|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Byrnison
I hesitate to jump into a Tilted Politics discussion  , but I too am curious as to Ace's question as to what tax rates at what income levels would be best, and more so why do you see it that way? Shakran's post got me curious about the tax burden question, and what I found was:
Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html
<strong>Table 4.</strong> Before and After the Bush Tax Cuts, by Income Group</p><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" width="418"><div align="center"><strong>Before Bush Tax Cuts</strong></div></td><td colspan="3" width="329"><div align="center"><strong>After Bush Tax Cuts</strong></div></td></tr><tr><td width="285"><div align="center"><strong></strong></div></td><td width="133"><div align="center"><strong>Share of Tax Liability</strong></div></td><td width="135"><div align="center"><strong>Tax Reduction for 2004</strong></div></td><td width="102"><div align="center"><strong>Share of Tax Liability</strong></div></td><td width="92"><div align="center"><strong>Share of Tax Cuts</strong></div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Bottom 20%, $0 to $14,415</td><td width="133"><div align="right">0.50%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$1,976,256,511 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">0.30%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">1.20%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Second 20%, $14,415 to $25,499</td><td width="133"><div align="right">2.30%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$7,177,358,834 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">1.90%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">4.20%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Third 20%, $25,500 to $41,640</td><td width="133"><div align="right">5.90%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$15,905,120,495 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">5.20%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">9.40%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Fourth 20%, $41,641 to $68,295</td><td width="133"><div align="right">12.60%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$29,559,373,144 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">11.60%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">17.50%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Top 20%, $68,296 and above</td><td width="133"><div align="right">78.70%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$114,633,332,724 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">81.00%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">67.70%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Total Tax Liability for all taxpayers</td><td width="133"><div align="right">100.00%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$169,251,441,709 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">100.00%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">100.00%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285"></td><td width="133"></td><td width="135"></td><td width="102"></td><td width="92"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" width="418"><p align="center"><strong>Top 20%</strong></p></td><td colspan="3" width="329"><div align="center"><strong>Top 20%</strong></div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">First Half of top 10%, $68,296 to $97,685</td><td width="133"><div align="right">11.90%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$26,272,937,254 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">11.20%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">15.50%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Second Half of Top 10%, $97,685 to $136,162</td><td width="133"><div align="right">10.80%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$18,560,111,502 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">10.80%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">11.00%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Top 20-5%, $68,296 to $136,162</td><td width="133"><div align="right">22.80%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$44,833,048,756 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">22.00%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">26.50%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Top 5-1%, $136,163 to $335,474</td><td width="133"><div align="right">18.90%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$25,482,868,099 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">19.70%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">15.10%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Top 1%, $335,475 and above</td><td width="133"><div align="right">37.10%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$44,317,415,869 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">39.30%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">26.20%</div></td></tr><tr><td width="285">Total Tax Liability for Top 20% of Taxpayers</td><td width="133"><div align="right">78.70%</div></td><td width="135"><div align="right">$114,633,332,724 </div></td><td width="102"><div align="right">81.00%</div></td><td width="92"><div align="right">67.70%</div></td></tr></tbody></table>
Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
(below years snipped to try to save space)
Table 4.</strong> Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980-2005 ($ Millions) </p><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Year </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Total </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 1% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 2-5% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 5% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 6-10% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 10% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 11-25% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 25% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 26-50% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Top 50% </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="center"><font size="1">Bottom 50% </font></p></td></tr><tr><td width="5%"><p align="right"><font size="1">2003 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">747,939 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">256,340 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">150,257 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">406,597 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">85,855 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">492,452 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">134,928 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">627,380 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">94,647 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">722,027 </font></p></td><td width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">25,912 </font></p></td></tr><tr><td width="5%"><p align="right"><font size="1">2004 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">831,890 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">306,902 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">168,322 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">475,224 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">92,049 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">567,273 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">138,642 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">705,915 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">98,556 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">804,471 </font></p></td><td valign="bottom" width="8%"><p align="right"><font size="1">27,419</font> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p align="right"><font size="1">2005 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">934,703 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">368,132</font></p></td><td><font size="1"><p align="right"><font size="1">189,627 </font></p></font></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">557,759 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">99,326 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">657,085 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">146,687 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">803,772 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">102,256</font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">906,028 </font></p></td><td><p align="right"><font size="1">28,675</font> </p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Source: Internal Revenue Service </p>
A few things to consider based on these numbers:
1) Pre combined tax cut (2004), the top 5% income group shouldered (18.9 + 37.10)*(.787) = 44.02% of the total tax liability
2) Post tax cut(2005), the top 5% shouldered (19.7 + 39.3)*(.81) = 47.78% of the total tax liability
3) The tax cut of the top 5% amounted to (15.1 + 26.2)*(.677) = 27.9%, yet their tax burden still increased and total revenue from all income tax increased.
