First Presidential Debate

[lowellhigh79]

look up the NYT article, Fanne Mae mess may have been avoided or at least seriously less damaging if Democrats would have done what Bush, of all people, and McCain was asking to do - <gasps> more regulation. McCain mentioned accountability, but has been missing it big when it comes to hitting the Democrats and Obama on this....

So now we're agreeing that the NYTimes is now reliable? Fine by me. Also, I believe McCain said he would "consider"....correct me if I'm wrong. Somehow all this blame seems to keep falling on the Democrats who had been in control of Congress for less than a year before all these foreclosures started becoming a problem. What about the Republican Congress and Republican President who were considering cloture and wasted all that time on how to save Terry Schiavo when they had all the chips?

Regards,

Danny

 

[lowellhigh79]

Straight percentage tax rates fails to take into consideration that there is a base amount needed to subsist on. Call it what you will- minimum, poverty, etc. That base amount should never be taxable.


OK, I don't have a problem with that. Let's say the first $10K is tax free. But also keep in mind there are a bunch of other government plans to help these people as well.

Along the same line of reasoning, the further one earns above the "minimum" amount, the more one now has for discretionary spending and a greater ability to pay taxes. Obama's plan mushrooms the higher up you go and in this environment of ever increasing deficit and national debt, plus 7+ years of Bush Tax cuts, someone has to pay the bill.

First off you're making a flawed assumption that higher taxes equates to more revenues for the government. If someone makes $100K a year they would pay $17K in taxes. If they made $1M a year they pay $170K a year. That IS paying more. Again, why purposely put in place a "reverse carrot and stick" when it has been proven again and again that it really doesn't produce more revenue? Why is this so hard to understand? The government should want to maximize revenue and stop punishing those in the position to drive growth and prosperity.

Say what you will about raising taxes during a recession (has Bush finally admitted it yet?), but more tax cuts in light of what has happened in the past 7 years seems even more counter-intuitive.

It may seem counter-intuitive but it's true nonetheless. Why do you think the Beatles left England? Go out and talk with small biz owners (those who are the backbone of this country's employment and financial position). Ask these people about the effect of paying higher taxes. Can't you see how raising taxes on the very same people who are responsible for employing millions is counter-productive?

At this very moment, 86% of all fed income tax is paid by the top 25% of income earners.

This is an indisputable fact (source - IRS) and I can verify it if you wish. Here's another stat.

At this very moment the top 50% of earners pay 97% of ALL income tax.

And here's the real eyeopener...

The top 1% pay 39%.

Is this not enough? What do you think it should be? Do these stats REALLY lend credence to the rumor that the rich aren't paying their fair share?

By the way, under Bush, the top 1% went from paying 37% to 39%.

And here's a indisputable and provable point to remember and burn into your mind. Under Bush the tax rate for the so-called rich was cut from 39.6% to 35%. But despite these evil Bush tax cuts for the rich, the top 1% of earners went from paying 37% to 39% of the total federal tax!

That's right. The Bush tax cuts on the rich caused these rich people to pay a higher percentage of the total tax bill.

And all these numbers are after tax exemptions, loopholes, etc.

These are the facts and it's a damn shame we're forced to discuss meaningless crap such as lipstick, bracelets, how many cars McCain or Obama owns, who's the better orator, who stuttered more, etc.

Jumping out of the pot into the fire is an argument Bush republicans like to use, on the economy AND in Iraq as some backwards way of saying "it could be worse" and it may, but nearly 8 years of failed policies is enough for me to take that jump.

I don't consider myself a "Bush Republican" and I understand that a lot of people hate Bush. But it could be worse and it could be a LOT worse. But please don't let your opinion of Bush cloud your view from the facts and the truth.

Tax and Spend or Borrow and Spend? 3.6 trillion deficit is now over 9 trillion. That's nearly a 880 billion+ each year if you add the 700 billion they are now considering.

BTW, your comment "By the way, under Bush, the top 1% went from paying 37% to 39%." shows that under the Bush Tax Plan, the rich got richer and /or less overall revenue resulted.

Regards,

Danny

 

[lowellhigh79]

Obama agrees with McCain on every thing.lol

That's bipartisanship.

Regards,

Danny

 

[BD]

That's bipartisanship.

Regards,

Danny

That's right. That is why Obama should just step aside since he had nothing to say but to agree with McCain on every thing:biggrin:

 

[Jimbo]

BTW, your comment "By the way, under Bush, the top 1% went from paying 37% to 39%." shows that the Bush Tax Plan brought in less revenue overall.

How so?

I wasn't even talking about the total amount of revenue.

I was talking about the proportions that the top 50%, 25% and 1% taxpayers contribute. I'm talking percentiles here. How do you derive less revenue from the 37%-39% shift?

