$4.8 trillion - Interest on U.S. debt

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But revenue under Republican tax-cuts did go up, whether they decided to spend more or not.

Repeating this piece of fiction does not elevate it to reality.

The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950.

[Heracles 417]

More dishonest dems. As I said, they spent more, so the deficit went up higher than the increased revenues. This transcends Republican and Democrat. As both are irresponsible spenders. But revenue under Republican tax-cuts did go up, whether they decided to spend more or not.

You can't deny that the revenue has gone up for all of those tax cuts. Raising taxes does not increase revenue. And yes he knows we're talking about income and business taxes but he's a wacko-dem who tows the line and plagiarizes off the DNC website on a daily basis.

You're missing the key point though. We are in a recession, tax cut do squat in a recession. A recession is a battle of the mind as it is for finances. When 20 million people have no job, with many more millions under paid (thanks repubs), a tax cut will have zero effect for them. When people are up to their neck in credit card payments, because repubs protect these industries in exploiting americans, tax cuts do nothing to assist them. Do you think tax cuts are going to make me personally want to invest my money in the US? I need to see progress and property to want to invest.

The only way to do that is stimulate the economy. Which, like any left wing government around the world, they have no clue on how to do. Building seven new arts centers or paving roads is not how you create jobs. The country needs mega projects, it needs city after city to be rejuvenated. Construction is something that simply cannot be outsourced. This is not an expense but an investment. The only way to do so is to raise taxes across the board. Initially people will have less, however, give it 5 or 10 years when the economy is running hot, these taxes will seem like nothing. And then, the government can lower them.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

But revenue under Republican tax-cuts did go up, whether they decided to spend more or not.

Repeating this piece of fiction does not elevate it to reality.

The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950.

Good job on ignoring the facts from the US House. But you're a dem, you only see the BS you peddle.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich.

There's no opposition from me on this point. Excessive tax rates have shown to foster tax avoidance. As you bring the tax rate down, revenues will increase. However, when you bring them below the equilibrium point, then revenues will also decrease. And before you blast the Laffer curve, this very curve was the very basis for Reagan's tax cuts.

The theory proved to work as top tax rates were brought down from 70%. 70% would be something like point B on the chart and it is clear that moving the tax rate from point B towards the equilibrium point will increase revenues. However, we're now to the left of of the equilibrium point - sowhere in range of the point A as evidenced by the negative revenue impact of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But revenue under Republican tax-cuts did go up, whether they decided to spend more or not.

Repeating this piece of fiction does not elevate it to reality.

The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950.

Good job on ignoring the facts from the US House. But you're a dem, you only see the BS you peddle.

You may not have noticed but the piece from the JEC you posted is dated 1996. Not sure how they provide facts on the revenue impact of tax cuts that would occur 5, 6 and 7 years later. Since we're now past those tax cuts, we have an actual account on what they did to revenues - they decreased them. No "fact" published in 1996 on that issue will change this reality.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich.

There's no opposition from me on this point. Excessive tax rates have shown to foster tax avoidance. As you bring the tax rate down, revenues will increase. However, when you bring them below the equilibrium point, then revenues will also decrease. And before you blast the Laffer curve, this very curve was the very basis for Reagan's tax cuts.

The theory proved to work as top tax rates were brought down from 70%. 70% would be something like point B on the chart and it is clear that moving the tax rate from point B towards the equilibrium point will increase revenues. However, we're now to the left of of the equilibrium point - sowhere in range of the point A as evidenced by the negative revenue impact of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts.

Great example.

For anyone earning over $300K, the equilibrium point is exactly where they should be taxed.

The government is fighting two wars and it has run out of money, no other way to put it. For anyway to suggest we should cut taxes to get out of this financial mess, is lunacy. Taxes need to be increased, tax loopholes need to be closed, Family tax for property transferred from the deceased needs to be re-established, federal GST needs to be implemented and then growth needs to be promoted. That is, growth created from working on desperately needed 21st century mega-projects that will stimulate the economy, create jobs and increase tax revenue.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of construction projects alone needed.

• Renovate the shitty airports.

• Build a high-speed rail network.

• Build nuclear power plants.

• Renovate every shitty down-town.

• Bulldoze ghettos and has-been areas.

• Build modern and safe government housing.

Some certain scary reptile in this forum beats off about the 'great heydays' and how people came together, however, this is 2009 and I am yet to see any of this. All I see is 'my way is better' vs 'no my way is better', all while nothing is being done or accomplished.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

Bottom line, if you pay an effective tax rate of 50% today, you need to find a new accountant.

Let's say your AGI is $500k and you're filing single.

You pay:

10% on income between $0 and $8,025

15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25

28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25

33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25

35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

Total federal income tax: $49,805 + $103,792 = $153,597

Social Security tax: 6.2% on earnings up to $102,000 = $6,324 ($12,648 if you're self-employed).

Medicare tax: 1.45% on all earnings = $7,250 ($14,500 if you're self-employed)

Total federal taxes: $167,171 ($180,745 if self-employed)

Effective federal tax rate: 33% (36% if self-employed)

Now suppose you live in New York State.

If your income range is $20,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6.85%.

New York State tax: $34,250

Now suppose you live in New York City.

