Tax rates and informations since 1913

[RossValoryRocks]

Make of it what you will...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Make of it what you will...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Can I have a guess at the answer ?

the periods of growth in the past twenty years interuppted only by the two very mild recessions in the early nineties and 2000 , are thanks to marginal rates being cut and staying farily low over the past 26 years. (Kemp Roth, 86 tax reform, Clinton holding the line on capital gains taxes , and the bush tas cuts-)

Would also be interesting to see a chart of revenues into the federal govt (independent of spending ). It would show spikes three years after 1981, 1986, and a small spike after 2001

Watch what happens when Obama gets elected and jack rates up to the level of the johnson nixon / ford / carter years. Even countries like Estonia with their low marginal tax rates will out grow the US.

[Tomulator]

Make of it what you will...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Can I have a guess at the answer ?

the periods of growth in the past twenty years interuppted only by the two very mild recessions in the early nineties and 2000 , are thanks to marginal rates being cut and staying farily low over the past 26 years. (Kemp Roth, 86 tax reform, Clinton holding the line on capital gains taxes , and the bush tas cuts-)

Would also be interesting to see a chart of revenues into the federal govt (independent of spending ). It would show spikes three years after 1981, 1986, and a small spike after 2001

Watch what happens when Obama gets elected and jack rates up to the level of the johnson nixon / ford / carter years. Even countries like Estonia with their low marginal tax rates will out grow the US.

Yeah...uhh...what he said!

[ohsherrie]

I don't see anything relevant to the issues the majority of the people of this country are concerned about right now.

[Tomulator]

I don't see anything relevant to the issues the majority of the people of this country are concerned about right now.

Well of course not, that would interfere with your BDS.

Well played!

[ohsherrie]

I don't see anything relevant to the issues the majority of the people of this country are concerned about right now.

Well of course not, that would interfere with your BDS.

No, it's the truth and some people can't handle that so they make up cute little names to distract the focus. Sort of like Bush's WMD (weapon of mass distraction) kept so many Republicans from focusing on his smoke and mirrors economics. Sort of looking at the tax rate tables instead of what the tax money was spent on and how it really effected the economy.

[conversationpc]

Notice how taxes for the poorest Americans went down by 5% during W's term in office. But that's probably just smoke and mirrors.

[ohsherrie]

This type of information is much more relevant.


http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Better yet.

http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports ... ug2004.pdf

And more.


http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

This type of information is much more relevant.


http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Better yet.

http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/pos ... &p=4048402

this article - the cbpp.org is dated 2004 (last revision) and deals in hypotehticals - what would the debt be if there were no tax cuts. but you cant do that - tax cuts work dynamically which is why when at a optimal rate you see increases in revenues.

Supply siders do agree that reducing tax rates leads to revenue reductios in the first two or three years post the cut. thats no suprise it happened here.
question is WHat were the revenue numers 2005 and 2006 ( not the debt and what was spent) but what the revenue coming in. If not mistaken I think it went up in 05 and 06

[RossValoryRocks]

This type of information is much more relevant.


http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Better yet.

http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports ... ug2004.pdf

And more.


http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm

You REALLY just don't get it do you?? The richest one percent got back $40k because they pay ASTRONOMICAL amounts of money to taxes. You always point how how $1000 to a poor family mean so much more than the $1000 to a rich person. It works the same way in reverse. A person only paying $2000 in taxes per year getting back $250 is a net 12.5% DECREASE in taxes. While the person paying $1 million getting back $40k is only getting a 4% reduction.

The math is simple.

Again you are getting the whole class envy thing going. Leave the envy behind and look at the actual economics of it.

[ohsherrie]

This type of information is much more relevant.


http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

Better yet.
http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports ... ug2004.pdf

And more.


http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm

this article - the cbpp.org is dated 2004 (last revision) and deals in hypotehticals - what would the debt be if there were no tax cuts. but you cant do that - tax cuts work dynamically which is why when at a optimal rate you see increases in revenues.

