It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Warning! Be on the Lookout for Higher Taxes!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Source: Plan to ease middle-class taxes falters

House Democrats' promise to permanently protect millions of middle-class families from a mostly unknown tax increase is faltering before it's even unveiled.
Senate Democrats are pressing a Band-Aid approach to delay for just a year or two the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, from adding $2,000 more in taxes on average to families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 a year.
That way Democrats wouldn't have to go into next year's election after having tried, and probably failed, to raise income taxes on wealthy taxpayers — those making $500,000 or more — back to almost what they were before President Bush took office.

To me, the idea of getting taxes on the wealthy back to Pre-Bush levels doesn't sound too bad...
But here's the kicker:

New York Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, would like to rewrite the AMT to once-and-for-all prevent it from ensnaring about 20 million additional and unsuspecting middle-class taxpayers. He and Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., had planned to unveil their plan in May but now that's not likely to occur before September, if then.
----------------
Baucus has shown no interest in a Rangel-Neal proposal to pay for protecting middle-class voters from an AMT increase by instead imposing a new 4 percent or so surcharge on incomes above $500,000 a year. That would effectively raise the marginal tax rate on those with half-million-dollar incomes back to 39 percent, where it was in 2000.

In short, this means a minimum tax on those with Middle Class income levels will still be imposed! They're working on it now, but they plan to have it take effect later...If the proposal isn't shot down before it's approved!



[edit on 11-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]




posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
So, want a little more detail about the up-coming tax increases?


Source: Tax Increases Ahead
On March 29, the House passed its fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. The House's budget, if imple­mented, could increase taxes significantly over the next five years, in turn decreasing job growth, reduc­ing personal income, and weakening the economy. This paper presents state-by-state and district-by-dis­trict projections of the likely impact of the House's budget resolution on the tax burden, jobs, and eco­nomic growth.
----------------------
The House leadership has proposed to increase spending over the next five years. Given the leader­ship's avowed commitment to paying for spending increases, tax revenues will have to rise. Which taxes will have to rise is unclear, as budget resolutions are notoriously short on details. However, the failure of House leaders to include any language addressing the expiring Bush tax cuts of 2001 through 2004 indicates that they could intend to end these tax cuts. This, in turn, means that the House leadership could be allowing American taxpayers to assume a large and expensive tax increase upon the expiration of these tax cuts.

So with higher taxes comes lower retained-income (for businesses, they have to cut expenses in all areas, including payrolls; for individual workers, the result is obvious but also includes lower levels of personal investments), cuts in Gross National Production (since businesses have to cut down everywhere else too), cuts in trade & a faster downward spiral of the entire economy.

Would you like to see the Heritage Foundation's economic research on how the increased taxes will effect you personally, broken down by State & District? The report is a PDF file (Adobe Acrobat required) just a little over 325 kb.

You see, the Government doesn't have to produce anything...But they still get their money through taxation. The bigger the Government, the more money that they suck out of the nation's economy. The best solution for improving the national economy, obviously, is to reduce the size of Government.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
the idea of getting taxes on the wealthy back to Pre-Bush levels doesn't sound too bad...

That's just punishing those who are smart enough to make more money or those who inherit it. The only fair tax is a flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. Anything else caters to special interests or punishes those who are smart enough, or work extra hard, to earn their money.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Did you realize that the top money-earners pay little-to-no taxes? Even those wealthy who do pay taxes usually pay a lower percentage rate than those in the Middle Class or Poor.

This is not even to mention that "income taxes" have been illegally enforced on the majority of people; There is no law or IRS code that requires employers to withhold from their employment payroll & no law or IRS code that requires individual Citizens to pay "taxes" on money they earn under Wages/Saleries/Compensation, as long as the Citizen works within the boundaries of the 50 States & does not work in State or Federal Government. There's already several threads at ATS about just that subject; Just type "income tax" into the Boolean Search function & you'll find a lot of threads to look at.

BTW FF, you have only one opinion as a comment on only one of my opinions? Nothing else in general to say about the "meat" of the topic itself? Since your comment posted only 6 minutes after my second post, you must be a heckuva speed-reader to have taken in the info at the source.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Oooops! The Boolean Search is temporarily out...The primary Search still works.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Since your comment posted only 6 minutes after my second post,


Actually, when I posted there was only one post of yours up. The second one wasn't there ... and my post was showing as second .... at least on my computer. Your second post is new (to me) and wasn't there. I'm reading it now ....



