Gingrich speaks out for Ryan

romney/ryan

one quotes chapter the other verse

from a totally different book.

Ryans budget calls for closing offshore account tax deductions

tell me Willard is thrilled ..

Plus had I been interviewing that lying Newt, I'd of told him that Reagan made up the tax cut he gave the rich by increasing the SS tax on everyone, hurting the poor and middle class to most in the long haul... Originally Posted by WTF

And you would have been wrong.

Do you not recall our discussion of this very matter in "Diamonds and Tuxedos" a couple of years ago?

Here's an excerpt from my post:

You can take a quick look at tax bracket history here:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

For instance, a quick glance will show you that in 2010 you have to have an income (married filing jointly) exceeding about $68K to transition from the 15% to the 25% bracket. The latter bracket carries you up to about $137K, and you don't graduate to the next bracket (28%) until you make about $209K.

Then you can scroll down and take a look at the 1980 (pre-tax cut) table. Be sure to adjust for inflation (in 1980, a dollar had about the purchasing power of $2.65 today). You'll see that an income of only about $32K (in 2010 dollars) already starting introducing you to a 21% bracket, and if your income exceeded $53K (again, in 2010 dollars) you entered the 28% bracket. Quite a dramatic contrast!

Now take a look at historical payroll tax rates:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

You can see that the payroll tax rate increased from 6.13% to 7.65%. Double the increase to include the employer's contribution and you can see that the increases amount to about 3% of the taxable range. This obviously pales in comparison to the income tax cuts of the last 30 years, and I'm not talking about cuts for the "rich!"

(end of excerpt)

You are entitled to your own opnions, but not to your own facts.

By the way, did you know that the net effect of all the tax law changes in the 1980s was to lower taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the wealthy?

(Before calling me an idiot, I suggest that you be sure you know what you're talking about!)

if you take away the corporate loopholes and special interest deductions Romney and Ryan are at odds with each other before the first sentence of the legislation gets spelled out ..

strike 9 and the batter hasnt left the locker room Originally Posted by CJ7

No shit without all those tax shelters and corporate deducts, that Mormon puke is selling Amway instead of hiding 250 million in the Cayman's!

By the way, did you know that the net effect of all the tax law changes in the 1980s was to lower taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the wealthy?

(Before calling me an idiot, I suggest that you be sure you know what you're talking about.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Would you like to run that BS by Dave Stockman?

Reagan raised the tax on gasoline, another recessive tax. .

Like I said CM, the Big Picture.

Your facts are factual but only in a very small ray of light, if you widen the lense, people see the results of the last thirty years. The poor overtaxed rich have almost doubled their share of the nations income.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us...says.html?_r=1

Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation’s Income, Study Finds
By ROBERT PEAR



WASHINGTON — The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive the economy, create jobs and lower the federal debt.

In addition, the report said, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.
“The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the budget office said.
Also, it said, federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the distribution of income, as a growing share of benefits, like Social Security, goes to older Americans, regardless of their income.

And you would have been wrong.

Do you not recall our discussion of this very matter in "Diamonds and Tuxedos" a couple of years ago?

Here's an excerpt from my post:

You can take a quick look at tax bracket history here:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

For instance, a quick glance will show you that in 2010 you have to have an income (married filing jointly) exceeding about $68K to transition from the 15% to the 25% bracket. The latter bracket carries you up to about $137K, and you don't graduate to the next bracket (28%) until you make about $209K.

Then you can scroll down and take a look at the 1980 (pre-tax cut) table. Be sure to adjust for inflation (in 1980, a dollar had about the purchasing power of $2.65 today). You'll see that an income of only about $32K (in 2010 dollars) already starting introducing you to a 21% bracket, and if your income exceeded $53K (again, in 2010 dollars) you entered the 28% bracket. Quite a dramatic contrast!

Now take a look at historical payroll tax rates:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

You can see that the payroll tax rate increased from 6.13% to 7.65%. Double the increase to include the employer's contribution and you can see that the increases amount to about 3% of the taxable range. This obviously pales in comparison to the income tax cuts of the last 30 years, and I'm not talking about cuts for the "rich!"

(end of excerpt)

You are entitled to your own opnions, but not to your own facts.

By the way, did you know that the net effect of all the tax law changes in the 1980s was to lower taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the wealthy?

(Before calling me an idiot, I suggest that you be sure you know what you're talking about!) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

during the 80's wealth for the top 15-20 grew and wealth for median households was fairly stagnant

the taxes grew with the wealth

Ryan, "We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes" Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Too bad we don't deliver either.

