Taxes at Lowest Levels in 60 Years

[spike]

Taxes at Lowest Levels in 60 Years
Despite big tax cuts included last year's economic stimulus package, the latest CBS News/New York Times poll finds that as many as 34% of Americans think President Obama raised their taxes.

William Gale, head of the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution, tells CBS News that federal taxes are actually "at their lowest levels in 60 years."

Said Gale: "The relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax policy is often quite tenuous. The rise of the Tea Party at at time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard to understand."

Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2...Wire)&utm_content=Google+Reader#ixzz0lIodOEUN


So who are these people that think taxes went up? Fox News viewers?

 

[Gonz]

Lowest level in 60 years? I bet those in the 28% Reagan bracket would argue that.

However, in the sense of fairness, does paying NO TAXES count?

 

[spike]

Lowest level in 60 years? I bet those in the 28% Reagan bracket would argue that.

Here's Reagan vs. other presidents.

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

However, in the sense of fairness, does paying NO TAXES count?

Hell yeah, no taxes is pretty low taxes.

GE and Exxon didn't even pay any taxes.

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-1262-ge-exxon-paid-no-taxes-in-09.html

 

[Gonz]

You will never find a corporation that pays one dime in taxes. The cost gets passed along so the only one getting hurt by higher taxes is the consumer.

4%, every dollar made, to pay for infrastructure. That should be th elimit on federal taxes.

However, Reagan instituted a 28% maximum tax bracket. See that big dip? Then it went up under George I & Slick Willie.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Can't read a graph 'eh?

Seems today that I heard Obama is keeping Bush's "middle-class tax cut.". Funny thing about that is: Up until now, it was always called "tax cuts for the rich" by the left.




the gov't needs more jelly beans.

 

[Gotholic]

Obamanoids “Crash” Tea Party, Claim Dear Leader Has Cut Taxes

Claim that President has cut taxes for 95% of Americans is an illusion, while administration prepares $1 trillion tax hike over next 10 years, not to mention Obamacare

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, April 16, 2010

The smug leftist blog Talking Points Memo claimed yesterday that, “The loudest and most boisterous protesters at the tea party rally weren’t anti-Obama conservatives, but were instead Obama supporters who crashed the event with a huge banner reading “Thank You For Our Tax Cuts, President Obama.”

Really? These guys were louder and more boisterous than the thousands of tea partiers who attended yesterday’s event in DC? Watch the video and decide for yourselves, but to me it looks like a handful of Obamanoids shouting wildly inaccurate slogans at largely disinterested people.

TPM posted the video under a headline which read, “Obama Fans Storm Tax Day Tea Party In D.C.” Hardly a storm, I would argue, and more of a drizzle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NN4gwEBl9k

The Obamanoids’ argument that their dear leader has not raised taxes and has in fact overseen tax cuts for 95 per cent of Americans is a clever exercise in spin, and it completely ignores the fact that the administration is preparing to implement nearly $1 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years, not to mention the colossal taxes that are contained within Obamacare.

As ABC News’ Jake Tapper (hardly a right-wing tea partier) reported shortly after Obama took office, “President Obama’s budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.”

These include eliminating itemized deductions, hiking capital gains tax, as well as curtailing tax cuts already in place.

In addition, the beast that is Obamacare will help the administration to “spread the wealth” by “taxing the rich,” which in reality means the middle class, by hitting “higher earners,” ie anyone who can actually maintain a decent standard of living, with an array of tax increases which will further economically cripple Americans already laboring under the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

As Bloomberg News reported, analysis by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation revealed that the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019. Bear in mind, this is on top of the near $1 trillion in other new taxes that comprise Obama’s budget over the next 10 years.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office states that the bill also levies almost $69 billion more in penalties for those who fail to meet mandates to buy insurance.

Obamacare will impose dozens of new taxes that will totally eviscerate any remaining disposable income of millions of Americans and in turn lead the economy to ruin. Read a run down of the details of just some of those new taxes here.

And what of the so-called “tax cuts” for 95 per cent of Americans that Obamanoids claim tea partiers should be thankful for?

As the Wall Street Journal outlined in October 2008, the Obama “tax cuts” are little more than a cynical ploy.

“It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut,” wrote the WSJ.

As the American Power Blog summarizes, the “tax cuts” for 95% is just a gimmick, Americans have not been allowed to keep more of what they earn, but have merely been offered seven “tax credits,” only one of which exclusively applies to people who actually pay any income tax.

“Here’s the political catch,” explains the WSJ. “All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.”

So the vast majority of Obama’s “tax cuts” are merely transfers of wealth from taxpayers to those on low income and non-taxpayers, the kind of people who voted for Obama because they thought he would pay for their gas and mortgage.

As another video from one of yesterday’s tea party rallies reveals, Obamanoids are completely clueless when it comes to the gargantuan amount of new taxes that are in the pipeline, an assault which will completely devastate the middle class in America, the precise reason why millions of concerned Americans hit the streets across the country yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAl16Jjt9Hs

Source

 

[spike]

You will never find a corporation that pays one dime in taxes.

Most of them do. Those two however, did not.

The cost gets passed along so the only one getting hurt by higher taxes is the consumer.

