Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlbond86
Moreover, studies have shown that there is a negative correlation between low taxes and economic prosperity; that is, higher taxes actually pull the economy up, on average.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Nothing says 'I'm in school and never had a real job' like this statement, and I don't even know anything about you.
Seriously, no.
|
|
I meant to respond to Ustwo's post #8 in this thread....I felt that it deserved (was baiting for...) a response....I apologize for the delay:
Quote:
http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
Revised July 27, 2006
CLAIM THAT TAX CUTS “PAY FOR THEMSELVES” IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE:
Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here
by Richard Kogan and Aviva Aron-Dine
In recent statements, the President, the Vice President, and key Congressional leaders have asserted that the increase in revenues in 2005 and the increase now projected for 2006 prove that tax cuts “pay for themselves.” In other words, the economy expands so much as a result of tax cuts that it produces the same level of revenue as it would have without the tax cuts.....
....In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. <h2>Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut.</h2> (See Figure 1.)<p>
<center><img src="http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax-f1.jpg"></center>
......Have the Tax Cuts Increased Revenues?
After adjusting for inflation and population growth, this year and last year’s strong growth in revenues have barely made up for the deep revenue losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Measured since the current business cycle began in March 2001, total per-capita revenue growth, adjusted for inflation, has been near zero. Based on OMB’s latest revenue estimates, real per-capita revenues in 2006 will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue “surge” is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago.
By contrast, five and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 10 percent. And at this point in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues were 11 percent higher than their level at the end of the previous business cycle.<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm#_ftn6">[6]</a>
Furthermore, the performance of the economy during the current business cycle has been slightly weaker overall than the economy’s average performance over the comparable period of other business cycles since the end of World War II. Investment growth during the current business cycle has been below the historical average, even though some of the Bush administration’s tax cuts have been specifically targeted at investment. Employment and wage and salary growth have been especially weak during the current business cycle.<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm#_ftn7">[7]</a> If tax cuts are crucial to economic growth, then the current business cycle — with its large tax cuts — should strongly outperform previous business cycles. Instead, it has performed more poorly than average.
|
Ustwo.... the preceding information supports my contention that rlbond86 made reasonable points and you, in response...did not....what is up with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Your post begs the question of how the top 10% accumulated 70% of the "wealth" in this nation?
I would argue that the majority of those top 10% started poor or middle class.
I would further argue that the top 10% is dynamic, meaning the top 10% today are not the same top 10% ten years ago.
And since about 35% of the population is 24 years-old or less (generally people in this category have no assets, in case you did not know and are one of the few with a big trust fund), seems to me that you might want to do some adjusting to that 50% of the population only having 2.5% of the assets number.
|
Here's some relevant info I dug up ace.... I don't think it supports your argument that "having not" is an affliction that progressive age and "hard work" will "cure".....not in Kentucky, anyway. I chose as examples, the blackest and poorest state, the welathiest by per capita income, and....thirdly, one of the whitest and poorest states.....
The richest Americans are literally...."all over the place"....self-made, first generation wealthy, and a goodly number of others enjoy inherited wealth. I've included examples of two "self made" billionaires....and I believe that outsized wealth buys outsized political and economic influence (control). The effect is that the purchases of influence diminish the potential of "have nots" to exercise their due share of power....impact on the political and economic system:
Quote:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/prof...1&cat=1&ind=10
United States: Poverty Rate by Age, states (2005-2006), U.S. (2006)...Mississippi ...... Connecticut... Kentucky
Children 18 and under ......... 17,478,440.. 22%.....................291,634 ..36% .....133,910 .. 15% . 270,104 . 26%
Adults 19-64 .................. 27,997,213.. 15%.................... 397,281 ..23% .....235,499 .. 11% . 423,417 . 17%
Elderly 65+ .....................4,631,482...13%..................... 77,492 ..23% ..... 45,343 .. 10% .. 93,708 . 20%
Population Distribution by Citizenship Status, states (2005-2006), U.S. (2006)
..............United State ......Mississippi ....... Connecticut ........... Kentucky
Citizen ....273,330,291 .. 93% ..2,814,295..99% .... 3,266,976 .. 94% ...... 3.944,835 .. 93%
Non-Citizen .22,726,545 .. 8% .. 41,165 ....1% ....... 251,914 ... 7% ......... 98,684 ... 8%
US Poverty Distribution:
Adults with Children ..... 29,555,329.. 19%
Adults with No Children .. 20,551,807 ..15%
US Adults living in poverty, by Gender:
Female.................... 18,662,629 ..17%
Male...................... 13.966.066 ..13%
|
Quote:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/...eVos_GLPH.html
The 400 Richest Americans
#73 Richard M DeVos
09.21.06, 10:00 AM ET
Net Worth $3.5 billion Source Service, Self made
Age 80
Marital Status Married, 4 children
Hometown Ada, MI, United States
Became friends in early 1940s with Jay Van Andel (d. 2004) after Richard offered Jay 25 cents a week in exchange for a ride to school. After high school joined military together. Opened drive-in eatery; then founded Amway. Reorganized as Alticor in 2000. Today 3 million salespeople distribute personal care, home products in more than 80 countries. Sales: $6 billion. Now retired, serves on board. Heart transplant recipient owns pro basketball's Orlando Magic. Long-practicing Christian tithes 10% of income to church; with wife, Helen, has donated $400 million to health, education, the arts.
http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.d.htm
...Rich DeVos - CNP Executive Committee 1984-85, CNP Senior Executive Committee 1986-88, 1990-93, Board of Governors 1996, 1998;...