Is this really that hard to understand? I'll try again.

Let's call the total revenue brought in by the IRS "X".

97% of "X" is paid by the upper 50% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer only 3% of "X" is paid by the lower 50% of taxpayers)

86% of "X" is paid by the top 25% of taxpayers
(or if you prefer only 14% of "X" is paid by the lower 75% of taxpayers)

And finally, 39% of "X" is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer 61% percent of "X" is paid by the lower 99% of taxpayers)

Now before Bush came into office these percentages were different and as I said, prior to Bush the top 1% percent contributed (remember, this is on a percentage basis) 2% less or 37%.

So my point being is simple...

That under Bush and his tax cuts, the richest of the rich - the top 1% of wage earners shared a larger percentage of the tax burden.

PS: The answer to your question - Tax and Spend or Borrow and Spend? - The answer is...Cut Taxes which will Increase Revenues and Slash Spending.

 

[SurfsUP]

It was also interesting that McCain addressed him as Senator Obama, but Obama addressed him as John.

To me, McCain seemed CONDESCENDING throughout the debate. He rarely even looked at Obama and even in the end when they shook hands, McCain look the other way.

 

[lowellhigh79]

That's right. That is why Obama should just step aside since he had nothing to say but to agree with McCain on every thing:biggrin:

Bipartisanship is finding common ground, which you can never do if you think you're the only person who is right. The blinders need to come off first.

Regards,

Danny

 

[lowellhigh79]

BTW, your comment "By the way, under Bush, the top 1% went from paying 37% to 39%." shows that the Bush Tax Plan brought in less revenue overall.

How so?

I wasn't even talking about the total amount of revenue.

I was talking about the proportions that the top 50%, 25% and 1% taxpayers contribute. I'm talking percentiles here. How do you derive less revenue from the 37%-39% shift?

Is this really that hard to understand? I'll try again.

Let's call the total revenue brought in by the IRS "X".

97% of "X" is paid by the upper 50% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer only 3% of "X" is paid by the lower 50% of taxpayers)

86% of "X" is paid by the top 25% of taxpayers
(or if you prefer only 14% of "X" is paid by the lower 75% of taxpayers)

And finally, 39% of "X" is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer 61% percent of "X" is paid by the lower 99% of taxpayers)

Now before Bush came into office these percentages were different and as I said, prior to Bush the top 1% percent contributed (remember, this is on a percentage basis) 2% less or 37%.

So my point being is simple...

That under Bush and his tax cuts, the richest of the rich - the top 1% of wage earners shared a larger percentage of the tax burden.

PS: The answer to your question - Tax and Spend or Borrow and Spend? - The answer is...Cut Taxes which will Increase Revenues and Slash Spending.

And proportions is what you are missing it. Let's do the math with a Clinton (35%) vs. Bush (30%) tax scenario (I used simple numbers for argument's sake). Assume "Tom" made 1,000,000 during both terms:


Under Clinton, Tom paid 350,000 in taxes (ideally)= 37% proportion
Under Bush, Tom paid 300,000 in taxes (again ideally)=39% proportion

For Tom's 300,000 to be a BIGGER percentage (39%), the denominator (overall net revenue from taxes) would need to be SMALLER for that to work.

However, if the overall net revenue was the same or bigger (you would hope), then the only way for your numbers to work is if Tom made more money ("Rich got richer") under Bush in relation to the other 99% of the population.

Regards,

Danny

 

[Jimbo]

Danny,

I am not talking about hypotheticals. I am telling you what actually occurred. I used actual IRS data. It is what it is. It's not open for debate or speculation it's just fact.

You can go here and download the data for yourself if you don't believe me...

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=98123,00.html

Now, I can't say for sure, but maybe you're being simplistic and not taking many other things into account that explain why under Bush the richest of the rich - the top 1 percent have been paying a higher percentage of tax 39% to 37%.

For example, are you familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

I haven't crunched any numbers on this but it's likely that the AMT and it's non-indexed creep forced the top 1% to pay more. I do know that the IRS closed many of the AMT loopholes and this could be another reason why despite Bush's tax cuts, the top 1% shouldered a larger percentage burden.

Look, Bush ain't running for anything this November. I never was a big fan of Bush, but I'm just tired of the same old repeated lies and distortions that the Bush haters (and yes, that includes most of the press) continue to spew.

And yes, both sides spin and phrase things to their advantage, but I'm convinced the leadership of the Democratic party will lie, cheat and basically do anything to distort the record and win.

If people want to vote for Obama because they like the way he speaks or his specific policies, fine. But unless we're able to deal with the issues factually and honestly, this country is doomed.