Again, to echo a facet of Ace's question, if a combined 47.8% tax liability for the top 5% of income earners is not enough, then what is? And why?
Secondly, do you agree that the "wealthy" are the ones that create jobs, or is it another group? |
In 1981, the total employee/employer combined social security tax was 9.30 percent.
....by 1988....after the 1983 "reform"...that tax total was 15.02 percent"
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...969418,00.html
Dirty Little Secret
Monday, Feb. 19, 1990 By RICHARD LACAYO
....Moynihan's proposal has focused attention on one of Washington's dirty little secrets. Rather than dealing honestly with the budgetary gap, the Government is once again borrowing against the future. When the baby-boom generation begins to retire about 20 years from now, the IOUs will have to be paid back through sharply higher taxes or still more borrowing.
Igniting a fire storm is precisely what Moynihan had in mind last December when he suggested rolling back the most recent hike in Social Security taxes. On Jan. 1 the rate climbed to 7.65% on the first $51,300 of a worker's income, a sum that employers must match. Moynihan would lower it to 7.51% this year and to 6.55% in 1991......
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9418-2,00.html
.....Some integrity is badly needed right now. <h2>Until 1983, Social Security was run on a pay-as-you-go basis, with payroll taxes bringing in roughly the same amount that was disbursed as benefits. But that year a bipartisan commission -- on which Moynihan played a key role -- designed a scheme to build a surplus that could swell to $4 trillion by 2010. The money would come from a series of increases in Social Security contributions, which began to phase in six years ago,</h2> and from taxing the benefits of higher-income retirees.
The idea was to avoid burdening the far smaller generation that will follow the baby boomers with huge tax increases or a mountain of new debt. But the intentions of the reform plan were thwarted by the explosive growth of the deficit. Instead of accumulating a stash of savings, the Government has borrowed each year the surplus to pay for the normal operations of the U.S. Government, with no plan for repaying the loans. "It is like an individual having a private pension fund consisting of his own IOUs," writes economist Paul Craig Roberts, a Treasury official during the Reagan Administration.
Just how embedded this budgetary sleight of hand has become was illustrated during hearings by the Senate Finance Committee last week. U.S. Comptroller General Charles A. Bowsher described how the Government moved $52 billion from the Social Security trust funds, as well as $71 billion from other Government trust funds, to give the impression that the 1989 federal deficit was $152 billion. The real figure: $275 billion. "The growing reserve is merely an illusion," Bowsher declared....
|
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...linton,%20Bill
Dipping Into the Social Security Bank
By ERNEST F. HOLLINGS
Published: February 5, 1999
....President Clinton's proposed budget calls for spending $100 billion more than we take in.
How can that be? The answer is that the surplus everyone talks about belongs to Social Security already. In 1983 the Greenspan commission (named after its chairman, who is now the Fed chairman) proposed a payroll tax to build up a reserve to take care of the baby boomers when they retired. To make certain this reserve would not be spent, the commission recommended that Social Security be accounted for outside of the annual budget.
Despite current law, Congress has already spent the Social Security reserves for other things. As a result, the Social Security account is $730 billion in the red.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security trust fund will grow each year by these amounts:
1999 ,, $126 billion
2000 ...$137 billion
2001 ...$144 billion
2002 ...$153 billion
2003 ...$161 billion
2004 ...$171 billion
2005 ...$183 billion
2006 ...$193 billion
2007 ...$204 billion
2008 ...$212 billion
2009 ...$217 billion
We should have a $3.2 trillion reserve in 2012, when payments to retiring baby boomers will start to exceed revenue. But because we will have already spent the money for other things, we will have to raise taxes or cut benefits to pay Social Security recipients.
