Author Topic: The myth about taxes (Read 1223 times)

TweetyBird · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2004, 11:39:55 PM »

I checked - the highest tax bracket before tax reform, was 70%

75% is closer than the 63% I stated - so sorry. But who was paying those taxes- end of the chain consumers. Ya can't get away from it. Businesses will pass the tax to the consumer. They write the check, but the guy at the end of the chain funds the check. You up taxes for businesses and you tie up their money until the increase can be passed down to the consumer. In a sense, they are giving the consumer a loan. They'll have to make up the money, but for a short while, the consumer is paying the same while expenses have increased.

The reverse is also true. Cut taxes for businesses, and they get a loan from the consumer.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #16 on:** July 30, 2004, 11:42:45 PM »

>>yup and that got us the great boom of the 90s
<<

I'd debate that. Info technology propelled the boom of the 90's.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #17 on:** July 30, 2004, 11:53:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
I checked - the highest tax bracket before tax reform, was 70%

75% is closer than the 63% I stated - so sorry. But who was paying those taxes- end of the chain consumers. Ya can't get away from it. Businesses will pass the tax to the consumer. They write the check, but the guy at the end of the chain funds the check. You up taxes for businesses and you tie up their money until the increase can be passed down to the consumer. In a sense, they are giving the consumer a loan. They'll have to make up the money, but for a short while, the consumer is paying the same while expenses have increased.

The reverse is also true. Cut taxes for businesses, and they get a loan from the consumer.

reguardless of how govt is funded....do you think its fair that somone who makes more money pays more (percentage) of taxes?

based on your synopsis the govt could tax everyone based on their incomes so that everyone made the SAME income?

no more rich people?????? would that work? NO

why wouldnt the reverse also be true that if you cut taxes on high income they have more money to spend. More spending means more taxes collected?

TweetyBird · « **Reply #18 on:** July 30, 2004, 11:59:59 PM »

I said none of that. I only said the only way to cut taxes is cut government spending - period. The only tricky issue is to decide what is needed and what is fluff. Anyone who cuts taxes and keeps goverment spending the same or increases it, is BSing you. There's no getting arround it. There's also no getting arround the fact that those at the end of the expense chain will bear the burden of financing the goverment. Thats just the dynamics of the system. In the US, that happens to be the middle class - i.e., joe consumer.

If you think you or your children will pay less if a Republic spends x dollars, than if a Democrat spends x dollars, you are living in a fantasy. Who *initially* pays x dollars, is just the direction of the loan. The end of the chain guy (i.e., the middle class) will always ultimately pay the x dollars.

Martlet · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2004, 12:12:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
I checked - the highest tax bracket before tax reform, was 70%

7

I realize it was 70%. I was making a point, not being factual.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2004, 12:19:16 AM »

IMO, taxes should be proportionate to the assets protected by the US goverment. Takes more to protect a Chrysler plant than my 1974 pinto. But it don't matter - Chrysler will pass the cost to me if I upgrade my 1974 pinto.

So in the end, only the middle class will pay. The goverment KNOWING this has every duty to keep the cost as low as possible.

Shuckins · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2004, 12:31:46 AM »

I've gotten a tax cut under every Republican administration since Reagan was elected in 1980. Can anyone tell me when was the last time a Democratic administration sponsored and passed a tax cut? Cause I sure as ell can't remember one.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2004, 12:38:30 AM »

Well what USUALLY happens is the Republicans run up the deficit ( that obsure thing that is nothing more than a loan that your 4 year old gives the government without a choice) and the Democrats come along and try to remove the deficit (or give your 4 year old back his money - without interest).

Trivia question - who was the last Republican President who left office without a deficit (or extorted money from 4 year olds).

Yup, when I was in the Knights of Columbus, every Republican president decreased dues, but ran up a $5000 bill with Visa. Every Democratic president raised the dues, but we had no Visa balance costing interest. Yea them Republicans certainly know how to use credit.