So, I ask my question again. How much more burden should the rich and upper class have to share?

97% of "X" is paid by the upper 50% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer only 3% of "X" is paid by the lower 50% of taxpayers)

86% of "X" is paid by the top 25% of taxpayers
(or if you prefer only 14% of "X" is paid by the lower 75% of taxpayers)

And finally, 39% of "X" is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer 61% percent of "X" is paid by the lower 99% of taxpayers)

Here's another way to think about the above data...

Imagine 100 people in a room. These people represent the US population.

One guy stands up and says.. "Hey, I know I'm doing well financially, but I'm paying 39% of the total tax. Is this fair?!"

He is then joined by 24 people. Together these 25 people in the room say in unison, "Yeah! And even though we're 1/4th of the population in this room we pay 86% of all the tax. And you other guys say we're not paying our fair share? And some of you say it would be patriotic for us to pay MORE?!!"

Finally, these 25 people are joined by 25 more people. The room is now divided in half with 50 people on each side. The original guy who spoke up is appointed the spokesman and says, "Please understand, we like to help as much as we can, but we're at our limit. Our half currently pays 97%, or nearly ALL of the taxes for the rest of you. We believe we are paying our fair share. Furthermore, many of us, in addition to paying the vast majority of the tax, are providing the rest of you with employment, health benefits and more. Something is wrong."

 

[sahtt]

Then the 51 vote to raise taxes more on the other 49 carrying all the load and all chant "democracy owns you suckers".

Then the 49 slowly leave the country or look for other opportunities that are associated with less taxes.

 

[BD]

Bipartisanship is finding common ground, which you can never do if you think you're the only person who is right. The blinders need to come off first.

Regards,

Danny

I like that Danny, that's good. That is why in recent years, the democrats basically talked their way into the white house, and republicans worked their way into the white house.:wink:

 

[lowellhigh79]

Danny,

I am not talking about hypotheticals. I am telling you what actually occurred. I used actual IRS data. It is what it is. It's not open for debate or speculation it's just fact.

You can go here and download the data for yourself if you don't believe me...

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=98123,00.html

Now, I can't say for sure, but maybe you're being simplistic and not taking many other things into account that explain why under Bush the richest of the rich - the top 1 percent have been paying a higher percentage of tax 39% to 37%.

For example, are you familiar with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax

I haven't crunched any numbers on this but it's likely that the AMT and it's non-indexed creep forced the top 1% to pay more. I do know that the IRS closed many of the AMT loopholes and this could be another reason why despite Bush's tax cuts, the top 1% shouldered a larger percentage burden.

Look, Bush ain't running for anything this November. I never was a big fan of Bush, but I'm just tired of the same old repeated lies and distortions that the Bush haters (and yes, that includes most of the press) continue to spew.

And yes, both sides spin and phrase things to their advantage, but I'm convinced the leadership of the Democratic party will lie, cheat and basically do anything to distort the record and win.

If people want to vote for Obama because they like the way he speaks or his specific policies, fine. But unless we're able to deal with the issues factually and honestly, this country is doomed.

So, I ask my question again. How much more burden should the rich and upper class have to share?

97% of "X" is paid by the upper 50% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer only 3% of "X" is paid by the lower 50% of taxpayers)

86% of "X" is paid by the top 25% of taxpayers
(or if you prefer only 14% of "X" is paid by the lower 75% of taxpayers)

And finally, 39% of "X" is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers.
(or if you prefer 61% percent of "X" is paid by the lower 99% of taxpayers)

Here's another way to think about the above data...

Imagine 100 people in a room. These people represent the US population.

One guy stands up and says.. "Hey, I know I'm doing well financially, but I'm paying 39% of the total tax. Is this fair?!"

He is then joined by 24 people. Together these 25 people in the room say in unison, "Yeah! And even though we're 1/4th of the population in this room we pay 86% of all the tax. And you other guys say we're not paying our fair share? And some of you say it would be patriotic for us to pay MORE?!!"

Finally, these 25 people are joined by 25 more people. The room is now divided in half with 50 people on each side. The original guy who spoke up is appointed the spokesman and says, "Please understand, we like to help as much as we can, but we're at our limit. Our half currently pays 97%, or nearly ALL of the taxes for the rest of you. We believe we are paying our fair share. Furthermore, many of us, in addition to paying the vast majority of the tax, are providing the rest of you with employment, health benefits and more. Something is wrong."

Jimbo, I believe that the information you present is legitimate. My dad was the CPA (I'm just a plain ole doctor) so this is out of my league. As far as I know, the AMT was to bring under control deductions that could have brought down an individual's overall return well below the 30% mark (15%?) You are right though, the proportional increase in taxes may be due to the AMT, but what does that say for those who were paying less than the AMT before it was enforced? Otherwise, my simple math above still stands. Thanks for the input.