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
the top money-earners pay little-to-no taxes? Even those wealthy who do pay taxes usually pay a lower percentage rate than those in the Middle Class or Poor.


I still say the only good tax is a flat tax. And yes, MidnightDStroyer, flat taxes do raise the taxes on those rich people who you say don't pay any. The flat tax system is the only fair one. No one is penalized for making more money. Everyone pays the same percentage no matter how much, or how little, they make.


Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
The best solution for improving the national economy, obviously, is to reduce the size of Government.


Sure. But by adding taxes we give birth to a nanny government and the size of the government increases.

YOUR LINKS - The PDF file ... sorry, but I couldn't wrap my head around it and I don't understand the connection. The other article was interesting and I could follow it (I think). I don't have an economics degree. All I can give is my subjective response - and that is this - a flat tax is the best tax. Couple that with reduced spending - reduced spending in the RIGHT areas (like US tax payers paying for Ted Kennedys three martini lunches).

I'm going to have to sit back and read what the responses are and see what people say to this. I'm sure it will be enlightening for me.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Some of the Democrats ( most ) in D.C. don't want anything but Communism or the Socialist state.

Now there are some of the very rich that but their money in no-tax bonds and the like but I think these are very few. Mostly politicians .

An increases in tax will hit the middle income US citizens. The rich will lobby D.C. and get out of it.

As far as ruining the US economy, well DUH! You can not explain that to the citizens on Washington D.C. .

Roper



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
how can a flat tax for rich and poor be fair?

i make my money with my own hands and my own tools, why should i have to pay as much tax as someone who didnt even work or produce anything, but paid someone else to do it. the rich guy is using money to make money and he should be taxed higher for it. those that work directly for their money should not be taxed very much if at all.

im a sub contractor. I dont get unemployment insurance, i dont get a pension plan, i have to pay my own medical. why would i want to pay taxes. what am i getting out of it. im on my own anyway.


i think the fair tax sounded good. tax purchases only. think about how much money that would save with no more tax courts, no more tax hounds, and no more H&R block. everyone wins.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
the rich guy is using money to make money and he should be taxed higher for it.

So what if people make money from investing? You are penalizing someone who is smart enough to know how to invest wisely. We need people willing to invest in order for companies to grow .. to hire ... to keep the economy going. Without people wise enough to know how to invest then the economy would collapse .. and your job would be gone as well.


why would i want to pay taxes. what am i getting out of it.

- the roads you drive on.
- the snow plows to keep them open.
- the emergency services you depend on.
- the police, fire, FBI.
- jails, prisons, the court system that keep criminals away from you.
- NASA - and all the goods that have come from the space program - including microwave ovens, velcro, etc
- National defense. The freedoms you enjoy have to be defended and that takes money.
- Schools to educate the population - would you want to live with a populaton who can't read? The economy would collapse .. and your job would be gone. (and so would the doctors, the nurses, and every other job that requires education that you enjoy the benefits of )
- Taxes pay for cancer research and other medical researches.
- etc etc

Taxes pay for many things that are taken for granted.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Did you realize that the top money-earners pay little-to-no taxes? Even those wealthy who do pay taxes usually pay a lower percentage rate than those in the Middle Class or Poor.


No they don't. The wealthy pay the majority of taxes in the nation. If the wealthy were to stop paying taxes, the government would be short of about 50% of its tax revenue. What happens is that the wealthy don't necessarily pay the amount of taxes the government says they should, because the amount the government claims they should pay is so high, that if the wealthy actually paid it, there would be no more wealthy peoplei n the United States. So they can get around it with certain tax write-offs and the like.

But regardless of those, the majority of taxes in the nation are paid by the wealthiest people. And you do not punish the wealthy. The majority of the wealthy in this nation earned their wealth, they did not inherit it. Which means you are punishing highly successful people through such taxes.


i make my money with my own hands and my own tools, why should i have to pay as much tax as someone who didnt even work or produce anything, but paid someone else to do it. the rich guy is using money to make money and he should be taxed higher for it. those that work directly for their money should not be taxed very much if at all.


