I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefitte dthe rich?

[Jim in CT]

Likwid -

"Nobody who makes $250k pays that much in taxes, no matter how hard you spin it."

As RIJIMMY said, that's so absurd it's hard to describe.

Just for ha-ha's, here is a link to a CNN website that says that Pres Bush paid over $220,000 in federal income taxes in 2007.

Bush earned $719,000 in 2007 - CNN

Is that just "spin"?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Just for ha-ha's, here is a link to a CNN website that says that Pres Bush paid over $220,000 in federal income taxes in 2007.

Bush earned $719,000 in 2007 - CNN

Is that just "spin"?

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

Likwid, you said no one making that much pays that much in taxes. You never said anything about scrutinized people. Your changing your arguments afetr I refute them.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by likwid

You pick the most scrutinized people in the country as examples?
Really?

YOU need the strong coffee this morning.

All I've read of your posts are you scutinizing others posts with one sentence questions and no answers or opinions with substance. Why not provide some substance instead of one line questions?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have a million times. We all know it's not true.

Then I'd expect you to be posting a million quotes. To day I've not seen you post one.

You're ignoring the stimulative nature of tax cuts, and the contractive nature of tax increases, aren't you?

No, I'm simply looking at the balance sheet for this fiscal year. The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues at a time we're running a large deficit. It's basic math right?

Now certainly when earnings are up it's possible to see an uptick in net revenues with lower rates, but there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated.

You could also argue that tax incentives for lower brackets are much more likely to be pushed back into the economy than those at the top who will just park it long-term. It's not like we're talking about a massive restructuring of the tax code that could cause a shift in how people invest, this is just an increase back to about where things were 10 years ago when I seem to remember the economy doing quite well. Besides, businesses (bigger) have tons of cash right now...a lack of money at the top isn't the problem with the economy.

Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. Any potential gain from stimulative effects has to be balanced against the increasing costs of servicing that debt.

I think the fair question for Obama would be, if you're going to argue the rich need to pay more because we can't afford it, why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?

That's easy...REPUBLICANS. The GOP wants to get rid of the fat, the Democrats want to add more fat. I agree with you 100 percent that we need to identify things that can be cut. When the GOP talks about cuts, the Democrats accuse them of not caring about poor people. That's the problem.

Aside from some making election cycle hay, I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs. Most of the GOP (elected, not punditry) are just as glued to the fat they can suck for their own interests as the Democrats.

It's going to be fun watching the incoming Republicans play with the old guard.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that...

"there is no magic formula that says when taxes go down the economy is always stimulated."

You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress.

"those at the top who will just park it long-term."

Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump.

"why isn't Congress doing more to cut expenses?"

Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend...

" I've not heard any serious proposals to cut costs."

When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns.

Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him.

Good, fair, probing questions.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;808490]Spence -

"The tax cuts are going to expire, this will cause a lack in revenues "

this is because they already have the money spent that they were planning on getting when the tax cuts expire, so in their minds they are "losing money" the same way that they raced to spend the supposed budget surplus projections at the end of the Clinton admin. before the surplus ever even materialized.....

they need to be cut off like addicts

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So when the cuts expire, meaning tax rates increase, you think tax revenues will go down? I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just suprised to hear that...

See addendum in previous post.

You leave the public with more money, more money will be spent or invested, stimulating the economy. How can that fail to occur? People aren't going to put extra money in their mattress.

Sure they will. Household savings are way up and I'd think that a lot of this is in cash or safe low yield investments. It might as well be in the mattress.

Obviously people can't spend if they don't have any money, but what they do with it and the time of the benefits isn't an easy equation.

Maybe. Or maybe they will use that money to expand businesses. It's not fair, but people at the top are the ones who drive the economy and create wealth opportunities for many others. I can't say that's "fair", but it's reality. When Clinton slashed capital gains taxes, the rich invested a lot more money, because it was more lucrative for them to do so. That's what primes the pump. Well, one of the things that primes the pump.

The point I made above is that big business already has a lot of cash but isn't expanding for other reasons. If it's uncertainly or just a more realistic picture of our economic picture I'm not sure...probably a factor of both.

Because Obama and the current congress are implementing a liberal agenda, which is spend, spend, spend...

The agenda isn't to spend, it's to provide beneficial services in a manner deemed to be most effective. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to like to spend while at the same time they argue over what's most effective and or constitutionally appropriate.

Don't see a lot of difference between the two in practice.

When a candidate like Sean Bielat has the courage to say, for example, we have to cut medicare and social security, the media says that Bielat doesn't care about seniors. That's how that gets played. There is a massive disincentive for politicians to tell the truth during campaigns.

