Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  10 11 12 13 14 (14 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jay Guinne
12:35 PM on 04/25/2011
“After all, job growth was much higher in the years following the Clinton tax hike in 1993 than it has been over the last decade as investment tax rates were repeatedly slashed” Really REALLY and i though that Al gore’s Internet and the Dot.com boom created all those job here it was really just higher tax rates Could you break it down for me if you raise taxes 10% how many jobs is that how about 50% will we all have jobs then?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tekkdude
Battling Republican lies one post at a time.
01:11 PM on 04/25/2011
I know this makes no sense to you and rather than look at the facts or do some research you would rather mock the author but think about this. You have two options with your wealth. You can invest it in business ventures and generate a nice rate of return thereby growing your own wealth or you can give it to the government in taxes. Which do you do? As the author points out, lowering the tax rate does not result in business investments it results in speculation which is not the same thing. As you have more and more money sitting around to invest you look around for the things with the highest rate of returns. For the last 10-15 years or so, that has not been stocks or bonds but has been in things like derivatives and other exotic financial instruments. Things that ultimately have little to no impact on the real economy other than by indirectly driving up prices on the real goods that the derivatives represent. This is a drain on the economy and doesn't result in any new productive jobs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jay Guinne
05:14 PM on 04/25/2011
Fact raising and lowering taxes does not = JOBs + or -
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
No stinking fans
And no stinking badges
01:48 PM on 04/25/2011
That has got to be the longest sentence that said nothing that i have ever read.
12:31 PM on 04/25/2011
Let's this in perspective. The net adjusted gross income (less investment expenses) is $162,415. That means including local taxes, your tax rate is 36%. Every dollar the State and Local agencies collect is less money the Feds need to subsidize. Also, the money given to charity for social benefits is less taxes you pay to the Feds to make bombs. Overall, that is a pretty high rate and it doesn't even include the FICA/Medicare witholding. Making a judgement regarding taxes based upon only Federal payments can be a somewhat misleading.
12:43 PM on 04/25/2011
We are talking about Federal taxes, not local and state. Keep to the subject at hand.
09:13 PM on 04/25/2011
Since the Federal Government subsidizes the States and the Locals with Federal taxes, they can't be viewed in isolation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
wernerholm
pushing buttons
12:15 PM on 04/25/2011
Last year I made around $14,000.... and ended up paying almost $6,000 in various taxes, fees, and tolls imposed by the governement.
01:41 PM on 04/25/2011
You are doing something very wrong. My daughter 18 years old made $15,624. She paid taxes biweekly as she received her paycheck. When she completed her taxes and received her refund she came out paying a total of $4.23 in state taxes, and $158.67 in federal taxes for the year.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
wernerholm
pushing buttons
02:53 PM on 04/25/2011
sales taxes, gas taxes, cigerette taxes, lodging taxes, consession recoupment fees, housing rental tax, plus every fifty feet along the Jersey Turnpike some schmuck in a hat wants .50 more cents!
12:14 PM on 04/25/2011
Given the fact that the income distribution in the US is on par with many third world nations of course it would make sense for the government to do more in tax collection. Howver it's nearly impossible to raise taxes in the US due to the political brainwashing which amercians have undergone for the last few decades. Millions of Americans who are not wealthy by any means for some odd reason think that they are obligated to defend the wealthy who have the means to exploit tax loopholes.
12:12 PM on 04/25/2011
Thank you for this post. Integrity and affluence are not mutually exclusive. As a member of a moderate-income family that will pay more in taxes than we have to live off of after our mortgage and health insurance are covered, I appreciate the candor about the simple broken-ness of our code.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Obama cares about all of U.S.
12:09 PM on 04/25/2011
Thanks for the 'personal' illustration.

I think it illustrates the reality of our tax system in an easy to understand way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scholastica8
RINOS & Bull-Mooses UNITE! People Matter!
