Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 05, 2007, 07:18:11 PM
-
Something we have debated here before.
Who Pays Almost All Federal Income Tax?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats have talked about repealing President Bush’s tax cuts for upper-income Americans. But those who earn the most money – and invest the most in the economy – are already paying almost all federal personal income taxes, a recent report reveals.
Congress’ Joint Economic Committee disclosed that the richer half of the American population pays nearly 97 percent of income taxes. Most of that, 54 percent, is paid by those in the top 5 percent, Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) disclosed.
And the richest of the rich – just the top 1 percent – pay a hefty 34 percent of all personal income taxes collected by the federal government.
Meanwhile, about 14 million lower-income Americans have been removed from the income tax rolls since 2000 due to the earned income tax credit and the per-child tax credit, IBD reports.
Despite Bush’s tax cuts, the overall tax burden has been rising. Americans’ average overall tax burden has risen since 2004 and now stands at 31.6 percent of income, according to the Tax Foundation, due in large part to the alternative minimum tax and increases in property taxes.
"With an already rising tax burden, borne disproportionately by those who are successful, and who invest,” the IBD concludes, "the Democrats’ plans for big tax increases could be more damaging to the U.S. economy than ever before.”
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/5/112446.shtml?s=ic
-
Decker will love this. :)
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes
By Stephen Moore
From the November/December 2007 Issue
Yes, income in America is skewed toward the rich. But taxes are skewed far, far more. The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes. STEPHEN MOORE has the numbers.
1. Are income taxes fair?
That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, compared with 37 percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.
2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?
The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.
But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.
4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?
No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 percent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.
5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?
They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.
6. What is the economic logic behind these lower tax rates?
As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.
7. Are lower tax rates responsible for the big budget deficits of recent decades?
There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts.
8. Do the rich pay more taxes because they are earning more of the income in America?
Yes. There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.
What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.
9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?
No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.
10. Does the tax distribution look a lot different if we factor in other federal taxes, such as the payroll tax?
It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.
11. How do tax rates in the United States compare with tax rates abroad?
Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the United States than they are in most other industrial nations. This gives America a competitive edge in world markets. But America’s lead in low tax rates is shrinking. For example, the United States now has the second-highest corporate income tax in the developed world, after Japan. Our personal income tax rate is still low by historical standards. But in recent years many European and Pacific Rim nations have been slashing income taxes—there are now ten Eastern European nations with flat-tax rates between 12 percent and 25 percent—while the political pressure in Washington, D.C., is to raise them.
12. Do tax cuts on investment income, such as George W. Bush’s reductions in tax rates on capital gains and dividends, primarily benefit wealthy stockowners?
The New York Times reported that America’s millionaires raked in 43 percent of the investment tax cut benefits in 2003. It’s true that lower tax rates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut.
The same phenomenon occurred with the capital gains tax, which is essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply holding onto their stock, home, or business. This “lock-in” effect, as it is called, can be economically inefficient, since owners have a tax incentive to keep poor investments, rather than drawing out the cash and putting it into assets that are more productive. When the capital gains tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other enterprises.
The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.
This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between 2003 and 2005. Capital gains tax receipts also far outpaced the revenues that the government’s static models predicted. Between 2003 and 2007, actual tax receipts exceeded expectations by $207 billion.
Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a contributor to CNBC TV. He was the founder of the Club for Growth and has served as a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. His latest book is “Bullish on Bush: How George Bush’s Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger” (Madison Books).
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
-
You won't hear an intelligent liberal retort... there is none.
The silence is deafening.. ;D Excellent post BB.
-
You won't hear an intelligent liberal retort... there is none.
The silence is deafening.. ;D Excellent post BB.
:)
-
I'll be interested to see Decker's response.
-
-
lol. He's right Hugo. Triple post meltdown. :D I think the gist is in the first line: "Yes, income in America is skewed toward the rich. But taxes are skewed far, far more. The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes."
I could have just posted the link, but I thought the entire commentary was interesting.
-
I know you, it's the only fucking line you read right?
Nope. I read this too:
2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
-
so what you're saying is that if you expect me to read this thing, you'll do me the courtesy of the same when I post lengthy articles? I kinda think it hasn't gone that way in the past ;)
No. If you think it's too long, don't read it. That's what I do, unless it grabs my attention from start to finish.
-
The mistake here is to assume the middle class is dissapearing because of only one reason.
Taxing distributions is only one factor. A larger factor is the jobs leaving the country and the economy being forced to deal with imported materials and products that cannot be made by americans......Thus you must accept wages less than the cost of living...thus you are forced to downsize to make ends meet....which again hurts the economy.
This is forcing the distributions to richer americans at the expense of middle income and low income people.......of course they pay more taxes. They go food shopping with a million dollars in the bank while the hard working carpenter looks for a sale on bread and a cheaper gas station in town.....
Its going to get alot worse as the naftas and unions of americas take over.
-
This is forcing the distributions to richer americans at the expense of middle income and low income people.......of course they pay more taxes. They go food shopping with a million dollars in the bank while the hard working carpenter looks for a sale on bread and a cheaper gas station in town.....
"the hard working carpenter" give me a fucking break. making millions is easy i guess ::)
-
"the hard working carpenter" give me a fucking break. making millions is easy i guess ::)
You must have lacked comprehension dumbass.
-
ok, what did i miss? i saw hard working carpentor. i didn't see hard working millionair
-
I was using the millionaires comfort at the store versus the carpenter working his ass off to save money for bread and gas. Im oppposed to this craziness...the carpenter has nothing left to give.........so of course the fat comfy millionaire better step up.. 8)
-
tit for tat, I won't :)
I'm crushed.
-
I was using the millionaires comfort at the store versus the carpenter working his ass off to save money for bread and gas. Im oppposed to this craziness...the carpenter has nothing left to give.........so of course the fat comfy millionaire better step up.. 8)
The carpenter doesn't work any harder than the "millionaire." The person with a net worth of a million in all likelihood worked extremely hard to make their money and increase assets/eliminate debt. There are millionaire carpenters too.
-
The carpenter doesn't work any harder than the "millionaire." The person with a net worth of a million in all likelihood worked extremely hard to make their money and increase assets/eliminate debt. There are millionaire carpenters too.
Highly un-lilely. I think very few millionaires are self-made. Exceptions in each case but the jest of the thread is that it very well is likley that upper incomes are going to be hit very hard with new regulations because of the need for revenue of economy or to bail out the fed treasury..(since its a mortgage company now)
Every one gets downsized...rThe rich are next.
-
* About two-thirds of us work between forty-five and fifty-five hours per week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm)
-
People defend the millionaires because they believe any day now, they'll be one of them.
In the meantime, they'll support any flat-tax (introduced by millionaires, oddly) which will crash their buying power and of course, greatly shrink the buying power of the lowest 20% - the same 20% that keeps the portfolios of the top 20% loaded.
Think about what will happen to your WMT stock when a lot of its shoppers see their buying power decrease by 23% (or whatever number Steve Forbes is telling us this week)
-
Every one gets downsized...rThe rich are next.
When the poor get downsized, they stop buying.
The ripple effect is that the portfolios of the upper middle and upper class are hit shortly thereafter.
Many rich people say "fuck the poor" but dont consider the consequences. You take their welfare, they will rob you for $ to eat. You take their healthcare, they will spread diseases that your kid will catch. You tax them 23% at Walmart and they spend 23% less. The awesome gains you make in Q1 (having your own taxes cut by 13%) are quickly negated when WMT discovers their sales are down by 20% and their stock suddenly drops 20%. Your $1.5M investment in WMT stock is now worth 1.2 million. Now do that to every stock you own.
-
The carpenter doesn't work any harder than the "millionaire." The person with a net worth of a million in all likelihood worked extremely hard to make their money and increase assets/eliminate debt. There are millionaire carpenters too.
You've never worked construction for a living , have you?
-
When the poor get downsized, they stop buying.
The ripple effect is that the portfolios of the upper middle and upper class are hit shortly thereafter.
Many rich people say "fuck the poor" but dont consider the consequences. You take their welfare, they will rob you for $ to eat. You take their healthcare, they will spread diseases that your kid will catch. You tax them 23% at Walmart and they spend 23% less. The awesome gains you make in Q1 (having your own taxes cut by 13%) are quickly negated when WMT discovers their sales are down by 20% and their stock suddenly drops 20%. Your $1.5M investment in WMT stock is now worth 1.2 million. Now do that to every stock you own.
This is what Obama was referring to when he said "The pain trickled up". It still gives me the giggles. ;D
-
;D
-
<MELTDOWN>
I just finished my taxes for 2007.
I OWE $6222 (FVCK YOU very much AMT). If I didn't switch companies last year and pay more to social security (which I'll never ever fvcking get back) I'd owe around $10,000 (another MIDDLE CLASS family I know owes $20,000).
I claim married ZERO on my W-4 as does my wife. I've maxed out my 401k contributions. There is only so much you can (legally) do to make your taxable income smaller.
I am, by no fvcking means, a rich man. Even though my taxable income (between my wife and I) almost hits 300k a year I am like every other middle class schmuck that gets up early and goes to work every day to support his family and try to give his children a better life than the one he had a kid.
I'm so fvcking mad I could punch a kitten. >:(
So help me God it's going to take every ounce of self control to not punch the next fvcking liberal in the neck that tells me because I make "too much" I can afford to pay more fvcking taxes.
This is why I will NEVER vote for ANY politician that thinks it's okay to fuck us by raising our taxes. I don't care if your poor, middle class, or rich. If you work for it and earn it it's YOURS.
I'm so goddamn sick and tired of the government pissing away our tax dollars on stupid fucking bullshit. What the fvck are we paying for?
</MELTDOWN>
-
Highly un-lilely. I think very few millionaires are self-made. Exceptions in each case but the jest of the thread is that it very well is likley that upper incomes are going to be hit very hard with new regulations because of the need for revenue of economy or to bail out the fed treasury..(since its a mortgage company now)
Every one gets downsized...rThe rich are next.
Wrong. The majority of American millionaires are self-made. Go check out The Millionaire Next Door and its sequel The Millionaire Mind. A twenty-year study of American millionaires (people with a net worth of least a million). What you'll find is most of them did not inherit their wealth. They work hard, own their businesses, live below their means, invest conservatively, go to church, get and stay married, clip coupons, shop at thrift stores, do not spend a lot of money on cars, and their home is often their biggest investment.
-
You've never worked construction for a living , have you?
No, but I know lots of people who work construction for a living. :)
-
<MELTDOWN>
I just finished my taxes for 2007.
I OWE $6222 (FVCK YOU very much AMT). If I didn't switch companies last year and pay more to social security (which I'll never ever fvcking get back) I'd owe around $10,000 (another MIDDLE CLASS family I know owes $20,000).
I claim married ZERO on my W-4 as does my wife. I've maxed out my 401k contributions. There is only so much you can (legally) do to make your taxable income smaller.
I am, by no fvcking means, a rich man. Even though my taxable income (between my wife and I) almost hits 300k a year I am like every other middle class schmuck that gets up early and goes to work every day to support his family and try to give his children a better life than the one he had a kid.
I'm so fvcking mad I could punch a kitten. >:(
So help me God it's going to take every ounce of self control to not punch the next fvcking liberal in the neck that tells me because I make "too much" I can afford to pay more fvcking taxes.
This is why I will NEVER vote for ANY politician that thinks it's okay to fuck us by raising our taxes. I don't care if your poor, middle class, or rich. If you work for it and earn it it's YOURS.
I'm so goddamn sick and tired of the government pissing away our tax dollars on stupid fucking bullshit. What the fvck are we paying for?
</MELTDOWN>
Sorry to hear that dude. You're part of the "wealthy" with a target on your back. Obama will do whatever he can to "roll back" your tax cut.
-
Sorry to hear that dude. You're part of the "wealthy" with a target on your back. Obama will do whatever he can to "roll back" your tax cut.
And that is why I said I can't afford to vote for him.
The middle class is seriously taking it in the ass.
Funny thing is I don't blame the rich. It's rich guys that create jobs - not the government.
I blame the fvckwad politicians that piss our money away to buy votes and stuff their goddamn pockets.
-
And that is why I said I can't afford to vote for him.
The middle class is seriously taking it in the ass.
Funny thing is I don't blame the rich. It's rich guys that create jobs - not the government.
I blame the fvckwad politicians that piss our money away to buy votes and stuff their goddamn pockets.
