White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is less progressive than the current system. Under the current system, the progressivity flattens out at $1- 2 million in income and then gets slightly regressive but for the vast vast vast majority of income earners it is a progressive system.

And I understand the point of getting rid of all of the deduction. I'm just telling you that it will never happen.

My god... you are a fucking hack....

So now you went from 'it is probably regressive' (pulling shit out of your ass) to saying 'it is less progressive than the current system' (again pulling shit out of your ass)

1) The numbers were EXAMPLES of how the system could work.

2) The system I suggested DOES NOT ALLOW for a Buffett to have a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.

So HOW is it 'less progressive' you fucking moron?

Side note... our current system doesn't get 'slightly regressive' over $1-2mm.... it gets extremely regressive.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just webbway & the way the thread was started. It's really pretty BS....

ok... I figured that was what you meant, just wanted to clarify. Thanks.

 

[Bonestorm]

My god... you are a fucking hack....

So now you went from 'it is probably regressive' (pulling shit out of your ass) to saying 'it is less progressive than the current system' (again pulling shit out of your ass)

1) The numbers were EXAMPLES of how the system could work.

2) The system I suggested DOES NOT ALLOW for a Buffett to have a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.

So HOW is it 'less progressive' you fucking moron?

Side note... our current system doesn't get 'slightly regressive' over $1-2mm.... it gets extremely regressive.

I clarified to avoid unnecessary argument over a non-issue, but apparently you cannot seem to accept that. Originally, I said your proposal is more regressive than the current system and I changed it to less progressive. The reason is that your plan is not regressive at all whereas the current system becomes regressive at the very very top so my statement was not accurate. However, my statement that your system is less progressive is accurate.

It is less progressive because it's a flat tax. A progressive tax is one wherein rates increase as income increases. By definition your plan is a flat tax. Flat taxes are neither regressive (rates decrease as income increases) nor progressive. It's flat.

And there are plenty of ways to prevent the highest income earners to end up with lower effective tax rates than the extremely high income earners than implementing a flat tax.

 

[Chapdog]

Even the policy makers agree on the problem of high earners paying lower effective rates.. why they tried to band-aid it with the AMT and im ok with the AMT so long as its inflation adjusted if thats all they are willing to do. I just think it would be a hell of a lot simpler and fair if they re-wrote (prob similar to some of the flat tax suggestions above) The fact that just because I am a finance-econ major with an MBA I am able to work my and my family/friends taxed way down via legal loopholes and obscure write off is not fair to a teacher or nurse who is less comfortable with numbers.

 

[Phantasmal]

Man, he is always willing to compromise way too soon. I am always pissed when I see him giving up on something important early in the game.

He is definitely playing by the Jimmy Carter rules of engagement, instead of the Bill Clinton players guide!

 

[Phantasmal]

exactly.... which is why we need to dump the current tax code for a simple, fair and TRULY progressive system like the flat tax with a standard deduction.

YES! brilliant!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is less progressive because it's a flat tax. A progressive tax is one wherein rates increase as income increases. By definition your plan is a flat tax. Flat taxes are neither regressive (rates decrease as income increases) nor progressive. It's flat.

The above is the simpleton's version of looking at a flat tax. Look up at the top moron. Look where I provided you an example. Look at the EFFECTIVE tax rates. THAT is what matters you moron. THAT is PROGRESSIVE.

And there are plenty of ways to prevent the highest income earners to end up with lower effective tax rates than the extremely high income earners than implementing a flat tax.

Yes, there are other ways. They all involve keeping our current system. Which is a 70k page monstrosity. The flat tax with standard deduction is the SIMPLE way to solve the problem and make it so EVERYONE can understand the tax code.

That said, you have proven that there will still be a few fucking morons out there that can't grasp the flat tax with standard deduction. But not to worry, we will let your masters hold your hand when filling out your tax form. (note: I said FORM... because there would be only one needed...)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

YES! brilliant!

It is amazing how many people on all sides of the political spectrum like that plan. Only a few hacks come back with feeble attempts to bash it.

Personally, as I have stated in the past, I would add a second bracket to my flat tax w/SD plan.