Would you like to run that BS by Dave Stockman?

Reagan raised the tax on gasoline, another recessive tax. .

Like I said CM, the Big Picture.

Your facts are factual but only in a very small ray of light, if you widen the lense, people see the results of the last thirty years. The poor overtaxed rich have almost doubled their share of the nations wealth. Originally Posted by WTF

I'd be happy to run that "BS" by anyone. The gasoline tax increase was miniscule compared with the income tax cuts. There were also various business tax increases in the 1980s. The reason for rising income and wealth inequality has virtually nothing to do with changes in tax policy. We've discussed that before, too, but you don't remeber or you didn't understand the issue. Do you realize that people like me would have a field day with the tax code of the 1970s, even thought the statutory rate was 70%? (The code was incredibly loophole-laden.)

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!

during the 80's wealth for the top 15-20 grew and wealth for median households was fairly stagnant

the taxes grew with the wealth Originally Posted by CJ7

Yes, but please note that tax bracket rate changes were not what caused the rising inequality.

I had an article about how people achieve paying 0% taxes regardless of the tax rate that was interesting .

there was only 6 people in the country that had the wherewithall to manage that

the romneys of the world are pissants compared

up top of the recycle bin ..



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/bu...pagewanted=all

I had an article about how people achieve paying 0% taxes regardless of the tax rate that was interesting .

there was only 6 people in the country that had the wherewithall to manage that

the romneys of the world are pissants compared Originally Posted by CJ7

That's a lot more difficult than it used to be prior to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Do you guys remember the discussions leading up to that? In the late 1960s, some investigative reporter picked up on the fact that a small number of megawealthy individuals were paying zero tax, in many cases due to things like accelerated depreciation on leveraged assets. All kinds of outrage ensued, so congress passed legislation attempting to ensure that all wealthy people would pay at least some tax, even if it was a small percentage of 70% (which it always was).

Of course, the problem now is that it was never indexed for inflation, so the AMT currently hits people who aren't very affluent.

(BTW, the Stewart article linked in the post above mine is a good piece. He generally writes good stuff.)

The reason for rising income and wealth inequality has virtually nothing to do with changes in tax policy. . Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I said there was a bigger picture. I do understand globalization. You need to direct that lecture to the Tea Nuts.

I understood the issue then and now.

I said there was a bigger picture. I do understand globalization. You need to direct that lecture to the Tea Nuts.

I understood the issue then and now. Originally Posted by WTF

Yes, there's always a bigger picture -- and judging from our previous discussions, I do think you understand globalization. I merely wanted to point out that the fiscal failures of the Reagan administration have nothing to do with "tax cuts for the rich", as is popularly but erroneously believed.

By the way, did you ever read Stockman's book The Triumph of Politics? It's a good read; he goes into quite a bit of detail about the backroom workings of Congress. I read it years ago and came away with a better understanding of why no one ever cuts anything.

Yes...I read it. Have you ever noticed how ostracized people become once they break from party ranks? On both sides.

My point was not to bash the rich. My point was that taxes can actually become to low to fund a proper government. These Tea Nuts do not understand the actual Laffer Curve...it does not say you have to always cut to optimize revenue. You in fact may have to raise the tax rate. That is part of the problem, we have cut taxes to the point where half the country does not pay any Federal taxes and the other half does not pay enough.

I'd be happy to run that "BS" by anyone. The gasoline tax increase was miniscule compared with the income tax cuts.. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Do you know how many gallons of gas have been sold since 1986?

On a serious note, Reagans tax cuts were not off set by his tax increases. Which appear to be about half from what I can gather. Where Reagan has led his followers astray is that he increased the debt. Now you have half the country that think you can just cut taxes and then blame the other party for the deficit. It makes no sense. Bush knew he had to raise taxes but the country had already become addicted to buying Defense Projects on Credit.Clinton got lucky with low oil prices and a stock bubble. Bush II doubled down on the Reagan stupidity...which is basically to cut taxes and increase spending! Obama does not have the balls to just let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

As the Pastor once said...The Chickens are coming home to Roost!

a gas tax increase to a single mom working two jobs to feed herself and a kid is a pretty big deal at the pump

a gas tax increase to a guy that has a $10 million dollar private jet and spends $40K on jet fuel alone to fly from NYC to LA ...... not so much as a blink or a wink at a gas tax increase