Bush tax cuts

[AllyandJack]

What makes you think the next republican won't raise taxes?

They might. Bush has been a raging disappointment to me, too.

I'll have to live with my choice.

 

[Mr Man]

You have to look beyond your own backyard. The people in my area aren't exactly hurting, but when I go out to MI, my home state, it is horrible there with the unemployment. Very depressed. So, just because things look good in your area and everyone is doing well, you have to open your eyes to see how other parts of the country are going.

Yes, MI is hurting right now. I have gone on at least 4 "raiding expeditions" to lure qualified Engineers down here to Texas in the 12 months. Lots to choose from.

The thing is though, somewhere at any one time, someone is always going to be hurting. We, at least removed these engineers from the "hurting list". A net gain for us all.

Also, if things were so great why are they about to pass a stimulus package?

Because it worked pretty well in 2002..........

Regards,

 

[Mr Man]

I still remember the famous Reagan question: "Are you better off now than you were 4 (or 8) years ago?"

Even if I only look at my own personal situation, I have to answer that question as "no".

I hope things improve for you in the very near future.

I have had to backtrack a few times in my life and did not enjoy it at all.

Regards,

 

[mefordis]

Yes, MI is hurting right now. I have gone on at least 4 "raiding expeditions" to lure qualified Engineers down here to Texas in the 12 months. Lots to choose from.

Their homes are probably still on the market. Or maybe added to the list of foreclosures. MI was one example of an area that is hurting, not an isolated one.

 

[punkin]

I just want to know how much money you have to be bringing in to put you in the top 1%? top 5%?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I hope things improve for you in the very near future.

I have had to backtrack a few times in my life and did not enjoy it at all.

Regards,

I would like things to improve for everyone.

 

[Mr Man]

Their homes are probably still on the market. Or maybe added to the list of foreclosures. MI was one example of an area that is hurting, not an isolated one.

Corporate relocation packages can be quite compelling.

 

[mefordis]

Corporate relocation packages can be quite compelling.

Yeah, that's nice. Do you have the answer to this question:

I just want to know how much money you have to be bringing in to put you in the top 1%? top 5%?

 

[rayelias]

I just want to know how much money you have to be bringing in to put you in the top 1%? top 5%?

I *used* to have a link to that data. If I can find it, I'll edit this post.

But, if I rememer correctly, the top 5% was around $140k (family) and top 1% was around $250k (family).

 

[Mr Man]

I just want to know how much money you have to be bringing in to put you in the top 1%? top 5%?

snipped from a blog I follow:

New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.

ref: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html


editorial comment: Those greedy 1 percenters!

 

[Fitswimmer]

snipped from a blog I follow:

New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.

ref: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html


editorial comment: Those greedy 1 percenters!

And when there are tax cuts, do they not also get more? After all, a 1% tax cut for me is certainly smaller than a 1% tax cut for Bill Gates.

 

[Mr Man]

And when there are tax cuts, do they not also get more? After all, a 1% tax cut for me is certainly smaller than a 1% tax cut for Bill Gates.

You get no argument from me on this.

I just thought it useful to spell out exactly what the Federal Govt gets from the rich, as it stands.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You get no argument from me on this.

I just thought it useful to spell out exactly what the Federal Govt gets from the rich, as it stands.

Well, then isn't it kind of taking the bad with the good? It's like when the company is doing well, the bonuses are good-but when the company is doing badly, the bonuses shrink or disappear.

 

[rayelias]

And when there are tax cuts, do they not also get more? After all, a 1% tax cut for me is certainly smaller than a 1% tax cut for Bill Gates.

Of course they do. The more you pay, the more you'd get back. The less you pay, the less you get back.

Seems pretty fair, to me!

 

[wardfamily1]

The tax Bush tax cuts have helped me tremendously. I don't understand the people that say the cuts only helped the rich. I by no means make enough for the AMT to affect me, I don't even itemize my return, the general deductions are better for me. If those tax cuts were not in place I would be paying an additional 1800 a year in taxes.

I can tell you the cuts absolutely help the little guy!

 

[connorlevismom]

Of course they do. The more you pay, the more you'd get back. The less you pay, the less you get back.

Seems pretty fair, to me!

Pretty obvious to me as well.

Kristine

 

[DawnCt1]

The biggest tax on the economy is the price of energy. It isn't necessarily inflationary in terms of consumer goods because it lessens disposable income. If the USA is serious about improving the economy, the price of energy has to be reduced. Without lifting one drill bit, if we announced tomorrow that we were going to drill for off shore oil, (that the Mexicans are freely drilling for), that we are going to drill in ANWR, the price of oil would fall 15% on the market at the closing bell. Increased taxes would only pile on. Interesting, Bill Clinton was quoted last week that we need "to slow the economy down to combat global warming". A level playing field with the third world?? Now that's a good approach.

 

[mefordis]

The biggest tax on the economy is the price of energy. It isn't necessarily inflationary in terms of consumer goods because it lessens disposable income. If the USA is serious about improving the economy, the price of energy has to be reduced. Without lifting one drill bit, if we announced tomorrow that we were going to drill for off shore oil, (that the Mexicans are freely drilling for), that we are going to drill in ANWR, the price of oil would fall 15% on the market at the closing bell. Increased taxes would only pile on. Interesting, Bill Clinton was quoted last week that we need "to slow the economy down to combat global warming". A level playing field with the third world?? Now that's a good approach.

Drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge is a bad idea for so many reasons, not just the environment. Even McCain sees that (God bless him).

Did you know when the oil is tapped, it does not belong to the United States, it belongs to the drillers? And the drillers have a say where it goes, no matter how desperate the U.S. situation may seem. It is more economically sound to send drilled oil from Alaska to Asia, rather than to mainland United States.

 

[Charade]

Drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge is a bad idea for so many reasons, not just the environment. Even McCain sees that (God bless him).

Did you know when the oil is tapped, it does not belong to the United States, it belongs to the drillers? And the drillers have a say where it goes, no matter how desperate the U.S. situation may seem. It is more economically sound to send drilled oil from Alaska to Asia, rather than to mainland United States.

Heck, if the goverment can tell some companies that they can't sell certain technology outside the US without special permission, they can certainly tell the drillers they can only sell to the US.

We need the oil now. We need to stop sending money to the middle east now. We should drill ANWR now.

 

[Tiziminchac]

Heck, if the goverment can tell some companies that they can't sell certain technology outside the US without special permission, they can certainly tell the drillers they can only sell to the US.

We need the oil now. We need to stop sending money to the middle east now. We should drill ANWR now.

I'd like to add that we should start drilling in the Florida Straits and Gulf of Mexico. Why let Cuba get it all or lease it to China or someone else?

Sorry for going OT.