Seniors have a reasonable expectation of necessary benefits from a system they paid into. Just simply stating you must cut isn't a solution to the problem, which is really the point. How do you apply conservative thinking to transform the system rather than just bitch about how good things would be if liberal ideas never existed.

Ultimately, it's probably more a matter of good management over ideology.

Gov Christie, in NJ, is standing up to the state unions and making massive cuts. He's making a lot of people unhappy, but he's doing what clearly has to be done. We need more like him.

Agree you have to play hardball with the unions as they are very effective in using centralized power.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Simply put, right now we have a very serious debt problem. -spence

A lot of people in the Oval Office, and in Congress, would disagree. I don't see how you can disagree, but they do...

[Jim in CT]

Stcroixman, let's say it's better to just subtract 2 numbers, rather than divide, to see what the difference is.

The guy at the bottom had his tax rate decrease from 15 to 10. Subtract that, he got a 5 percent decrease.

The guy at the top saw his rate go from 39.6 to 35 percent. Subtract those, and his rate went down by 4.6 percent.

The last time I checked, "5" was greater than "4.6".

The guy at the bottom got a larger decrease.

[JohnnyD]

Just wait until the feds institute a VAT on steroids.

[RIJIMMY]

duhhh,,,,,


Under the AMT, no deduction is allowed for personal exemptions, nor is the standard deduction.[7] State, local, and foreign taxes are not deductible. However, most other itemized deductions apply at least in part. Significant other adjustments to income and deductions apply.

Individuals must file IRS Form 6251 and corporations must file Form 4626 if they have any net AMT due. The form is also filed to claim the credit for prior year AMT.

Other individual adjustments in computing AMT include:[8]

Status Single Married Joint Married Separate Trust Corporation
Tax Rate: Low 26% 26% 26% 26% 20%
Tax Rate: High 28% 28% 28% 28% 20%
High Rate Starts $175,000 $175,000 $87,500 $87,500 n/a
Exemption 2009 $46,700 $70,950 $35,475 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption 2010 $33,750 $45,000 $22,500 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption phase out starts at $112,500 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000
Zero 2009 exemption at $299,300 $433,800 $216,000 $165,000 $310,000
Zero 2010 exemption at $247,500 $330,000 $165,000 $165,000 $310,000
Capital gain rate 25% 25% 25% 25% 20%


Miscellaneous itemized deductions are not allowed. These include all items subject to the 2% "floor", such as employee business expenses, tax preparation fees, etc.
The deduction for charitable contributions of property is limited to the basis of the property.
The home mortgage interest deduction is limited to interest on purchase money mortgages for a first and second residence.
Medical expenses may be deducted only if they exceed 10% of Adjusted Gross Income, as compared to 7.5% for regular tax.
Many AMT adjustments apply to businesses operated by individuals or corporations.[9] The adjustments tend to have the effect of deferring certain deductions or recognizing income sooner. These adjustments include:

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

duhhh,,,,,


Under the AMT, no deduction is allowed for personal exemptions, nor is the standard deduction.[7] State, local, and foreign taxes are not deductible. However, most other itemized deductions apply at least in part. Significant other adjustments to income and deductions apply.

Individuals must file IRS Form 6251 and corporations must file Form 4626 if they have any net AMT due. The form is also filed to claim the credit for prior year AMT.

Other individual adjustments in computing AMT include:[8]

Status Single Married Joint Married Separate Trust Corporation
Tax Rate: Low 26% 26% 26% 26% 20%
Tax Rate: High 28% 28% 28% 28% 20%
High Rate Starts $175,000 $175,000 $87,500 $87,500 n/a
Exemption 2009 $46,700 $70,950 $35,475 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption 2010 $33,750 $45,000 $22,500 $22,500 $40,000
Exemption phase out starts at $112,500 $150,000 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000
Zero 2009 exemption at $299,300 $433,800 $216,000 $165,000 $310,000
Zero 2010 exemption at $247,500 $330,000 $165,000 $165,000 $310,000
Capital gain rate 25% 25% 25% 25% 20%


Miscellaneous itemized deductions are not allowed. These include all items subject to the 2% "floor", such as employee business expenses, tax preparation fees, etc.
The deduction for charitable contributions of property is limited to the basis of the property.
The home mortgage interest deduction is limited to interest on purchase money mortgages for a first and second residence.
Medical expenses may be deducted only if they exceed 10% of Adjusted Gross Income, as compared to 7.5% for regular tax.
Many AMT adjustments apply to businesses operated by individuals or corporations.[9] The adjustments tend to have the effect of deferring certain deductions or recognizing income sooner. These adjustments include:

I am scoring this battle. I 'll give you an A , with a couple of small mistakes.