12:04 PM on 04/25/2011
Another point that might have been made. If encouraging investment is seen as a way of encouraging job creation, then right now the vast majority of investors are encouraging job creation outside the US, because countless portfolios are balanced in preference of non-US companies, funds, etc. All of those tax benefits for investments were sold on the premise of saving for retirement... 401Ks, etc.... That is a valid point & they knew it & made hay with it, because by selling it in such a manner, it opened the door to no upper limit. Plus, by restricting what 401Ks, etc. can be invested in, mostly relying on Mutual Funds, they diverted enormous amounts of money into the hands of managers, for the use of Wall Street. Then to top it off, they made it very difficult to withdraw those funds. Again, it's a shift in wealth from middle class to monied class.... done very cleverly to conceal the fact.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ssassy78
Laughter is the best medicine.
12:04 PM on 04/25/2011
Thank you for making your point about the importance of collecting taxes and working as a collective body (government by the people) to dispense these funds accordingly. I've had the argument about "selective taxation" with many people. It is fine that Rockafeller's want to create Cancer wards at hospitals, or add wings onto college libraries to commemorate their family's success and wealth, however, what good are these things if they don't improve the common good? If what we need are bridges and roads, is it fair that the wealthy, through charitable contributions that are tax write-offs, can avoid sharing in the "burden" of improving infrastructure? It could be argued that quality roads and bridges actually benefit the wealthy more than the common man. It is, after all, since they are currently hailed as the "job creators", how their labor gets to the job, their products throughout the country, and how they're able to visit their companies. Where did this sense of, "it's not my responsibility" come from? Your candidness is appreciated. Please don't mind that I am envious, as a single mother, of your tax rate. I am currently scrambling to come up with an additional 2500.00, despite the fact I am two checks away from poor, and my rent alone consumes fifty-percent of my take home pay.
12:39 PM on 04/25/2011
Take away the charitable donations deduction, and you won't see very many charitable donations.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ssassy78
Laughter is the best medicine.
02:37 PM on 04/25/2011
All the more reason why we should abolish them. That will enable people to see their true character, and reflect upon the reasons they ever donated at all. If it was just for the tax break, then it was never about charity, and always about personal gain. Selective taxation needs to go. The common good needs to be ushered in.
02:17 PM on 04/25/2011
F&F. I identify with your plight, though my children are now grown and I am retired. Single mothers are a completely disrespected portion of this society. If children are raised, in a single mother, head of household, home, they are considered to be compromised, simply because of this. (This, of course, overlooks the number of children being raised by grandparents.) The millions of people who have turned out to be responsible, tax paying, loving parents themselves, and were raised by their own single mothers, are totally edited out of the picture. I might add that this group is more prone to be sensitive to the challenges facing us today, and see both the inequity and iniquity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ssassy78
Laughter is the best medicine.
04:37 PM on 04/25/2011
I agree. It is such a tragedy that there are so many women raising their children alone, all the while being told they have no chance at success. I would argue that children are better raised by a single mother with common sense and values, than by two parents who fight and are neglectful. With the rise of female headed households, hopefully this stigma will begin to fade.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CPAwADD
Always look on the bright side of life.
11:47 AM on 04/25/2011
Outstanding. You didn't even mention the large middle class tax credits for having children under age 16, or kids in college.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
nastywolf
Pass 28th Amendment: Separation of Cash & State
11:46 AM on 04/25/2011
Thank you for a clear and concise explanation of why we've boxed ourselves into a fiscal corner.
Great post!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sd4david
11:42 AM on 04/25/2011
Wealth income needs to be taxed at at least as high a rate as labor income. The 2 inputs into an economy are labor (L) and Capital(K). When you subsidize (K), more of it is used in the economy than if you didn't. Since (L) and (K) are SUBSTITUTABLE, you will use LESS (L). Thus lower tax rates on capital directly cause an increase in unemployment. And that directly cause lower labor rates. And a downward pressure on wages "eedback loop.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Terry T
07:33 PM on 04/25/2011
How are labor and capital susbtitutable if I want to build a factory and need $10MM?