Supply siders do agree that reducing tax rates leads to revenue reductios in the first two or three years post the cut. thats no suprise it happened here.
question is WHat were the revenue numers 2005 and 2006 ( not the debt and what was spent) but what the revenue coming in. If not mistaken I think it went up in 05 and 06

It does both. The current is damning enough without the "down the road".

"This analysis offers a comprehensive review of the Bush Administration’s tax cuts. It assesses their costs, benefits to different income groups, and economic effects to date, as well as down the road."

[Eric]

I'm not concerned about debt so as long interest rates remain low and GDP shows growth.....less the latter.

[ohsherrie]

Again you are getting the whole class envy thing going. Leave the envy behind and look at the actual economics of it.

Class envy? If that's what you really think this is about that says a lot about the kind of person you must be, and I don't think I care to discuss anything with you. You keep presenting your data and I'll keep presenting mine.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

question is WHat were the revenue numers 2005 and 2006 ( not the debt and what was spent) but what the revenue coming in. If not mistaken I think it went up in 05 and 06

Tax Revenue in 2003 was approx 1,750 trillion. 2006 revenu was 2,400 trillion.

exactly, same thing with the tax cuts of 1920 , 1960, 1981, and 1986 . cut taxes and you get more money in thee to four years later.

[RossValoryRocks]

Again you are getting the whole class envy thing going. Leave the envy behind and look at the actual economics of it.

Class envy? If that's what you really think this is about that says a lot about the kind of person you must be, and I don't think I care to discuss anything with you. You keep presenting your data and I'll keep presenting mine.

It is absolutely class envy. You rail against the "rich", well they are the people who create jobs. The government should take the absolute MINIMUM in income taxes from us need to provide for our National defense, keep our highway and bridges safe and in good repair, provide a minimal safety net for people who THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN find themselves in difficult straights, and run the government.

I am sick of paying out so much money and watching much of it go to waste by government ineptness.

Your idea that somehow the CEO's of all major corporations are raking in millions and millions is insane. Most people included in the highest tax bracket are people who own small and medium businesses, the ones that employ the majority of people in this country it shows they make $1 million but in reality they put back most of that money in to running their businesses.

Also look at your "source" here...Democrats pandering to the poor with their "report", what did you think a Democrat would say about a republican tax cut? I would be equally suspicious of a republican "report" on a Democrat sponsored piece of legislation.

[RossValoryRocks]

question is WHat were the revenue numers 2005 and 2006 ( not the debt and what was spent) but what the revenue coming in. If not mistaken I think it went up in 05 and 06

Tax Revenue in 2003 was approx 1,750 trillion. 2006 revenu was 2,400 trillion.

"But the economy stinks...we are in the middle of terrible economic times..." ~The Democratic response...

The revenue grew at 37.14% with LOWER taxes...but the economy is in the shitter...yeah ok...all those jobs going to China must have killed our economy.

[conversationpc]

question is WHat were the revenue numers 2005 and 2006 ( not the debt and what was spent) but what the revenue coming in. If not mistaken I think it went up in 05 and 06

Tax Revenue in 2003 was approx 1,750 trillion. 2006 revenu was 2,400 trillion.

"But the economy stinks...we are in the middle of terrible economic times..." ~The Democratic response...

The revenue grew at 37.14% with LOWER taxes...but the economy is in the shitter...yeah ok...all those jobs going to China must have killed our economy.

I actually agree that the economy could be much better...For instance, the national debt is often said to be 8-9 trillion dollars but, when you take into account all the stuff they SHOULD be including in the numbers, it's actually much higher than that. That being said, I don't think it's the President's fault though he could have certainly show much better leadership on reducing spending and actually use his veto against spending increases, which he didn't do, unfortunately.

[RossValoryRocks]

question is WHat were the revenue numers 2005 and 2006 ( not the debt and what was spent) but what the revenue coming in. If not mistaken I think it went up in 05 and 06

Tax Revenue in 2003 was approx 1,750 trillion. 2006 revenu was 2,400 trillion.