Fear not... if elected Obama will redefine what rich is to include you. Your taxes will be higher but being considered rich instead of middle class should make you feel better. :)
-
Fear not... if elected Obama will redefine what rich is to include you. Your taxes will be higher but being considered rich instead of middle class should make you feel better. :)
Yay socialism. ::)
By tax purposes I'm already "rich". To hell with regional cost of living expenses, right?
-
And that is why I said I can't afford to vote for him.
The middle class is seriously taking it in the ass.
Funny thing is I don't blame the rich. It's rich guys that create jobs - not the government.
I blame the fvckwad politicians that piss our money away to buy votes and stuff their goddamn pockets.
True.
In addition to the adverse impact on us individual taxpayers, we all suffer when the government raises taxes on business, because business just passes those increased costs along to consumers. They raised the general excise tax here a couple years ago and businesses simply raised the GET they already passed along to their customers. Everyone takes a hit when taxes are raised like this.
-
Yay socialism. ::)
By tax purposes I'm already "rich". To hell with regional cost of living expenses, right?
Please get over that stupid idea. The money you go to work for on a daily basis is not yours. The feeling you'll get from knowing how happy that money will make all those lazy people feel should be more than enough.
What most socialists aren't honest enough to admit is... most of the crappy policies they advocate will not affect their income at all so they actually think the money is free. I always love it when people who don't work and pay no taxes say "the rich should pay their fair share". I can tell you from personal experience, lazy people who don't work get really pissy and defensive after being reminded they don't pay any taxes.
-
Please get over that stupid idea. The money you go to work for on a daily basis is not yours. The feeling you'll get from knowing how happy that money will make all those lazy people feel should be more than enough.
What most socialists aren't honest enough to admit is... most of the crappy policies they advocate will not affect their income at all so they actually think the money is free. I always love it when people who don't work and pay no taxes say "the rich should pay their fair share". I can tell you from personal experience, lazy people who don't work get really pissy and defensive after being reminded they don't pay any taxes.
I'll NEVER get over the "stupid" idea that the money I work hard for isn't mine.
I don't think hard working Americans bust their asses so communist socialist progressive minded politicians can take from those that have to buy votes from those that don't.
-
I'll NEVER get over the "stupid" idea that the money I work hard for isn't mine.
I don't think hard working Americans bust their asses so communist socialist progressive minded politicians can take from those that have to buy votes from those that don't.
You just don't care about the children, LOL! Greedy fkr!!! :(
Here's the problem: Real rich people already pay 40% of taxes and poor people pay nothing. The middle class are the only prople the govt can screw over so they keep redefining rich. What the middle class need is to do is hold another tea party.... everyone who gets their taxes raised should refuse to work for one week across the nation.
-
2007 Federal Budget. LOL, almost 300 Billion on Unemployment and Welfare. Down in So. Florida, I can't even count all the assholes living in 3-4 bedroom houses that normally fetch $1500 per month staying there practically for free.....our tax dollars feeding into overinflated housing prices. Whereas people who want to do things the right way are priced out of the housing market and pay through the nose, especially their children.
# 586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
# $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
# $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
# $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
# $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
# $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
# $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
# $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
# $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
# $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
# $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
# $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
# $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
# $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
# $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
# $23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
# $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
-
<MELTDOWN>
I just finished my taxes for 2007.
I OWE $6222 (FVCK YOU very much AMT). If I didn't switch companies last year and pay more to social security (which I'll never ever fvcking get back) I'd owe around $10,000 (another MIDDLE CLASS family I know owes $20,000).
I claim married ZERO on my W-4 as does my wife. I've maxed out my 401k contributions. There is only so much you can (legally) do to make your taxable income smaller.
I am, by no fvcking means, a rich man. Even though my taxable income (between my wife and I) almost hits 300k a year I am like every other middle class schmuck that gets up early and goes to work every day to support his family and try to give his children a better life than the one he had a kid.
I'm so fvcking mad I could punch a kitten. >:(
So help me God it's going to take every ounce of self control to not punch the next fvcking liberal in the neck that tells me because I make "too much" I can afford to pay more fvcking taxes.
This is why I will NEVER vote for ANY politician that thinks it's okay to fuck us by raising our taxes. I don't care if your poor, middle class, or rich. If you work for it and earn it it's YOURS.
I'm so goddamn sick and tired of the government pissing away our tax dollars on stupid fucking bullshit. What the fvck are we paying for?
</MELTDOWN>
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/weeping.gif)
You can cry like a little girl, ...or you could do something that gives you some dignity
over when & what taxes you pay ...otherwise your life will start to look like this permanently!
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/manupsidedown.gif)
You just don't care about the children, LOL! Greedy fkr!!! :(
Here's the problem: Real rich people already pay 40% of taxes and poor people pay nothing. The middle class are the only prople the govt can screw over so they keep redefining rich. What the middle class need is to do is hold another tea party.... everyone who gets their taxes raised should refuse to work for one week across the nation.
Is it the children, ...or the trillions sent in aid to a 1st world nation?
How much money did y'all send to Israel last year? What about the B&S bailout?
Your bailout of B&S meant the rich execs got to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses paid out just weeks before
-
Yes jag, our gov gives too much in aid when are people need it here!
w8tlftr, what some democrats have done is to lower the income that is defined as 'rich' so these new rich people could be taxed higher, that is exactly what Obama wants to do. You will now be classified as rich if you make $70,000-$150,00 (and over) in this country. You don't like your taxes now? They will certainly go up under Obama in your income bracket since your in an established 'rich' tax bracket. Its not fair. Shit, my wife and I made a little less than half of what you guys did and got nailed with taxes too!
-
You just don't care about the children, LOL! Greedy fkr!!! :(
Here's the problem: Real rich people already pay 40% of taxes and poor people pay nothing. The middle class are the only prople the govt can screw over so they keep redefining rich. What the middle class need is to do is hold another tea party.... everyone who gets their taxes raised should refuse to work for one week across the nation.
LOL. I care about MY children - charity starts at home.
And unfortunately because I now have to squirrel away extra money to cover the damn AMT going without a weeks pay is a bad idea... and people like you and me are the lucky ones.
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/weeping.gif)
You can cry like a little girl, ...or you could do something that gives you some dignity
over when & what taxes you pay ...otherwise your life will start to look like this permanently!
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/manupsidedown.gif)
Is it the children, ...or the trillions sent in aid to a 1st world nation?
How much money did y'all send to Israel last year? What about the B&S bailout?
Your bailout of B&S meant the rich execs got to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses paid out just weeks before
Judi, I luv ya but please it's not a good time to say "work at home."
And who said I'm crying?! I'm so fvcking angry I'm turning green.
-
Yes jag, our gov gives too much in aid when are people need it here!
w8tlftr, what some democrats have done is to lower the income that is defined as 'rich' so these new rich people could be taxed higher, that is exactly what Obama wants to do. You will now be classified as rich if you make $70,000-$150,00 (and over) in this country. You don't like your taxes now? They will certainly go up under Obama in your income bracket since your in an established 'rich' tax bracket. Its not fair. Shit, my wife and I made a little less than half of what you guys did and got nailed with taxes too!
In the Peoples Republic of Maryland what I earn makes me middle class.
That is why our progressive tax system is broken.
If I made this money in a state like Florida or Arizona I'd would agree that I was "rich."
-
In the Peoples Republic of Maryland what I earn makes me middle class.
That is why our progressive tax system is broken.
If I made this money in a state like Florida or Arizona I'd would agree that I was "rich."
The Peoples Democratic Republic of MD.. lol
Where are u in MD? Being stuck halfway between DC and Baltimore makes my income worth diddely squat these days. I should move to Frederick.
-
I'm with you w8tlfr. I think the government should drastically cut spending and borrowing from other countries. We do not need to raise taxes on the middle, upper middle and upper classes. Our buying power is already lower. We need to stand up against wasteful gov spending, excessive aid and borrowing. One of our largest expendatures right now is interest on our loans from other countries....insane!
-
2007 Federal Budget. LOL, almost 300 Billion on Unemployment and Welfare. Down in So. Florida, I can't even count all the assholes living in 3-4 bedroom houses that normally fetch $1500 per month staying there practically for free.....our tax dollars feeding into overinflated housing prices. Whereas people who want to do things the right way are priced out of the housing market and pay through the nose, especially their children.
# 586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
# $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
# $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
# $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
# $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
# $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
# $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
# $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
# $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
# $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
# $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
# $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
# $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
# $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
# $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
# $23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
# $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
Excellent post.. very enlightening.
-
I'm with you w8tlfr. I think the government should drastically cut spending and borrowing from other countries. We do not need to raise taxes on the middle, upper middle and upper classes. Our buying power is already lower. We need to stand up against wasteful gov spending, excessive aid and borrowing. One of our largest expendatures right now is interest on our loans from other countries....insane!
Well, I supported Ron Paul and the GOP black balled the man because he <gasp!> held American policy makers accountable for their failures.
-
I can only imagine what Obama would do on the subject of reperations.. hmm..
-
I can only imagine what Obama would do on the subject of reperations.. hmm..
He'd probably say the only way to provide any kind of reparation is to ensure ALL kids have a good education, and the promise of a future.
-
Judi, I luv ya but please it's not a good time to say "work at home."
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
Did I say that? nuh-uh... I think you brought it up. ...sides, I thought you already did work from home?
Oh yeah, ...I forgot, they transferred you, so now you are stuck doing that gawdawful commute.
Must be frustrating having someone else making decisions for you without you having any say so :'(
Look on the bright side, ...at least they don't tell you when to start working, ...when to stop working,
...when you can eat lunch, ...when to come back from lunch, ...when you can go pee, ...when you can't,
...when to take a coffee break, ...when to come back from your beak, ...or how long the break can be.
And who said I'm crying?! I'm so fvcking angry I'm turning green.
Turning green?! (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif) (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif) Kewl! Is the touareg green too? :P
-
He'd probably say the only way to provide any kind of reparation is to ensure ALL kids have a good education, and the promise of a future.
Yeah ok.. ::)
Isn't that more the role of the parent?
-
Yeah ok.. ::)
Isn't that more the role of the parent?
Parents have quit reading to kids at night. See, the parents are on the myspace too.
So, the kids don't read at night. No practice means they can't read in school. So they take away all the science/ history/music/art time and devote that to reading. So the kids have no clue what the constutition is, how their body works, anything about great leaders, no ability to think independently or create things.
-
Yeah ok.. ::)
Isn't that more the role of the parent?
Perhaps, ...if the child is home schooled, ...however the majority of working families in North America don't have the ability to home school their kids. They're too busy working their buns off to put "food on their families", so they must instead rely on the school systems, whether public or private.
-
Brittneyballdung is looking stupider by the minute........Bushs balls are set so deep in his throat we'll have to shoot the poor kid to retain any dignity he has left... :'(
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
Did I say that? nuh-uh... I think you brought it up. ...sides, I thought you already did work from home?
Oh yeah, ...I forgot, they transferred you, so now you are stuck doing that gawdawful commute.
Must be frustrating having someone else making decisions for you without you having any say so :'(
Look on the bright side, ...at least they don't tell you when to start working, ...when to stop working,
...when you can eat lunch, ...when to come back from lunch, ...when you can go pee, ...when you can't,
...when to take a coffee break, ...when to come back from your beak, ...or how long the break can be.
Turning green?! (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif) (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/thumbup.gif) Kewl! Is the turego green too? :P
It's not like that at all, Judi. I work for a small company so a lot of the company profits make it back to the guys that make the company money through bonuses, benefits, 401k matching, etc. As far as my schedule goes I'm pretty much my own boss and my customer trusts me enough to let me do my job and leave me alone.
Turego? ??? If you mean my Touareg it's black and makes man-made global warming knobs cry.
-
He'd probably say the only way to provide any kind of reparation is to ensure ALL kids have a good education, and the promise of a future.
Yay socialism/nanny state! ::)
-
It's not like that at all, Judi. I work for a small company so a lot of the company profits make it back to the guys that make the company money through bonuses, benefits, 401k matching, etc. As far as my schedule goes I'm pretty much my own boss and my customer trusts me enough to let me do my job and leave me alone.
You must've changed employers since last we spoke, ...cause I remember something a little diff about who you worked for
Turego? ??? If you mean my Touareg it's black
That's what I said... where on earth did you get Turego from? :P
Wanna know how to make it green? I can help you make it green ya know.
