On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:43:26 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:16:42 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

when's the last time they cut middle class tax rates by 70%?

"The rich" the top 5% pay over half the total income tax bill.

the 'rich' get most of the income. that's why they pay most of the
taxes. AND their income has gone up 300% in the last decade

the middle class who actually DOES pay most of the taxes?

no tax cut. no pay raise in 10 years. yet they vote to cut the taxes
of the rich


Were they paying 150% of the taxes before? (do the math to see the
absurdity of your statement).
I agree they may have had their taxes cut, we all did, but alleging
70% is ridiculous.

when reagan took office capital gains tax was 40%. today it's 15%.
sorry...that's only 56%

gee. how do they make it on that?

when's the last time your taxes were cut 55%?

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:59:23 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:16:18 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


Were they paying 150% of the taxes before? (do the math to see the
absurdity of your statement).
I agree they may have had their taxes cut, we all did, but alleging
70% is ridiculous.

when reagan took office capital gains tax was 40%. today it's 15%.
sorry...that's only 56% \

Those pesky facts again!
The only thing wrong with that is the cap gains rate was actually
dropped to 28% in the CARTER administration. (1979-80)
It was 28% when Reagan left office. The Clinton administration
dropped it to 20% and Bush dropped it to 15.
There was a sweet deal during the Reagan administration where 60% were
excluded but that went away.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

let's look at the record a bit more closely, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

in 1986, while reagan was president:

William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, summarizes
the policy as "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy
objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had
hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax
code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70%
to 28%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of
business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of
investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new
investment

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was
raised from 11% to 15% since many lower level tax brackets were
consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate was
increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year.

This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax
(which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the
top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In
addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income

----

the bill was cosponsored by liberal democrats bill bradely and dick
gephardt, BUT:

Domestic policy initiatives that Bradley led or was associated with
included:

federal budget reform to reduce the deficit, which included, in 1981,
supporting Reagan's spending cuts but opposing his parallel tax cut
package, one of only three senators to take this position






when's the last time your taxes were cut 55%?

When they cut the capital gains tax.

exactly my point. you just made my case.


Some of us actually have investments.

and some of us work for a living. we get paychecks, not dividend
checks

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:11:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years.

We cut the tax for everyone. My taxes are about half what they were 20
years ago and we make more money.

I still have every 1040 since 1984, When I get a minute I will compile
a list of gross vs tax and let's see what it looks like.
I know I used to always say I expected to have that be about 20%. Now
it is more like 10-11%.
Anyone else want to play?

As I've said before, fed income tax doesn't tell the story, nor does
total tax burden, which is the only way to count taxes.
Disposable income is what counts.
And is also what drives the economy.
Taxes are just a political talking point when disposable income isn't
included in the discussion.

Peter

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:11:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years.

We cut the tax for everyone. My taxes are about half what they were 20
years ago and we make more money.

I still have every 1040 since 1984, When I get a minute I will compile
a list of gross vs tax and let's see what it looks like.
I know I used to always say I expected to have that be about 20%. Now
it is more like 10-11%.
Anyone else want to play?

As I've said before, fed income tax doesn't tell the story, nor does
total tax burden, which is the only way to count taxes.
Disposable income is what counts.
And is also what drives the economy.
Taxes are just a political talking point when disposable income isn't
included in the discussion.

The left is interested in equalizing disposable income across the
spectrum of "workers." The easiest way to do this is through tax policy.

On 4/16/10 9:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:11:19 -0400, wrote:

gee. we cut taxes for the rich by 70% over the last 20 years.

We cut the tax for everyone. My taxes are about half what they were 20
years ago and we make more money.

I still have every 1040 since 1984, When I get a minute I will compile
a list of gross vs tax and let's see what it looks like.
I know I used to always say I expected to have that be about 20%. Now
it is more like 10-11%.
Anyone else want to play?

As I've said before, fed income tax doesn't tell the story, nor does
total tax burden, which is the only way to count taxes.
Disposable income is what counts.
And is also what drives the economy.
Taxes are just a political talking point when disposable income isn't
included in the discussion.

The left is interested in equalizing disposable income across the
spectrum of "workers." The easiest way to do this is through tax policy.




Another faux news absurdity.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:44:16 -0400, BAR wrote:



The left is interested in equalizing disposable income across the
spectrum of "workers." The easiest way to do this is through tax policy.

and the right wants to drive the GINI coefficient to 1 in the US.

we have the highest GINI coefficient of any industrialized country. if
the 'left' wants to equalize income, there's a reason for this:

US inocme is VERY inequitably distributed.

there's a reason the rich had a 300% increase in their income, while
the middle class had 0 in the past 10 years