Regards,

Danny

 

[whatisreal7]

Republicans worked their way into the white house? the kind of work they're doing the US would've been better off if they didn't do anything at all. We have taken so many steps back since 8 years ago it is ridiculous.

 

[nsxotic911]

Bipartisanship is finding common ground, which you can never do if you think you're the only person who is right. The blinders need to come off first.

Regards,

Danny

Danny, while I do hope that Obama does work in a bipartisan fashion if he is President, he has ZERO history of doing so.

Obama said "McCain is right.. but.." essentially saying "his intentions are good, but I'm smarter and my method is better."

Obama is the one of not the #1 most liberal, left of Ted Kennedy, even left of John Kerry. Obama is so Left, that he made Hillary look moderate!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

Lastly, as someone mentioned, he did not refer to him as Senator and many other stories that seem to indicate he is full on his ego..

Cheers. While I am for McCain, I do hope that if it is Obama, he can provide half the leadership he claims to be, though he never previously demonstratd.

If McCain is effective in continuing his leadership, bipartisanship, compromise and reform, then the country will be better off. McCain is not George Bush but Obama has similar questionable mindset of Jimmy Carter

Cheers.

 

[Jimbo]

Jimbo, I believe that the information you present is legitimate. My dad was the CPA (I'm just a plain ole doctor) so this is out of my league. As far as I know, the AMT was to bring under control deductions that could have brought down an individual's overall return well below the 30% mark (15%?) You are right though, the proportional increase in taxes may be due to the AMT, but what does that say for those who were paying less than the AMT before it was enforced? Otherwise, my simple math above still stands. Thanks for the input.

Regards,

Danny

Danny,

Thanks for at least reading and thinking about my comments. As mentioned, the difference might be the AMT (which has not been indexed to inflation).

My only point in presenting all this stuff was simply to point out that many people (Republicans too) aren't aware of the reality of who pays what.

One reason why I've favored a flat tax like Steve Forbes proposed years ago is because of transparency. As we discussed, assuming there's some kind of allowance for the truly poor - a flat tax across the board for all, with no (or few) exemptions is clear and open to all. There's no more of this class warfare or nonsense. Of course, tax accountants will hate it, but tough. Maybe they can switch to helping people investing their money wisely.

I am an engineer and with you being a doctor you can appreciate that at the end of the day it all comes down to some fundamental truth.

-Jim

 

[BD]

Republicans worked their way into the white house? the kind of work they're doing the US would've been better off if they didn't do anything at all. We have taken so many steps back since 8 years ago it is ridiculous.

What was the main reason Bush was elected. Twice?

 

[lowellhigh79]

Danny,

Thanks for at least reading and thinking about my comments. As mentioned, the difference might be the AMT (which has not been indexed to inflation).

My only point in presenting all this stuff was simply to point out that many people (Republicans too) aren't aware of the reality of who pays what.

One reason why I've favored a flat tax like Steve Forbes proposed years ago is because of transparency. As we discussed, assuming there's some kind of allowance for the truly poor - a flat tax across the board for all, with no (or few) exemptions is clear and open to all. There's no more of this class warfare or nonsense. Of course, tax accountants will hate it, but tough. Maybe they can switch to helping people investing their money wisely.

I am an engineer and with you being a doctor you can appreciate that at the end of the day it all comes down to some fundamental truth.

-Jim

Jim,

I never doubted the validity or your honest reporting of the information and I apologize if that is how it came across. I did see some discrepancy with the numbers, which the enforcement AMT may be the answer. Obviously as a physician, I stand to lose money both through increased taxes and possibly universal health care, so I am very aware that all your points apply to me as well. I am a cautious optimist but I whole heartedly subscribe to the vision Obama has expressed. Ultimately, he may not be the one who brings about these changes, but at least it's in the right direction for me. I'm tired of the "bunker" mentality, which only fosters more conservative ideology. What's wrong with dreaming of vast fields of Solar PV arrays, wind turbines, transmission lines, hydrogen fuel cell cars, etc. As Tom Friedman said, rather than "drill baby drill!", how about "invent baby invent!"

Thanks for your views.

Best Regards,

Danny

 

[nsxotic911]

I know I'm polliticking too much.. but what the hell. I think this is important and serious.

This is beyond politics, views and candidates. This is about fraud, crime, violence and Obama's participations.

This isn't about a "Clinton-like Democrat" vs a Republican - this is about a fraud vs an proven leader and American Hero that puts country first...

Look into Obama and ACORN. This is a good starting point.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1070443#post1070443