To save Social Security, we must first stop looting it for spending programs or tax cuts. Last week Alan Greenspan suggested that the ''surpluses'' should be used to pay down the Federal debt.
The first debt paid should be that of Social Security. Once that is done, then we can legitimately debate the relative merits of keeping a reserve or cutting the payroll tax and putting Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis.
We should freeze the budget and leave the ''surplus'' where it belongs. That in itself would help to pay down the debt, which would lower pressure on interest rates, stabilize the capital markets, add to the nation's savings and promote economic growth.
Ernest F. Hollings is a Democratic Senator from South Carolina.
|
....and then, there were these tax cuts:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...962533,00.html
Playing the New Tax Game
Monday, Oct. 13, 1986 By STEPHEN KOEPP.
....America's beloved loopholes are suddenly closing fast. That chilling realization hit home for millions of U.S. consumers last week as they confronted the most sweeping federal income tax overhaul in more than 40 years. Overwhelmingly approved late last month by the House (292 to 136) and the Senate (74 to 23), the bill is expected to be signed into law by President Reagan within the next week or so.......
...By and large the new tax code will be kind to consumers. It will entirely remove approximately 6 million low-income earners from the tax rolls. The overhaul will reduce taxes for about 60% of taxpayers, largely by simplifying and lowering the rate structure. The highest effective rate will drop from 50% to 38.5% next year and 28% after that. To finance those reductions, many tax preferences will be eliminated.
<h3>One of the casualties is the break on long-term capital gains, which has made taxpayers eager to cash in their profits on investments, ranging from stocks to real estate. The current top rate for taxing such gains is effectively 20%, but after this year, those profits will be taxed as regular income at higher rates....</h3>
|
...but...the compromise that resulted in lowering the top tax bracket....in 1986, has yielded to newer tax breaks for the wealthiest:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax
.......United States
Main article: Capital gains tax in the United States
In the United States, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains just as they do on other sorts of income, but the tax rate for individuals is lower on "long-term capital gains," which are gains on assets that had been held for over one year before being sold. <h3>The tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%,</h3> or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. Short-term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate: the ordinary income tax rate. The reduced 15% tax rate on eligible dividends and capital gains, previously scheduled to expire in 2008, has been extended through 2010 as a result of the Tax Reconciliation Act signed into law by President Bush on May 17, 2006. In 2011 these reduced tax rates will "sunset," or revert to the rates in effect before 2003, which were generally 20%....
|
<h3>So the wealthiest ten percent....the elite who own more than 70 percent of all US assets....succeeded in achieving both a dramatically lower top tax bracket...compared to the rates in the early 1980's, and...over time....they also received a huge break on the capital gains taxes they pay....receiving the break that they traded away in 1986 to obtain the lowered top tax bracket.....</h3>
I originally posted this on a thread in this forum on 01-09-2007:
Quote:
<h2>....My problem is that you refuse to react to the US wealth redistribution trend.</h2> I've described the problem, with the data that supports the disturbing trend, below. The solution was not to shift the tax burden even more heavily onto those who "enjoy" a steadily shrinking portion of total US wealth, and wage stagnation, to the benefit of those who have experienced a doubling in their annual incomes, between 1979 and 2003.
Your sentiments are a prescription for turning the US into a place like Mexico City....kidnappings of the wealthy, the expense of body guards and heavy security to shield the "haves" from the "have nots", and the lessening of the ability of the "haves" to come and go as they please.
People get angry when the wealthy become too successful at concentrating the wealth, and hence the political and financial leverage of a country. When the "have nots" get to the point where they decide that they have nothing to lose, they begin to act like it. If you do not have anything to add to this discussion, kindly stop reposting the Ron Adams article.
Instead, please tell us how "tax reform" that shifts the tax burden, in any way, to the people who have benefitted the least from economic growth and prosperity, and away from the people who have a virtual "lock" on the increased wealth, is of any benefit, to anyone. Tell us how the growing disparity can be slowed or reversed, without political interference. Tell us how people who experience the loss of representative government, because it has been bought and co-opted by the richest, will sit still, trusting that the "system" will solve the problem...no matter how bad things get for them.