You will find that the majority of wealthy people had to work their butt off to earn their wealth. Those who own busienss provide a service or product, they create jobs, they bring prosperity to their community, and they generate wealth, which they then oftentimes share with their community. They also stimulate the economy. They do not deserve to be taxed higher.

A flat tax is fairer. If you are in a lower income bracket, then it gives incentive to move to a higher income bracket.


what am i getting out of it. im on my own anyway.


Taxes ARE necessary, but many of the things we get out of it are not needed, like Social Security and healthcare. Healthcare and Social Security should both be handled by the private sector. If they were, then taxes could be a lot lower. National defense spending takes up very little of tax revenue, so we could still keep the military with low taxes.

And then there's the other stuff FlyersFan mentioned, like maintenance of roads, bridges, etc...



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
why would i want to pay taxes. what am i getting out of it.

The fact that you are speaking neither German nor Russian.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
flyerfan.

investing your money expecting more to come back without a product to attach it to is what i inderstand to a major reason for inflation and the reason why we must continue the boom to bust "buisness cycle" not all investments do this, i dont know the spacific term for the type i mean, which are the stock market, trading currency, REAL ESTATE, london gold fix, INTEREST RATES.

all those things do is cause instability, which is all the people you need to get rich off of want. Not everyone wants to pay attention to trends in order to stay ahead and not get left behind. All these investments are based off of hype, nothing tangible, and can each on thier own devalue a dollor over night.


- the roads you drive on.
- the snow plows to keep them open.
- the emergency services you depend on.
- the police, fire, FBI.
- jails, prisons, the court system that keep criminals away from you.
- NASA - and all the goods that have come from the space program - including microwave ovens, velcro, etc
- National defense. The freedoms you enjoy have to be defended and that takes money.
- Schools to educate the population - would you want to live with a populaton who can't read? The economy would collapse .. and your job would be gone. (and so would the doctors, the nurses, and every other job that requires education that you enjoy the benefits of )
- Taxes pay for cancer research and other medical researches.
- etc etc


the roads i drive on are payed for by the hundreds of dollors i spend every month on gasoline that carry a VERY large tax. same with the plows on the highways, city roads are plowed by property tax money.

emergency services are payed for by the cities, and the province might spring for some fire engines in small towns, but they are usually run by volunteers, and good luck finding a cop in any towns under 5000 people.

i think you meant fire and police when you said emergency, unless you were talking about some federal oversight like the US FEMA, then dont get me started. im in canada there is no FBI its RCMP and towns pay for their services they do not do it from federal funding.

The US uses jails for profit, which canada is soon to do as well, hardly a federal fundeSd service.

Schools huh? how many decades before you attended school where your books published? how many times do our teachers go on strike? do they make much? my kids will be going to private school thank you, you can have your rustic books and 40 year old microscopes.

ya taxes pay for cancer research, however the only progress they have made in 30 years is finding 100 times more different types of cancer, which little research would prove that it is government certified chemicals that are giving it to us.

What has NASA done? really, yeah they went to the moon. we have satillites, is that supposed to keep us happy for another 50 years. SHOW ME SOMETHING.



Taxes pay for many things that are taken for granted.


living off your land and working with what you had was taken for granted, now what do we have?


I see your point that companies that do good should not be punished, but lets get real here. there is not a company out there offering shares that gives a damb about you or me, be bottom line is money, and if that is the way it is for them, PAY TAXES. they did not build the product, they took a loan or used thier inheiritance to purhcase infastructure and then used the lives of others to see large profits.

I would take speaking German over watching my so called goverment pay interest on its own money any day.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
For the year 2004,

The top 1% of wage earners in the United States... (The wealthy or over 500K)

Paid .... $306, 902, 000,000.00 (306 Billion 902 Million Dollars)

The Bottom 50% (Half the NATION)

Paid .... $27,419,000,000.00 (27 Billion 419 Million Dollars)

www.taxfoundation.org...

So much for the "Rich pay no tax" BS

Read some research people

Semper



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
When so many people are saying that the rich are paying the majority of the taxes, I agree...When only the total dollar amount has been considered. However in my post above, I said that the rich have been paying a lower percentage of taxes on the money they've earned in comparison of the percentage that the less-wealthy pay.