...."In the last election, Amway gave more to the GOP than any other company, including an unprecedented $2.5 million in soft money. DeVos and his wife Helen are also major contributors to Newt Gingrich and GOPAC...In 1989, the company spent a jaw-dropping $38.1 million to settle a suit by Canada's trade office that accused the company of undervaluing merchandise to escape customs duties. This topped a $25 million fine from the province of Ontario in 1983, after Amway pleaded guilty to criminal fraud..." 30 .....
.... "...Principals: The 1982-1983 officers of the Council for National Policy (CNP) were: Thomas F. Ellis, pres; Nelson Bunker Hunt, vice pres, Bob J. Perry sec-tres; Rep. Louis (Woody) Jenkins, exec dir; and Dr. Tim LaHaye, immediate past pres.(1) According to Nelson Bunker Hunt in his deposition in the Iran-Contra hearings, the presidency of the CNP rotates. He has been president, Pat Robertson has been president, and the president at the time of the hearings was Richard DeVos.(2) Hunt also noted that right-wing stalwarts Joseph Coors, Paul Weyrich, and Howard Phillips had served on the executive committee.(2) Woody Jenkins was the original executive director who resigned when the CNP moved from Louisiana to Washington DC.(2) According to the Hunt deposition, Jenkins was succeeded by Margo Carlisle and then Jack Nelson.(2) The CNP has no members who are not principals. It is a gathering of millionaires that covers a full spectrum of the political right: the New Right, neoconservatives, members of former President Reagan's "kitchen cabinet," and fundamentalist preachers and televangelists.(3) ...
http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.htm
...Background: According to one source, the CNP was formed in 1981 by Texas millionaires Nelson Bunker Hunt, Herbert Hunt, and T. Cullen Davis.(5) A second source reports that it was formed by Richard Viguerie to rival the Council on Foreign Relations.(8,26) The council is composed of politically powerful, wealthy individuals. It intentionally maintains a very low profile.(3,5) One of the conditions of membership is not to reveal the names of other members or the substance of the group's meetings.(9) The CNP bills itself as being the Council on Foreign Policy for the Right.(9) But, its importance does not lie in producing and promoting an ultra-conservative foreign policy agenda, many of its affiliates already do that. It is considered by its members as a network that encompasses the entire spectrum of right-wing politics.(3) It provides a "safe" place for representatives of a wide range of ultra- conservative, anticommunist, pro-military organizations--including the executive branch of the White House--to discuss and promote their programs.(3).....
|
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170
Inside the Council for National Policy
Meet the Most Powerful Conservative Group You've Never Heard Of
....Look for them if you're at a ritzy hotel in Tyson's Corner, Va.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the headliner. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales will speak, as will Timothy Goeglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. There have been no public announcements, and there won't be. The 500 or so members will hear private, unvarnished presentations.
White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said Gonzales' remarks would not be released. The CNP's bylaws keep out the press and prevent disclosure of the transcribed proceedings — unless all the speakers give their assent. Few do.
In a 2000 filing with the Internal Revenue Service, the CNP says it holds "educational conferences and seminars for national leaders in the field of business, government, religion and academia." It says it produces a weekly newsletter keeping members abreast of developments, and a biyearly collection of speeches. Executive Director Morton Blackwell was paid a little more than $70,000. The organization took in more than $732,000. ......
.......In 1999, candidate George W. Bush spoke before a closed-press CNP session in San Antonio. His speech, contemporaneously described as a typical mid-campaign ministration to conservatives, was recorded on audio tape.
(Depending on whose account you believe, Bush promised to appoint only anti-abortion-rights judges to the Supreme Court, or he stuck to his campaign "strict constructionist" phrase. Or he took a tough stance against gays and lesbians, or maybe he didn't).
The media and center-left activist groups urged the group and Bush's presidential campaign to release the tape of his remarks. The CNP, citing its bylaws that restrict access to speeches, declined. So did the Bush campaign, citing the CNP.
Shortly thereafter, magisterial conservatives pronounced the allegedly moderate younger Bush fit for the mantle of Republican leadership.
The two events might not be connected. But since none of the participants would say what Bush said, the CNP's kingmaking role mushroomed in the mind's eye, at least to the Democratic National Committee, which urged release of the tapes.
Partly because so little was known about CNP, the hubbub died down.