Hmmm - maybe thats the crux of it all. Those who aren't worried about a deficit think there will ultimately be a way to skip out on it.
Hmmm deadbeat spenders? Maybe its a character issue?

(seriously, I know all administrations run deficits - some just cover it up better by moving money)
But if the Republicans didn't cut spending, they damn sure didn't cut your taxes. They might have taken future earnings from your child and lent it to you.

Shuckins · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2004, 12:53:39 AM »

Well Tweety, the budget process works like this.

The President and the OMB work up the budget...then they have a member of the House introduce it to the House of Representatives. A similar version is later submitted to the Senate. After being worked on in various committees, it is sent to the floor of the House for a vote. Any discrepancies with the version sent to the Senate are worked out in a joint congressional committee.

Guess who controls the committees...the majority parties of each House. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee actually has more control over the final version of the budget than the President does. A lot of the deficit can be attributed to "Christmas Tree" amendments that are added to the various spending bills stemming from the budget while it is still in committee, or later when it is submitted to the floor for consideration. These amendments are where much of the pork in the budget comes from.

Care to guess which party controlled the House of Representatives and the Ways and Means Committee (and the finalization of the budget process) while Reagan was in office?

Care to guess which party controlled the House of Representatives and the Ways and Means Committee while Bush Sr. was in office?

Care to guess which party controlled the House of Representatives and the Ways and Means Committee while Clinton was in office?

Hint: Two of these presidents saw the final stages of the budget process in the hands of their rival political party.

Hint: One of these presidents is credited by his party with having reduced or largely eliminated the budget deficit while he was in office.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2004, 01:44:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
No one pays 75% income tax in the US. Its been years since I looked, but I think the highest bracket is 40% (I'm pretty sure its lower now). Anyone in that group who isn't expensing that tax, is a fool or a lottery winner.

There must be a lot of fools and lottery winners because the top 20% of earners pay more than 80% of the taxes. Guess they aren't very good at "expensing" their taxes. (WhateverTF that means)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #25 on:** July 31, 2004, 01:49:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
I said none of that. I only said the only way to cut taxes is cut government spending - period. The only tricky issue is to decide what is needed and what is fluff. Anyone who cuts taxes and keeps goverment spending the same or increases it, is BSing you. There's no getting arround it. There's also no getting arround the fact that those at the end of the expense chain will bear the burden of financing the goverment. Thats just the dynamics of the system. In the US, that happens to be the middle class - i.e., joe consumer.

If you think you or your children will pay less if a Republic spends x dollars, than if a Democrat spends x dollars, you are living in a fantasy. Who *initially* pays x dollars, is just the direction of the loan. The end of the chain guy (i.e., the middle class) will always ultimately pay the x dollars.

wow sounds like something right out of the DNC talking points.

How does this point DIRECTLY at JUST the middle class?

I suppose you'd preffer a recession to deficits?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 31, 2004, 01:50:03 AM »

And taxes on employers don't just get "passed down". Go to the local college and sign up for an economics series. The taxes end up getting shared. The employers make less profit, the workers get paid less, and the price of their products goes up. It's lose-lose-lose. The only winners are the Demorepublisocialists in DC, getting rich and powerful because doofus voters have repeatedly fallen for class warfare rhetoric for the last 70 years.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #27 on:** July 31, 2004, 02:07:47 AM »

>>There must be a lot of fools and lottery winners because the top 20% of earners pay more than 80% of the taxes. Guess they aren't very good at "expensing" their taxes. (WhateverTF that means)<<

Well if you decifer what it means you'll know the top 20% of wage earners aren't paying the taxes - you are.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #28 on:** July 31, 2004, 02:11:57 AM »

I have a few hours in economics. But its not economics - its basic arithmetic.

Rule of thumb - accountants that get creative go to jail. Its simple arithmetic.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 31, 2004, 02:39:06 AM »

Well it's established from my link in the other thread that the government is getting 80% of their money from the top 20%. You are saying this is somehow not true. Can you demonstrate that?