[RIJIMMY]

Im wating for likwids brilliant rebuttle to my AMT FACTS.
Whats the matter, reality doesnt figure into your liberal talking points?
PS - My degree is in acctg and I passed the CPA exam.

Here - read up some more. See how people making 200-500k get screwed. See how people with kids get screwed and also since ther parents make good moeny, they'll get screwed on finacial aid for college too! Screw, screw, screw the people who work hard, take chances and want to provide for their families! Millionaires actuall benefit! How about closing THAT loophole! But its not big headlines, it wont make Dems look good with the F the Rich crowd.

Who pays the AMT?

[scottw]

the 99 grand that Jim stated as the amount he paid in taxes is so much more $$$ than Likwid can imagine earning that it's much easier for him to call Jim a liar and refuse to accept that someone actually has to hand that much of their hard earned income over to the government...

need one of those Tim Geitner tax preparation programs...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

tis so much more $$$ than Likwid can imagine earning .

Scott:
I think somethings would surprise you.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Scott:
I think somethings would surprise you.

absolutely...like why you reply to my post after you so proudly put me on your "ignore list"

what a surprise!

[RIJIMMY]

Jim is right, its been all over the media for years

The Democrat Party has for years decried the Bush Tax Cuts as one of the most egregious acts against the middle class and the working poor. Democrat Progressive mouthpieces from Julian Epstein to Representative Anthony Weiner NY (D) have accused former President Bush’s tax cuts of being a benefit for the wealthy and a yoke for the rest of America. On January 1, 2011 those supposedly oppressive tax cuts are set to expire. The tax bill owed by every American will revert to rates that existed under those gloriously wonderful Clinton days. The difference between the tax rates during the Clinton Era and the Bush Era are highlighted below in a chart from the non-partisan Taxfoundation.org.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Jim is right, its been all over the media for years

.

Thanks, it's nice to know someone else out there lives in the real world...

[RIJIMMY]

I think Jim put up plenty of evidence.
Heres more....anyone remember the 2004 campaign

1. Senator John Kerry (D)
The following quotes are from the John Kerry for President web site unless otherwise indicated.
George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and special favors for the special interests over our economic future. John Kerry's priority will be middle class families who are working hard to cover the mortgage, pay the high cost of health care, child care and tuition, or just trying to get ahead.

2. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush have cost middle-income U.S. residents $3,500 in higher state and local taxes, health care costs and college tuitions.

``Rain or shine, surplus or deficit, George Bush's economic plan begins and ends with tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans with special connections,'' Kerry said in remarks
3. Dateline: WASHINGTON Sen. John Edwards, in calling for a series of measures to keep the country safe, says the Bush administration's policy of favoring tax cuts for the wealthy over adequate funding for domestic security are "out of whack."

I could keep going but its tiresome. Jim is right on, you guys are whacked. Its been the democrats mantra for the past 6 years or so.

[RIJIMMY]

im bored today...

1. Ex-president Bill Clinton is blasting President Bush's economic policies as "immoral" and "unethical," saying he blames administration tax cuts for increasing hostility towards the U.S. around the world.

"I hear all this talk about family values and all this stuff," Clinton told an audience at the University of Minnesota on Saturday, before explaining how an old friend had been hurt by cuts in subsidies for Americans in need while the wealthy got tax cuts.

[RIJIMMY]

yawn....

I guess libs never heard that knowledge is power.

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

yawn....

I guess libs never heard that knowledge is power.

lol... never been the liberal's strong suit. They prefer picking a 'victim' to defend and then arguing like its a filibuster until everyone has left the room, then declare victory.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

yawn....

I guess libs never heard that knowledge is power.

they're all on factcheck.org right now

[RIJIMMY]

and lastly!

Nothing to do with it, but god I love Selma! Happy Friday everyone!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Salma.....

[RIJIMMY]

Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.

If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Johnny, I have re-read this thread and not once has anyone even came close to proving Jim wrong.

If you want to take Jim literally, "that every single Democrat" like PaulS did, well yes, Jim is wrong. But us classy people (Hi Paul!) know Jim meant that every single Democrat voice, leader or spokesperson has said that and its demontrably true. Go to google and type in __________ on Bush tax cuts and fill the blank in with any lead Democrat you'll see Jim is correct.

back to factcheck.org

[fishbones]

George Bush hates black people.
















I just thought I'd throw that in there for Kanye West.

[spence]

Sorry, meant to say that the tax cuts "if maintained in full" will cause a lack in revenues that's currently not planned for.

-spence