[Mulderator]

This part of the education process that I know but which most of you do not. You hear the slimy politicains on the Democrat side using "Class Warfare" comments--Billary stamping her fist claiming how she's going to "tax the rich" and cut taxes for middle class Americans. Well you know what? That's exactly what her husband said when he was campaiging and what he claims he did! But seriously, I can't believe some of you allow yourself to be manipulated by that rhetoric--some of you are so dense (and we know who), you won't understand the chart below (or the article). But take a look at it--more in the next post (the article refers to the chart below:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/...rich-and-poor/

Tax Shares for Rich and Poor

The Tax Foundation provides a nice summary of the latest Internal Revenue Service income tax data here.

Pundits are always interested in tax data for particular income groups. For example, they want to know whether Bush has favored the highest-income 1% of taxpayers.

A good way to find out is to look at average tax rates over time. By “average tax rates” I mean total federal income taxes divided by adjusted gross income. The following figure shows average tax rates for six income groups in 1990, 2000, and 2005.

The income groups refer to percentiles of tax filers ranked from those with the highest AGI to those with the lowest AGI. The figure shows the highest-income groups on the left and the lowest-income groups on the right.

1990 was before the Clinton tax increases of 1993. 2000 was after the modest tax cuts of 1997, but before the Bush tax cuts of 2001. 2005 was with the Bush tax cuts in place.

[See chart below]

Observations

Tax rates on those with high incomes are far greater than for other Americans. Folks at the top pay about 25% of their income in federal income taxes, which compares to less than 5% for half of the population at the bottom end.

For the top two groups, the tax rate in 2005 was about the same as 1990. Essentially, the Bush tax cuts just reversed out the Clinton tax increases on these folks.

The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced tax rates for people in every income group. Indeed, those at the bottom had the largest relative reductions in their tax rates.

This is a little wonky, but let’s compare average tax rates in 2000 to 2005. For the top group, the rate fell from 27.45% to 23.13%, a reduction of 16%.

Now consider the middle-income “top 26-50%” group, for example. Their tax rate fell from 9.28% to 6.93%, a reduction of 25%.

Those at the bottom have paid little, and now they pay even less, due to legislation under both Clinton and Bush. Indeed, these data do not include the tens of billions of dollars sent to lower-income families as a result of the earned income tax credit, and thus it overstates taxes paid by the bottom group.

I’m for lower taxes for everyone, but I wish people would look at the actual data first before carping about the rich supposedly being specially favored by recent tax cuts.

And I wish people would look too. What Bill Clinton did (and what Billary will do--or any other Democrat that gets in office) is raise the taxes on every lower middle class person and up! Let me clue you in--THAT MEANS YOU!!! Don't be so stupid and naive as to think that "rich" means Bill Gates--"rich" MEANS YOU in Democrat venacular unless you are on welfare. Are you really going to be satisfied if Bill Gates pays an extra 500 million of all of you are paying an extra $1,800? Seriously--Bill Gates (and every other truly "rich" person) is not going to be affected by higher taxes. And in order for the slimeball Dem to get enough money from a tax increase, they necessarily must increase the taxes on the middle class--there is just too much tax revenue there not to grab that piece.

Let Mulder keep you on the straight and narrow (except for you ladies, which he will keep on the straight and wide! ).

[linskyjack]

You lost me with "rich means YOU in Democrat venacular unlees you are on welfare" You always end up ruining a reasonable argument with some bizzare statement out of left field.

[Mulderator]

Now take a look at the same graph below that I posted (the red arrows)--that's where most of you people reading this fall into statistically. You will notice that under Bush, the tax rates are about 3 to 4% less than they were under Slick Willy. For a family making $50,000, that's about $1,500 to $2,000 extra in your pocket. Seriously--how many families with a few children making $50,000 or so can afford to lose $2,000 in of "after-tax" dollars?

Ok--yes--the rich are paying more--but its not bothering them because they have plenty of disposable income. What is doing though is causing a reduction in the jobs their companies create--reductions in employees or contraction of businesses. They'll still drive a Mercedes and live in a mansion--you aren't going to get an ounce of satisfaction honestly--you'll be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

This is what Hillary and the Democrats are trying to sell you and you are a Moore-On if you buy it.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

You lost me with "rich means YOU in Democrat venacular unlees you are on welfare" You always end up ruining a reasonable argument with some bizzare statement out of left field.