First, ...we can start with a can of spray paint...
and makes man-made global warming knobs cry.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/snarl.gif)
-
You must've changed employers since last we spoke, ...cause I remember something a little diff about who you worked for
That's what I said... where on earth did you get Turego from? :P
Wanna know how to make it green? I can help you make it green ya know.
First, ...we can start with a can of spray paint...
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/snarl.gif)
I used to work for AT&T. I was pretty much my own boss there too since my managers left me alone to do my job. The company I work for now is great. Great group of guys who have all come from big companies and got tired of the typical corporate BS. The only part that sucks for me is the commute but that's how the game is played in the Baltimore-Washington metro area.
Where did I get "Turego"? From you, goober. You said Turego.
My Touareg is a V-8 and gets between 15-20 miles a gallon. I have little silhouettes of the squirrels and bunnies I ran over on the driver side door. I like to think that I'd helped them move on to a better place. ;D
-
Obama’s Big-Government Vision
Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama’s is a profoundly pessimistic message. “Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar,” writes Henninger. “It’s a downer.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ= (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=)
-
I used to work for AT&T. I was pretty much my own boss there too since my managers left me alone to do my job. The company I work for now is great. Great group of guys who have all come from big companies and got tired of the typical corporate BS. The only part that sucks for me is the commute but that's how the game is played in the Baltimore-Washington metro area.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/hmmm.gif)
I seem to recall you stating a different occupation, ...but that's ok, ...we can leave it at that for now.
Where did I get "Turego"? From you, goober. You said Turego.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
nuh-uh... I said Touareg. Check my original post... see. :P
My Touareg is a V-8 and gets between 15-20 miles a gallon. I have little silhouettes of the squirrels and bunnies I ran over on the driver side door. I like to think that I'd helped them move on to a better place. ;D
You run over innocent little bunny rabbits and brag about it? :'( I hope a squirrel goes after your nuts. >:(
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/hmmm.gif)
I seem to recall you stating a different occupation, ...but that's ok, ...we can leave it at that for now.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
nuh-uh... I said Touareg. Check my original post... see. :P
You run over innocent little bunny rabbits and brag about it? :'( I hope a squirrel goes after your nuts. >:(
Cheater. You edited it! >:(
They are not innocent little bunnies. They'll eat your face off. Didn't you see Monty Python & the Quest for the Holy Grail?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Rabbitattack.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Rabbitattack.jpg)
-
Its very unlikely Obama would be in favor of reparations, he's not that extreme.
Opportunities in the school are essential as are the teachings and values set at home...its a combined and interconnected effort.
-
Cheater. You edited it! >:(
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
Would I do something like that?
They are not innocent little bunnies. They'll eat your face off. Didn't you see Monty Python & the Quest for the Holy Grail?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Rabbitattack.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Rabbitattack.jpg)
Sadly no. i never quite got the humour in Monty Python. I found it very wierd.
As I got older, I started to appreciate John Cleese's humour a bit more, but haven't gotten around to watching it.
-
Its very unlikely Obama would be in favor of reparations, he's not that extreme.
I think a cow would come out of Queen Elizabeth's rear end before something like that would happen.
Opportunities in the school are essential as are the teachings and values set at home...its a combined and interconnected effort.
Ya, but if Mom & Dad are barely literate themselves, how are they going to know little Johnny's not learning,
...especially when little Johnny comes home with a report card of all A's? When little Johnny has to attend a school where the text books are all falling apart, pages missing, and in an environment resembling more of a war zone than a classroom, ...with teachings whose first concern is getting through the day alive, rather than quenching a thirst for knowledge? There's a George Carlin comedy routine that sums it up pretty accurately imo.
-
Some schools are like that unfortunately, and your right in those cases, but not most. One of my good friends was the principal at a pretty rough inner city school in Youngstown, OH (about an hour from Cleveland...where I am). His philosophy was to get the most violent and most disruptive students out so the rest could have an acceptible environment to learn. He said there are some kids, at that point, that are far gone and ruin it for the other students. He said their books, computers and tools were all up to date. Teachers didn't get paid enough for funding was adequate. He said there were a lot of misguided kids which led them to be adverse to schooling and there was real support from a much smaller % of parents and families than needed. He felt the lack of parent interest and lack of teaching reasonable social and other skills at home was the biggest obsticle to teaching at school. This is a guy that was a principal for many years, he's a lot older and wiser than I. Its gotta start in the home.
-
Some schools are like that unfortunately, and your right in those cases, but not most. One of my good friends was the principal at a pretty rough inner city school in Youngstown, OH (about an hour from Cleveland...where I am). His philosophy was to get the most violent and most disruptive students out so the rest could have an acceptible environment to learn. He said there are some kids, at that point, that are far gone and ruin it for the other students. He said their books, computers and tools were all up to date. Teachers didn't get paid enough for funding was adequate. He said there were a lot of misguided kids which led them to be adverse to schooling and there was real support from a much smaller % of parents and families than needed. He felt the lack of parent interest and lack of teaching reasonable social and other skills at home was the biggest obsticle to teaching at school. This is a guy that was a principal for many years, he's a lot older and wiser than I. Its gotta start in the home.
I won't disagree with you there, ...but the destruction of the family is also a huge challenge.
-
I won't disagree with you there, ...but the destruction of the family is also a huge challenge.
And your government subsidizes this behavior in the form of various social handouts that are quickly becoming ever more expensive to the taxpayer. There are a few reasons why the education system is abysmal here in the US, some direct, others indirect.
- Disproportionate incarceration rates, particularly within the black community. Human warehousing is big business, and one can go to jail for even the most minor of violations. In return, those with even minor criminal records find themselves largely out of the employment market. Too many politicians are playing the "Tough on Crime" card in order to placate the voting bloc who live behind barricaded, secure walls with guards(we call them gated communities).
- Government handouts, bailouts, and welfare given to those who make the wrong choices....in essence, putting a band-aid on top of a quickly hemorrhaging wound while those who make the right choices are sent the bill. The welfare system has damaged families much more than it has helped. Native Americans, for example, are given a check of around $1700 a month(the tribes here in So. Fla. anyways) and live within an optimal community in terms of material wealth. However, these groups suffer the highest rates of alcoholism and suicide than any other group. Remember, the Europeans did not conquer with armament, but with goods.
- No dumb child left behind. Other nations have nowhere near the amenities that US public schools provide for it's children, but yet, routinely outperform US students in nearly all subjects. In the Age of Sensitivity, institutions seem to be afraid to face reality....that students are not all equal in ability and skill.....that some will not perform as well as others regardless of the setting and instruction. In most other countries, if a student is unable to keep up with the consistent curriculum, they are to repeat the grade. Now, school funding is directly tied in with the passing rate, so the curriculum must be constantly downgraded so even the most unmotivated student can pass. And yet the idiots and morons still talk about throwing even more money at a broken and unworkable system...a broken and unworkable system that was put in place at behest of the common culture of total acceptance and ultra-tolerance.
- No Tort reform. Legions of lawyers with hungry eyes and gnashing teeth are ever on the lookout for even a wrong word uttered so they can collect millions from even the most minor of infractions. This costs institutions and other agencies millions in insurance and to hire their own lawyers in return. I'm sure you've heard about all those "evil" CEO's out there thieving from the working man. Fleecing us. But yet, not a peep about lawyers. Did you know that the average CEO and lawyer annual salary in the US is nearly equivalent? CEOs direct and head up companies that actually produce materials and services....lawyers and bureaucrats produce only red tape. It's time to put limits on lawyers and bureaucrats and put them in the position and pay of what they are designed to be.......referees. The producing companies that built America should be the much higher paid stars on the field.
-
And your government subsidizes this behavior in the form of various social handouts that are quickly becoming ever more expensive to the taxpayer. There are a few reasons why the education system is abysmal here in the US, some direct, others indirect.
- Disproportionate incarceration rates, particularly within the black community. Human warehousing is big business, and one can go to jail for even the most minor of violations. In return, those with even minor criminal records find themselves largely out of the employment market. Too many politicians are playing the "Tough on Crime" card in order to placate the voting bloc who live behind barricaded, secure walls with guards(we call them gated communities).
- Government handouts, bailouts, and welfare given to those who make the wrong choices....in essence, putting a band-aid on top of a quickly hemorrhaging wound while those who make the right choices are sent the bill. The welfare system has damaged families much more than it has helped. Native Americans, for example, are given a check of around $1700 a month(the tribes here in So. Fla. anyways) and live within an optimal community in terms of material wealth. However, these groups suffer the highest rates of alcoholism and suicide than any other group. Remember, the Europeans did not conquer with armament, but with goods.
- No dumb child left behind. Other nations have nowhere near the amenities that US public schools provide for it's children, but yet, routinely outperform US students in nearly all subjects. In the Age of Sensitivity, institutions seem to be afraid to face reality....that students are not all equal in ability and skill.....that some will not perform as well as others regardless of the setting and instruction. In most other countries, if a student is unable to keep up with the consistent curriculum, they are to repeat the grade. Now, school funding is directly tied in with the passing rate, so the curriculum must be constantly downgraded so even the most unmotivated student can pass. And yet the idiots and morons still talk about throwing even more money at a broken and unworkable system...a broken and unworkable system that was put in place at behest of the common culture of total acceptance and ultra-tolerance.
- No Tort reform. Legions of lawyers with hungry eyes and gnashing teeth are ever on the lookout for even a wrong word uttered so they can collect millions from even the most minor of infractions. This costs institutions and other agencies millions in insurance and to hire their own lawyers in return. I'm sure you've heard about all those "evil" CEO's out there thieving from the working man. Fleecing us. But yet, not a peep about lawyers. Did you know that the average CEO and lawyer annual salary in the US is nearly equivalent? CEOs direct and head up companies that actually produce materials and services....lawyers and bureaucrats produce only red tape. It's time to put limits on lawyers and bureaucrats and put them in the position and pay of what they are designed to be.......referees. The producing companies that built America should be the much higher paid stars on the field.
Yep. That pretty much sums it up.
I wonder how bad things will have to be before Americans open their damn eyes and fight back.
-
Brittneyballdung is looking stupider by the minute........Bushs balls are set so deep in his throat we'll have to shoot the poor kid to retain any dignity he has left... :'(
lol.. alright "whore-horse" ... I'm so in your head when you are about to spout some mindless liberal dribble I appear on your shoulder as an angel and politely remind you that throwing in your 2 cents every five minutes doesn't count if you're using money earned by "slicking the willy" for your friends.
..but then neuro appears on your other shoulder as the devil wearing a pink leotard and holding his penis and I have to leave when I see you start to drooling asking if he'll "share his pitchfork" and giggling like a school girl when he makes crude references to his "third horn"
-
Stephen Moore is a supply-side economics radical. Time and again his scholarship has been shown to be worthless.
The deceptive advocacy of Stephen Moore
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030922.html
We have a progressive income tax. The more money earned, the higher the income tax bracket. The very wealthy have seen their incomes skyrocket in the last few decades while everybody else did not experience such growth. More is paid b/c more is being earned…a lot more. For the true wealthy, they don’t make the bulk of their income from earned income. They make it through passive investments—capital gains—which is taxed in this manner:
For 2007, the maximum capital gains rates are 5%, 15%, 25% or 28%.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html
For the bulk of the elite’s income, those tax rates are very low. Total federal tax rates paid on wages and other earnings averaged out to around 23.4%
Federal taxes on capital gains averaged around 9.6%
The Bush tax cut did disproportionately favor the rich.
• According to a Treasury Department study, the top one percent of the population pays 20 percent of all federal taxes under current law. Thus, under the Bush plan, the share of the tax cut that would go to the top one percent is about double the share of the federal taxes they pay.
• … When all federal taxes are included, as they should be, the figures show the top one percent would receive a share of the tax cut (36 percent to 43 percent) that is about twice as large as the share of federal taxes it pays (20 percent).
• This high-income group also would receive a larger percentage reduction in total federal taxes (as distinguished from just income taxes) than any other income group, while low-income families would receive one of the smallest percentage tax reductions. High-income families would receive the largest percentage increase in income, as well. http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-01inclvlshort.htm
Tax cuts have always been a net loss to the government. Never in the country’s history has attendant economic growth from tax cuts covered the cost of the tax cut. Bush’s own Treasury Department released a report stating as much:
“Contrary to the claim that the tax cuts will have huge impacts on the economy, the Treasury study finds that even under favorable assumptions, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible impact on the economy. Under more realistic assumptions, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts could even hurt the economy.” http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm
And one final word about the glorious Reagan tax cuts, they created huge deficits and debt even in spite of the fact that Reagan raised taxes 7 times out of his 8 years in office including the largest tax increase in history to this date.
