I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefitte dthe rich?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by stcroixman

33% is a nice way to spin it. Fact is the 10% bracket ends around 20K of taxable income (after deductions). So it's a 5% savings on 20K = $1,000.

Lets' compare that to the decrease in top bracket from 39.6% to 35% on someone with taxable income(after deductions) of 250K per year. So it's a 3.6% savings on 250K =$9,000.

Now tell me who benefits from this and why is someone with 20k of taxable income paying any tax?

St Croixman...wow...I mean, wow.

"33% is a nice way to spin it"

It's not spin, it's math. the number 10 is precisely 33.33 percent less than the number 15. I'm sorry if that upsets you, or doesn't support your personal political agenda. But I didn't create that fact, it just is.

Let's walk through the math...

First, we'll look at the lowest bracket. Say my taxable income is $20,000. Still with me? Before the BUsh tax cuts, my tax rate was 15 percent, so I paid $3,000.

After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 10 percent, so I paid $2,000.

$2,000 is 33 percent less than $3,000, therefore my tax obligation decreased by 33 percent.

Now we'll go to the rich guy making $250,000. Before the Bush cuts, my rate was 39.6 percent, so I paid $99,000. After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 35 percent, so I paid $87,500.

87,500 is 11.6 percent less than 99,000, so my tax obligation decreased by 11.6 percent.

The guy making 20,000 got a bigger tax decrerase (33 percent) than the guy making 250,000 (11.6 percent).

In tennis, they call this game. set. match.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Now we'll go to the rich guy making $250,000. Before the Bush cuts, my rate was 39.6 percent, so I paid $99,000. After the Bush tax cuts, my rate was 35 percent, so I paid $87,500.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

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

OK, I see. Any irrefutable fact which prioves you wrong is "spin".

Likwid, what I posted is not "spin", it's irrefutable, mathematical fact. You dismiss it as "spin" because it doesn't support your agenda. Seems to me like you're pretty brainwashed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, I see. Any irrefutable fact which prioves you wrong is "spin".

Likwid, what I posted is not "spin", it's irrefutable, mathematical fact. You dismiss it as "spin" because it doesn't support your agenda. Seems to me like you're pretty brainwashed.

you have successfully identified part of the problem

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, I see. Any irrefutable fact which prioves you wrong is "spin".

Likwid, what I posted is not "spin", it's irrefutable, mathematical fact. You dismiss it as "spin" because it doesn't support your agenda. Seems to me like you're pretty brainwashed.

The issue is, you just look at the tax rate itself, you're stuck in the box of "they pay this much".

Well, I can tell you, even over 6 figures, with a halfway decent CPA you WILL get back 3/4 of that or more depending on how good they are and what they tell you to do with your money.

There's so many loopholes in the system that allow you to pay virtually nothing that you can scream and hollar about how much the rate is, but is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I refuse to disclose my income because well, its none of your business, but I can tell you after taxes are done, I probably paid an actual amount of around 1/3 of my 'supposed' tax bracket.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

The issue is, you just look at the tax rate itself, you're stuck in the box of "they pay this much".

Well, I can tell you, even over 6 figures, with a halfway decent CPA you WILL get back 3/4 of that or more depending on how good they are and what they tell you to do with your money.

There's so many loopholes in the system that allow you to pay virtually nothing that you can scream and hollar about how much the rate is, but is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I refuse to disclose my income because well, its none of your business, but I can tell you after taxes are done, I probably paid an actual amount of around 1/3 of my 'supposed' tax bracket.

dumb ass comment - research alternative minimum tax. No way around it.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

dumb ass comment - research alternative minimum tax. No way around it.

maybe you should research "alternative minimum tax loopholes" dumb ass.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

dumb ass comment - research alternative minimum tax. No way around it.

Jimmy is drinking the strong coffee this morning

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

I refuse to disclose my income because well, its none of your business, but I can tell you after taxes are done, I probably paid an actual amount of around 1/3 of my 'supposed' tax bracket.

Likwid, you whine that the rich use loopholes to avoid paying tax, then you admit you do the same thing. I'm confused...what is your beef, exactly, and who is it with?

I take it you don't get invited to too many MENSA picnics...

