Here we go...nice table with the effective (2001) tax rates by quintile for federal income tax, social insurance taxes, and all federal taxes.
In brief, income taxes (as we know) are mildly progressive, with the average rate increasing from 5% in the middle quintile to 22% for the top 1%. Social insurance taxes are regressive, with the 2nd-4th quintiles paying 10% and the top 1% paying 2%. Combined, the system is slightly progressive, with the middle quintile paying 17% and the top 1% paying 33%. ( I say "slightly" because you can easily argue that a third of a million dollars is much easier to part with than a sixth of $40,000.)
You know, in some ways a flat tax, done right, wouldn't be a bad idea. It certainly clarifies things. You can only adjust two things - the exemption, and the rate. Change the exemption, you affect the middle class. Change the rate, you affect the rich. Harder to spin, anyway. IIRC, the very first income tax during the civil war had an exemption equal to a year's pay for a laborer. Not such a bad idea.
*sprints back into thread*
don't forget the transfer payments---things get much more progressive if you put them into the mix
Most of the discussion here seems to have turned into a debate over who pays the most taxes, how big is big when you're talking about national deficits, whether or not Bush's tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy or not, consumption vs. investment, etc.
While all that's important, it's only a side issue to the main point of the thread: How honest has Bush been about his plans for the economy? How well have his words and his actions coincided? How well does what Bush has said about these tax cuts match what the actuality of what's he asked for from Congress?
I've seen very little yet to counter BRussel's original contentions about Bush's honesty, or lack thereof. The right wing screamed bloody murder about Clinton lying about his personal sex life, yet when Bush is lying through his teeth on matters of national policy, it seems like that's fine and dandy as long as they get the big tax breaks they're hoping for.
Most of the discussion here seems to have turned into a debate over who pays the most taxes, how big is big when you're talking about national deficits, whether or not Bush's tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy or not, consumption vs. investment, etc.
While all that's important, it's only a side issue to the main point of the thread: How honest has Bush been about his plans for the economy? How well have his words and his actions coincided? How well does what Bush has said about these tax cuts match what the actuality of what's he asked for from Congress?
I've seen very little yet to counter BRussel's original contentions about Bush's honesty, or lack thereof. The right wing screamed bloody murder about Clinton lying about his personal sex life, yet when Bush is lying through his teeth on matters of national policy, it seems like that's fine and dandy as long as they get the big tax breaks they're hoping for.
I remember each year of the Clinton administration a newspaper article or two would break down the previous years State of the Union speech and see how much or how little of it had been passed, failed, ignored, lied about etc.
The amount attemped was about 25%. The rest pomp and circumstance.
Also please note that despite trying his hardest but still having to raise taxes, Clinton projected 250-300 billion dollar deficits every year for as far as the eye could see.
Does that absolve Bush? No however could someone more conservative than Bush get elected? Dole was bashed because he was a fiscal conservative and yielded to a supply-side tax cut to get the nomination and still couldn't get elected. Bush Sr. raised taxes and couldn't get re-elected. Clinton raised taxes, but lost both houses, the House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years.
It is the spending that must be controlled, be it Bush or a Democrat, it isn't that we don't generate enough money, it is that we spend too much of it. Bush went spending crazy because of 9/11 creating a whole new department of Government.
Creating entirely new parts of government isn't exactly conservative.
I remember each year of the Clinton administration a newspaper article or two would break down the previous years State of the Union speech and see how much or how little of it had been passed, failed, ignored, lied about etc.
The amount attemped was about 25%. The rest pomp and circumstance.
Also please note that despite trying his hardest but still having to raise taxes, Clinton projected 250-300 billion dollar deficits every year for as far as the eye could see.
Does that absolve Bush? No however could someone more conservative than Bush get elected? Dole was bashed because he was a fiscal conservative and yielded to a supply-side tax cut to get the nomination and still couldn't get elected. Bush Sr. raised taxes and couldn't get re-elected. Clinton raised taxes, but lost both houses, the House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years.
It is the spending that must be controlled, be it Bush or a Democrat, it isn't that we don't generate enough money, it is that we spend too much of it. Bush went spending crazy because of 9/11 creating a whole new department of Government.