Look at the graph--can you not see that under Clinton the average working class American was shouldering a larger share of the taxes? Do you need to learn basic arithmetic? Do you really believe that when Hillary says she will raise taxes for the "rich" that she really means the "top 1% or even 10% of wager earners?"

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

You lost me with "rich means YOU in Democrat venacular unlees you are on welfare" You always end up ruining a reasonable argument with some bizzare statement out of left field.

I am not goign to try to explain Alternative Minimum Tax and all the gyrations of how taxes work. All you need to do is look at the actual effect years after the fact. The problem is that when Democrats initially put in tax plans, because of inflation, the taxes start taking more and more and more of a bite out of middle class families (bracket creap when you put a creap in office)--that's how they are able to sell it initially because they say its only on the "Top X" percent of taxpayers but 5 years down the road it changes significantly. Consider:

http://searchwarp.com/swa134164.htm

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is expected to hit 23 million taxpayers when they file their returns at this time next year, for the tax year 2007

Bill Clinton’s tax increase of 1993 is the culprit for millions of taxpayers.

When President Clinton and the Democratic Congress raised the rates on the AMT, in 1993, they also failed to index for inflation. Only 300,000 tax payers, paid the AMT then.

If we were to go back to the rates prior to the tax increase, only 2.6 million taxpayers would be subject to the tax, next year, according to the Joint Tax Committee, (JTC).

Most of those 2.6 million are in the top 2%. Among the other 20 million plus, most are in the broad middle class, some well down the ladder in the middle class.

Beware of Democratic Spin

Since the Bush tax cuts, middle class families have saved an average of $2000 a year, despite the never ending Democrat falsehood of tax cuts for the rich.

However, because the 1993 tax increase failed to index for inflation, the AMT will now put the bite on millions of taxpayers for whom it was never intended.

The spin by Democrats, attempts to portray the Bush tax cuts, including the millions saved by the middle class, as having something to do with why more taxpayers will be paying the AMT.

If congress takes no action, those who become subject to the AMT for the first time, will still pay a lower tax because of the Bush tax cuts, after the addition of the AMT.

When Democrat spin starts, which it surely will, don’t be deceived.

Recall, that right up until his election, Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut.

Immediately upon taking office, he fulfilled that promise by raising gas taxes, income tax rates, Medicare payroll taxes, and taxes on many social security recipients.

If the Democratic congress would roll back the AMT rates to the pre-Clinton years, and index those rates, about [b]20 million taxpayers, mostly middle class would escape a tax that was never intended for their level of purchasing power.[/v]

The original AMT was instituted due to Democrat hysteria in 1969 upon learning that 21 millionaires had paid no tax.

We’ve heard reference many times to the law of unintended consequences. Most of these laws come from feel good Democrat proposals that postulate about victims and inequality.

Democrats made many promises to the middle class in 2006, let’s see if actions speak louder than words.

Look at the chart above--there was no middle class tax cut out of Clinton. There has never been any tax increase by Democrats that effected only the rich--never--they always end up raising taxes on working families--always.

[iltos]

Observations

Tax rates on those with high incomes are far greater than for other Americans

I can't believe people actually get paid to make this kind of "analysis"

and since the article was obviously written to justify bush's tax cuts, it's gotta make you wonder just how smart they think their audience is....

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by iltos

I can't believe people actually get paid to make this kind of "analysis"

and since the article was obviously written to justify bush's tax cuts, it's gotta make you wonder just how smart they think their audience is....

Bush voters!?

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by iltos

I can't believe people actually get paid to make this kind of "analysis"

and since the article was obviously written to justify bush's tax cuts, it's gotta make you wonder just how smart they think their audience is....

Really? And upon what do you base these statements? In the event you're not aware, the Cato Institute is a libertarian organization. Not exactly a supporter of the Bush agenda.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Really? And upon what do you base these statements? In the event you're not aware, the Cato Institute is a libertarian organization. Not exactly a supporter of the Bush agenda.

i based 'em on what i read, gb....and i'll stand by 'em....i got no pony in this race.