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, you whine that the rich use loopholes to avoid paying tax, then you admit you do the same thing.

Would you like to point out where I 'whined' about the loopholes that rich people use? Please.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, you whine that the rich use loopholes to avoid paying tax, then you admit you do the same thing. I'm confused...what is your beef, exactly, and who is it with?

I take it you don't get invited to too many MENSA picnics...

Hypocrite....plain and simple. Everyone should pay more for the poor except me.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

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

Quite possibly the MOST moronic statement I've seen. ever.
There is no spin, there are dollars. I dont make that much, but trust me, you'd puke if you saw how much my wife and I pay. If I was allowed to not pay just FED taxes in for 2 years. I'd pay both off my kids college expenses off in FULL. Never mind state taxes.
All of you clueless f;ers think you know so much. Research the Alternative Minimum Tax - there are no loopholes, no fancy deductions, no hiding, you get WHACKED regardless of your deductions. WHACKED. My dollars are real.

You want solutions to lowering the deficit. Here you go
- reduce ALL foreign aid (humanitarian and military) - 25%
That means we still give them 75% of our hard earned $
- eliminate all fed and state pensions - move to a 401k with a match
- Allow 529 contributions up to 3K a year to be PRE_TAX. That will push people to save for college and will pump more money into the stock market which will bump up the returns and thus cap gains tax to the govt.

theres a start.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The guy making 20,000 got a bigger tax decrerase (33 percent) than the guy making 250,000 (11.6 percent).

In tennis, they call this game. set. match.

Here's a scenario:

Two guys at a company get raises. One gets a 20% raise, the other gets a 15% raise. Which would you rather be?

Using your out-of-context utilization of statistics, I'd much rather be the guy making $20,000/year and getting a 20% pay raise to $24,000/year; than the guy making $200,000/year and only getting a measly pay raise of 15% to $230,000/year.


Statistics without context are meaningless.

You're arguing that the person saving $1k made out far better than the person who saved $11.5k.

In reality, they call this nonsense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Here's a scenario:

Two guys at a company get raises. One gets a 20% raise, the other gets a 15% raise. Which would you rather be?

Using your out-of-context utilization of statistics, I'd much rather be the guy making $20,000/year and getting a 20% pay raise to $24,000/year; than the guy making $200,000/year and only getting a measly pay raise of 15% to $230,000/year.


Statistics without context are meaningless.

You're arguing that the person saving $1k made out far better than the person who saved $11.5k.

In reality, they call this nonsense.

Johnny, I never said I'd rather be the guy making $20,000 than the guy making $250,000. I said the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease than the guy making $250k.

If I said the guy making $20,000 is better off than the guy making $250,000, that would indeed be "nonsense". If I say the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease, I am stating mathematical fact. Again, that fact may not serve you lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Put down the Kool-Aid and think clearly for two seconds...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Johnny, I never said I'd rather be the guy making $20,000 than the guy making $250,000. I said the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease than the guy making $250k.

If I said the guy making $20,000 is better off than the guy making $250,000, that would indeed be "nonsense". If I say the guy making $20,000 got a bigger tax decrease, I am stating mathematical fact. Again, that fact may not serve you lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Put down the Kool-Aid and think clearly for two seconds...

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!

See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

ahh, benefited! Its a benefit! I thought he EARNED more and thus gets to keep the percentage of what he EARNED!

See EARNED is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL . The tax percentage is controlled by the governement.

Yup, benefited. He benefited by being able to keep more of his hard-earned money.

Listen, I'm all about lower taxes on the people. I completely agree with your suggestions on how to cut costs, but forgot to include social services as an area where a lot can be saved. I'd also support closing that large number of easily exploited tax loopholes, along with removing a lot of deductions and then instituting a flat tax.

It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It'll never happen though. Regardless of what party is in office, the overall tax burden on the people will decrease at a rate slower than what's being paid out until eventually we have a drawback period like the UK is feeling now.

People forget that Bill Clinton pulled it off, and the left still worships him. He was extremely conservative with fiscal policy, no reason why we can't go back to that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.

Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;808316]If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill

QUOTE]

if you are truly a liberal you will take a hundred dollar bill from your neighbor and give it to the bum... and then congratulate yourself....see, you both benefit

now to debate who benefits more...the bum or the liberal

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah, a fellow Husky, I was a senior when the men's and women's teams won the championships in the same year.

You're right. I keep typing statistics and that's the completely incorrect term. I'm a jackass in that aspect. You aren't ruffling my political feathers at all... mostly because, like usual from very partisan people, you think I'm a liberal because I disagree with you.

And every time someone proves you wrong, you change the context of your original statement. First, who benefited more from the change in policy, then it's who appreciates it more, now it's whoever pays more overall is screwed? Benefits can be quantified, appreciation cannot.

If I give a bum on the street a $100 bill, he'll certainly appreciate it more than someone on Wall Street that cashed in a $1M deal. But the bum certainly didn't benefit more.

You're all over the place. You even sort of proved my point.

Consider the bum getting $100 or Warren Buffet getting $1 million. The $1 million is meaningless to Buffet, it doesn't change his life at all. $100 to a homeless person can have a very meaningful impact (that's the 'diminishing marginal returns' I was referring to).

A bum "makes out better" getting $100 than Buffet does getting $1 million. You practically said that yourself. Because the $100 adds more incrementalutility to the bum's life than $1 million does to Buffet.

Same logic with the tax decrease, it's the same thing.

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Johnny, my undergraduate degree (from UCONN) is in statistics. This is NOT statistics, it is elementary school mathematics. A 33 percent tax decrease is larger than an 11.6 percent tax decrease. Sorry if that ruffles your political feathers.

I'd also argue that giving an extra $1,000 to a guy making $20k a year, means more to him than giving $11,500 back to a guy making $250K. Why? Something called "diminishing marginal returns". Simply puit, a $100 raise means more to someone earning minimum wage than a $1 million raise to Bill Gates.

Every time someone proves you wrong, you just keep telling yourself that they are "taking it out of context". The other kook here keeps accusing me of "spin" for making the outrageous claim that 33 is, in fact, greater than 11.6.

i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.

No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by stcroixman

i've been a cpa 25 years. Stick to economics where everything is theory - butter and guns. I deal with people and their money and taxes that is real life.

No tax accountant could make a client feel better with your % crap. They want real world results.

Wow. I'm an actuary, which is one of the few professions that demands greater quantitative skills than an accountant.

In my first post, I said that if your tax rate decreases from 15 percent to 10 percent, that's a 33% decrease in your tax obligation.

You disagreed.

I was right. You were wrong. You see, "10" is a number that is exactly 33.33 percent less than "15".

I'm glad you are not my accountant.

You need a refresher course. I'm sure you can find some continuing ed seminar somewhere...when you get your next issue of Pravda or "The Daily Worker", check the classifieds...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?

You want to switch from percentages (which is all that matters) to absolute dollars? That's where you REALLY get blown out of the water. We have a progressive tax system. The rich should pay more, and they do.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Johnny, you want context? How's this...who gets screwed by the government more, the guy who pays $2,000 a year in taxes, or the guy who pays $87,500 a year in taxes?

.

Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Hey Jim, do you feel like you are getting your money's worth?

In civilian life? No. Way too much waste drains my taxes.

When I was a Marine, I felt like I was part of a system that worked the way it was supposed to, I really felt like we had all the support we needed. And because I was wounded, I received some pretty nice healthcare benefits. I feel like that system worked the way it's supposed to...probably because politicians don't run the military, the military runs the military.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Like I said, statistics are useless without context.
The whole subject is about who made out better. Dollars speak a whole lot louder and mean a whole lot more than percentages do.

$11,500 > $1000
The guy making $250k benefited more.

I'm sorry...where's Spence...off on another revisionist history conference?...these arguments are moronic, sorry JohnnyLesbaru( it's OK, he never sees my posts because I'm on his ignore list too) but that is some pathetic rationalization

benefited more? no, both are keeping more of the income that they earn...the difference between the two is the level of compensation based on the value or the amount of the work being performed, you can't set the numbers side by side and say that one is benefiting more than the other...unless you are fostering class envy


"look...he got to keep more than you....KILL HIM!"