainly paid a larger share of your income in taxes than the 400 richest Americans. And I’d bet you didn’t see your income double during the Bush presidency.

Now, didn’t Reaganomics claim that by cutting taxes for the rich, everyone would benefit? Considering the current (and worsening) state of the economy, isn’t it amazing that Republicans in Congress are opposing Obama’s stimulus package because they want even more tax cuts? Tax rates for the rich are already at their lowest point on record, but that doesn’t seem to be enough for some people.

UPDATE: Robert Reich (Clinton’s Secretary of Labor) points out that up until 1976, the richest 1 percent of the country took home around 9 percent of the total national income, but by 2006 they were pocketing more than 20 percent. Interestingly, and not coincidentally, the last time the top 1 percent took home more than 20 percent of the nation’s income was 1928 (the Great Depression started in 1929).



http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06intop400.pdf
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The author isn't aware that the tax rates for the bottom brackets also went down by a third? Why don't the libs ever tell the whole story? Maybe because that isn't condusive to the class warfare that is the bedrock to their "you're a victim" & "spread the wealth" ideology?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
June 27, 2007
Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%
Interesting report from the Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night: Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
June 27, 2007
Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%
Interesting report from the Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night: Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

Again, the libs aren't telling the whole story. His receptionist may of been in the 30% tax bracket, but she doesn't pay 30% of her total income income in taxes as you libs like to let on. She pays 30% on her taxable income, which is the figure derived from her total income less her deductions. Thus, if her income is $30,000, after deductions, she may only be paying that 30% tax on $2000.

Tell the whole story.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I just looked at the tax tables. If your TAXABLE income is $40,000, and your status is "single" (the highest bracket), your tax is $6350, or 16%. How the hell do you come up with 30%?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
June 27, 2007
Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%
Interesting report from the Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night: Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

Again, the libs aren't telling the whole story. His receptionist may of been in the 30% tax bracket, but she doesn't pay 30% of her total income income in taxes as you libs like to let on. She pays 30% on her taxable income, which is the figure derived from her total income less her deductions. Thus, if her income is $30,000, after deductions, she may only be paying that 30% tax on $2000.

Tell the whole story.

You don't think Buffett takes deductions , write offs, and uses all the loopholes :???: I'll bet the old boy has a crib full of tax attorneys working on it every day....Probably know a lot more loopholes than that $30,000 receptionist does.....

What I see is the crew that calls themselves "fiscal conservatives" had control of the Congress 12 of the last 14 years- and the White House for the last 8-- and none of the trickle down worked.....The Bush higher tax cuts for the wealthy turned into a Socialism for the Rich- Capitalism for the Poor- "Sh*t runs down hill" economy-- and we ended up with the economic situation we have now on the verge of going back to Hoovervilles......
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
OT you are where you put yourself in life.

If you don't like being on the bottom of the trickle, do something about it. Many of us did. There is no way you started with less than I did.

If you choose to be a leach on the successful, quit whining.

I did not put you in the gutter of life.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
June 27, 2007
Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%
Interesting report from the Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night: Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

What Buffet is leaving out is that almost his entire income is derived from Corporate dividends which are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%, and the companies from which this money came from had already paid a hefty 35-40% tax on those very same dollars.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Plus, Buffet's secretary most likely only made around $100,000.00 per year.... which is the cutoff for Social Security income payments.

Since there is a cut-off on the "pay-in" side of SS, and also a limit on the "pay-out" side of SS, her entire income was subject to FICA, and Buffet's SS obligation was only on the first $100,000.00 of his income.

Since they would both pay SS on only $100,000.00, and both would only draw benefits on that amount, her SS payment would be a much higher percentage of her total taxable income.

Socialism at it's finest!!!!!!
 

don

Well-known member
so i guess it's actually healthy for the economy if one per cent of the population is earning twenty per cent of the income?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Anybody, rich, middle class or even lower is stupid if he/she doesn't take advantage of every legal tax deduction available. It's the law....ask Charlie Rangle about it. They do not designate that the rich cannot take these deductions. And if 1% make 20% of the money that's fine. They also probably pay 80% of the taxes collected by IRS and other taxing entities. We can all start small and get rich. It takes some common sense and hard work. If you're not there don't blame me.
 

