- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
"The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the (1981) tax changes as follows[2]:
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced Windfall Profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)"
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So your position is that 38% > 70%? And that's not even counting all the other tax cuts provided to the wealthy.
the only hate i see comes from rich democrats who loathe the thought of the poor becoming less dependent on the government or the middle class becoming wealthy.
half of my closest friends(club) are millionaires, the other half are mostly blue collar friends from the gun and sportsmens club. no one rich I know hate the middle class and none of my hourly wages buddies think that either. what both groups tend to dislike are rich libs who whine about the plight of the poor while scheming to keep them that way
Those figures say NOTHING about the supposed difference between the 91% tax rated cited by many and your claim of a far different effective rate that was actually paid. YOU HAVE NEVER PRESENTED ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
NEVER.
So can you do it now for all of us to see or is this just another case of your mouth writing checks that the rest of you cannot cash with actual evidence?
Silly question - I know. You have never been able to do it and will not be able to do it now.
See, what you did here, though: you started complaining about the poor living off the rich; when this conversation was about teachers, fire fighters, and other public workers.
You think of working people like these in same you think of the mythological welfare mamas.
Stephen Fincher - 8th district TN - received $3.2 million in farm subsidies over the past decade. Now, he's getting $174,000 + tax-payer funded healthcare + $320,000 a year in farm subsidies. That means he's going to get $494,000 a year in farm subsidies.
Again, Walker gets paid $137,500 / year to be governor. I don't see him sacrificing anything. I don't see Fincher sacrificing anything.
Teachers, cops, and fire fighters have to sacrifice so the wealthy welfare queens (like all the companies that get no-bid contracts from the Pentagon, for example) can continue to suckle the government teat. The welfare queens on Central Park West (and in the House of Representatives) cost you and I a lot more tax dollars than the ones in the projects. I'm just tired of people thinking the poor are their enemy - especially the working poor - when there's someone making millions off our tax dollars just because they can shake the right hand. If we can take care of those welfare queens first, I'll join your crusade against the few poor people who exploit the system.
So we are talking about unions and you want to bring up taxes that have nothing to do with paying teachers. I get it you have nothing.
the working class hero crap never resonated with me -or anyone else who knows the score
the working class hero crap never resonated with me -or anyone else who knows the score
Actually - you just proved my point.
Walker's bill will do nothing to lower taxes. It merely takes rights away from workers. Taxpayers will save nothing in the end.
And you actually ignore the fact that the wealthy mooch off the government much more than the poor do.
You obviously support cronyism.
your envy and hatred comes to the surface
why-he already paid lots of taxes while accumulating it
where do you get off wanting the government to confiscate the property that was legally earned?
really
sounds like crap to me-you must be thinking of rich dems who are rich because of the government
the poor don't pay anything in federal income taxes
Earned by the dead guy; not his worthless offspring.
I value work. He worked for it. She didn't.
You support birthright and believe in aristocracy over work.
Michelle Bachmann - Anti-socialist Bachmann got $250K in federal farm subsidies - On Congress - POLITICO.com
Stephen Fincher - Stephen Fincher received state farm grant in addition to federal farm subsidies » The Commercial Appeal
Just two examples of wealthy people suckling the government teat.
Anyone at Halliburton is another prime example of wealthy teat-sucklers.
Anyone who works on Wall St. post 2007 - rich government teat-sucklers.
All of 'em.
rates have nothing to do with how progressive the tax burden is
that really demonstrates a rather shocking lack of understanding on your point
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
note what share of the income tax the top 1 percent paid
"Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
"Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
47%don't pay any income taxes yet they certainly use alot more than ZERO percent of the stuff paid for by those taxes
only the top one percent of people have estates hit by the death tax-do you claim that those one percent use all the stuff paid for by the death tax
your claim about wall street
STUPID
what that comment says is untruthful
buffett takes only 100K in the higher taxed salary income (how many executives of his level take onl 100K in salary?) why does he do that?
You ignore facts presented RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.
Rich Republicans are suckling the government teat with their farm subsidies.
You don't think Wall Street took bailout money? You don't think Wall Street had anything to do with the collapse?
No...no you're right. The people who were already living in the projects caused the economy to collapse.
Talk about STUPID.
He's talking about the Capital Gains, man.
C'mon. Don't act so blind.
The $46 Million he made is only taxed at 17%, while his receptionist pays a higher tax on her income.
IT'S UTTER FACT. It's not a lie at all.
See, what you did here, though: you started complaining about the poor living off the rich; when this conversation was about teachers, fire fighters, and other public workers.
You think of working people like these in same you think of the mythological welfare mamas.
Stephen Fincher - 8th district TN - received $3.2 million in farm subsidies over the past decade. Now, he's getting $174,000 + tax-payer funded healthcare + $320,000 a year in farm subsidies. That means he's going to get $494,000 a year in farm subsidies.
Again, Walker gets paid $137,500 / year to be governor. I don't see him sacrificing anything. I don't see Fincher sacrificing anything.
Teachers, cops, and fire fighters have to sacrifice so the wealthy welfare queens (like all the companies that get no-bid contracts from the Pentagon, for example) can continue to suckle the government teat. The welfare queens on Central Park West (and in the House of Representatives) cost you and I a lot more tax dollars than the ones in the projects. I'm just tired of people thinking the poor are their enemy - especially the working poor - when there's someone making millions off our tax dollars just because they can shake the right hand. If we can take care of those welfare queens first, I'll join your crusade against the few poor people who exploit the system.
Actually - you just proved my point.
Walker's bill will do nothing to lower taxes. It merely takes rights away from workers. Taxpayers will save nothing in the end.
Michelle Bachmann - Anti-socialist Bachmann got $250K in federal farm subsidies - On Congress - POLITICO.com
Stephen Fincher - Stephen Fincher received state farm grant in addition to federal farm subsidies » The Commercial Appeal
Just two examples of wealthy people suckling the government teat.
Anyone at Halliburton is another prime example of wealthy teat-sucklers.
Anyone who works on Wall St. post 2007 - rich government teat-sucklers.
All of 'em.
You ignore facts presented RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.
Rich Republicans are suckling the government teat with their farm subsidies.
You don't think Wall Street took bailout money? You don't think Wall Street had anything to do with the collapse?
No...no you're right. The people who were already living in the projects caused the economy to collapse.
Talk about STUPID.
He's talking about the Capital Gains, man.
C'mon. Don't act so blind.
The $46 Million he made is only taxed at 17%, while his receptionist pays a higher tax on her income.
IT'S UTTER FACT. It's not a lie at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?