Exactly. Bush's lower taxes for the rich would stimulate the economy, but it didn't do crap, now many small business owners have lost their retirement and half their business revenue. Many are even going out of business. I bet they wish they had President that had a better economic plan than lower the highest tax brackets.
In defence of Jorge W., he did come out yesterday to say that the economy will get better with time. He is a man of vision.
This has been the Republican philosophy in a nutshell. Run up expensive debts by cutting taxes and engaging in trillion dollar wars and bailouts and letting future generations solve your problems. Time to pay up.
At $60k, the marginal tax rate is over 30%. You're in a 25% income tax bracket + about 8% in payroll taxes (SS+Medicare). The overall net rate certainly would be less than 30% though.
Wrong again, fail fail. Sloganeering like "redistribute the wealth" doesn't make any sense when we're talking about math. There's no earmarking of federal tax dollars. Interest on debt is among the single largest expenditures in the regular federal budget every year. The fact of the matter is that a tax increase is inevitable because our debt costs are spiraling out of control. This increase in debt is attributable, in large part, due to extremely expensive projects like foreign wars, and extremely expensive propositions for the government like tax cuts. Let me make it simple for you Surplus - Tax cuts - Trillions of spending on wars, etc = (deficit) Get it?
The pretentious implication of assumed deserves, an unfounded yet assiduously proclaimed ideal of social mobility, and the capitalistic ammorality inherent to this conversation is unpleasent to even discuss. But I'll try. 1) Paying taxes is not punishment. It's what you owe for government and the civil society it enables. If you think you pay too much, I recommend supporting only those politicians who will act to trim excess spending. Good luck; I think Tocqueville nailed this one - it will be almost impossible to revert to fiscal conservatism. But I support such an endeavour. 2) Capitalism jades people to human suffering. I don't think the so-called american dream necessitates an ignorant mentality that the poor are simply those who "did not work hard enough". Frankly, such an attitude is astoundingly self-serving and accordingly intellectually dishonest. 3) The same american dream you see as "under attack" via higher taxes on the wealthy is much more threatened by a social stratification bereft of proportional responsibility. Tell me, how can you reasonably expect the poor to climb the social ladder if they are not afforded the opportunity? It's shocking that the same people who champion the importance of the american dream seem so uninterested in supporting it, or even acknowledging how critical public services were in their own rise. 4) All of this is, of course, predicated on the idea that these tax dollars are being spent wisely. Often they are not. "Usually" might be a better word. However this is not sufficient rationale to pretend there is no responsibility to the individual. Our nation's beaurocracy has stymied a lot of good ideas and programs, but they are not outside of salvation, nor are they without any merit at all. After all, you yourself are a product of this system. 5) Outside of the responsibility I feel is owed from the standpoint of perpetuating this dream to subsequent generations equally, and the idea that huge gaps in income will inevitably result in social abuse and discord, there is definitely a moral argument to be made. I don't know how to phrase it succintly, but perhaps it will suffice to say that the best trait of humanity is not in our capacity to succeed and dominate, but in our capacity to care for each other without prejudice.
The average tax rate (federal) for someone made 60k in 2006 is somewhere between 7 and 9%, so add the 8% of SS + Medicare you are looking at roughly 16% net tax rate. That's half of 30%, of course it always sounds better when people just make stuff up.
I'm probably voting for Bob Barr, so I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. But, do you support giving African-Americans reparations?
Not directly -- I don't think it would be a good idea for the government to write a check to anyone just purely based on their race. But, I would support programs, funded by tax dollars, that aim to improve the quality of life and help create opportunities for advancement in poor communities. I don't think it needs to be totally racially oriented.
The purpose of tax is to raise revenue for the government. It's been proven that when you lower taxes, tax revenue go up. When you raise taxes, tax revenue go down. It's not correct to say when you increase tax from 20% to 30% that you get the 10% additional revenue to the coffer. That's changing the rule after the game. e.g. I bought a house and the realtor fee is 5%, the realtor make $10K. Then you say, well, if the realtor charged 8%, he would have gotten a higher fee. That's an incorrect assumption. If the realtor was charging 8%, I'd probably not buy the house.
what most dont understand about sharing the wealth...is that more people will have more income coming in....meaning they have more to spend, meaning it comes right back to the rich Although the plumber will pay more taxes, if hes making more than 250k, his business may increase...ppl will have more money and in turn spend more..maybe hiring someone to repair a leaky sink
This is so wrong that its unbelieveable. My wife works for an individual that was born and raised in a low income family in Warton, TX. Through education, hard work, taking risks, and a little luck, he is now extremely wealthy. He contributes millions to charities and employs dozens of people. He worked his way through school, he worked his way on off shore drilling rigs, and worked his way right up to the top of a multimillion dollar company. Its an amazing story and is really the epitome of the American success story.