Creating entirely new parts of government isn't exactly conservative.
Nick
Yup. Although I'd quibble with you that Clinton's loss of the house and senate was because of his raising taxes. The first half of Clinton's first term was a DISASTER, and the mid-term republican revolution was often interpreted (by the Clinton team) as payback for their idiocy.
Well i'm going to admit right away that I have read zero percent of this thread. However I was checking my email when I saw this headline thought it was pretty intersting.
Well i'm going to admit right away that I have read zero percent of this thread. However I was checking my email when I saw this headline thought it was pretty intersting.
I remember each year of the Clinton administration a newspaper article or two would break down the previous years State of the Union speech and see how much or how little of it had been passed, failed, ignored, lied about etc.
The amount attemped was about 25%. The rest pomp and circumstance.
I'm willing to give any President a little leeway for pomp and circumstance. After all, I don't expect every speech to be burdened with hundreds of caveats like "I will do X... well, if I can get Congress to approve X... and if I don't have to veto X because Congress attached Y, which I can't stand, to the same bill as X, etc." I do, however, think we have a right to expect the rhetoric to reflect the actual goals the President sets and tries to promote.
Quote:
Does that absolve Bush? No however could someone more conservative than Bush get elected...
...Creating entirely new parts of government isn't exactly conservative.
Whether you like things conservative, or think something or someone should be labeled conservative, is all besides the point regarding Bush's honesty. Go back over BRussel's first post, forgetting all about what you like or don't like about Bush's policies, and simply ask yourself how honest he's being, and has been, with the American people. I'd say his dishonesty and deceptiveness go well beyond "pomp and circumstance".
Comments
Originally posted by Towel
Here we go...nice table with the effective (2001) tax rates by quintile for federal income tax, social insurance taxes, and all federal taxes.
In brief, income taxes (as we know) are mildly progressive, with the average rate increasing from 5% in the middle quintile to 22% for the top 1%. Social insurance taxes are regressive, with the 2nd-4th quintiles paying 10% and the top 1% paying 2%. Combined, the system is slightly progressive, with the middle quintile paying 17% and the top 1% paying 33%. ( I say "slightly" because you can easily argue that a third of a million dollars is much easier to part with than a sixth of $40,000.)
You know, in some ways a flat tax, done right, wouldn't be a bad idea. It certainly clarifies things. You can only adjust two things - the exemption, and the rate. Change the exemption, you affect the middle class. Change the rate, you affect the rich. Harder to spin, anyway. IIRC, the very first income tax during the civil war had an exemption equal to a year's pay for a laborer. Not such a bad idea.
*sprints back into thread*
don't forget the transfer payments---things get much more progressive if you put them into the mix
And BR:
Evolve a sense of humor, you sourpuss.
Originally posted by BR
Explain that to your president that says consumption is the answer.
And I reiterate...
Lastly the economy doesn't need JUST consumption, it needs investment and to that you need lots of money.
Now for the second part of this rather obvious equation. I defined assets as investments that put money in your pocket.
What do you do with that money in your pocket? You either reinvest it or spend it on consumption.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
And I reiterate...
Lastly the economy doesn't need JUST consumption, it needs investment and to that you need lots of money.
Now for the second part of this rather obvious equation. I defined assets as investments that put money in your pocket.
What do you do with that money in your pocket? You either reinvest it or spend it on consumption.
Nick
If you give money to (low income) consumption it diverts investment (and generates new) to domestic industries.
If you give money to investment it generates comsumption, but only to the extent the consumption is domestically.
While all that's important, it's only a side issue to the main point of the thread: How honest has Bush been about his plans for the economy? How well have his words and his actions coincided? How well does what Bush has said about these tax cuts match what the actuality of what's he asked for from Congress?
I've seen very little yet to counter BRussel's original contentions about Bush's honesty, or lack thereof. The right wing screamed bloody murder about Clinton lying about his personal sex life, yet when Bush is lying through his teeth on matters of national policy, it seems like that's fine and dandy as long as they get the big tax breaks they're hoping for.
Originally posted by shetline
Most of the discussion here seems to have turned into a debate over who pays the most taxes, how big is big when you're talking about national deficits, whether or not Bush's tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy or not, consumption vs. investment, etc.