Anything over $1mm (again, arbitrary number) would pay an additional 10% income tax (for a total of 30% on a million plus). Every dollar that extra 10% brought in would go to paying down the debt.

 

[Phantasmal]

It is amazing how many people on all sides of the political spectrum like that plan. Only a few hacks come back with feeble attempts to bash it.

Personally, as I have stated in the past, I would add a second bracket to my flat tax w/SD plan.

Anything over $1mm (again, arbitrary number) would pay an additional 10% income tax (for a total of 30% on a million plus). Every dollar that extra 10% brought in would go to paying down the debt.

SF, sounds like a winner to me!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

BECAUSE THEY PAID A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT MORE.

If you only pay $2k in income taxes, you can hardly expect to get $6k back in income tax cuts.

As a percentage of what they WOULD have paid, the lower brackets got the larger cuts.

Dollar for dollar of COURSE the wealthy get more back as the top half in this country pay 97% of all income taxes.

i was going to say this, but you beat me to it....

poor nigel and comprehension...they just don't get along

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Really?

It's what I call a "President keeping his promise."

he already broke his promise with the ciggie tax raise...

 

[Onceler]

he already broke his promise with the ciggie tax raise...

At least your extreme partisan hackery is consistent....

 

[Bonestorm]

i was going to say this, but you beat me to it....

poor nigel and comprehension...they just don't get along

You crack me up. Perhaps you should read my response to the post you've quoted and let me know if you have an answer for the question I asked. In the event that you're lazy, here it is again:

What percentage of all income does the top half earn?

If anyone actually has the answer to that question please let me know. I have stats for the top 1% (24% of all income) and top 10% (50% of all income) but not the top half.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You crack me up. Perhaps you should read my response to the post you've quoted and let me know if you have an answer for the question I asked. In the event that you're lazy, here it is again:



If anyone actually has the answer to that question please let me know. I have stats for the top 1% (24% of all income) and top 10% (50% of all income) but not the top half.

irrelevant...you bitched that the lower income earners got very little benefit as compared to the top...that is pure horseshit as they paid less in taxes and of course would get lesser tax cuts

 

[Bonestorm]

The above is the simpleton's version of looking at a flat tax. Look up at the top moron. Look where I provided you an example. Look at the EFFECTIVE tax rates. THAT is what matters you moron. THAT is PROGRESSIVE.

Just tweaking your nose a little. Relax with THE random CAPS. How about you show me the effective tax rates up for each additional million earned up to $10 million under your plan.

I'd be all a simple plan if it were more progressive than what you are offering and had substantially more progressivity at the top (under you plan I thin iit basically flatlines).

Yes, there are other ways. They all involve keeping our current system. Which is a 70k page monstrosity. The flat tax with standard deduction is the SIMPLE way to solve the problem and make it so EVERYONE can understand the tax code.

That said, you have proven that there will still be a few fucking morons out there that can't grasp the flat tax with standard deduction. But not to worry, we will let your masters hold your hand when filling out your tax form. (note: I said FORM... because there would be only one needed...)

While it is simple, it also has little chance of actually becoming law. Tweaking the code by adding additional tax brackets at the top to keep the progressivity has more chance of passing than what you are proposing. Obviously, if one were starting from scratch something along the lines of what you are proposing is way better than the current shitshow provided it were more progressive at the top end.

 

[Bonestorm]

irrelevant...you bitched that the lower income earners got very little benefit as compared to the top...that is pure horseshit as they paid less in taxes and of course would get lesser tax cuts

No, it's certainly relevant to the claim that the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. If the top 50% earn 97% of the income than the stat that SF threw out and that you endorsed is crap.

And I didn't bitch about anything. I simply responded to GL's assertion that "the middle class tax cuts were and are very real, and in fact, when it comes to effect on the people, were by far the larger part of the cuts." That's just not so. When it comes to effect on the people, the middle class got a whole hell of a lot less out of the Bush tax cuts than upper income earners.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, it's certainly relevant to the claim that the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. If the top 50% earn 97% of the income than the stat that SF threw out and that you endorsed is crap.

