Gene, you're a dumbass.

The reason Cheney's income changed had nothing to do with tax cuts and everything to do with how he made his money: WAGES vs. CAPITAL GAINS.

The capital gains rate is 15%. Same as it was during Clinton.  If 100% of your income comes from capital gains (stock, interest, etc.) you pay 15%. 

Cheney sold off his Haliburton stock to avoid conflict of interest. That income was taxed at 15% (as it would have under Clinton).

I have tried to explain this to you before, using simple words even, how the INCOME TAX RATE is not the way to get "the rich" to pay in more.

Let me give you an example even you might undrestand:

I could have my business "loan" me $1 million dollars. I could then take that $1 million and put it in a municipal CD that bears around 5.5% interest.  That would be $55,000 in income from that.  My tax rate: 15%.

This is, btw, how John "Two Americas" Edwards does things. He pays himself through his investments and avoids paying income taxes.

If you want to pay more in taxes, by all means, volunteer to pay more.  I am definitely not undertaxed. 

I find it highly offensive that the day after I had to write the government a 6 figure check in taxes (after having paid nearly 7 figures in estimated taxes already) to have someone like you telling me I should be paying more even as you sit back on your ass demanding more giveaways for others that I should pay for.

How about a trillion dollars for an education system that teaches less than before they had the money?

Why don't you explain to me how the Vice-President got over onn the government but Senator Kennedy who's whole family for decades has been stashing money off shore is ok. Family net worth on paper is 100 million dollars yet they have more than that in just one off shore account. Why don't you ask him to pay his fair share? How about the Clintons who are starting to take thier money off shore? You sir are a political hack!

Dragional

You are like a lot of other wealthy people who refuse to accept that our nation is in a very destructive spiral of ever increasing debt. We cut taxes with the argument that we had a surplus and thus were over taxing the American people. That was not true as there was NO such Surplus and the justification to give people like you a tax cut simply did not exist. We need to balance the budget and need to restore the tax rates on the people that can afford more to pay more taxes to move us to a balanced budget. You can use all the nasty terms you want toward me. What I am saying is correct. When I see Bush paying only 24% of his $ 700,000 income to help pay the cost of government I know the rich are not paying a reasonable share and the fact remains we need another $800 Billion per year to balance the budget and begin repaying the debt! I am sorry but when I consider the alternative of allowing the wealthy to make their already huge pile a little higher or insuring the financial welfare of our country, I will choose the welfare of the country every time. If I look at the choice of helping people like you make your pile a little higher or providing help to the poor and disabled of our country I will choose the poor and disabled. You do not need the tax Bush tax cut. WE NEED to balance the budget, repay the debt and help those that need help!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a lot like people who don't know anything about our tax structure.

Let me say it again (with feeling):

There are MANY TYPES OF TAXES.  You have a fixation on one type of tax - federal income taxes. That's dumb. 

Rich people rig the system in ways you can't even imagine (apparently).

Did you even read what I wrote earlier? Dick Cheney paid so little taxes because his money comes from selling stocks which don't involve income taxes at all.

Dragional

It was the Income Tax that Bush cut without justification (The Surplus). We are still out of balance by $600 Billion and need another $200 Billion to begin paying down the debt!

Socialism at it's highest! Its okay for some....but not for everyone. What I said is NOTHING close to socialism. I am acknowledging the fact that we need to increase the tax revenue to balance the budget and the group that can afford to pay a little more is also the group that got the BIG tax cuts over the past 6 years. That is not socialism. It is not class warfare. It is not hate for the rich. It is a logical way to resolve a major problem that Bush and his supporters ignore. I have documented that the tax cuts were predicated on the return of a so called SURPLUS. Since there was NO SURPLUS, the tax payers were NOT BEING OVER TAXED in 2001 and there was NOTHING to return! Every single person on this Blog Site has IGNORED this fact!

NO! What "you've" ignored is taking from the rich (in taxes)in order to give to the poor. That is socialism, FOOL!