"But the economy stinks...we are in the middle of terrible economic times..." ~The Democratic response...

The revenue grew at 37.14% with LOWER taxes...but the economy is in the shitter...yeah ok...all those jobs going to China must have killed our economy.

I actually agree that the economy could be much better...For instance, the national debt is often said to be 8-9 trillion dollars but, when you take into account all the stuff they SHOULD be including in the numbers, it's actually much higher than that. That being said, I don't think it's the President's fault though he could have certainly show much better leadership on reducing spending and actually use his veto against spending increases, which he didn't do, unfortunately.

Oh I am not saying I like what the President has done with spending...it's out of control...this isn't a referendum on George W. Bush...this discussion is about taxes...not whether President Bush is a fiscal conservative (he's not) or if he has done the things he promised in terms of government spending (He hasn't).

The original Contract with America had it right, too bad the republicans threw away that playbook and instead decided to out spend the democrats.

[conversationpc]

Oh I am not saying I like what the President has done with spending...it's out of control...this isn't a referendum on George W. Bush...this discussion is about taxes...not whether President Bush is a fiscal conservative (he's not) or if he has done the things he promised in terms of government spending (He hasn't).

The original Contract with America had it right, too bad the republicans threw away that playbook and instead decided to out spend the democrats.

OK...I didn't mean to infer that you were supporting Bush on everything. My bad.

[ohsherrie]

Tax cuts create jobs?

http://www.jobwatch.org/

"Sluggish private job growth indicates failure of tax cuts
Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?



Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms

President Bush has noted that 2 million jobs were created over the course of 2005 and that we have added 4.6 million jobs since the decline in jobs ended in May 2003. But does that mean the labor market is getting back to normal?

Unfortunately, no. Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms. Last year's 2 million new jobs represented a gain of 1.5%, a sluggish growth rate by historical standards (see chart below). In fact, it is less than half of the average growth rate of 3.5% for the same stage of previous business cycles that lasted as long. At that pace, we would have created 4.6 million jobs last year. If jobs had grown last year at the pace of even the slowest of the prior cycles—2.1% in the 1980s—we would have added 2.8 million jobs. Over the last half century, the only 12-month spans with job growth as low as 1.5% were those that actually included recession months, occurred just before a recession, or were during the "jobless recovery" of 1992 and early 1993.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Copyright © 2006 by The Economic Policy Institute. All rights reserved. "

[ohsherrie]

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/arc ... 01239.html

"Jobs Act Gives $149B to Corporations
The House of Representatives voted and passed a bill that will give away 149 Billion dollars of your tax money to corporations in the name of creating jobs. My Congressman, Lamar Smith, voted for it because he got a concession for Texas State sales taxes to be deducted from Federal taxes. A whole lot of other Congresspersons got pork for their corporate constituencies as well. If you don’t live in one of the privileged pork areas like Texas, you will get nothing back from this Bill’s proposals.

Now the Ayes are going to tell you that 149 Billion dollars in tobacco company buyouts, timber subsidies, and so many other pork provisions are going to create jobs, as can be viewed in the Ways and Means Committee summary of the legislation. But nowhere in the bill is the stipulation that in return for these tax breaks, the corporations receiving them must create jobs here in America. Those corporations are free to invest that money in overseas operations creating jobs outside the U.S. There were many opponents, the Treasury Dep't., all but about 54 Democrats, and budget watch groups everywhere.

What does the Republican Party stand for anymore? The vote was 203 Republicans Aye, 23 Nay, while Democrats voted 48 Aye, and 154 Nay. Giving corporations subsidies to outsource more jobs, hemhoraged spending which is draining the life blood of payroll earnings for current and future non wealthy workers while they move to make tax cuts to the wealthy permanent, are not in the Republican Party platform. Government subsidies to corporations go contrary to the Republican platform which calls for downsizing government, reducing government spending, and getting out of businesses way. So when the Republicans hold their convention this year and tout their 2004 party platform, compare it the 2000 platform and their actions these last four years. If you find you can believe it, your loyalty knows no bounds.

