Hmmm

[kelb]

Good morning!



Some of you who receive this message already know this . . . but some others may want to consider the following information before you vote next November . . .





Taxes under Bill Clinton (1999) Taxes under George Bush (2008 )



Single earning 30K - tax $8,400 Single earning 30K - tax $4,500


Single earning 50K - tax $14,000 Single earning 50K - tax $12,500


Single earning 75K - tax $23,250 Single earning 75K - tax $18,750


Married earning 60K - tax $16,800 Married earning 60K- tax $9,000


Married earning 75K - tax $21,000 Married earning 75K - tax $18,750


Married earning 125K - tax $38,750 Married earning 125K - tax $31,250




To verify the above tax rates (you’ll have to calculate the resulting tax costs, however), visit:



The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008


If you want to know just how honest the mainstream media is, consider how amazing it is that people who fall into the above categories believe George Bush is screwing them, and that Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.



If any democrat is elected, BOTH of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts; a good portion of the people in the categories above can't wait for it to happen.


This is similar to the plot in the movie The Sting (with Paul Newman); you scam somebody out of their money - - and they won't even know what happened.

[vanbells]

This thread is gay. Everyone is going to raise taxes.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by vanbells

This thread is gay. Everyone is going to raise taxes.

Raise tax rates or tax revenues? Be specific please. Revenues are at an all time high. Rates are low, which increases revenue. Raising rates lowers revenue but increase social control. Which do you want?

[ylexot (Premo)]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Raise tax rates or tax revenues? Be specific please. Revenues are at an all time high. Rates are low, which increases revenue. Raising rates lowers revenue but increase social control. Which do you want?

I think he was saying that all the candidates (Clinton, McCain, Obama) will raise tax rates. None of them are talking about tax cuts or keeping the taxes as-is.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by ylexot

I think he was saying that all the candidates (Clinton, McCain, Obama) will raise tax rates. None of them are talking about tax cuts or keeping the taxes as-is.

He sounded like my 15 yo stepdaughter. Be specific. I can't guess at what he was saying. You may be right. I know none of the candidates want the tax rates as they currently stand. Messing with the tax code just means you can exercise social control and reward your buddies for good behavior (good behavior in your view).

[vraiblonde]

I'd be interested in a tax rate vs. revenues collected comparison. Does cutting taxes raise revenue, or vice versa?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I'd be interested in a tax rate vs. revenues collected comparison. Does cutting taxes raise revenue, or vice versa?

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I'd be interested in a tax rate vs. revenues collected comparison. Does cutting taxes raise revenue, or vice versa?

Data released last week from the Congressional Budget Office confirm that the tax cuts of 2003 keep soaking the rich, especially on their capital gains. CBO and Congress’s Joint Tax Committee originally estimated that reducing the capital gains rate to 15% from 20% would cost the Treasury $5.4 billion from 2003-2006. Whoops. Actual revenues exceeded expectations by 68%, creating a $133 billion revenue bonanza for the feds. CBO’s original forecast for 2006 was for $57 billion in capital gains revenues, but actual receipts were $110 billion.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I'd be interested in a tax rate vs. revenues collected comparison. Does cutting taxes raise revenue, or vice versa?

No. 49: "Corporate Tax Laffer Curve," by Chris Edwards, November 2007. (PDF, 100Kb., 2 pp)

[cwo_ghwebb]

Thanks for the links. We should forward them to Obama, MOM and forestool.