In a hunter gatherer society, if one hunting unit developed a weapon that allowed that unit to take...say 8 out of ten of the game kills on every hunting trip, and that unit refused to share it's bounty, and it became more and more difficult for every other hunting group to find and kill enough game, even to subsist, what do you think would happen to the unit with the superior hunting weapon that refused to share it's out of proportion food supply with the less successful units. We enjoy the resource that the hunter gatherers did not have. We have a government that can respond to inequities in the social structure, especially if the inequity is influenced by the buying of the power and influence of the government, by the wealthiest few.
The "rest of us" will not sit still and idly observe the richest one percent continue to take an increasingly large piece of the pie, and buy legislation to lower their proportion of the total tax burden as they grow richer, and while our wealth barely increase at all. You can repost Ron Adams' article as often as you like, but it does not acknowledge, accept, or offer solutions to the problems of growing wealth and political influence inequity that the Bush tax cuts are aggravating...
</b>
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=4
<b>January 29, 2006
NEW, UNNOTICED CBO DATA SHOW CAPITAL INCOME HAS
BECOME MUCH MORE CONCENTRATED AT THE TOP</b>
<b>begins on page 2:</b>
Prior to 2001, the share of
capital income that was
received by the top one
percent never exceeded 50
percent and typically was
well below that mark.
•
In other words, prior to
2001, the top one percent
received less than half of the
capital income. Now it
receives significantly more
than half of such income.
Accordingly, the degree to
which the highest-income
households benefit from
efforts to reduce taxes on
capital income has increased
as well.
Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Cut Would Exacerbate General Growth in Income Disparities
Depicted by the CBO Data
The capital income that CBO analyzed consists of four sources: interest, dividends, rents, and
capital gains. The CBO data do not separate out capital income by source. The CBO data reflect
interest income that is subject to taxation as well as tax-exempt interest income (such as interest earned
on municipal bonds); however, the data only consider capital gains and dividend income that is subject
to taxation. All capital income in tax-exempt retirement accounts is not reflected in the data. As a
result, for the most part the CBO data only reflect capital income subject to taxation.
Although the CBO do not break out trends by the specific source of capital income, the general
trend depicted by the data strongly suggests that policies that reduce taxes on capital gains and
dividend income are of growing benefit to high-income households, since such households are
receiving an increasing share of capital income.
Adding to concerns over the increasingly regressive effects of extending lower taxes on capital gains
and dividend income, the CBO data also show a dramatic widening in overall income disparities during
the past two and one half decades. From 1979 (the first year for which CBO has compiled these data)
to 2003 (the most recent year for which the data are available):
<b>The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population more than doubled, rising
from $305,800 to $701,500, for a total increase of $395,700, or 129 percent. (CBO adjusted these
figures for inflation and expressed them in 2003 dollars.)
•
By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively
modest 15 percent (less than one percentage point per year), and the average after-tax income of
the poorest fifth of the population rose just 4 percent, or $600, over the 24-year period.</b>
Extending lower tax rates on capital gains and dividend income would exacerbate the long-term
trend toward growing income inequality.
The Unnoticed CBO Data
The data described here are from a CBO report released in December 2005. The findings related to
the concentration of capital income have gone unnoticed, in part because readers of this report and
similar past CBO reports tend to focus on the trends that these reports depict in federal tax burdens
and in overall income inequality. The findings also have gone unnoticed because of how the
information appears in the report.
Table 1B of the CBO report shows the share of corporate income tax liabilities paid by various
income groups. Because corporate tax returns are filed by corporations while taxes are ultimately
borne by individuals, CBO must distribute corporate taxes liabilities to individual taxpayers based on
information about taxpayers’ sources of income. In keeping with a widespread consensus among
economists, CBO distributes corporate income tax liabilities to households based on their shares of
capital income.
Because of CBO’s methodology, CBO’s findings regarding the distribution of corporate tax liabilities
are a reflection of its findings regarding shares of capital income.