[TRS-80 vet]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

This part of the education process that I know but which most of you do not. You hear the slimy politicains on the Democrat ...

Democratic side?

Calm down, before you get broly aneurysm.

There is no 'side'. It's the politicians against the taxpayers. With a guise of words. Them first, you get leftovers (more taxes). Period.

Invest in the right places, and be at peace. (Jesus helps)

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

I can't believe people actually get paid to make this kind of "analysis"

and since the article was obviously written to justify bush's tax cuts, it's gotta make you wonder just how smart they think their audience is....

Can you expound on that? I don't get your point.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Can you expound on that? I don't get your point.

well...you may not get it because it was late when i posted it, mulder, and i wasn't offering up a rebuttal of your post as much as my impression of the article.....

i guess i'm so used to reading HUGE explanations about these kinds of politically volatile issues that this article from the CATO institute, which i view -rightly or wrongly- as a think tank, struck me as close to superfluous

i mean, what kind of an opening observation is "Tax rates on those with high incomes are far greater than for other Americans"?

like...duh....for sure, man

from an trying-to-be-objective pov, it strikes me as an insulting place to start, adding fuel to the objection that the "thinkers" in this country view most americans as just too friggin stupid to understand "reality"

that was it.....no biggie.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

from an trying-to-be-objective pov, it strikes me as an insulting place to start, adding fuel to the objection that the "thinkers" in this country view most americans as just too friggin stupid to understand "reality"

Its true though, unfortunately--you can see it here. I just had an argument with Wino in another thread who told me that taxing individuals is entirely different than taxing corporations! No--its isn't--its virtually synonymous for about 85% of American corporations--it just flows through to the individual tax return--you tax the corporation higher, you tax the individual higher--its that simple. This is another way liberal politicians trick their ignorant voting base--they say, "X amount of corporation paid no tax last year, blah, blah, blah." Well of course not--most of them are flow through entities designed to break even--the tax is paid by the shareholders on their personal returns.

But the point of this article is not that--or that the rich pay a high percentage of taxes (something despite what you say many people still don't realize or don't accept--they think the rich escape taxes with good lawyers and accountants). Its to show that despite Clinton (Bill) promising a middle class tax cut, the middle class ended up paying more taxes during his term and after and got a tax break from Bush, not Clinton. Hillary and Obama are making the same promises--taxes on the rich and a tax cut on middle class families. All I am saying is if you believe that, you are an idiot. Now--if you want higher taxes (like some idiots do) and accept that a Democrat will raise your taxes if you a middle class working person, fine, but most people think that its the rich that are going to pay more taxes not them. That's the point of the article.

[Mulderator]

BTW--Cato is not right wing republican unless you believe fiscal responsibility is right wing. Cato has often criticized Bush and Republicans--it is an economic think tank and as GB said more libertarian than anything. Most of their articles are very scholarly and based on mathematical fact (like the one I posted) rather than the type of rhetorical editorial that many of the moore-ons around here buy into. Its a bunch of "Lets get the rich, rah rah rah, No blood for oil, rah rah rah, Bring our troops home, rah rah rah" and the type of people buying into that you can test very easily as to their knowledge of the the facts or truth behind those assertions. Like most things there is some truth to the criticisms, but its "spun" so that the interpretation of it is entirely innaccurate.

Now as you listen to the Democrats (Bama and Billary) count how many times you hear each of them say they are going to give a tax break to the middle class, and that they are going to increase the taxes on the oil companies and the rich and corporations. Wino, basset, poochee, et al cheers this kind of stuff not realizing any and every tax is simply going to end up being paid by every tax bracket and is going to disproportionately affect the poor. As an example, if you don't change taxes at all, nothing happens. If you put extra taxes on oil companies its going to trickle down to hurt the poor more because the price of gas will go up--they still have to buy gas. That won't effect the rich guy--he doesn't care he's paying an extra .50 for a gallon of gas. The oil company executives won't make any less or even if they due, marginally it won't effect them at all.

Honestly--it baffles my mind how people don't realize this.

[Jonesiegirl]

Having been a staunch Republican all my life, I'm really befuddled with the choices of candidates this year. Almost to the point of jumping ship.

Mulder? Who's your pick this year, and why? If you don't mind saying...