I guess what it all boils down to is: Do tax cuts provide a free lunch?
Nope, they never have.
-
Tort reform in the popular sense is nonsense. It's a way to artificially cap recoveries to benefit of the wealthy.
Remember Robert Bork, a huge proponent of tort reform, and this:
Robert Bork Files Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit Against Yale Club
Robert Bork , the one-time U.S. Supreme Court nominee, has sued the Yale Club for negligence. He is seeking $1 million in damages for injuries he sustained from a fall at the club last year. Here’s a copy of the complaint
Bork was at the Yale Club last June to speak at an event sponsored by The New Criterion, a monthly review of the arts and intellectual life. According to the suit filed in federal court in Manhattan, the club failed to provide steps and a handrail to climb onto the dais. Bork fell backward as he was attempting to climb the dais, striking his leg on the stage and his head on a heat register, the suit says.
The 80-year-old Bork suffered a large hematoma, or swelling of blood, in his lower left leg as a result of the fall and the hematoma eventually burst, according to the lawsuit. The injury required surgery and months of physical therapy, according to the complaint. He claims to have suffered “excruciating pain” as a result of the injury and continues to walk with a limp, according to the complaint.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/07/robert-bork-files-slip-and-fall-lawsuit-against-yale-club/
-
lol.. alright "whore-horse" ... I'm so in your head when you are about to spout some mindless liberal dribble I appear on your shoulder as an angel and politely remind you that throwing in your 2 cents every five minutes doesn't count if you're using money earned by "slicking the willy" for your friends.
..but then neuro appears on your other shoulder as the devil wearing a pink leotard and holding his penis and I have to leave when I see you start to drooling asking if he'll "share his pitchfork" and giggling like a school girl when he makes crude references to his "third horn"
You even suck at the Y-Board shit. Do yourself a favor and slit your wrists.
-
You even suck at the Y-Board shit. Do yourself a favor and slit your wrists.
=
"I'm not that creative... stop embarrassing me. Neuro is here.. he's upset too. :'( "
-
You are way off with this one, not true in the majority of cases..."Tort reform in the popular sense is nonsense. It's a way to artificially cap recoveries to benefit of the wealthy".
All the legal work to protect from lawsuits raises the cost of business in every field. In the medical field, it does nothing of the sort. Frivilous lawsuits and extreme payouts for damages cost everyone money from the hospital to the physician, to the practice, the staff, the insurance companies and finally the patients. This is not debateable. Medicine is practiced differently because of malpractice lawyers and the costs to practice medicine are much higher. A neurologist I worked with had his malpractice double in one year. He was in private practice. He had to cut 2 of his employees and reduced his salary that year. For family practice doctors, malpractice can be $20,000 per year, for specialists, its 5-6 times that. Its out of hand.
Lawyers serve an important function but some of the unscrupulous behavior has gotten out of control and has affected nearly all of us in one field or another.
-
LOL at all you people out there saying I "earned" my money so why can't I keep it.
Most of the quality of living you enjoy (including what your money buys) is because of the infrastructure that exists and because of all those little cogs in the machine doing their jobs everyday. So don't tell me I earn 300k and deserve to keep it - if you where in the middle of the congo jungle with no infrastructure and little cogs to support your standard of living you could work your arse off for the rest of your life without seeing anything anywhere near what a middle class income affords you in your country.
-
LOL at all you people out there saying I "earned" my money so why can't I keep it.
Most of the quality of living you enjoy (including what your money buys) is because of the infrastructure that exists and because of all those little cogs in the machine doing their jobs everyday. So don't tell me I earn 300k and deserve to keep it - if you where in the middle of the congo jungle with no infrastructure and little cogs to support your standard of living you could work your arse off for the rest of your life without seeing anything anywhere near what a middle class income affords you in your country.
I have to most certainly agree with that. As someone who has spent countless hours running around collecting telegrams of cash from people in 3rd world, I'm painfully aware of how unstable their infrastructure is. Many don't have or use credit cards in their countries, and those few that are available only work on a national basis and will not work outside of their countries so they then are required to wire cash for me to place whatever order they make on my credit card. Half the time they can't wire the funds because the elecrticity has gone out so everyone is without power. I'm constantly amazed at the differences & lack of stability of the infrastructure in many of these places, ...but the residents take it in stride.
-
LOL at all you people out there saying I "earned" my money so why can't I keep it.
Most of the quality of living you enjoy (including what your money buys) is because of the infrastructure that exists and because of all those little cogs in the machine doing their jobs everyday. So don't tell me I earn 300k and deserve to keep it - if you where in the middle of the congo jungle with no infrastructure and little cogs to support your standard of living you could work your arse off for the rest of your life without seeing anything anywhere near what a middle class income affords you in your country.
I WAS one of those "cogs" and I worked my way up to where I am today. Fvck the rest if they're are not willing to put in the hard work and sacrifices to succeed.
No one in this life owes anyone a fvcking thing. If your life is ard or if you think things are *sniff* unfair then do something about it or get used to hearing, "it sucks to be you."
So, yeah, I'm telling you I earn 300k and deserve to keep it. I worked for it - YOU didn't.
-
I have to most certainly agree with that. As someone who has spent countless hours running around collecting telegrams of cash from people in 3rd world, I'm painfully aware of how unstable their infrastructure is. Many don't have or use credit cards in their countries, and those few that are available only work on a national basis and will not work outside of their countries so they then are required to wire cash for me to place whatever order they make on my credit card. Half the time they can't wire the funds because the elecrticity has gone out so everyone is without power. I'm constantly amazed at the differences & lack of stability of the infrastructure in many of these places, ...but the residents take it in stride.
Judi, WTF does the plight of a 3rd world country have to do with the unfair progressive tax system in the United States? Do you think by raising my taxes it's going to make their lives any better? Hasn't the United States given enough money to 3rd world dictators just so we can borrow another billion dollars from China?
The taxes collected by your government are for providing for the security and infrastructure of YOUR country.
-
You are way off with this one, not true in the majority of cases..."Tort reform in the popular sense is nonsense. It's a way to artificially cap recoveries to benefit of the wealthy".
All the legal work to protect from lawsuits raises the cost of business in every field. In the medical field, it does nothing of the sort. Frivilous lawsuits and extreme payouts for damages cost everyone money from the hospital to the physician, to the practice, the staff, the insurance companies and finally the patients. This is not debateable. Medicine is practiced differently because of malpractice lawyers and the costs to practice medicine are much higher. A neurologist I worked with had his malpractice double in one year. He was in private practice. He had to cut 2 of his employees and reduced his salary that year. For family practice doctors, malpractice can be $20,000 per year, for specialists, its 5-6 times that. Its out of hand.
Lawyers serve an important function but some of the unscrupulous behavior has gotten out of control and has affected nearly all of us in one field or another.
This is highly debatable b/c you've fallen for a PR pitch. Tort reform is a ploy by big tobacco, big pharmaceuticals, the gun lobby, big insurance and other corporate giants to shield corporations from liability.
This is a non-issue for the Republicans. It has all the urgency of other 'pressing' issues like saving marriage, voter fraud or WMDs in Iraq.
If the costs of malpractice insurance upsets you, why don't you take it up with the insurer? And if doctors hate the high costs of malpractice insurance, then stop cutting off the wrong damn foot. In other words, if doctors did a minimally competent job, the costs would go down.
Incidentally, lawyers have malpractice insurance costs as well.
Frivolous lawsuits are nipped in the bud early...usually a motion to dismiss will take care of that and there are penalties for bringing such lawsuits...including disbarment for the attorney bringing the suit. Another non-issue to get upset over.
-
PR pitch my ass. I am in the middle of it in medicine and can tell you how it works and affects us.
"If the costs of malpractice insurance upsets you, why don't you take it up with the insurer? And if doctors hate the high costs of malpractice insurance, then stop cutting off the wrong damn foot. In other words, if doctors did a minimally competent job, the costs would go down"
If this is your assessment of the situation, we'll stop debating because you have no insight on the effect or depth of the malpractice issue in the US. Take it up with the insurer? Are you kidding? If you are even named in a suit, no matter how ridiculous it is, your rates go up and you may be disqualified from certain jobs and plans. Do you know how easy it is to be named in a suit? There's no standard of negligence to be named, thats proved in court. There are many lawyers who take cases just to settle them for $, regardless if they are just. Most hospitals settle and private docs are terrified of the court. My brother is a lawyer (not malpractice) but he at least sees both sides of the issue. My malpractice for a small family practice clinic is nearly $20,000 per year. I will make less than $100K this year. Specialist insurance runs $40-125,000 per year. Thats just protection from lawsuits. You think that is reasonable?
Also, medicine is an art based in science but some hold it as an absolute where unexpected bad outcomes can be held against the practitioner. I am in full agreement for malpractice when something like 'the wrong foot is cut off' but there are thousands of suits that are nothing like that.
The is no pre-screening anymore for medical lawsuits. Its up to the lawyer to take the case forward or not, which is inapropriate.
-
PR pitch my ass. I am in the middle of it in medicine and can tell you how it works and affects us.
"If the costs of malpractice insurance upsets you, why don't you take it up with the insurer? And if doctors hate the high costs of malpractice insurance, then stop cutting off the wrong damn foot. In other words, if doctors did a minimally competent job, the costs would go down"
If this is your assessment of the situation, we'll stop debating because you have no insight on the effect or depth of the malpractice issue in the US. Take it up with the insurer? Are you kidding? If you are even named in a suit, no matter how ridiculous it is, your rates go up and you may be disqualified from certain jobs and plans. Do you know how easy it is to be named in a suit? There's no standard of negligence to be named, thats proved in court. There are many lawyers who take cases just to settle them for $, regardless if they are just. Most hospitals settle and private docs are terrified of the court. My brother is a lawyer (not malpractice) but he at least sees both sides of the issue. My malpractice for a small family practice clinic is nearly $20,000 per year. I will make less than $100K this year. Specialist insurance runs $40-125,000 per year. Thats just protection from lawsuits. You think that is reasonable?
Also, medicine is an art based in science but some hold it as an absolute where unexpected bad outcomes can be held against the practitioner. I am in full agreement for malpractice when something like 'the wrong foot is cut off' but there are thousands of suits that are nothing like that.
The is no pre-screening anymore for medical lawsuits. Its up to the lawyer to take the case forward or not, which is inapropriate.
Isnt it neat how "Private enterprise" regulates itself. Welcome to the free market.
-
PR pitch my ass. I am in the middle of it in medicine and can tell you how it works and affects us.
"If the costs of malpractice insurance upsets you, why don't you take it up with the insurer? And if doctors hate the high costs of malpractice insurance, then stop cutting off the wrong damn foot. In other words, if doctors did a minimally competent job, the costs would go down"
If this is your assessment of the situation, we'll stop debating because you have no insight on the effect or depth of the malpractice issue in the US. If you are even named in a suit, no matter how ridiculous it is, your rates go up and you may be disqualified from certain jobs and plans. There are many lawyers who take cases just to settle them for $, regardless if they are just.
That's fantastic. So the malpractice insurer has no appeal system? That's interesting. Every other insurer under the sun has offices to redress issues.
Nevada and California in the '70s and '80s did "tort reform" in response to spikes in Mal. insurance premiums. You know what the result was? Zilch. The insurance companies left the premiums as is.
There's your tort reform. Ineffective.
Proving a medical malpractice claim is extremely difficult. Generally the standard of minimal competency is doctor-friendly b/c the plaintiff must show the doctor did not exercise minimal care employed by peers under the circumstance. Expert testimony by other doctors is a given.
If a doctor has his attorney settle just to make the case go away, then that doctor is either a fool or he knows he's responsible for the damages complained of.
Back when I was in lawschool, I looked into this a bit. Back then over 35 states capped non-econonmic damages already. I'm sure that's gone up. Anyways, frivolous lawsuits are handled in a few different ways "Summary Judgment", "Directed Verdicts", "JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict), the appeals process, and finally the contingency payment method used by almost all lawyers in these types of cases (the lawyer gets zilch if he loses begging the question, "If a lawyer files a frivolous lawsuit, how the hell does he make a living?")
The odds of a frivolous lawsuit working are about nil.
Please point out the cases or dollar amounts from these "frivolous lawsuits" which are ruining the practice of medicine in this country.