That's a far too simplistic and completely inaccurate take on corporate taxes. One company may simply raise their prices to try and keep a fat profit. While another company may keep their prices the same and do way more volume than the first company. Also if you're like GE or Exxon obviously you're going to have an unfair advantage over other companies that actually pay taxes.

However, Reagan instituted a 28% maximum tax bracket. See that big dip? Then it went up under George I & Slick Willie.

Reagan actually increased taxes several times. I'm not sure what you're point is though. As the chart shows high income taxes are currently than in much of the past and overall taxes are at their lowest in 60 years.

 

[spike]

Can't read a graph 'eh?

What part of it are you having trouble with. I'd be glad to help.

 

[spike]

More prison planet stuff Goth?

Obamacare will impose dozens of new taxes that will totally eviscerate any remaining disposable income of millions of Americans and in turn lead the economy to ruin.

ZOMG! Taxes are the lowest in 60 years, if we raise them at all we're doomed!

 

[ResearchMonkey]

What part of it are you having trouble with. I'd be glad to help.

Thanks but I feel safer without your help.

• Let me explain the graph concerning Reagan. See in 1981? (a little bit to the right of 1980) That where Reagan took office, +70% taxes.
• Now, see where Reagan finished his 2nd term in 1988? That where the lowest taxes in the last 60 years are. Reagan's policies deliver.
• Third and finally. If you really believe Obama cut taxes, .....well, you really shouldn't be helping anyone. (corks on forks).

I hope that helps.

 

[spike]

Thanks but I feel safer without your help.

• Let me explain the graph concerning Reagan. See in 1981? (a little bit to the right of 1980) That where Reagan took office, +70% taxes.
• Now, see where Reagan finished his 2nd term in 1988? That where the lowest taxes in the last 60 years are. Reagan's policies deliver.
• Third and finally. If you really believe Obama cut taxes, .....well, you really shouldn't be helping anyone. (corks on forks).

I hope that helps.

I see where you're having problems reading the graph now.

• Let me explain the graph to you. See at the top where there's the big blue words that say "Wealthiest Americans". This is to indicate that the taxes they are referring to only relate to the wealthiest Americans.
• Now, see if you check the link you'll see some text that says "The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%.
  
  But I was surprised to learn that the tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term was much higher -- 50%." This makes things pretty clear. While Reagan may have had lower taxes on the wealthiest at the end of his second term it is clearly not where the lowest taxes for all Americans was.
• Third and finally if you really don't believe that taxes are the lowest in 60 years and that most Americans are paying lower taxes then you're ignoring information that is readily available. Let me know if you need any more help with this.

Also I realize that you made an attempt to insult me with the "corks on forks" thing even though it turns out it was you that completely misread the graph. That was childish and probably embarrassing given your misunderstanding of the graph.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

OK, for minute there I thought you were serious. I get it now.

The people who actually pay taxes will pay more taxes and those who don't pay taxes will get more refunds and free shit. That makes better sense from a progressive's point of view.

Simple fact is this. Obama is going to tax the shit out everyone to the point of ruination.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Also - isn't GE, the non-tax paying big business, a huge Obama supporter? -- odd.

 

[spike]

The people who actually pay taxes will pay more taxes and those who don't pay taxes will get more refunds and free shit.

I didn't say anything remotely similar to that so if you could explain where you got it from that would be great.

Simple fact is you misinterpreted the graph. Taxes are lowest in 60 years and taxes on the wealthy are lower than most of that 60 years.

Simple fact is this. Obama is going to tax the shit out everyone to the point of ruination.

Sorry no, taxes are lower than in the last 60 years. He would have to at least triple them to even get close to many previous levels.

Please provide a citation for your claims.

 

[spike]

Also - isn't GE, the non-tax paying big business, a huge Obama supporter? -- odd.

Exxon and Bush go way back. So what's up?

 

[catocom]

This IS an election year.
Let's see what kind of tune is being sung at the first of next year.

 

[Gotholic]

More prison planet stuff Goth?

ZOMG! Taxes are the lowest in 60 years, if we raise them at all we're doomed!

A dismissal and a restating of your assertion equals a rebuttal? You do not address any of the points made. You are just using an ad hominem fallacy. Perhaps I should quote the article in the WSJ from which prisonplanet.com quoted from. Yes, I will...

Obama's 95% Illusion

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.​

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18

Source

 

[spike]

A dismissal and a restating of your assertion equals a rebuttal?

Yes, I can logically dismiss a radical opinion piece predicting doom if any taxes are raised based on the fact that they have been higher in the last 60 years. I ca also logically restate the fact that taxes are lower than they've been in the last 60 years.

I understand that you've posted an opinion piece that actually doesn't refute that claim in any way and also relies on the heavily biased Heritage Foundation.

So now if you could logically make an argument that taxes are in fact not lower with facts I would like to see it.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Wash, rinse and repeat.

 

[Gonz]

In 1920, a depression. Slashing taxes fixed that.

In 1930, a depression. Raising taxes made it worse.

In 1940, a war.

1960, Kennedy woke up & cut taxes. Stimulating the economy.

As taxes fell, the economy rose. Reagans tax cuts (remember the 28% top bracket) produced the longest peacetime boom in history.