What it demonstrates is just how far from reality these people seem to be. They refuse to accept facts when ever they show the policies they embrace do not work or harm the country. There tactics are identical no matter which one responds. Attack, deny, ignore.

AGAIN NO! Those are "your" tatics, not ours. Would you like me to repost some of your own blogs to prove my point? I have a few bookmarked just for such occasions.

"NO! What "you've" ignored is taking from the rich (in taxes)in order to give to the poor. That is socialism, FOOL!”

Restoring the tax rates that were in effect prior to 2001 is NOT SOCALISM. YOU ARE THE FOOL!

You have just attacked me as a response to my post. YOU HAVE PROVEN MY POINT. YOU ARE AS DUMB AS A STONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You, col. Gene, lie and mislead and attack on a regular basis. You name call and all the while you refuse to even acknowledge the persons points. This means that discussion and debate are a waste of time with you. People have proven your arguments to be fallacious at best yet you steadfastly refuse to admit you were wrong on this point or that. He stated you were acting foolishly in your beliefs. You have in turn called me a dumb ass, a fool, an ass. All attacks on me because you disagree with my point. I shed no tears for your hurt feelings. You are a political hack that cares not for the truth only hate. Not an attack just analyst of your words.

This is your article right?

Title being how Bush and Cheney made out on the tax cuts? But you are totally wrong. The reason they paid less in taxes has nothing to do with th eincome tax which Bush cut. It is because of the CAPITAL GAINS tax which has NOT been cut.

The basis of your article is wrong.

As usual I am sad to say.

Dragional

If the tax rated were the same as in 2001, Bush and Cheney as well as other wealthy individuals would be paying higher taxes. My point which you choose to ignore is that people making incomes at the levels of Bush and Cheney are NOT OVERTAXED! This country is in a serious financial problem as has been clearly articulated by the Comptroller General. I have documented the increase in BOTH the national debt and the interest that higher debt required all of us to pay. What I am saying is that the Bush tax cut was justified on the premise that because we had the Surplus Bush claimed, we had overtaxed the American taxpayer. Using the Bush argument, since there was NO SURPLUS there was not legitimate reason to have cut the taxes in 2001, 2002, 2003. That coupled with the fact that when Bush took over we had a balanced annual budget. Bush immediately turned that in to a growing annual deficit that has added more then $3 Trillion Dollars to the total amount of that national debt with no end in sight. That REQUIRES higher taxes, elimination of PORK and more forceful collection action! Those that can afford to pay more are those who got the biggest porting g of the tax cut that should not have been granted in the first place since there was no justification for the cuts. They are also the people that will not suffer any real harm from paying a little more to help resolve the fiscal problems Bush and the GOP have created by cutting taxes while increasing spending!

I would also like to know since when are the capital gains and dividend regulations not a part of the federal income tax code. I believe the tax rates on both capital gains and dividend were also lowered since 2001. Another major tax cut that has yet to be fully implemented is the elimination of the Estate Tax. That will grant huge tax cuts to the top 1% of the population and do NOTHING for the other 99%. That will cut about $40 Billion more per year from the federal tax revenues and add even more to the deficit. In 2011 ALL these provisions will end if they are not renewed. I favor making the tax cuts that help middle income taxpayers permanent and END all the others. That will restore 70% of the lost federal revenue from the Bush Tax Cuts to help balance the budget! After the 2008 election that will happen.

Dragional If the tax rated were the same as in 2001, Bush and Cheney as well as other wealthy individuals would be paying higher taxes. My point which you choose to ignore is that people making incomes at the levels of Bush and Cheney are NOT OVERTAXED! This country is in a serious financial problem as has been clearly articulated by the Comptroller General. I have documented the increase in BOTH the national debt and the interest that higher debt required all of us to pay. What I am saying is that the Bush tax cut was justified on the premise that because we had the Surplus Bush claimed, we had overtaxed the American taxpayer. Using the Bush argument, since there was NO SURPLUS there was not legitimate reason to have cut the taxes in 2001, 2002, 2003. That coupled with the fact that when Bush took over we had a balanced annual budget. Bush immediately turned that in to a growing annual deficit that has added more then $3 Trillion Dollars to the total amount of that national debt with no end in sight. That REQUIRES higher taxes, elimination of PORK and more forceful collection action! Those that can afford to pay more are those who got the biggest porting g of the tax cut that should not have been granted in the first place since there was no justification for the cuts. They are also the people that will not suffer any real harm from paying a little more to help resolve the fiscal problems Bush and the GOP have created by cutting taxes while increasing spending!