"...The report released yesterday, called the "Medical Malpractice Closed Claim Study," covered July 1995 to June 2005. It was the second such report Kreidler's office has released this year." "...Both reports were deemed "unremarkable" by Kreidler's staff, who said the reports show no huge spikes in the number of malpractice claims or payouts." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002540408_medmal05m.html
It ain't the lawyers, it's the insurance companies.
-
Hahahaha. Decker is getting ready to "School" someone else. Run for cover..... ;D
-
Hahahaha. Decker is getting ready to "School" someone else. Run for cover..... ;D
I'm not doing that. I just think that shootfighter1 is repeating big business propaganda. Look, GW Bush believes Tort Reform is a good idea so by that association it must be BS or a pending-disaster.
It's really a way to permit Government to interfere in an overly burdensome way with the operations of lawsuits btn private individuals.
-
I'm not doing that. I just think that shootfighter1 is repeating big business propaganda. Look, GW Bush believes Tort Reform is a good idea so by that association it must be BS or a pending-disaster.
It's really a way to permit Government to interfere in an overly burdensome way with the operations of lawsuits btn private individuals.
I know. Im just a trouble maker... :) Your right tho. This admin is a massive epic failure.
-
I know. Im just a trouble maker... :) Your right tho. This admin is a massive epic failure.
Sorry, My sense of humor does not compute today. For the millionth time this year, the flu is going around our office and i just can't avoid it.
-
Judi, WTF does the plight of a 3rd world country have to do with the unfair progressive tax system in the United States? Do you think by raising my taxes it's going to make their lives any better? Hasn't the United States given enough money to 3rd world dictators just so we can borrow another billion dollars from China?
The taxes collected by your government are for providing for the security and infrastructure of YOUR country.
Another prime example of taking a statement "out of context" and twisting it to support an agenda.
my statement had nothing to do with your argument, and everything to do with the statement of the poster to whom I was responding.
-
Another prime example of taking a statement "out of context" and twisting it to support an agenda.
my statement had nothing to do with your argument, and everything to do with the statement of the poster to whom I was responding.
What agenda? I don't have an agenda other than taking care of my family and not being another slug that mooches off hard working tax payers.
You really make me scratch my head trying to figure you out, woman. :-\
-
I WAS one of those "cogs" and I worked my way up to where I am today. Fvck the rest if they're are not willing to put in the hard work and sacrifices to succeed.
No one in this life owes anyone a fvcking thing. If your life is ard or if you think things are *sniff* unfair then do something about it or get used to hearing, "it sucks to be you."
So, yeah, I'm telling you I earn 300k and deserve to keep it. I worked for it - YOU didn't.
You're missing the point - the infrastructure and "cogs" contribute more to your wealth than you ever could. You may well deserve to have gotten where you are because you worked hard - I'm not denying that, people do need a carrot to be motivated. The illusion you are under is that somehow you "created" all your wealth - you didn't its part and parcel of living in a modern technologically advance society.
-
What agenda? I don't have an agenda other than taking care of my family and not being another slug that mooches off hard working tax payers.
No agenda? Maybe that your problem? Want one? :D I can give you a mission and a purpose bigger than both of us
You really make me scratch my head trying to figure you out, woman. :-\
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
You think you can figure out women, ...let alone this woman? {LOL}
pssst: If you ever figutre out a woman, ...don't sleep with her, ...cause chances are it ain't a woman, ...it's a man in drag
You will NEVER figure us out. We are a mystery. Those who try are either stupid, or masochists, or love playing with moving goal posts.
-
You're missing the point - the infrastructure and "cogs" contribute more to your wealth than you ever could. You may well deserve to have gotten where you are because you worked hard - I'm not denying that, people do need a carrot to be motivated. The illusion you are under is that somehow you "created" all your wealth - you didn't its part and parcel of living in a modern technologically advance society.
Fair enough but now I think you misunderstand me. I fully realize that I didn't create my wealth. I am just one member of a team that makes the machine I work on function. That still doesn't mean that whatever I earn isn't mine because of the plight of some poor bastard in a third world country.
-
No agenda? Maybe that your problem? Want one? :D I can give you a mission and a purpose bigger than both of us
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
You think you can figure out women, ...let alone this woman? {LOL}
pssst: If you ever figutre out a woman, ...don't sleep with her, ...cause chances are it ain't a woman, ...it's a man in drag
You will NEVER figure us out. We are a mystery. Those who try are either stupid, or masochists, or love playing with moving goal posts.
LOL
-
are you referring to Halliburtion or Big Oil ?
NT
Yes
And don't forget all the subsidies for corn farmers.
How long before we're paying $10.00 for a gallon of milk?
-
Fair enough but now I think you misunderstand me. I fully realize that I didn't create my wealth. I am just one member of a team that makes the machine I work on function. That still doesn't mean that whatever I earn isn't mine because of the plight of some poor bastard in a third world country.
Realize that for most, it is quite often upon the backs of those poor 3rd. world bastards that we stand.
Yes
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Neither Haliburton, nor Big Oil can be considered some poor bastard in a third world country.
(Didn't think we'd catch that huh didja?) :P
And don't forget all the subsidies for corn farmers.
How long before we're paying $10.00 for a gallon of milk?
Not long, and the price of bread, and many other things will go up as well.
You joke about driving a gas guzzler that pollutes, and you laugh at us "tree-huggers" on a mission to get the word out about how to reduce pollution, and reduce fuel consumption at the same time, but you fail to see the big picture. While wasting gas, or consuming more gas than you have to, ...you're causing the rise in the prices of the very staples you need to get by. We're in a difficult situation as it is, ...with more and more farms switching over to corn, we :
- 1st.end up losing our bio-diversity
- 2nd.effectively reduce our food supply even more, ...at a time when we can least afford to do so
All that additional corn will be turned into ethanol, rather than for feeding Americans
When I get time, I'll post about the threat posed by BioFuels. It's very shocking & rather eye-opening! :o
-
Realize that for most, it is quite often upon the backs of those poor 3rd. world bastards that we stand.
What did Bush Sr. say, "the worlds needs ditch diggers too."?
Every pyramid needs a strong base, Judi. All the more reason to teach our children that education is the key to a brighter future.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Neither Haliburton, nor Big Oil can be considered some poor bastard in a third world country.
(Didn't think we'd catch that huh didja?) :P
Now YOU'RE taking my quote out of context. I was referring to those that mooch off the government at the tax payers expense. What makes Haliburton or Big Oil different from the inner city slut that can't keep her legs together and is raising 10 kids off of welfare?
Not long, and the price of bread, and many other things will go up as well.
You joke about driving a gas guzzler that pollutes, and you laugh at us "tree-huggers" on a mission to get the word out about how to reduce pollution, and reduce fuel consumption at the same time, but you fail to see the big picture. While wasting gas, or consuming more gas than you have to, ...you're causing the rise in the prices of the very staples you need to get by. We're in a difficult situation as it is, ...with more and more farms switching over to corn, we :
- 1st.end up losing our bio-diversity
- 2nd.effectively reduce our food supply even more, ...at a time when we can least afford to do so
All that additional corn will be turned into ethanol, rather than for feeding Americans
When I get time, I'll post about the threat posed by BioFuels. It's very shocking & rather eye-opening! :o
Drill for more oil, baby, and build some damn refineries! The United States would be sitting on the world's largest oil reserves if we just took off the chain around our necks.
I also hit another squirrel today. I think I'll name him Shakes. He'll have his place of honor next to the other squirrel and bunny silhouettes on the door of my V-8 Touareg. ;)
Seriously though, I think it's time to park the SUV in the garage and buy a hooptie to commute in. :P
-
I agree that the insurance companies are a real problem, but lawyers share a good bit of blame too. Insurance companies base claims on risk, lawyers increase the risk by lawsuits (some too eagerly). I'm not going to look up research, I've seen it in journals for the last 10 yrs. Here's 1 quick article that disagrees with you. I'm sure theres both sides of the issue.
http://www.northwestern.edu/observer/issues/2006/11/15/tort.html
This is an incorrect statement:
"Generally the standard of minimal competency is doctor-friendly b/c the plaintiff must show the doctor did not exercise minimal care employed by peers under the circumstance". It is NOT minimal, the definition is "generally accepted standard"...big difference. Standard of care is where much of the arguing of experts occurs. Minimal is the wrong word, if your a lawyer, you should know that. Its general standard (+negligence with some damages incurred).
"If a doctor has his attorney settle just to make the case go away, then that doctor is either a fool or he knows he's responsible for the damages complained of".
Decker, you seem reasonably intelligent. This statement is ridiculous. Lawyers typically eat docs for breakfast on the stand, its their field. Defense attorneys are expensive. Going through legal proceedings are expensive, time consuming and disrupt the work and care of the medical professional. Most hospitals force the lawyers to settle on befalf of the doctor. Many physician groups settle to avoid greater payment via large settlements, legal fees and time lost. Though you often have intelligent responces here, You must have no experience in this particular legal field.
You still haven't addressed the biggest issue. Anytime a doc is named in a claim, their insurance rises, its on their permanent record and their privilages may be limited. That is completely unfair without an independent screening process, which we don't have!
Tort reform may not be the best to affect insurance premiums, but its a reasonable measure nontheless, to discourage outrageous payouts. About time we inject more reasonable behavior & basic logic into the legal field instead of semantics and deception for profit. The goal of lawyers is to win, not to be just and fair...totally different purpose than doctors, who typically enter the field to help people.
-
Decker, look at this from John Kerry in 2004. I love it! He was right about this. This is probably at least as effective, if not more, compared to tort reform.
August 04, 2004
'I bet most people in this room don’t know that there is a policy,' said Chris Jennings, president of Washington-based Jennings Policy Strategies Inc. Mr. Jennings said that Sen. Kerry’s policy would focus on preventing medical errors and promoting patient safety but would require that malpractice claims be reviewed by medical specialists to ensure that a 'reasonable grievance exists.' Mr. Jennings said that lawyers who brought three frivolous medical malpractice claims would be barred from bringing further claims, and mediation—rather than litigation—would be an option for all medical malpractice claims. In addition, punitive damages would be barred in all medical malpractice cases except those involving 'reckless indifference to life,' said Mr. Jennings, a former adviser to President Clinton who now serves as an unpaid adviser to the Kerry campaign.
-
I agree that the insurance companies are a real problem, but lawyers share a good bit of blame too. Insurance companies base claims on risk, lawyers increase the risk by lawsuits (some too eagerly). I'm not going to look up research, I've seen it in journals for the last 10 yrs. Here's 1 quick article that disagrees with you. I'm sure theres both sides of the issue.
http://www.northwestern.edu/observer/issues/2006/11/15/tort.html
That article states that caps on damages generally limits settlement amounts. I have never disputed that. In fact, it seems rather logical. Limiting damages will lower settlement offers.
This is an incorrect statement:
"Generally the standard of minimal competency is doctor-friendly b/c the plaintiff must show the doctor did not exercise minimal care employed by peers under the circumstance". It is NOT minimal, the definition is "generally accepted standard"...big difference. Standard of care is where much of the arguing of experts occurs. Minimal is the wrong word, if your a lawyer, you should know that. Its general standard (+negligence with some damages incurred).
There is no "one definition” for professional negligence. Each state defines professional negligence its own way. I was merely pointing out that, for the most part, professional competency is measured by a baseline (minimal) level of care common to like-professionals under like-circumstances. I think I did a good job summing it up.
"If a doctor has his attorney settle just to make the case go away, then that doctor is either a fool or he knows he's responsible for the damages complained of".
Decker, you seem reasonably intelligent. This statement is ridiculous. Lawyers typically eat docs for breakfast on the stand, its their field. Defense attorneys are expensive. Going through legal proceedings are expensive, time consuming and disrupt the work and care of the medical professional. Most hospitals force the lawyers to settle on befalf of the doctor. Many physician groups settle to avoid greater payment via large settlements, legal fees and time lost. Though you often have intelligent responces here, You must have no experience in this particular legal field.
Courts generally throw out frivolous lawsuits quickly. A motion to dismiss will take care of it. And if the lawsuit is indeed frivolous, the plaintiff will likely pick up court costs and attorney costs.
Lawyers for the plaintiff are expensive too. And they get paid only if they win. If the plaintiff’s lawyer files a ‘frivolous’ lawsuit, odds are he won’t get paid. Unless of course the Dr. in question has hired sub-par counsel that caves in and settles. If a lawsuit is frivolous, a court can order the plaintiff to pay for courts costs and attorney fees for the defendant.