With all those Corporate scandals, Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, Vivendi, WorldCom and dozens of others have resulted in only 10 persons going to jail. And can you believe it, after Enron steals billions from Californian homeowners and working families, the Republican controlled FERC, Federal Energy Regulation Commission, now says Californians must pay Enron and other companie 247 million dollars in refunds. This is outrageous and becoming a trademark of the Republican Party to favor corporate business regardless of harm to the fabric of our society or to working middle class men and women across the nation.

So if you want to cash in on those tax cuts to create jobs, you may want to consider moving to India or China where the new jobs will be created. If you are fed up watching your future taxes spiral ever upwards as you lose your Social Security and Medicare benefits paid for by your company, you should definitely find some party other than the Republican Party to vote for in November.

Posted by David R. Remer at June 18, 2004 05:16 AM "


About the author:

http://www.poliwatch.org/About.php

[Rockindeano]

I don't think it's the President's fault though he could have certainly show much better leadership on reducing spending and actually use his veto against spending increases, which he didn't do, unfortunately.

Um, going to fight a bullshit lie driven war at 275 million per day, is also spending. He and his party and all the people who support the GOP, deserve what they have coming to them in November.

[ohsherrie]

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/09/05/happy_labor_day.php

You upper class dudes feeling all warm and secure?

"Jobs leaving home
QT Corporate Patriotism in Time of War Awards: American Express reportedly will move as many as 70% of its software development jobs overseas to increase profits."

"Moving on out
QT Corporate Patriotism in Time of War Awards: The list of major corporations moving American jobs overseas to increase profits now includes Microsoft, Bank of America, Target, IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Time Warner, Disney, Yahoo, MasterCard, Google, Accenture and CNN."

"Supply and demand
QT Corporate Patriotism in Time of War Awards: An official with Electronic Data Systems announced it will use the economic recovery to create as many as 11,000 new jobs in India."

And just for the hell of it:

"Jobless recoveries
News Item: "The median pay for CEOs at companies with massive layoffs grew roughly 7 times faster last year than overall CEO compensation, according to a new report."
Happy Labor Day!"

"No Job Left Behind
Arizona residents whose jobs have gone overseas can call a special hotline regarding welfare & food stamps, where a helpful person in Mexico or India will answer any questions."

Your tax cuts to corporate America dollars at work for you.

[conversationpc]

Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005.

Flat out fucking lie.

Yeah...I was going to say. I'm no fan of Bush's overall economic strategy, or lack thereof, but this is flat-out lie.

[conversationpc]

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001239.html

"Jobs Act Gives $149B to Corporations...

Funny how you and the other lefties on the board crack on conservatives for "cutting & pasting" but it's apparently OK to do so when it supposedly serves your purposes.

[ohsherrie]

David R. Remer

Oh gullible sherrie.

I volunteer as Managing editor and write for Watchblog.Com. I also function fairly well as house Dad for our teen daughter, while the wife brings home the bacon to fuel my endless need for building materials.

The guy takes donations on his blog. I guess because he won't work. LoOooser....

OK, so being unemployed and unattractive makes the factual information this guy gathers worthless. OK, I guess you're another of the upper class people who think only people who are earning $100,000 + are worth regard. Did you bother to check his sources? Probably not, afterall, he's unemployed and unattractive.

[conversationpc]

OK, so being unemployed and unattractive makes the factual information this guy gathers worthless. OK, I guess you're another of the upper class people who think only people who are earning $100,000 + are worth regard. Did you bother to check his sources? Probably not, afterall, he's unemployed and unattractive.

You think $100,000 is upper class? Are you kidding? My wife and I don't make quite that much together but we would certainly still be firmly ensconced in the middle class even if we were.

[ohsherrie]

Newshounds???

Come on sherrie, do any of your sources work for a living?