While all that's important, it's only a side issue to the main point of the thread: How honest has Bush been about his plans for the economy? How well have his words and his actions coincided? How well does what Bush has said about these tax cuts match what the actuality of what's he asked for from Congress?
I've seen very little yet to counter BRussel's original contentions about Bush's honesty, or lack thereof. The right wing screamed bloody murder about Clinton lying about his personal sex life, yet when Bush is lying through his teeth on matters of national policy, it seems like that's fine and dandy as long as they get the big tax breaks they're hoping for.
I remember each year of the Clinton administration a newspaper article or two would break down the previous years State of the Union speech and see how much or how little of it had been passed, failed, ignored, lied about etc.
The amount attemped was about 25%. The rest pomp and circumstance.
Also please note that despite trying his hardest but still having to raise taxes, Clinton projected 250-300 billion dollar deficits every year for as far as the eye could see.
Does that absolve Bush? No however could someone more conservative than Bush get elected? Dole was bashed because he was a fiscal conservative and yielded to a supply-side tax cut to get the nomination and still couldn't get elected. Bush Sr. raised taxes and couldn't get re-elected. Clinton raised taxes, but lost both houses, the House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years.
It is the spending that must be controlled, be it Bush or a Democrat, it isn't that we don't generate enough money, it is that we spend too much of it. Bush went spending crazy because of 9/11 creating a whole new department of Government.
Creating entirely new parts of government isn't exactly conservative.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I remember each year of the Clinton administration a newspaper article or two would break down the previous years State of the Union speech and see how much or how little of it had been passed, failed, ignored, lied about etc.
The amount attemped was about 25%. The rest pomp and circumstance.
Also please note that despite trying his hardest but still having to raise taxes, Clinton projected 250-300 billion dollar deficits every year for as far as the eye could see.
Does that absolve Bush? No however could someone more conservative than Bush get elected? Dole was bashed because he was a fiscal conservative and yielded to a supply-side tax cut to get the nomination and still couldn't get elected. Bush Sr. raised taxes and couldn't get re-elected. Clinton raised taxes, but lost both houses, the House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years.
It is the spending that must be controlled, be it Bush or a Democrat, it isn't that we don't generate enough money, it is that we spend too much of it. Bush went spending crazy because of 9/11 creating a whole new department of Government.
Creating entirely new parts of government isn't exactly conservative.
Nick
Yup. Although I'd quibble with you that Clinton's loss of the house and senate was because of his raising taxes. The first half of Clinton's first term was a DISASTER, and the mid-term republican revolution was often interpreted (by the Clinton team) as payback for their idiocy.
Cheers
Scott
2 rich guys not for the tax cuts
Originally posted by Argento
Well i'm going to admit right away that I have read zero percent of this thread. However I was checking my email when I saw this headline thought it was pretty intersting.
2 rich guys not for the tax cuts
HUZZAH!! I like those guys.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003May19.html
Originally posted by trumptman
I remember each year of the Clinton administration a newspaper article or two would break down the previous years State of the Union speech and see how much or how little of it had been passed, failed, ignored, lied about etc.
The amount attemped was about 25%. The rest pomp and circumstance.
I'm willing to give any President a little leeway for pomp and circumstance. After all, I don't expect every speech to be burdened with hundreds of caveats like "I will do X... well, if I can get Congress to approve X... and if I don't have to veto X because Congress attached Y, which I can't stand, to the same bill as X, etc." I do, however, think we have a right to expect the rhetoric to reflect the actual goals the President sets and tries to promote.
Does that absolve Bush? No however could someone more conservative than Bush get elected...
...Creating entirely new parts of government isn't exactly conservative.
Whether you like things conservative, or think something or someone should be labeled conservative, is all besides the point regarding Bush's honesty. Go back over BRussel's first post, forgetting all about what you like or don't like about Bush's policies, and simply ask yourself how honest he's being, and has been, with the American people. I'd say his dishonesty and deceptiveness go well beyond "pomp and circumstance".
Originally posted by Existence
Warren Buffet is obviously a liberal pinko commie tree-hugging hollywood black jewish transsexual baby killer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003May19.html
....transexual babies?