You grotesquely misstate the ease with which a plaintiff can score a settlement. You make it sound as if the filing of a lawsuit inexorably leads to a big payday settlement. That’s not how it works.
You still haven't addressed the biggest issue. Anytime a doc is named in a claim, their insurance rises, its on their permanent record and their privilages may be limited. That is completely unfair without an independent screening process, which we don't have!
My first sentence addressed this. All insurance companies have appeal procedures in place to address any problems. And if they don’t, isn’t that an insurance company problem? Why blame the legal system?
Tort reform may not be the best to affect insurance premiums, but its a reasonable measure nontheless, to discourage outrageous payouts. About time we inject more reasonable behavior & basic logic into the legal field instead of semantics and deception for profit. The goal of lawyers is to win, not to be just and fair...totally different purpose than doctors, who typically enter the field to help people.
Tort reform does absolutely nothing to drive down the costs of professional negligence insurance. That’s a matter of history.
What tort reform does do is limit the liability of negligent Big Corporations and doctors. Big Corporations are now encouraged to make more dangerous products and Doctors are encouraged to be less careful b/c damages are capped at an artificial level. I mean why order that expensive MRI test if you don't have to?
I just hope that you never have a problem like this:
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Rhode Island Hospital has been fined $50,000 and reprimanded by the state Department of Health after its third instance this year of a doctor performing brain surgery in the wrong side of a patient's head.
-
"Tort reform" is no different than socialized medicine IMO. We need a socialized legal system about as much as we need government-controlled healthcare.
-
Medical Errors Costing U.S. Billions
Mistakes resulted in 238,337 preventable deaths from 2004-06, survey finds
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100199884>1=31036
I tell you folks, it's those damn trial lawyers that are driving up the costs of malpractice insurance!
(I did that in my best Rush Limbaugh voice)
-
Medical Errors Costing U.S. Billions
Mistakes resulted in 238,337 preventable deaths from 2004-06, survey finds
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100199884>1=31036
I tell you folks, it's those damn trial lawyers that are driving up the costs of malpractice insurance!
(I did that in my best Rush Limbaugh voice)
LOL. that was easy to visualize.
Ive run into alot of people that are proud of suing the state for workercomp or govt for SSecurity. I love it when they video a guy watersking doing air tricks while hes living off our money......busted!!!
-
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax
Recession, new tax credits have nearly half of US households paying no federal income tax
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer, On Wednesday April 7, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.
That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.
"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.
The federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion -- or a little less than half of all government receipts -- in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don't pay it, mainly lower-income families.
The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.
In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.
In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.
Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.
There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.
"All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we'll reduce your tax bill by some amount," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.
Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.
But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.
Internal Revenue Service: http://www.irs.gov
Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
-
In the meantime, they'll support any flat-tax (introduced by millionaires, oddly) which will crash their buying power and of course, greatly shrink the buying power of the lowest 20% - the same 20% that keeps the portfolios of the top 20% loaded.
Think about what will happen to your WMT stock when a lot of its shoppers see their buying power decrease by 23% (or whatever number Steve Forbes is telling us this week)
Massive Truth.
-
<MELTDOWN>
I just finished my taxes for 2007.
I OWE $6222 (FVCK YOU very much AMT). If I didn't switch companies last year and pay more to social security (which I'll never ever fvcking get back) I'd owe around $10,000 (another MIDDLE CLASS family I know owes $20,000).
I claim married ZERO on my W-4 as does my wife. I've maxed out my 401k contributions. There is only so much you can (legally) do to make your taxable income smaller.
I am, by no fvcking means, a rich man. Even though my taxable income (between my wife and I) almost hits 300k a year I am like every other middle class schmuck that gets up early and goes to work every day to support his family and try to give his children a better life than the one he had a kid.
I'm so fvcking mad I could punch a kitten. >:(
So help me God it's going to take every ounce of self control to not punch the next fvcking liberal in the neck that tells me because I make "too much" I can afford to pay more fvcking taxes.
This is why I will NEVER vote for ANY politician that thinks it's okay to fuck us by raising our taxes. I don't care if your poor, middle class, or rich. If you work for it and earn it it's YOURS.
I'm so goddamn sick and tired of the government pissing away our tax dollars on stupid fucking bullshit. What the fvck are we paying for?
</MELTDOWN>
Gee, W8--why don't you tell us how you really feel?
-
Beach,
Your article explains precisely why lower income people are willing to believe healthcare will be free.
-
Sounds like around 47% of the people in this country can completely ignore the hysterical right wing pundits who are screaming that Obama is going to raise their taxes. Shit, given that these people pay no taxes at all you'd think the pundits would actually be in favor of raising their taxes rather than falsing warning about it
Does anyone know the % of corporations that pay no federal income tax?
-
Sounds like around 47% of the people in this country can completely ignore the hysterical right wing pundits who are screaming that Obama is going to raise their taxes. Shit, given that these people pay no taxes at all you'd think the pundits would actually be in favor of raising their taxes rather than falsing warning about it
Does anyone know the % of corporations that pay no federal income tax?
Isn't there a minimum tax "around 47% of the people in this country" would end up paying for their health care under the new plan? Someone will probably argue it's unfair and offset it with a tax cut... err, I mean credit or ECI modification. :)
-
Sounds like around 47% of the people in this country can completely ignore the hysterical right wing pundits who are screaming that Obama is going to raise their taxes. Shit, given that these people pay no taxes at all you'd think the pundits would actually be in favor of raising their taxes rather than falsing warning about it
Does anyone know the % of corporations that pay no federal income tax?
Why should they? Who do you think really pays that tax?
-
Isn't there a minimum tax "around 47% of the people in this country" would end up paying for their health care under the new plan? Someone will probably argue it's unfair and offset it with a tax cut... err, I mean credit or ECI modification. :)
I don't know the answer to your question
btw - that 47% still pays FICA and a few other taxes (spme will pay state taxes too)
still, it seems that more individuals (as a percentage of the total) pay federal income tax than do corporations
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812
-
Beach,
Your article explains precisely why lower income people are willing to believe healthcare will be free.
It will essentially be free because a small percentage of the population will shoulder an even greater tax burden.
-
I don't know the answer to your question
btw - that 47% still pays FICA and a few other taxes (spme will pay state taxes too)
still, it seems that more individuals (as a percentage of the total) pay federal income tax than do corporations
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812
Maybe that will change since the Supreme Court has decided corporations may be treated as individuals for the purposes of political donations.
-
Three years later, Pelosi et al. are still playing class warfare.
I'm going to bump another article I posted a while back about who shoulders the income tax burden in this country.
-
Three years later, Pelosi et al. are still playing class warfare.
I'm going to bump another article I posted a while back about who shoulders the income tax burden in this country.
But they are rich ::)
-
Decker will love this. :)
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes
By Stephen Moore
From the November/December 2007 Issue
Yes, income in America is skewed toward the rich. But taxes are skewed far, far more. The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes. STEPHEN MOORE has the numbers.
1. Are income taxes fair?
That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, compared with 37 percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.
2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?
The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.
But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.
4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?
No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 percent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.
5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?
They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.
6. What is the economic logic behind these lower tax rates?
As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.
7. Are lower tax rates responsible for the big budget deficits of recent decades?
There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts.
8. Do the rich pay more taxes because they are earning more of the income in America?
Yes. There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.
What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.
9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?
No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.
10. Does the tax distribution look a lot different if we factor in other federal taxes, such as the payroll tax?
It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.
11. How do tax rates in the United States compare with tax rates abroad?
Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the United States than they are in most other industrial nations. This gives America a competitive edge in world markets. But America’s lead in low tax rates is shrinking. For example, the United States now has the second-highest corporate income tax in the developed world, after Japan. Our personal income tax rate is still low by historical standards. But in recent years many European and Pacific Rim nations have been slashing income taxes—there are now ten Eastern European nations with flat-tax rates between 12 percent and 25 percent—while the political pressure in Washington, D.C., is to raise them.
12. Do tax cuts on investment income, such as George W. Bush’s reductions in tax rates on capital gains and dividends, primarily benefit wealthy stockowners?
The New York Times reported that America’s millionaires raked in 43 percent of the investment tax cut benefits in 2003. It’s true that lower tax rates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut.
The same phenomenon occurred with the capital gains tax, which is essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply holding onto their stock, home, or business. This “lock-in” effect, as it is called, can be economically inefficient, since owners have a tax incentive to keep poor investments, rather than drawing out the cash and putting it into assets that are more productive. When the capital gains tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other enterprises.
The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.
This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between 2003 and 2005. Capital gains tax receipts also far outpaced the revenues that the government’s static models predicted. Between 2003 and 2007, actual tax receipts exceeded expectations by $207 billion.
Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a contributor to CNBC TV. He was the founder of the Club for Growth and has served as a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. His latest book is “Bullish on Bush: How George Bush’s Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger” (Madison Books).
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
Bump.
-
But they are rich ::)
The "rich" don't deserve to keep more of their own money.
-
cue straw man to say that they dont pay enough
-
Article from a year ago. Just to put the corporate tax issue in context. The government collects billions in corporate taxes from the ten largest U.S. companies. If we were to look at all Fortune 500 companies, we'd see the same thing. We'd also see the same thing from small businesses. This notion that corporations are not paying taxes is a liberal canard.
What the Top U.S. Companies Pay in Taxes
by Christopher Helman
Friday, April 2, 2010
As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do -- that is, if they pay taxes at all.
The most egregious example is General Electric (NYSE: GE - News). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.
How did this happen? It's complicated. GE's tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year -- some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.
Inside you'll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else -- maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like -- would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company.
It's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital's equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch.
But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.
Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software.
As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft's (NYSE: MSFT - News) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates).
"Corporations are paying lower amounts of their profits in taxes now than in the past," says Douglas Schackelford, who teaches tax law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Other countries have been lowering their rates, but not the U.S."
Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM - News) paid more income taxes than any other U.S. company last year, some $15 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron (NYSE: CVX - News) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP - News) likewise paid out more than half their earnings in income taxes. The oil companies are oddities among the multinationals because many of the oil-rich countries where they do business levy even higher taxes than the U.S.
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.
Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.
Naturally the Obama administration wants to put an end to this. It has proposed doing away with tax deferrals on overseas income. If the plan passes, a U.S. company that pays a 25% tax on profits in China would have to pay an additional 10% income tax to Uncle Sam to bring it up to the 35% corporate rate. "Eliminating deferrals would put U.S. companies on an unlevel playing field," says the Tax Foundation's Hodge, "especially if competing with the likes of Germany, which only taxes companies on domestic operations."
Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ - News) and others among the top 25 state in their annual reports that if Obama's tax measures pass it would mean a certain tax hike, probably amounting to billions of dollars.
Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. "The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes," says Hodge, "because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments."
In the same vein, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM - News) Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has spoken out against an Obama proposal to levy a special tax on banks to recoup bailout costs. "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," said Dimon. "All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers."
No. 1: Wal-Mart Stores
Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images
Sales: $401 billion
Pretax income: $20.9 billion
Income taxes: $7.1 billion
Tax rate: 34.2%
$1.2 billion of Wal-Mart Stores' taxes are international.
No. 2: ExxonMobil
Eric Thayer/Getty Images
Sales: $311 billion
Pretax income: $35 billion
Income taxes: $15 billion
Tax rate: 47%
None of ExxonMobil's income taxes were paid in the U.S. In 2008 the company's income tax bill was $36 billion.
No. 3: Chevron
David McNew/Getty Images
Sales: $172 billion
Pretax income: $18.5 billion
Income taxes: $8 billion
Tax rate: 43%
Chevron paid $19 billion income tax in 2008. Of this year's taxes, just $200 million were paid in the U.S.
No. 4: General Electric
AP Photo/Paul Sakuma
Sales: $157 billion
Pretax income: $10.3 billion
Income taxes: (-$1.1 billion)
Tax rate: N/A
How Can It Be That You Pay More to the IRS Than General Electric?
GE's financial services unit, GE Capital, keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. and make lots of money overseas, where tax rates are lower.
No. 5: ConocoPhillips
AP Photo/David Zalubowski
Sales: $152 billion
Pretax income: $10 billion
Income taxes: $5 billion
Tax rate: 51%
ConocoPhillips paid $13 billion in taxes in 2008.
No. 6: AT&T
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sales: $123 billion
Pretax income: $19 billion
Income taxes: $6.2 billion
Tax rate: 32.4%
AT&T's executive officers are eligible to bill the company $14,000 a year for their own income tax preparations.