Heres' an example of what I mean by that: I'm going to used imagined numbers here just to make easier figuring & to express my point.
Taxpayer 'A' is referred to as the wealthy Citizen, who makes $100,000 per year.
Taxpayer 'B' isn't nearly as wealthy, making only $10,000 per year.
Right here, you can see that 'B' only makes 1/10 the amount that 'A' does.

Even if both happen to be in the same tax bracket (let's say 20% for this example), 'A' would pay $20,000 & B only pays $2,000. Ok, so some of the posters here could very easily claim that 'A' is paying 10x the amount of taxes that 'B' pays. 'A' wouldn't be paying equal taxes (measured in absolute dollar-amounts) to 'B' unless 'A' was only paying 2%: Hardly fair to 'B' to claim that he isn't paying as much as 'A', is it? When you only compare absolute dollar amounts, yes, you speak the truth when saying that the wealthy are paying more.

Let's look at what's left, in comparison, after the taxes have been paid:
After paying a 20% tax rate, 'A' still has $80,000 left to spend on his family & other subsequent bills...'B' has only $8,000 left for the same purposes. 'A' actually has more than enough money left over for hiring tax accounts & CPA's to make his tax rate lower! 'A' would still have more than enough left over (compared to 'B') to pay for someone else to prepare his taxes, even if 'A' was paying at a 50% tax rate! 'B' can't afford that, can he? Now, who's tax burden is more of a burden?

Trotting out numbers that compare only absolute dollar amounts doesn't really address the issue of who's really carrying more burden, does it? It's the burden that I was referring to in my earlier post, not restricted to absolute numbers, but comparing the actual tax burden.

Let's not forget something else that has a direct effect on the relative tax burden: The Income Gap Widens due to numerous factors, including lower-paid illegal aliens coming in, the outsourcing of jobs to other countries...Shall I continue listing off more reasons?

By you're only looking at absolute numbers, I see & hear the exact same thing spouted off by Rush Limbaugh...


But then again, it's just such a tax system that has nearly wiped out the Middle Class. For those who are at least in their mid-40's, you've probably seen it happen to your parents: My family of four was firmly in the Single-Income Middle Class, but by the time I reached high school, things changed: My Mom had to start working part-time to help take up a slack that never should have occured. As the years went on, the family kept slipping down due to devaluation of the dollar, rising cost of living & yes, increasing taxes. During the course of those years, the family went from a 3-bedroom, 2-car garage split-level house in the burbs to a mobile home park outside of the city.

Nowadays, a 2-Income Middle Calss family is just barely hanging on...So keep trotting out those "absolute numbers" without even thinking about what those numbers mean in real life.

And if you want to talk about taxes even more, there are already several threads here at ATS that talk about how the People have been getting ripped off by illegally enforced taxes, regardless of what the law & tax code actually say.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
...the rich have been paying a lower percentage of taxes on the money they've earned in comparison of the percentage that the less-wealthy pay...


That is clearly not true.

Looking at Semper's link, the top 10% pay 68.19% of the tax liability. Their average tax rate is 18.6%- the HIGHEST of all other taxpayers.

In terms of your 'burden' argument, I don't think the income tax rate is so much to blame. There are far more relevant hurdles to wealth building.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   
i'd love higher taxes... if it meant no more health insurance payments. i doubt i'd have to fork over as much in taxes as i do for that.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'd love higher taxes... if it meant no more health insurance payments. i doubt i'd have to fork over as much in taxes as i do for that.


This is, as usual a very large problem in the US. I'd guess that 1/2 the country believes that the taxpayers owe them something, a living, health etc. Sad!

Roper



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Loam, about those percentages you last quoted: Does that 68.19% for the wealthy refer to the base tax rate or is it after they've hired their tax consultants to lower it? Also, does that refer to what their business pays or what they pay from their own personal income acquired from their business?

Just quoting off numbers, again, leaves a lot to the imagination if you don't also look into how those numbers were figured.


Originally posted by Roper
This is, as usual a very large problem in the US...

I would tend to agree. Also, if the Government were allowed to create the monopoly on those benefits, you can bet they'd keep raising taxes to pay for it & they'd have no "competition" to keep them honest about the quality of the services.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join