In economic speech, Obama reveals true colors (and reveals he is insane)

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exactly. Also, take into account that many deductions or benefits taxpayers get are reduced the more % you make. For example - parents can take a % of 5k for daycare while they work. but the more $$ you make the % gets less and less. Resulting in a higher % of tax paid aka rate. There are many examples of this. All of which are not captured when you discuss tax rates. Rates are one component.

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.

I feel your pain. How do you think I feel as a business owner when you include all the other taxes I'm required to pay in addition to income tax? Touched almost 50% when I did all the math out a couple years ago.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.

If your income is 68000 and up, your total state, local, fed, was almost certainly between 28.3 and 30.4 percent. I am not sure what assumptions you have about my tax situation, but I can almost guarentee you it isn't very different than yours and is one of the highest as a percent based on total effective rates. I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If your income is 68000 and up, your total state, local, fed, was almost certainly between 28.3 and 30.4 percent. I am not sure what assumptions you have about my tax situation, but I can almost guarentee you it isn't very different than yours and is one of the highest as a percent based on total effective rates. I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try 45%

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

try 45%

Self employment tax does hit you hard. It is especially big if one doesn't have substantial section 179 deductions in a particular year.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You live in CT, and you don't think taxes are a problem? Do you work for the government in some way?

State income tax is north of 5%, state sales tax is 6%(I think), town property taxes are among the highest in the nation, most towns charge a 'car tax' that doesn't exist in most states, UCONN costs more than $20,000 for in-state tuition.

And for all that, our state has the highest debt-per-citizen in the nation, when you consider unfunded liabilities for public workers' retirement and healthcare benefits.

We have high taxes, and still manage to drastically overspend. Nope, nothing to see here. Keep voting liberal...

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You live in CT, and you don't think taxes are a problem? Do you work for the government in some way?

State income tax is north of 5%, state sales tax is 6%(I think), town property taxes are among the highest in the nation, most towns charge a 'car tax' that doesn't exist in most states, UCONN costs more than $20,000 for in-state tuition.

And for all that, our state has the highest debt-per-citizen in the nation, when you consider unfunded liabilities for public workers' retirement and healthcare benefits.

We have high taxes, and still manage to drastically overspend. Nope, nothing to see here. Keep voting liberal...

Glad those casinos helped........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Glad those casinos helped........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I forgot about that...

So here in CT, we have some of the highest tax rates in the country, applied to some of the highest incomes in the country. Meaning, the state has never had a problem with a shortage of tax dollars. On top of that, the state gets hundreds of millions of dollars from the casinos.

The liberals spent that, and then borrowed all they could, and then spent all that. Then they gave every labor union in the state a blank check and gave them an IOU which said the following...

"Dear unions, thanks for keeping us in office. In return, you can have fat pensions and free healthcare for the rest of your life. When the time comes to pay for that, I'll be retired in Florida, so what do I care?

XXXOOO, the Democrats"

CT is as blue as it gets. And in 2010, when the entire country turned to the right, we turned harder left. What was our liberal government's idea? They implemented the largest tax hike in state history in July 2011. Worse, they made the hike retroactive back to January 1 of that year, so for the rest of 2011, we had to absorb double the increase. Honest to God, that's what they did.

I phoned my legislator and asked why they only made it retroactive back to January 1, 2011? Why not make it retroactive back to 1975?

All that revenue, and the state is a disaster. If my family wasn't here, I'd just leave the keys in the front door and walk to New Hampshire.

CT is a perfect, pure experiment of what a lifetime of liberal economics gets you...an unmitigated disaster.

Oh, I forgot. Next, our legislature approved funding for a busway from New Britain (a failing sh*thole of a town) to Hartford (another failing sh*thole of a town). The busway is 9 miles long. 9 miles. The cost of paving 9 miles of road, plus buying a few electric buses? Only $550 million dollars. That's right. A state that is completely bankrupt, thinks it's a sound economic idea to pave 9 miles of road for the bargain-basement price of $60 million per mile. Are they paving the road with Hope diamonds? Fabrege eggs? I can do it for half that, and still have enough money left over to buy Australia.

When they write the book on what went wrong in CT, every chapter of that book can be called "chapter 11".

And this November, my side will get absolutely clobbered by liberals. Clobbered.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

State income tax is north of 5%, state sales tax is 6%(I think), town property taxes are among the highest in the nation, most towns charge a 'car tax' that doesn't exist in most states, UCONN costs more than $20,000 for in-state tuition..

Don't forget second highest gasoline tax in the nation.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Don't forget second highest gasoline tax in the nation.

Always fill up in Joisey before heading North, currently $3.29.

Doesn't pay to buy a new car anymore, just take the $2000 + sales tax, which
you get nothing for, and put it your car to get another 100,000 miles
out of it.
If you added up every tax you paid you would never believe it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? They might have been if it was merely taxes that they whined about. But it was not merely taxes. It was principle. They were willing to pay taxes if they had a say in how much and for what. To merely pay taxes at the whim of a magesterial government broke faith with a principle by which they had created a better life than that from which their forefathers had escaped. It was a better life than the common man in the mother country across the sea was living. It was a fledgling principle of freedom that created that better life. Of individual liberty within a society that respected and promoted that principle. They recognized the intrusion of taxes against their will not so much as an incursion on their wealth, though that too, but as such against their liberty. And their violent adherence to that principle of liberty inspired not only the creation of this country, but a worldwide movement against tyranny. That battle still exists, and will probably always exist.