No. 7: Bank of America
David McNew/Getty Images
Sales: $120 billion
Pretax income: $4.4 billion
Income taxes: (-$1.9 billion)
Tax rate: N/A
How did Bank of America not pay any taxes on $4.4 billion in income? Because of deductions like $860 million in tax-exempt income, $670 million in low-income housing credits and a $600 million loss on shares of foreign subsidiaries. With a provision for credit losses of $49 billion, Bank of America probably won't be paying taxes for a long time.
No. 8: Ford Motor
Scott Olson/Getty Images
Sales: $118 billion
Pretax income: $3 billion
Income taxes: $69 million
Tax rate: 2.3%
Ford's tax rate is so low because of past years' losses from U.S. operations.
No. 9: Hewlett-Packard
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sales: $115 billion
Pretax income: $9.4 billion
Income taxes: $1.75 billion
Tax rate: 18.6%
HP's low tax rate is due to lower tax rates in foreign countries. The company says in its annual report that President Obama's proposals to end tax deferrals on international operations would mean a big tax hike.
No. 10: Berkshire Hathaway
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sales: $112 billion
Pretax income: $11.5 billion
Income taxes: $3.5 billion
Tax rate: 30%
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/109244/what-the-top-us-companies-pay-in-taxes
-
NOT ENOUGH...WE WANT IT ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
NOT ENOUGH...WE WANT IT ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me about it.
-
Zogby: Majority Wants Cuts Rather Than New Taxes
Monday, 11 Jul 2011
UTICA, NY - Nine in 10 voters say it is important for Congress and President Barack Obama to reduce the nation's long-term debt, and a majority prefer spending cuts over increased revenues as the means of accomplishing that goal, a new IBOPE Zogby Interactive poll finds.
The July 8-11 survey finds two-thirds favor means testing for Medicare based on a person's wealth, but similar percentages oppose reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security and reducing provider payments in Medicare and Medicaid.
There is strong agreement to reduce defense spending (60 percent), end some tax loopholes and preferences (85 percent) and to reduce discretionary spending outside of entitlements and defense (62 percent).
Two-thirds oppose ending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, yet voters are closely split on ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 annually and on lowering corporate tax rates.
The IBOPE Zogby interactive poll of 2,132 likely voters has a margin of error of +/-2.2%.
A sampling of IBOPE Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender and education to more accurately reflect the population.
IBOPE Zogby International is a non-partisan, premier global public opinion polling and market research firm that offers timely, accurate results and in-depth analysis and insights. IBOPE Zogby International works with issue experts in a vast array of fields including healthcare, technology, finance, insurance, energy, agriculture, public affairs, and media who offer insightful data analysis and exceptional service to clients in countries throughout the world.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zogby-majority-want-debt/2011/07/11/id/403233
-
Must rich people are born that way they out of touch with the average american and just wants to get richer.
Think Wall Street their ass is full of money but in their greed they need more and fucks up the economy and as always the poor pays. But yeah it so sad that somebody wants to raise their taxes buh-fucking-huu::)
-
Must rich people are born that way they out of touch with the average american and just wants to get richer.
Think Wall Street their ass is full of money but in their greed they need more and fucks up the economy and as always the poor pays. But yeah it so sad that somebody wants to raise their taxes buh-fucking-huu::)
you have stats to back up your claims?
what do you consider rich?
-
Blacken is so full of it.
-
It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings. The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%. If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.
-
It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings. The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%. If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.
END OF THREAD.
-
It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings. The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%. If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.
the U.S. gov steal the fruits of our labor and punish hardworking americans and what have they ever given us in return
-
It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings. The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%. If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.
:o I agree with the gimmick.
-
The carpenter doesn't work any harder than the "millionaire." The person with a net worth of a million in all likelihood worked extremely hard to make their money and increase assets/eliminate debt. There are millionaire carpenters too.
Most millionaires arent self-made. You have a "romantic" wiev on this shit. All the shit Wall Street does, politicians etc. They are dirtbags and because they have had an easy life they dont have a personallity and is totally dis-connected from the real world.
-
Most millionaires arent self-made. You have a "romantic" wiev on this shit. All the shit Wall Street does, politicians etc. They are dirtbags and because they have had an easy life they dont have a personallity and is totally dis-connected from the real world.
Source blacken ?
-
Source blacken ?
Do i really need a source that tell you Wall Street and politicians are corrupt scumbags that wants to rip us off ???
You use 90% of your time on this board and post stories about this everyday. Well only when its democrats but still you know this shit
-
Most millionaires arent self-made. You have a "romantic" wiev on this shit. All the shit Wall Street does, politicians etc. They are dirtbags and because they have had an easy life they dont have a personallity and is totally dis-connected from the real world.
Not true. You should read "The Millionaire Next Door" and its sequel "The Millionaire Mind." A 20-year study of American millionaires (people with a net worth of $1 million or more). By and large, they are self-made. They own their own businesses. They did not inherit their wealth. They don't drive expensive cars. They live below their means.
They are not "dirtbags." ::)
-
Not true. You should read "The Millionaire Next Door" and its sequel "The Millionaire Mind." A 20-year study of American millionaires (people with a net worth of $1 million or more). By and large, they are self-made. They own their own businesses. They did not inherit their wealth. They don't drive expensive cars. They live below their means.
They are not "dirtbags." ::)
Im not talking about people who have a million or 2 on their account even though they are of course also by definition millionaires
-
Im not talking about people who have a million or 2 on their account even though they are of course also by definition millionaires
You fucking should since those are the people equally whacked by your communist dreams of obamas' tax policies.
-
Im not talking about people who have a million or 2 on their account even though they are of course also by definition millionaires
?
Most millionaires arent self-made. You have a "romantic" wiev on this shit. All the shit Wall Street does, politicians etc. They are dirtbags and because they have had an easy life they dont have a personallity and is totally dis-connected from the real world.
-
You fucking should since those are the people equally whacked by your communist dreams of obamas' tax policies.
Everybody with a worth over 100 million dollars should pay more percentage of their income to tax than anybody who is not worth over 100 million dollars. I think this generally takes out most of the "pull oneself up by the bootstrap" people. Plus the higher percentage will not affect their livelihood because of their overall worth.
What would your reply be if someone made the above argument.
-
Everybody with a worth over 100 million dollars should pay more percentage of their income to tax than anybody who is not worth over 100 million dollars. I think this generally takes out most of the "pull oneself up by the bootstrap" people. Plus the higher percentage will not affect their livelihood because of their overall worth.
What would your reply be if someone made the above argument.
sorry - but those with 0 savings, yet make 250k a year in income are considered millioaries and jet owners by our communist potus.
-
Everybody with a worth over 100 million dollars should pay more percentage of their income to tax than anybody who is not worth over 100 million dollars. I think this generally takes out most of the "pull oneself up by the bootstrap" people. Plus the higher percentage will not affect their livelihood because of their overall worth.
What would your reply be if someone made the above argument.
We should not penalize success. I'm in favor of eliminating the income tax in favor of a national sales tax. That way, consumers can control how much they pay in taxes. Level the playing field.
-
Obama spends it so fast that increasing taxes is an exercise in futility. Get a balanced budget amendment passed, then spending details can be hashed out.
-
You fucking should since those are the people equally whacked by your communist dreams of obamas' tax policies.
Not really the % of the money from a person or company thats earns 100-1000 more times than that will mean they pay a lot more than the people who savings of 1-10 million.
Why so protecting of the people with money i think they will manage
-
Not really the % of the money from a person or company thats earns 100-1000 more times than that will mean they pay a lot more than the people who savings of 1-10 million.
Why so protecting of the people with money i think they will manage
You still don't get it, TAXABLE INCOME, that is the key to this whole thing. The government does not tax ones wealth.
-
You still don't get it, TAXABLE INCOME, that is the key to this whole thing. The government does not tax ones wealth.
Read what i wrote again i think you missed my point by a mile
-
We should not penalize success. I'm in favor of eliminating the income tax in favor of a national sales tax. That way, consumers can control how much they pay in taxes. Level the playing field.
^^^^
THIS!!!!
-
you ever going to cite your source for most millionaires are trust fund babies?
No???
color me shocked
-
Do i really need a source that tell you Wall Street and politicians are corrupt scumbags that wants to rip us off ???
You use 90% of your time on this board and post stories about this everyday. Well only when its democrats but still you know this shit
Source it or shut the fuck up, you shitty gimmick.
Do you think anyone should take as fact the opinion of a jobless benefit-leech whose greatest accomplishment life is his ability to expose himself for running a dozen gimmicks on an internet forum?
-
Source it or shut the fuck up, you shitty gimmick.
Do you think anyone should take as fact the opinion of a jobless benefit-leech whose greatest accomplishment life is his ability to expose himself for running a dozen gimmicks on an internet forum?
No thats why i dont listen to you
-
you ever going to cite your source for most millionaires are trust fund babies?
No???
color me shocked
-
Funny too how pieces of shit demos never include sports atheletes, entertainers, movie stars, etc in their diatribes on the so called evil rich business people.
-
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-myth-of-the-self-made-millionaire
-
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-myth-of-the-self-made-millionaire
Wne obama screams about corporate jets and CEO's, should he include entertainers, movie starts, and sports atheltes?
-
Wne obama screams about corporate jets and CEO's, should he include entertainers, movie starts, and sports atheltes?
He is just pandering you know as well as i he is owned by Wall Street
-
He is just pandering you know as well as i he is owned by Wall Street
Not my question.
-
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-myth-of-the-self-made-millionaire
LMFAO so an op ed piece is what you have as proof?
LMFAO
-
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-myth-of-the-self-made-millionaire
From your link: "With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says."
This does not support your claim. It actually supports what I said about most American millionaires earning, rather than inheriting their wealth:
Must rich people are born that way they out of touch with the average american and just wants to get richer.
-
From your link: "With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says."
This does not support your claim. It actually supports what I said about most American millionaires earning, rather than inheriting their wealth:
Can you just ban this stupid fucking gimmick? Everyone knows it's Blacken. Make that twat stick to one account like the rest of us.
I'm also in favor of a national sales tax like you said. That would be the logical solution. Instead what we'll get is something 1000x worse.
-
Can you just ban this stupid fucking gimmick? Everyone knows it's Blacken. Make that twat stick to one account like the rest of us.
I'm also in favor of a national sales tax like you said. That would be the logical solution. Instead what we'll get is something 1000x worse.
He's not spamming the board. I do some gimmick patrol and cleanup, but banning them is really up to Ron.
You know what would happen if we went to a national sales tax with these corrupt politicians? We'd probably wind up with BOTH a sales tax and an income tax.
-
He's not spamming the board. I do some gimmick patrol and cleanup, but banning them is really up to Ron.
You know what would happen if we went to a national sales tax with these corrupt politicians? We'd probably wind up with BOTH a sales tax and an income tax.
Yup. That's the problem. :-\
-
Heard the president say this morning that the "wealthiest Americans" are not paying their fair share of taxes. Unreal. The top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of federal taxes in 2008; the top 5 percent paid 58 percent of federal taxes; the bottom 50 percent paid 2.7 percent of federal taxes. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
-
He keeps talking about that commission raising taxes. As far as I know, one of the stipulations of its creation was that it couldn't raise taxes.
Either way, a "super congress" is a nice totalitarian move. Couple in the reports saying that no Tea Party fiscal conservatives will be on it and it's just more totalitarian bullshit being shoved down our throats. A complete farce.
-
Whenever You Hear Someone Complain the Rich Don’t Pay Their ‘Fair Share,’ Show Them This Handy Chart
BY MICHAEL HAUSAM (16 HOURS AGO) | EDITOR'S CHOICE, NATION, POLITICS
How many times have you heard some version of “the wealthiest Americans should be paying their fair share?” But does anyone actually know what that means and, more importantly, what the highest-earning Americans are currently paying in taxes?
Now, thanks to the American Enterprise Institute and the Congressional Budget Office’s latest report on income and taxes, we know whom is paying what. And the picture painted by reality is very different than what one would expect.
You can decide for yourself if they are already paying “their fair share.”
The top 1% of households earned 15% of income but paid 35% of federal income taxes.
The top 20% of households earned 52% of income but paid 69% in federal income taxes.
The bottom 20% of households income tax rates dropped from 9% to 1.9% since 1984.
40% of households get more than half their income from federal transfer programs.
When government transfers are included, 60% of Americans had net negative tax rates — meaning they received more than they paid in.