Your tax is $1,706 plus 3.648% of the excess over $50,000.

New York City tax: $18,122

Now let's add it all together:

Federal tax: $167,171 ($180,745 if self-employed)

New York State tax: $34,250

New York City tax: $18,122

Total: $219,543 ($233,117 if self-employed)

Effective tax rate in NYC: 43.9% (46.6% if self-employed)

So yes, it's still under 50%, but not "well below" that level.

[Heracles 417]

Now factor in all of the tax exemptions people have here. Students loads, first home etc. Small business owners get to claim anything and everything as 'business expenses'.

A friend of mine working in NYC, on a temporary work visa, is paying less tax than someone earning $80k. Even he believes he's not paying enough tax. I know, someone in NYC with a conscious. #######! Kill him!, before it's transmitted to others...

He takes home about $270k. He gets to claim his rent, meals, car lease etc.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

Now factor in all of the tax exemptions people have here. Students loads, first home etc. Small business owners get to claim anything and everything as 'business expenses'.

Yes, AGI is adjusted gross income - it's your gross income minus all the exemptions and deductions.

[Heracles 417]

Now factor in all of the tax exemptions people have here. Students loads, first home etc. Small business owners get to claim anything and everything as 'business expenses'.

Yes, AGI is adjusted gross income - it's your gross income minus all the exemptions and deductions.

Ah AGI, Didn't see that..

Does NY have personal property tax?

[mawilson 2,133]

Now factor in all of the tax exemptions people have here. Students loads, first home etc. Small business owners get to claim anything and everything as 'business expenses'.

Yes, AGI is adjusted gross income - it's your gross income minus all the exemptions and deductions.

Ah AGI, Didn't see that..

Does NY have personal property tax?

I don't think so... at least I never paid it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bottom line, if you pay an effective tax rate of 50% today, you need to find a new accountant.

Let's say your AGI is $500k and you're filing single.

You pay:

10% on income between $0 and $8,025

15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25

28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25

33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25

35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

Total federal income tax: $49,805 + $103,792 = $153,597

Social Security tax: 6.2% on earnings up to $102,000 = $6,324 ($12,648 if you're self-employed).

Medicare tax: 1.45% on all earnings = $7,250 ($14,500 if you're self-employed)

Total federal taxes: $167,171 ($180,745 if self-employed)

Effective federal tax rate: 33% (36% if self-employed)

Now suppose you live in New York State.

If your income range is $20,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6.85%.

New York State tax: $34,250

Now suppose you live in New York City.

Your tax is $1,706 plus 3.648% of the excess over $50,000.

New York City tax: $18,122

Now let's add it all together:

Federal tax: $167,171 ($180,745 if self-employed)

New York State tax: $34,250

New York City tax: $18,122

Total: $219,543 ($233,117 if self-employed)

Effective tax rate in NYC: 43.9% (46.6% if self-employed)

So yes, it's still under 50%, but not "well below" that level.

50% on your AGI. What's your gross income when you have a $500,000 AGI? Double that? Then your effective tax rate goes to 23.3% if self-employed. Just 50% more than your AGI? Your tax rate goes to 35%. Effective tax rate is calculated on your gross income not your AGI.

[mawilson 2,133]

50% on your AGI. What's your gross income when you have a $500,000 AGI? Double that?

It could be double that, or 10 times that, or almost the same.

For example, I deduct all my business expenses (vehicle expenses, garage, travel,

food, entertainment and other stuff), but as a one-man business, I don't think I've

ever deducted more than maybe $50-70k in total.

Someone who buys a lot of equipment can use the maximum section 179 depreciation

deduction and deduct up to $250,000 in one year.

My point is, even at $500k your combined tax rate is already pretty close to 50%.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

50% on your AGI. What's your gross income when you have a $500,000 AGI? Double that?

It could be double that, or 10 times that, or almost the same.

For example, I deduct all my business expenses (vehicle expenses, garage, travel,

food, entertainment and other stuff), but as a one-man business, I don't think I've

ever deducted more than maybe $50-70k in total.

Someone who buys a lot of equipment can use the maximum section 179 depreciation

deduction and deduct up to $250,000 in one year.

My point is, even at $500k your combined tax rate is already pretty close to 50%.

add in gas tax, liquor tax, cigarette tax, tax when you buy this or that, and it probably is 50%

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

50% on your AGI. What's your gross income when you have a $500,000 AGI? Double that?

It could be double that, or 10 times that, or almost the same.

For example, I deduct all my business expenses (vehicle expenses, garage, travel,

food, entertainment and other stuff), but as a one-man business, I don't think I've

ever deducted more than maybe $50-70k in total.

Someone who buys a lot of equipment can use the maximum section 179 depreciation

deduction and deduct up to $250,000 in one year.

My point is, even at $500k your combined tax rate is already pretty close to 50%.

Your calculation had a bit of an error, though. Your federal AGI is reduced by your state income tax. So, when you factor in 10% to the state, your 500K AGI drops to 450K for your federal tax return right there. Besides, some of your income may come from capital gains for which you pay a flat 15% tax rate. Add it all up and you will never get close to 50% as it is. Certainly not on federal taxes.

Again, Buffet pays an effective tax rate of 17% to the feds. That's a far cry from 50%, wouldn't you agree?