Just so, in our still colonial way, it exists in America. The Tories don't mind the power of the king, or president, or government . . . take your pick. So long as their life is comfortable all is well. The form and size of government, the Constitution, the power of our magistrates . . . those are merely incidental . . . so long as we are comfortable.

The rebels understand that life, existence, flows in the direction that various principles and laws lead. That comfort is relative to the freedom to achieve it. That comfort given from higher powers is not dependable and can be taken or limited. That comfort earned, fought for, and created and protected by the hands of the comforted is more durable. And the principle that leads in the direction of the latter is liberty.

What many who "whine too much about taxes" are doing is verbally rebelling not so much about the taxes, but about the tyranny of their imposition.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? .

Knockout blow...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? They might have been if it was merely taxes that they whined about. But it was not merely taxes. It was principle. They were willing to pay taxes if they had a say in how much and for what. To merely pay taxes at the whim of a magesterial government broke faith with a principle by which they had created a better life than that from which their forefathers had escaped. It was a better life than the common man in the mother country across the sea was living. It was a fledgling principle of freedom that created that better life. Of individual liberty within a society that respected and promoted that principle. They recognized the intrusion of taxes against their will not so much as an incursion on their wealth, though that too, but as such against their liberty. And their violent adherence to that principle of liberty inspired not only the creation of this country, but a worldwide movement against tyranny. That battle still exists, and will probably always exist.

Doesn't get any plainer than that.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Doesn't get any plainer than that.

You are right, it was definitely plain. I guess lack of representation is still an issue? I missed the part about the forefathers whining over taxation because they didnt like what their representatives were doing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are right, it was definitely plain. I guess lack of representation is still an issue? I missed the part about the forefathers whining over taxation because they didnt like what their representatives were doing.

Zimmy, he asked you a question...do you think the founding fathers were wrong to whine about taxes? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your response...

I think lack of representation is a huge issue. The founding fathers' plan was for the feds to do things (and only those things) that cannot be done at the local level...like national defense, interstate highways, things like that.

Today, we have the department of education, for example. They get some of my tax dollars, some of which go to other states. Clearly, I have no say in how that money gets spent. If my tax dollars go to San Francisco, there is a great likelihood that San Francisco officials (who do not answer to me) will spend my money on things I object to. If I wanted to pay for 6 year olds to get condoms in a San Francisco elementary school, I'd move to San Francisco and advocate for that.

It's not just the lack of representation, because clearly our own legislators have a say in how $$ gets allocated. But that's part of it...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are right, it was definitely plain. I guess lack of representation is still an issue? I missed the part about the forefathers whining over taxation because they didnt like what their representatives were doing.

You, apparently, missed a lot of parts that I have been saying here for a while. And you tend, as here, to interject strawmen into the conversation. There was no part about the Founders whining over taxation by their representatives beacuse their representatives did not have the power they do now (by design of those Founders) to tax. The ability of the federal gvt. to tax was so limited that it was difficult for it to expand its power beyond that which was enumerated in the Constitution. That's why progressives, among so many other things, instituted the federal income tax (which you may have missed has massively expanded beyond its original parameters). It is also why States were wealthy enough to run their business then--they had power beyond the fedgov and with closer representation to their constituents.

As well as the examples that Jim in CT gave, you apparently missed the part of my discussion in other threads about the administrative federal state, the real shadow government, that creates most of the federal regulations and associated taxes without our vote and in which we are not truly represented since the regulatory agencies and departments operate independently for the most part from the congress that appoints them. These agencies are akin to one of the complaints against the King in the Declaration of Independence--"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." And we are little informed about the formation of these well over 300 agencies. And the representatives that create and appoint these agences have more power over us in the aggregate now than they did or were given in the Founders' time.

There is no dispute that the fedgov has grown way beyond its original constitutional powers. The only dispute now is whether that is a better thing, or worse.

Though the Founders would be repulsed by what has happened to the Constitution and how power has been transferred from individuals and local and State gvts. to the central gvt., they would not be stunned. They understood human nature. It is that nature that inspired them to devise a gvt. that would protect the intrinsic human desire for liberty from the tyranny of a leviathan state. But they knew also the weakness in our nature, of the desire for security and comfort above the desire for freedom and the rigors it requires once that freedom was established. They understood that lack of virtue could or would be the downfall of the system they created. Madison and others opined that it would only last 100 years. And he was not far off in that prediction as the progressive era with its anti-constitutional, pro-administrative central state, anti-individual, pro-collective philosophies began to make inroads a little over a century later and took firm hold another generation later under FDR. The fedgov has continued since then to grow in power and in debt and in its need for taxes. And the virtue and freedom of our people has progressively decayed, sold out by more and more to a fragile and unsecured promise of security and comfort by a leviathan gvt. that has outgrown even its ability to pay for its gifts.

Perhaps you've missed, besides past myriad examples of central gvt. tyranny, the latest tyrannical version of taxation for not buying something, or the now limitless power of gvt. to tax everything. If that is not tyrannical to you, then let us just discard the word.

Or, rather, you approve. That this is better not worse. After all, it is NECESSARY to tax everything in order to make the government work. Yes, necessity is not only not the mother of invention, it is the dictate of tyranny itself. All tyrannical goverments do what is necessary to rule the people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

Most states did not have an income tax before. Many states did not have sales taxes. Most towns did not have car taxes before (here in CT, I pay my town $900 a year in "car tax" for my 3 year old minivan and my 6 year old Accord).

We need to look at TOTAL tax rates. That's what really matters. I presume you chose not to look at total tax rates, because doing so would refute the point you were making...

Zimmy, Johnny D says his rate touched 50% recently. How does that fit into your data?