The CNP Against Liberalism
The CNP describes itself as a counterweight against liberal domination of the American agenda.
|
Quote:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/BH69.html
#1 William Gates III
Age: 50
Fortune: self made
Source: Microsoft
Net Worth: $50.0 billion
Country Of Citizenship: United States
Residence: Medina, Washington, United States, North America
Industry: Software
Marital Status: married, 3 children
Microsoft's chief visionary moving further away from day-to-day corporate work. For the first time did not offer a strategy outlook at last year's financial analyst meeting. Instead, prefers to dive into innovative projects, foster collaboration among Microsoft's many divisions. Microsoft aims to be omnipotent, selling software for PCs, servers, cell phones, television set-top boxes, gaming consoles, the Web. At the ripe (tech sector) age of 30, Gates' company impressively beats rivals in profit margins, market capitalization and R&D budget, but its sales growth is slowing to a (recently) single-digit percentage pace. Like elder statesman of computing, IBM, has been investing heavily in its own stock. Diversifies methodically, selling 20 million shares every quarter, reinvesting through Cascade Investment. Big stakes in Canadian National Railway, Republic Services, Berkshire Hathaway. Philanthropy, via $29 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, aimed at fighting infectious disease (hepatitis B, AIDS, malaria) and improving high schools.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/inheritance.html
01-17-03
..... Overview
Conservatives call it "the death tax." Lawyers call it the "estate tax." It used to be known as "the inheritance tax." And each group has a different assessment of who pays the tax, and who would profit from its repeal. After a ten-year campaign, Congress delivered a repeal of the tax to President Clinton, who vetoed the measure. President Bush made reducing the estate tax one of his first priorities and it being phased out. A movement is underway to make the scheduled 2010 repeal of the tax permanent.
But now there's a campaign to restore the inheritance tax. And it's being led by some of the country's richest people. Bill Gates, Sr., the patriarch of the Gates family, who heads the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Chuck Collins, an heir to the Oscar Mayer fortune who
founded the organization Responsible Wealth. They want the tax reinstated, saying that it's crucial to American democracy and entrepreneurship great. But the debate goes on.....
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
January 8, 2007
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline. click to show
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.
The study offers ammunition to supporters and opponents of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, which are all but certain to touch off a battle between the president and the Democrats who just took control of Congress.
Democratic leaders have taken pains to avoid an immediate fight over the tax cuts, most of which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. But Democrats are looking for ways to increase revenue well before then, in part because they want to spend more on education and energy without increasing the deficit.
Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.
But the Congressional study offers additional insight because it incorporates information about what people paid in 2004, the first year in which taxpayers could take full advantage of the cuts on stock dividends and capital gains.
The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.
Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.
Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.
In its report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the overall effective federal tax rate edged up to 20 percent in 2004, from 19.8 percent the year before.
But even with that increase, Americans faced lower tax rates than any time since 1979. If President Bush has his way, those rates could decline even more as the estate tax on inherited wealth is gradually phased out by the start of 2010.
Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress want to permanently extend that tax cut and almost all of the others that Congress passed in his first term. The cost of doing that would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade, a cost that would hit the Treasury at the same time that the spending on old-age benefits for retiring baby boomers begins to soar.
The budget office offered little commentary on its new estimates, but many of its numbers spoke for themselves.
The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.
<h3>The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office.</h3>
By contrast, families in the bottom 40 percent of income earners, those with incomes below $36,300, typically paid no federal income tax and received money back from the government. That so-called negative income tax stemmed mainly from the earned-income tax credit, a program that benefits low-income parents who are employed.
Put another way: rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts, but people in the bottom half of the earnings scale were not paying much in taxes anyway.
|
The plain truth in the preceding article is the top one percent, and the next nineteen percent pay a large percentage of all federal taxes, because....on the small earnings of the bottom 40 percent, especially after they pay 7.75 percent FICA/Medicare withholding on EVERY dollar that they earn....they simply cannot afford to eat, clothe, house, and transport themselves, and pay state and local taxes, too..... if they were compelled to pay additional federal income taxes....
AND NOW...THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ASSET OF MOST OF THE BOTTOM 80 PERCENT...THE EQUITY IN THEIR HOMES....IS COMMENCING TO RECEDE DRAMATICALLY.....
....since you are obviously objecting to my entire argument, ace....can you post whether there would be any point....say, when the top ten percent owned 90 percent of all US assets....when you would support the idea of the bottom 67 percent of voters on the wealth scale....voting in a political platform and representative majority, committed to raising the top progressive income tax bracket to 70 percent of all income above....say.... $500,000...and an inheritance tax of 67 percent on amounts of estates valued above $10 million....the numbers are simply examples....the crux of the question is....are you in favor of simply not interfering with the present wealth consolidation trend into the control of a tiny percentage of US residents...and letting "nature"....which history tells us is either violent revolution or...perhaps a Cesar Chavez style "intervention"....take it's course?
Last edited by host; 10-25-2007 at 12:25 AM..
|