2
<b>That is, CBO’s finding that 57.5
percent of corporate income tax liabilities in 2003 were paid by the top one percent is simply a
reflection of CBO’s estimate that 57.5 percent of capital income in 2003 was received by the top one
percent.</b> It is presumably because the information on the share of capital income going to various
groups is never presented directly in the CBO report that the trend described in this analysis has not
previously come to light.
Table 1. <b>Share of Capital Income Flowing to Households in Various Income Categories
Income Category</b>
Year _____1979______2003
Lowest
Quintile 1.8%____ 0.6%
Second
Quintile 4.1%____ 1.6%
Middle
Quintile 6.7%____ 4.3%
Fourth
Quintile 10.5%____ 6.1%
Highest
Quintile 76.5%____ 85.8%
Top
10% _____66.7% ____79.4%
Top
5% ______57.9% ____73.2%
<b>Top 1% __37.8%_____57.5% </b>
|
<b>The findings above are supported by data available of the CBO.gov website:</b>
Quote:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1
Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
August 2004
Section 2 of 4
Effective Federal Tax Rates
Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
<b>Table 2.
Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under Current Tax Law, Based on 2001 Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014</b>
<b>Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities</b>
Lowest _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________1.1___________1.1_____1.1______1.1
Second _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________5.0___________5.2______5.2_____5.2
Middle _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________10.0___________10.3_____10.4____10.4
Fourth_ _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________18.5___________19.0_____19.1____19.2
Highest _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________65.3___________64.2_____64.0____63.8
_______________2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Top 10 Percent 50.0___________48.7_____48.5____48.3
_______________2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Top 5 Percent 38.5___________37.3_____37.0____36.7
_______________2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Top 1 Percent 22.7___________21.3_____21.1____20.7
|
|
Now....my questions....what other means do the 50 percent of the US population who control only 2-1/2 percent of total assets...have to offset the obvious advantage of the ten percent who control 70 percent of total assets....and the power that advantage brings to them.... they literally have a "get out of jail free" card....we got to see Scooter using it just a few months ago...<h3>aside from using their overwhelming voting majority in an attempt to tax the shit out of the top ten percent...with a special emphasis on the top five percent?</h3> How else can the great majority of us block the "top ten" percent from gaining control over all assets, and thus, most of the political power? Who else is in any position to pay another to do work, than those who have assets above the level of a hand to mouth existence?
Why is their such a strong objection to majority driven, progressive taxation, but no objection to a small, elite buying control of the government, the courts, and the marketplace....furthering their consolidation of wealth to a narrower and narrower group?
In 1983, as I documented at the beginning of this post, a decision was made to extract a huge excess tax on all of the income of most of us....to pay ahead...create a surplus to cope with demands on Social Security after 2012. The surplus was used to lower the income tax and capital gains tax rates...<h2>providing huge tax savings for the wealthiest ten percent...who coincidentally did not pay the excess social security tax on the bulk of their income.</h2>
The wealthiest paid (bought legislative and presidential support) to get this done....and the percentage that they paid before Reagan, compared to what they paid after the Reagan and Bush era tax cuts....is manifested in the $8 trillion increase in US Treasury debt since 1981. Using our votes to restore a 70 percent top tax bracket, and reversing the low capital gains tax....
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us...27edwards.html
By LESLIE WAYNE
Published: July 27, 2007
......In a speech in Des Moines, Mr. Edwards, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said he would “rewrite our tax code to make sure it is fair” and added that tax policy under President Bush had led to “more wealth for the wealthy and more power for the powerful.”
The Edwards campaign said his plan would raise the tax rate on capital gains, which are profits from investments, to 28 percent from the current 15 percent for taxpayers with incomes over $250,000. It would remain at 15 percent for those who earn less than $250,000.
Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, is the first Democratic candidate to call for a broad-based increase in taxes on investment income, and his plan is in keeping with the populist tone of his campaign. ......
|
.....along with ending the excess spent on the hyped and phoney component of the "War on terror"....will lower and even eliminate the annual $500 billion treasury debt increases of the last five years. This is also a way to end the devaluation of the US dollar before it buys only .75 of a Canadian dollar....it only buys .96....today.
Last edited by host; 10-24-2007 at 02:29 AM..
|