And I didn't bitch about anything. I simply responded to GL's assertion that "the middle class tax cuts were and are very real, and in fact, when it comes to effect on the people, were by far the larger part of the cuts." That's just not so. When it comes to effect on the people, the middle class got a whole hell of a lot less out of the Bush tax cuts than upper income earners.

do the percentages, only the people at the bottom of the upper brackets to marginally better (1% better) than the lower income earners, however, if you at the upper end of the bracket, say 500K, then your tax cut is only 1% compared to 2% at the lower levels...

keep trying, i'm sure you'll figure it out someday

 

[Damocles]

BECAUSE THEY PAID A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT MORE.

If you only pay $2k in income taxes, you can hardly expect to get $6k back in income tax cuts.

As a percentage of what they WOULD have paid, the lower brackets got the larger cuts.

Dollar for dollar of COURSE the wealthy get more back as the top half in this country pay 97% of all income taxes.

I notice that brackets that are net receivers got a "tax cut", these are people who didn't pay at all yet still get a "cut"... This is direct handouts, not a "cut"... You can't divide zero by a percentage. Give it a test...

 

[Good Luck]

Actually, when it comes to effect on the people, the rich did exceedingly well while lower income earners got much more modest net income benefits:

So, while the median income household got about a $1,000 tax break, high income earners got a whole hell of a lot more.

You twits will never admit to the truth, will you? Yes, people making more got a larger dollar amount in reduced taxes. For crying out loud the higher brackets pay more in taxes that most people even MAKE! Give someone who pays $500K in taxes a 1% tax cut, and a person who pays $2500 in taxes a 100% tax cut, and guess who saves more dollars in taxes? You class warfare asswipes will focus on the fact that the person paying $500K in taxes saves $5000 compared to the mere $2500 saving of the other guy, even though the one is still paying $495K, and the other ZERO!

Also, your reference is not quite accurate. (in fact it is just short of being an outright lie, but I have come to expect no less from your type.) The tax savings under the Bush tax cuts, compared to the tax rates which will resume in January if your democratic pustules don't act, has a significantly greater savings than indicated.

When put in terms relative to income, the numbers turn right around. For instance, a family of 4 making 45,000 saw a 73% reduction in their tax burden under the Bush tax cuts. That's right, their taxes were cut to a bit over 1/4 of what they paid under Clinton's tax rates. Under the previous (Clinton's) rates, a family of 4 with an adjusted gross income of $45,000 paid $2964 in federal income taxes. After Bush's cuts, they paid $799 for the same income. Don't believe me? Go to the IRS and download a 2000 tax return form (the last year under Clinton's rates), and a 2003 tax return form (The year after all Bush's cuts took effect). On each form put $45,000 in the adjusted gross income box, take the standard deductions for a family of four, and fill out the rest. Find out for yourself.

Comparatively, the higher income brackets received between 3-5% reduction, while the top brackets were under 2% reduction. That those reductions yields more dollars is due to the fact that they are still paying more in taxes that most will ever make.

 

[Good Luck]

No, it's certainly relevant to the claim that the top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. If the top 50% earn 97% of the income than the stat that SF threw out and that you endorsed is crap.

And I didn't bitch about anything. I simply responded to GL's assertion that "the middle class tax cuts were and are very real, and in fact, when it comes to effect on the people, were by far the larger part of the cuts." That's just not so. When it comes to effect on the people, the middle class got a whole hell of a lot less out of the Bush tax cuts than upper income earners.

Try again, moron. Who had the greater effect on their lives?

Let's take a guy making 1 million a year. He gets $6,000 in tax cuts, or 6 tenths of a percent of his gross income. Think that will make a significant difference in his lifestyle? He probably would not even notice it, except on the balance sheets of his investment portfolio.

Conversely, a guy makes $45,000 a year, and gets $1300 more of his money to spend. That is going to make a larger difference in his lifestyle than 6K makes to the millionaire.

Make that $45K earner a family of 4, whose cuts resulted in over $2100 in extra spendable income, and it makes quite a big difference. Perhaps allowing them to purchase a new car with that extra $175/mo instead of settling for a used car at a lower monthly payment, as is what happened with my son when he bought his very first new car in 2004.