News Hounds

We watch FOX so you don't have to.

Love us? Love Our Live Chats? Send Money Already!

Reported by Melanie - Tue 10:00 AM

Got twenty bucks? Got thirty? A hundred? Been a regular for years? Spend hours on this site every day? Every week? Never contributed a stinkin' dime even though you live for the live chats we make available to you when there's a debate or a primary/caucus? Send money, whatever you can spare. For all intents and purposes we work for free, but we'd rather not. Come on! If you love us, support us!

Click the "Make a Donation" button to the right of this post. Relieve your guilt and let us know that what we do, and the fact that we're here, matters to you.

I bet sherrie send these goobers cash. Do ya sherrie?

Excuse me, but where do any of you get your information? Do you upper class guys have an in with the admin?

[Barb]

David R. Remer

Oh gullible sherrie.

I volunteer as Managing editor and write for Watchblog.Com. I also function fairly well as house Dad for our teen daughter, while the wife brings home the bacon to fuel my endless need for building materials.

The guy takes donations on his blog. I guess because he won't work. LoOooser....

[/quote]

LMAO! These people always look exactly how I think they will!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001239.html

"Jobs Act Gives $149B to Corporations
The House of Representatives voted and passed a bill that will give away 149 Billion dollars of your tax money to corporations in the name of creating jobs. My Congressman, Lamar Smith, voted for it because he got a concession for Texas State sales taxes to be deducted from Federal taxes. A whole lot of other Congresspersons got pork for their corporate constituencies as well. If you don’t live in one of the privileged pork areas like Texas, you will get nothing back from this Bill’s proposals.

Now the Ayes are going to tell you that 149 Billion dollars in tobacco company buyouts, timber subsidies, and so many other pork provisions are going to create jobs, as can be viewed in the Ways and Means Committee summary of the legislation. But nowhere in the bill is the stipulation that in return for these tax breaks, the corporations receiving them must create jobs here in America. Those corporations are free to invest that money in overseas operations creating jobs outside the U.S. There were many opponents, the Treasury Dep't., all but about 54 Democrats, and budget watch groups everywhere.

What does the Republican Party stand for anymore? The vote was 203 Republicans Aye, 23 Nay, while Democrats voted 48 Aye, and 154 Nay. Giving corporations subsidies to outsource more jobs, hemhoraged spending which is draining the life blood of payroll earnings for current and future non wealthy workers while they move to make tax cuts to the wealthy permanent, are not in the Republican Party platform. Government subsidies to corporations go contrary to the Republican platform which calls for downsizing government, reducing government spending, and getting out of businesses way. So when the Republicans hold their convention this year and tout their 2004 party platform, compare it the 2000 platform and their actions these last four years. If you find you can believe it, your loyalty knows no bounds.

With all those Corporate scandals, Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, Vivendi, WorldCom and dozens of others have resulted in only 10 persons going to jail. And can you believe it, after Enron steals billions from Californian homeowners and working families, the Republican controlled FERC, Federal Energy Regulation Commission, now says Californians must pay Enron and other companie 247 million dollars in refunds. This is outrageous and becoming a trademark of the Republican Party to favor corporate business regardless of harm to the fabric of our society or to working middle class men and women across the nation.

So if you want to cash in on those tax cuts to create jobs, you may want to consider moving to India or China where the new jobs will be created. If you are fed up watching your future taxes spiral ever upwards as you lose your Social Security and Medicare benefits paid for by your company, you should definitely find some party other than the Republican Party to vote for in November.

Posted by David R. Remer at June 18, 2004 05:16 AM "


About the author:

http://www.poliwatch.org/About.php

This guys a goober. On his website He brags about reading three documents/books- the US constitution and two by Adam Smith. I, too, read Adam Smith's Thoery of Moral Sentiments. I might not be the brightest kid on the block but I understand that texts and any one who read and supposedly agrees with its premise (or whats in the Weath of Nations) woulldn't have advanced the above arguments.