Obama, Edwards Craft Tax Hike Plan to Destroy Wealth and Savings

oh!

You mean the guy who just said that Clinton did a better job with the economy than Chimpy McFightsuit and that the war was about oil?

 

While non of the plans in the article benefit you, or me, or others, what sections of their proposed plans did you read as not wanting anyone to have wealth? The article clearly points out a variety of areas in which lower income households would see significant tax savings under the democratic plans. And under Romney's plans, too. Those savings would be counterbalanced by higher tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which would hurt you, but not everyone.

You and I may not be in favor of those plans, but from the article, saying "Liberals don't want anyone to have wealth" is a complete misread of the plans proposed.

 

It is funny how so many people think Clinton is terrible just because he had sex with intern and lied about it? To me a leader's most important quality is to run the country well, all the more power to Clinton if he can handle 20 year interns who are willing!

 

Causation and correlation are two entirely different things. Tax receipts have increased virtually every single year since the 1950's - regardless of tax hikes or drops, recessions, depressions, expansions, etc - with about 5 or 6 exception. 3 of those exceptions were during the last 6 years.

You'd have a very hard time showing that the tax cuts are responsible for any increase in revenues since the revenue increase during the Bush period is smaller than virtually every other previous administration despite decent/good economic growth.

Nice try, though.

 

The interest on the national debt would almost cover that.

 

Yep that is one of the purposes of the income tax to cash out the interest to the FED. After all if the government starts borrowing the money to pay the interest even the bankers will get nervous.

 

tj flails wildly trying to distract the patsies, so they don't notice that while the already wealthy have benefitted hugely from the Bush economy, the average family, not so much.

Let me quote for emphasis-

Average incomes after adjusting for inflation actually fell from 2001 to 2004, and the growth in net worth was the weakest in a decade, the Federal Reserve reported Thursday.


Average family incomes, after adjusting for inflation, fell to $70,700 in 2004, a drop of 2.3 percent when compared with 2001. That was the weakest showing since a decline of 11.3 percent from 1989 to 1992, a period that also covered a recession.

The gap between the very wealthy and other income groups widened during the period.

The top 10 percent of households saw their net worth rise by 6.1 percent to an average of $3.11 million while the bottom 25 percent suffered a decline from a net worth in which their assets equaled their liabilities in 2001 to owing $1,400 more than their total assets in 2004.

"This is the continuing story of the rich getting richer," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. "Clearly, the gains in wealth are going to the top end."

 

I've never claimed otherwise. That's entirely different from claiming tax receipts increased as a result of those tax cuts as opposed to the fact that based on history, they would have increased regardless, and probably even more so without the tax cuts.

Learn to read in the future - it's generally helpful.

 

To expand on this and provide some more recent data...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/03/news/economy/epi_report/index.htm?postversion=2007090312


GDP growth not reaching paychecks

The economic recovery that began in 2001 has lifted productivity growth and employment of late, but has had little impact on many workers' wages.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The economic expansion that began six years ago has failed to benefit most workers, according to a report from the liberal Economic Policy Institute, released Monday.

Productivity growth, although slower of late, has been strong since 2000. After a sluggish start in the period, employment has picked up, although at a slower pace than in past recoveries. Yet, that growth hasn't transferred to workers' paychecks, particularly for workers at the lower and middle end of the pay scale, the report found.

After rising quickly in the second half of the 1990s, most workers real wages have been stagnant in the 2000s, especially since 2003.

While productivity jumped almost 20 percent since 2000, the real median hourly wage of all workers rose just 3 percent in the same period. Since 2003, productivity has risen 5 percent, while the median hourly wage fell 1.1 percent.

Women saw a bigger rise in wages between 2000 and 2007, up 4.7 percent. Real median wages for men during the same period were up just 1.1 percent.

Both high school and college workers saw hourly wage gains of about 2.5 percent since 2000.

Yet, in the period between 2003 and 2007, wage gains for median workers, male and female, as well as high school and college workers have all been flat or falling.

Not so for workers at the highest end of the wage scale. At the 95th percentile, real wages have risen 9.4 percent since 2000 and 5.1 percent since 2003.

A separate measure, the Employment Cost Index (ECI) showed faster growth of 5 percent since 2000. That's because unlike the measure of median wages, the ECI includes a broad range of workers and therefore gets a boost from high earners. Also, the ECI includes employer-provided benefits, which have risen faster than wages since 2000. However, even with these added advantages, the ECI has been roughly flat since 2003.

One of the reasons for the discrepancy between growth and productivity and real wages is that workers' bargaining power has diminished during the period, the report showed.

Although the unemployment rate has been low in historical terms, it doesn't fully reflect the problems in the labor market caused by weak job growth or workers withdrawing from the labor force altogether.

Looking forward, the combination of recent slower productivity growth and rising unemployment is likely to drag down wages in the near- to medium-term, the report found.

 

that article is over a week old....nice try though!

 

The top 5% of earners already pay about 50% of the tax burden, and the top 20% of earners pay about 80% of the burden. That leaves 80% of the people of the United States to pick up the remaining 20% of the tax burden.

Yet these guys want to give MORE of the tax burden to the top earners?

My wife and I are high income earners/investors, but we're not rich. We're the ones getting nailed by these type of capital gains increases that really nail our bottom line.

 

All the posts in this thread are outdated and biased.

Please continue to raise taxes on the wealthy. I laugh when the rich get reemed.

 

What is the % of total income for the top 5% of earners and top 20%?

 

tj the carnie barker- "Step right up and get your wage increases right here. Don't pay attention to the inflation in the corner. Inflation adjustment is for suckers!"

 

lol. From the man who claims that liberals want no one to have wealth...

Hilarity. You are a study in brain atrophy.

 

This makes me laugh, couple month ago you guys were hammering Greenspan.