the first year Clinton was in office. he paid 18% this was after his tax increase and after his deductibles. i remember this because that is what they withhold from my paycheck that year. yes i got most of it back. but it was also the first year that i got most of it back. before that i got all of it back.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007the first year Clinton was in office. he paid 18% this was after his tax increase and after his deductibles. i remember this because that is what they withhold from my paycheck that year. yes i got most of it back. but it was also the first year that i got most of it back. before that i got all of it back.

The issue is that to claim a person with an income of a million or more that paid 23% is too high is BS especially when we are adding to the National debt.

If we had paid off the debt and had a balanced budget and there was a REAL SURPLUS, then cut taxes. We were not even close to that in 2001 and today we are even further from being debt free!

You're citing one individual in the class you hate - trying to imply that all the "rich" have similar tax returns doesn't change the reality that they don't. Just another example of how you demagogue issues regardless of "truth."

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007 The issue is that to claim a person with an income of a million or more that paid 23% is too high is BS especially when we are adding to the National debt. You're citing one individual in the class you hate - trying to imply that all the "rich" have similar tax returns doesn't change the reality that they don't. Just another example of how you demagogue issues regardless of "truth."

Bush had a similar tax rate with his income of $800,000. The reality is that the claim that the wealthy are overtaxed does not hold water. There is NO reason why we can not eliminate the tax cuts for the top 10% and increase the tax revenue by about $175 Billion per year. Add the savings from ending the Iraq War and you have over $300 Billion.

now your saying that bush payed to much in taxes since he only made half as much as Chaney.

keep digging gene lets see how big this hole can get. you know the one you just dug.

now your saying that bush payed to much in taxes since he only made half as much as Chaney.

No Bush paid about the same %. Bush paid less in dollars but they both did not pay a large % in taxes.

you are only talking federal taxes.


what about state, county, city, sales, property, and what ever else i have forgotten.

Again, 2 examples are not representative of the class you hate. Otherwise, there would be no way for the top 10% of income earners to pay what we know they are paying - nearly 90% of federal revenues. Talk about not holding water.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007you are only talking federal taxes. what about state, county, city, sales, property, and what ever else i have forgotten.

Every post I have made has been about Federal Taxes and returning to the old rates. We all pay local and state taxes. The truth is that as the Federal Government cuts things like Medicaid or adds requirements like "No Child Left Behind" with no money to pay for them they drive up local and state taxes. When states cut funding for education they drive up the local taxes. It is all a game. The Fed and then the states try to find ways to make it appear as if that are either cutting taxes or holding the line. However, if the cost to provide the services increases, some one must pay the Bill. Unlike the Fed, States and local government must balance their budgets. That is why local and state taxes often increase. I can recall when Christie Whitman was elected Governor of NJ she tried the GOP cut the taxes game at the state level in NJ. The local Real Estate taxes went through the roof and after she left office it was found that the local taxes had increased MORE then the state Taxes dropped.

At all levels of Government, the FIRST step is to agree on WHAT services are to be provided and determine what those services will cost. Step TWO is to FUND those services with taxes that recognize the ability to pay and the fact that low and middle income taxpayers have LESS ability to pay higher taxes if that is what is needed to balance the budgets. There may be times when we must say to those that are making the BIG BUCKS that they will have to PONEY UP a little more. It will not be the end of the world for them even though no one LIKES to pay more in taxes. The wealthy should be thankful that have so much that they can pay a little more without causing their families any harm. BR>

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, December 23, 2007 Bush had a similar tax rate with his income of $800,000. Again, 2 examples are not representative of the class you hate. Otherwise, there would be no way for the top 10% of income earners to pay what we know they are paying - nearly 90% of federal revenues. Talk about not holding water.

The top 10% does NOT pay 90 % of the taxes. In fact the wealthy have most of the loop holes to avoid paying taxes and many small business owners who the wealthy are are cheating on their taxes by padding expenses and not recognizing income. The little guy does not have the ability to cheat on their taxes the way many wealthy business people do. I am not saying all business people cheat on their taxes but I know too many are doing just that. Bush has CUT the number of IRS agents which has reduced the enforcement actions of the IRS! WHY? At a time when we need more money to balance the budget, Bush takes actions to enable more people to avoid paying their taxes and allow badly need tax revenue to go uncollected! Proper enforcement is NOT a tax increase!!!!!!!<

merry Christmas gene

And a Merry Christmas to you, Gene, as well.

WWW Link

A little blurb from the above link:

* An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
o The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
o The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
* Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
* The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
* Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
* The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)

Reply | | DeleteReply By: DaiwaPosted: Monday, December 24, 2007And a Merry Christmas to you, Gene, as well.[link="http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/"]WWW Link">LinkA little blurb from the above link:* An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:o The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.o The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.* Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.* The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.* Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.* The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)

Merry Christmas to all.

Thanks for the date. However, when I see people with the income of Cheney and Bush paying 23% in Federal Income tax I know they are not over taxed. The wealthy did just fine during the 1990's BEFORE the Bush tax cuts and there is every reason to return to those rates given the fact there was NO SURPLUS with which to cut taxes and we need the money to help balance the budget!

You can't base policy on your opinion of two individuals' tax returns - they won't be the only two affected.

And Happy New Year.

Who is paying the taxes isn't open to dispute. It's a documented fact.

The top 5% pay over half the taxes. This is a fact.

Why don't you pay in more?

Why don't you pay in more?

Because I did not receive the Big Bush Tax Cuts. We need to increase the taxes for those that got the bulk of the tax cuts that were not justified because the Bush Surplus was a LIE!