The most interesting statistic is best shown by this graph:
(http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/who-pays-what.jpg)
who pays whatIt’s basically saying this: the highest quintile (top 20% of households) paid an average $46,500, far and away the greatest in percentage and dollars.
In other words, when federal income taxes are reduced by the amounts those households received from the federal government, only the top 20% contributed any meaningful amount. Bottom line: the top fifth of households basically paid for everyone else, in addition to everything else.
While there is certainly disagreement over what things the government should be paying for, it’s clear that as of right now, it’s the top 20% of households that are putting in the vast majority of the money.
Furthermore, when it comes to whom should be paying their fair share and whether the highest earners should be paying more, perhaps a better question might be to ask if the rest of Americans are paying theirs?
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/203641-2-chart-new-definition-fair-share-20-americans-pay-almost-100-everything/
-
Whenever You Hear Someone Complain the Rich Don’t Pay Their ‘Fair Share,’ Show Them This Handy Chart
BY MICHAEL HAUSAM (16 HOURS AGO) | EDITOR'S CHOICE, NATION, POLITICS
How many times have you heard some version of “the wealthiest Americans should be paying their fair share?” But does anyone actually know what that means and, more importantly, what the highest-earning Americans are currently paying in taxes?
Now, thanks to the American Enterprise Institute and the Congressional Budget Office’s latest report on income and taxes, we know whom is paying what. And the picture painted by reality is very different than what one would expect.
You can decide for yourself if they are already paying “their fair share.”
The top 1% of households earned 15% of income but paid 35% of federal income taxes.
The top 20% of households earned 52% of income but paid 69% in federal income taxes.
The bottom 20% of households income tax rates dropped from 9% to 1.9% since 1984.
40% of households get more than half their income from federal transfer programs.
When government transfers are included, 60% of Americans had net negative tax rates — meaning they received more than they paid in.
The most interesting statistic is best shown by this graph:
(http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/who-pays-what.jpg)
who pays whatIt’s basically saying this: the highest quintile (top 20% of households) paid an average $46,500, far and away the greatest in percentage and dollars.
In other words, when federal income taxes are reduced by the amounts those households received from the federal government, only the top 20% contributed any meaningful amount. Bottom line: the top fifth of households basically paid for everyone else, in addition to everything else.
While there is certainly disagreement over what things the government should be paying for, it’s clear that as of right now, it’s the top 20% of households that are putting in the vast majority of the money.
Furthermore, when it comes to whom should be paying their fair share and whether the highest earners should be paying more, perhaps a better question might be to ask if the rest of Americans are paying theirs?
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/203641-2-chart-new-definition-fair-share-20-americans-pay-almost-100-everything/
every time I get in a back and forth on tax I bring this issue to light. they simply do not want to hear facts. they'd rather believe innuendos and flat out fabrications from snarky liberals on TV.....who in fact...are also part of the top 20%. funny how that works.
-
40% of households get more than half their income from federal transfer programs.
you can call this statistic anything you'd like. I call it fucking slavery.
-
every time I get in a back and forth on tax I bring this issue to light. they simply do not want to hear facts. they'd rather believe innuendos and flat out fabrications from snarky liberals on TV.....who in fact...are also part of the top 20%. funny how that works.
Just amazing how these false narratives get repeated by people up and down the government, including the president. Then the minions just repeat this garbage as fact.
-
40% of households get more than half their income from federal transfer programs.
you can call this statistic anything you'd like. I call it fucking slavery.
>:(
-
Just amazing how these false narratives get repeated by people up and down the government, including the president. Then the minions just repeat this garbage as fact.
that's American media. say a lie enough times and it becomes truth.
-
Most millionaires arent self-made. You have a "romantic" wiev on this shit. All the shit Wall Street does, politicians etc. They are dirtbags and because they have had an easy life they dont have a personallity and is totally dis-connected from the real world.
67% of existing millionaires are self-made.
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html
-
Yes rich people pay the most taxes whats the problem?
-
that's American media. say a lie enough times and it becomes truth.
Sad truth. Happens all the time.
-
Yes rich people pay the most taxes whats the problem?
How many of these gimmicks do you have?
Do i really need a source that tell you Wall Street and politicians are corrupt scumbags that wants to rip us off ???
You use 90% of your time on this board and post stories about this everyday. Well only when its democrats but still you know this shit
-
How many of these gimmicks do you have?
How many can you find with "whork" in it?
-
How many can you find with "whork" in it?
I have no idea. I just noticed it in this thread. So only two? Three? More?
-
I have no idea. I just noticed it in this thread. So only two? Three? More?
If it got "whork" in it its mine.
Copyright.
-
If it got "whork" in it its mine.
Copyright.
Why? You realize you have had conversations with yourself? :-\
-
45 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax
By Catey Hill, Marketwatch
February 24, 2016
Many Americans don’t have to worry about giving Uncle Sam part of their hard-earned cash for their income taxes this year.
An estimated 45.3 percent of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.)
Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay a higher effective income tax rate than any other group (around 23 percent, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50 percent.
On average, those in the bottom 40 percent of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20 percent of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87 percent of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.
The top 1 percent of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6 percent of all the federal individual income tax in the US; the top 0.1 percent — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20 percent of it.
When it comes to all federal taxes — individual income, payroll, excise, corporate income and estate taxes — the distributions of who pays what is more spread out. This is partially because nearly everyone pays excise taxes, which include taxes on gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes.
http://nypost.com/2016/02/24/45-percent-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/
-
So top 20% pay 87% of all income taxes and bottom 40% not only pay nothing but get money back and some politicians and getbiggers think that's fair???
-
One societal sickness that we still can't eradicate: Political lies
By Thomas Sowell
Published May 2, 2017
One of the painful realities of our times is how long a political lie can survive, even after having been disproved years ago, or even generations ago.
A classic example is the phrase "tax cuts for the rich," which is loudly proclaimed by opponents, whenever there is a proposal to reduce tax rates. The current proposal to reduce federal tax rates has revived this phrase, which was disproved by facts, as far back as the 1920s -- and by now should be called "tax lies for the gullible."
How is the claim of "tax cuts for the rich" false? Let me count the ways. More important, you can easily check out the facts for yourself with a simple visit to your local public library or, for those more computer-minded, on the Internet.
One of the key arguments of those who oppose what they call "tax cuts for the rich" is that the Reagan administration tax cuts led to huge federal government deficits, contrary to "supply side economics" which said that lower tax rates would lead to higher tax revenues.
This reduces the whole issue to a question about facts -- and the hard facts are available in many places, including a local public library or on the Internet.
The hardest of these hard facts is that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration.
How can that be? Because tax RATES and tax REVENUES are two different things. Tax rates and tax revenues can move in either the same direction or in opposite directions, depending on how the economy responds.
But why should you take my word for it that federal income tax revenues were higher than before during the Reagan administration? Check it out.
Official statistics are available in many places. The easiest way to find those statistics is to go look at a copy of the annual "Economic Report of the President." It doesn't have to be the latest Report under President Trump. It can be a Report from any administration, from the Obama administration all the way back to the administration of the elder George Bush.
Each annual "Economic Report of the President" has the history of federal revenues and expenditures, going back for decades. And that is just one of the places where you can get this data. The truth is readily available, if you want it. But, if you are satisfied with political rhetoric, so be it.
Before we turn to the question of "the rich," let's first understand the implications of higher income tax revenues after income tax rates were cut during the Reagan administration.
That should have put an end to the talk about how lower tax rates reduce government revenues and therefore tax cuts need to be "paid for" or else there will be rising deficits. There were in fact rising deficits in the 1980s, but that was due to spending that outran even the rising tax revenues.
Congress does the spending, and there is no amount of money that Congress cannot outspend.
As for "the rich," higher-income taxpayers paid more -- repeat, MORE tax revenues into the federal treasury under the lower tax rates than they had under the previous higher tax rates.
That happened not only during the Reagan administration, but also during the Coolidge administration and the Kennedy administration before Reagan, and under the G.W. Bush administration after Reagan. All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.
More than that, "the rich" not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called "tax cuts for the rich," they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places, including documented sources listed in my monograph titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich.'"
As a source more congenial to some, a front-page story in the New York Times on July 9, 2006 -- during the Bush 43 administration -- reported, "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year." Expectations, of course, are in the eye of the beholder.
Thomas Sowell, a National Humanities Medal winner, is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author. He is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050217.php3#y1Bkdto2QVoapZII.99
-
Thanks for pointing out the obvious Mr. Sewell. Of course tax revenue can go up even if tax rates are lower. Revenue is based on the size of the economy and if the economy is larger now than ten years ago that tax revenue will likely be higher
The BIG LIE is that cutting tax on the wealthy stimulates the economy/creates jobs, etc...
Tax cuts don't create demand
If you need any proof of this just take a look at what happened in Kansas when they did massive tax cuts which their governor said would be a real live experiment to prove once and for all that tax cuts create demand and job growth and instead he torpedoed his states economy and created huge budget deficits
It was stunning failure and all self inflicted.
This is what Republicans now want to do to the country
-
Once again proving that "fair share" is an absolute lie. Why shouldn't the people who actually pay most of the taxes in this country get tax cuts? Rhetorical question.
OMB: Top 20% pay 95% of taxes, middle class 'single digits'
by Paul Bedard | Oct 27, 2017
Any tax cut for middle income earners will also provide a benefit for those further up the income scale, including the top 20 percent who now pay 95 percent of all income taxes, according to the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
In explaining the complicated tax system the administration and congressional Republicans are trying to simplify, Mick Mulvaney played the role of professor at Georgetown University Wednesday night and dished the eye-popping numbers and impact of a middle class tax cut.
Related: Are Trump's border wall prototypes all for nothing?
It came in a discussion before students of the school's Institute of Politics and Public Service at the McCourt School of Public Policy. The discussion was directed by Cathy Koch, a tax expert and former Senate aide.
When the two turned to the taxes the rich pay, Mulvaney declared, "The top 20 percent of folks who file a tax return, the top 20 percent, pay 95 percent of the taxes."
OMB later cited internal data to the Washington Examiner that said the top 20 percent of people to pay income taxes account for 94.8 percent of those taxes in 2016.
That appears to be a jump from just a few years ago. In 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the top 20 percent of income earners paid 84 percent of income taxes.
Mulvaney explained:
If you break the income tax universe into what we call quintiles, so equal sized 20 percent columns, the first two columns, the first quintile and the lower quintile, don't pay any taxes at all. In fact they net positive. We pay them when they file a tax return.
That middle quintile, which you might describe, some people do, as middle class, pays an effective rate in the low single digits. And all of the taxes are paid by folks in the top two quintiles, and that last quintile pays almost fully, 95 percent I think, of the taxes.
People always ask all the time, ‘Why do you want to give a tax cut to the rich?' Here's the math. We have a progressive tax system, which means that if you make $1 million and I make $50,000, we both pay the exact same rate on the first, let's say, $20,000. And then, from the next $20,000 up to my $50,000, and her next $20,000 to her next $50,000, we pay the same, I think it's 12 percent of 15 percent, I can't remember where the brackets are right now. And then she goes on to pay her higher rate on the stuff that she makes and I stop.
Well, if you want to give me, the middle class, a cut, take my 15 percent rate down to say 10 percent, and that gives the middle class a cut. Guess who else benefits from that, she does. She pays that same rate on the way up the brackets.
His conclusion, "You could sit there and do nothing but lower the rates on the middle class, and all other things being equal, you're giving the rich a tax cut.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omb-top-20-pay-95-of-taxes-middle-class-single-digits/article/2638746
-
I hope tax reform actually includes reforming the tax code so that 10 professional tax preparers using the same information don't come up with 10 different amounts.
-
Bump for the dishonest liberals in DC who keep lying to the public.
-
I just wonder how a group of liberals would play the board game MONOPOLY... ???
-
I just wonder how a group of liberals would play the board game MONOPOLY... ???
Are you kidding me?
The liberals on here don’t even like each other.
This is simply a gathering place where they can all come and wallow around together in their own self pity and hatred of America.
-
and the bottom 60% pay less of total income tax collected after tax cut...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001
I am assuming this is why we have stopped hearing about this from the dems.
“The results show how steeply progressive the U.S. income tax remains. For 2018, households in the top 20% will have income of about $150,000 or more and 52% of total income, about the same as in 2017. But they will pay about 87% of income taxes, up from about 84% last year.
By contrast, the lower 60% of households, who have income up to about $86,000, receive about 27% of income. As a group, this tier will pay no net federal income tax in 2018 vs. 2% of it last year.“