No they WOULDN'T! You just don't get do you? There was NO change in the "capital gains" tax. Even if you "had" restored the earlier tax rates, they would have paid the same amount. Since their income was derived from "capital gains", their tax would still only have been 15%. Then or now. Capital gains are an income, but they are and always have been taxed differently. So NOW who's the dummy?

The difference would have been trivial. Heck, Bush and Cheney don't even fall into the highest tax bracket after deductions on the federal income tax scale.

It was the CAPITAL GAINS tax income that allowed them to make so much money and pay relatively so little in taxes.

This is like arguing that we should use sledge hammers to swat a fly because a sledge hammer is marginally more effective at killing flies than nothing at all.

I realize the parasite class can always find reasons to ask for more money from the productive class in any way they can, but if you want more tax income, you should learn some basics on how the super rich avoid taxes.

You think this because you have no idea on how our tax code works (obviously).  Capital gains are taxed at the (wait for it) CAPITAL GAINS tax rate.  Federal INCOME tax rates are for wages. The capital gains tax rate has not been touched since Bush arrived.

BTW, dividend income IS a type of capital gains.  Do you understand what capital gains are?

This is why you have no business advocating tax increases -- you have no clue about our existing tax structure.  You just want other people to pay  more to the government so you can feel good about advocating more socialist programs. 

drmiler

There was NO change in the "capital gains" tax.

WRONG AGAIN READ YOU IDIOT

Dividends and Capital Gains Planning After the 2003 Tax Act

By Kathy Krawczyk and Lorraine Wright


E-mail Story
Print Story

One goal of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was to jump-start the economy and generate investment in the stock of American companies. As a result, the 2003 Tax Act included changes in dividend tax rates and capital gains rates applicable to individuals as taxpayers. The changes require both individuals and corporations to consider new tax planning strategies.

Capital Gains

Capital gains arise from the sale of capital assets, such as stocks, bonds, and land, at a price higher than the asset’s cost or basis. If a capital asset has been held longer than one year, the gain is considered a long-term capital gain. If the capital asset has been held for a year or less, the gain is considered a short-term capital gain. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the taxpayer’s regular tax rates. Before the 2003 Tax Act, long-term capital gains were taxed at 20% for taxpayers in the 25% or higher tax bracket (10% for individuals in the 10% and 15% marginal tax brackets).

Special rules applied to the gain on the sale of capital assets held more than five years where the holding period began after December 31, 2000. These gains were taxed at a maximum rate of 18% (8% for individuals in the 10% and 15% marginal tax brackets). Individuals in a tax bracket higher than 15% had the opportunity to make a special “deemed sale election” on their 2001 tax returns, which allowed them to pay the applicable capital gains tax on the asset as though it was sold on January 1, 2001, and then begin the holding period anew on that date. This was to be an irrevocable election.

The 2003 Tax Act’s provisions lowered the rates on long-term capital gains to 15% for taxpayers in the 25% bracket or higher and lowered the 10% rate to 5% for individuals in the 10% and 15% tax brackets, effective May 6, 2003, through December 31, 2008. This provision eliminated the five-year holding period rates of 18% and 8%. In 2008, the new 15% rate remains the same but the 5% rate drops to 0%. In 2009, the capital gain rates will return to the old 20% and 10% rates, and the five-year holding period rules and rates return. The act did not change the capital gain rates for collectibles (28%) and unrecaptured section 1250 gains (25%). The new capital gain tax rates apply to both the regular tax and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) calculations.

Dragional

Please read the post above. Where you and others on this Blog Site get your BS from is a mystery!