Tex

Well-known member
I think both sides are right and wrong. Here is an article on the incentives we have created:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm

I think the "wrong" part of what Mike was saying is that if the companies take the money they earn and reinvest it, they get a write off for the reinvestment, the company gets bigger and more powerful in the market, and the "earnings" are not distributed hence do not get taxed.

The owners of the company just control more wealth and don't take their "investment" out of the corporation hence it is not taxed at the corporate rate. When it is taken out, it is not usually in dividends, which had been the traditional method of distributing corporate income, but in stock sales which qualify for the really low capital gains tax.

If wealthy people want to control another different company, for instance, instead of taking out capital distributions and buying it, they would just have the company they control buy it where everything can be depreciated and written off. They control more companies and do not have the tax consequence of the capital distribution from the company they already own.l

We are seeing such rapid consolidation in our industries this way and this consolidation of wealth makes it easier for politicians to get contributions from those who have concentrated the wealth, perpetuating the system through action or inaction legislatively and by not having regulatory agencies do their proper work.

Politicians seem to be hollowing out the chocolate bunny to the point, it seems where we are today, that the bunny has caved.
 

Mike

Well-known member
don said:
so i guess it's actually healthy for the economy if one per cent of the population is earning twenty per cent of the income?

How would you stop people from making money, and why?

The top one percent income earners already pay 37% of the total income taxes paid.

Only in a Socialistic Utopia would everyone make exactly the same amount of money!!!!!

It's very healthy to grow incomes, whatever tax bracket they are in.

How many people are welfare recipients hiring this year?
 

don

Well-known member
why would anyone want everyone earning equal incomes? that destroys incentive. if the deck is stacked so that wealth gets more concentrated (as apparently has been happening) where is the incentive in that? welfare recipients don't hire but if tax laws were such that money was encouraged to be kept invested in the economy maybe there wouldn't be so many welfare recipients. i know some people don't want off welfare, thats a given those people exist, but i'll bet there are a lot of people who wish they could get off welfare or move into a better job. ther'll be a lot more over the next three or four quarters. prechter estimates the true unemployment rate will be somewhere around 33 per cent.
 

Tex

Well-known member
If we really wanted to put incentives back in perhaps we could make the tax rate equal to the market share or multiple thereof for corporations. This would insure competition through incentives. It is amazing to me that the top 5 % control so much wealth, they tout the high tax rate that they don't really pay, and continue to control more and more wealth and undermine our economy by shipping jobs over seas and controlling certain markets and capital and politicians.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Mike said:
don said:
so i guess it's actually healthy for the economy if one per cent of the population is earning twenty per cent of the income?

How would you stop people from making money, and why?

The top one percent income earners already pay 37% of the total income taxes paid.

Only in a Socialistic Utopia would everyone make exactly the same amount of money!!!!!

It's very healthy to grow incomes, whatever tax bracket they are in.

How many people are welfare recipients hiring this year?

Also, If you take away the earnings of those working, what incentive are they going to have to work? And whose going to pay those 37% of the taxes they currently pay?

How much is enough? Who here is getting an income tax return? We have been claiming single and zero all year, rolled $6K over, and we are still going to fork over a whole bunch more. Pelosi wants even more.

I am not in that top 1%. I can't imagine how bad that feeling must be. The government takes about half of everything you work for.

Sales tax, income tax, property tax, FICA, License fees for just about everything you do, medicare taxes - add it all up. Pelosi says we don't pay enough.
 

Mike

Well-known member
taxespaid.jpg
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mike said:

I would rather see figures on total income and total tax. You can't really tell if the income does not include capital gains unless you read the footnotes which are not included. Dicing up total income and total tax into categories only allows you to make arguments that fit a narrow set of conditions, not the over all picture. There should also be numbers on total assets. Too many arguments that don't hold water can be made.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Here is where I think a Tax ceiling should be brought in.....Say for instance if a company employs 100 people,each milion that they make, there could be a 5% max tax on each of those million earned ....Now if they employee 300 people the tax rate can now go down to say4.5 % ceiling tax.Up to 500 employess on payroll make it a 4% tax and 500 and over employess on payroll 3.5% taxable ceiling .....These companies or persons employ people who are already paying taxes in to the goverment ,This way there are no right offs,just a %of monies earned..This may stop the hiding of profits and open up more money in hopes of paying employess more money each year.therfore sending more money into the tax system...
 
Top