Dispelling the Tax Myth

[rebeccajo 14]

I don't think it was ever a myth that those paying the most taxes weren't getting the largest tax break. It seems like common sense to me.

Why is Joe not being told that his taxes haven't been lowered as much as Bill's over the period 87 - 06?

Joe is being told that he won't be able to create jobs with a tax increase. That might be true. But somehow he managed to do it the last 19 years without the size of tax break that Bill got.

All the meanwhile, the Bill's took their big tax break and still didn't create jobs here. Instead they outsourced them overseas because OTHER portions of the tax code made it attractive for him to do so.

Was Bill making a bigger profit? Is that maybe why revenue from capital gains increased rather than decreased since the upper tax bracket was lowered?

You betcha.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'd vote for McCain if Palin's runningm mate was half as bright as rebeccajo.

[dalegg 143]

I don't think it was ever a myth that those paying the most taxes weren't getting the largest tax break. It seems like common sense to me.

Why is Joe not being told that his taxes haven't been lowered as much as Bill's over the period 87 - 06?

Joe is being told that he won't be able to create jobs with a tax increase. That might be true. But somehow he managed to do it the last 19 years without the size of tax break that Bill got.

All the meanwhile, the Bill's took their big tax break and still didn't create jobs here. Instead they outsourced them overseas because OTHER portions of the tax code made it attractive for him to do so.

Was Bill making a bigger profit? Is that maybe why revenue from capital gains increased rather than decreased since the upper tax bracket was lowered?

You betcha.

Does Joe really need to be told that? Obviously 5% of $1,000,000 is more than 4% or 5% of $100,000, whatever it is. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You betcha.

[rebeccajo 14]

I don't think it was ever a myth that those paying the most taxes weren't getting the largest tax break. It seems like common sense to me.

Why is Joe not being told that his taxes haven't been lowered as much as Bill's over the period 87 - 06?

Joe is being told that he won't be able to create jobs with a tax increase. That might be true. But somehow he managed to do it the last 19 years without the size of tax break that Bill got.

All the meanwhile, the Bill's took their big tax break and still didn't create jobs here. Instead they outsourced them overseas because OTHER portions of the tax code made it attractive for him to do so.

Was Bill making a bigger profit? Is that maybe why revenue from capital gains increased rather than decreased since the upper tax bracket was lowered?

You betcha.

Does Joe really need to be told that? Obviously 5% of $1,000,000 is more than 4% or 5% of $100,000, whatever it is. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that?

Dalegg -

It's not just the difference in the taxes dollar-wise or the difference in percentage of taxes borne at the present. It's the differences in the size of the tax cuts and the length of time in the study in relation to what has transpired in the US economy.

You betcha.

Every time I see that image a little piece of me dies.

[dalegg 143]

I don't think it was ever a myth that those paying the most taxes weren't getting the largest tax break. It seems like common sense to me.

Why is Joe not being told that his taxes haven't been lowered as much as Bill's over the period 87 - 06?

Joe is being told that he won't be able to create jobs with a tax increase. That might be true. But somehow he managed to do it the last 19 years without the size of tax break that Bill got.

All the meanwhile, the Bill's took their big tax break and still didn't create jobs here. Instead they outsourced them overseas because OTHER portions of the tax code made it attractive for him to do so.

Was Bill making a bigger profit? Is that maybe why revenue from capital gains increased rather than decreased since the upper tax bracket was lowered?

You betcha.

Does Joe really need to be told that? Obviously 5% of $1,000,000 is more than 4% or 5% of $100,000, whatever it is. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that?

Dalegg -

It's not just the difference in the taxes dollar-wise or the difference in percentage of taxes borne at the present. It's the differences in the size of the tax cuts and the length of time in the study in relation to what has transpired in the US economy.

I'm sorry, what was the myth again?

[rebeccajo 14]

I don't think it was ever a myth that those paying the most taxes weren't getting the largest tax break. It seems like common sense to me.

Why is Joe not being told that his taxes haven't been lowered as much as Bill's over the period 87 - 06?

Joe is being told that he won't be able to create jobs with a tax increase. That might be true. But somehow he managed to do it the last 19 years without the size of tax break that Bill got.

All the meanwhile, the Bill's took their big tax break and still didn't create jobs here. Instead they outsourced them overseas because OTHER portions of the tax code made it attractive for him to do so.

Was Bill making a bigger profit? Is that maybe why revenue from capital gains increased rather than decreased since the upper tax bracket was lowered?

You betcha.

Does Joe really need to be told that? Obviously 5% of $1,000,000 is more than 4% or 5% of $100,000, whatever it is. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that?

Dalegg -

It's not just the difference in the taxes dollar-wise or the difference in percentage of taxes borne at the present. It's the differences in the size of the tax cuts and the length of time in the study in relation to what has transpired in the US economy.

I'm sorry, what was the myth again?

That Joe is going to get screwed more in the future than he has in the past?

[dalegg 143]

I don't think it was ever a myth that those paying the most taxes weren't getting the largest tax break. It seems like common sense to me.

Why is Joe not being told that his taxes haven't been lowered as much as Bill's over the period 87 - 06?

Joe is being told that he won't be able to create jobs with a tax increase. That might be true. But somehow he managed to do it the last 19 years without the size of tax break that Bill got.

All the meanwhile, the Bill's took their big tax break and still didn't create jobs here. Instead they outsourced them overseas because OTHER portions of the tax code made it attractive for him to do so.

Was Bill making a bigger profit? Is that maybe why revenue from capital gains increased rather than decreased since the upper tax bracket was lowered?

You betcha.

Does Joe really need to be told that? Obviously 5% of $1,000,000 is more than 4% or 5% of $100,000, whatever it is. Is there anyone out there who doesn't know that?

Dalegg -

It's not just the difference in the taxes dollar-wise or the difference in percentage of taxes borne at the present. It's the differences in the size of the tax cuts and the length of time in the study in relation to what has transpired in the US economy.

I'm sorry, what was the myth again?

That Joe is going to get screwed more in the future than he has in the past?

I don't think we have enough data to say that yet. If the economy picks up, Obama may institute higher capital gains taxes, plus there is also the possibiltiy of removing the social security contribution ceiling.

Also, we don't know how successful Joe is going to be. It seems like for simple income taxes, if he makes about what he said then his tax rate won't go up much at all, but then maybe Joe doesn't decide he isn't being screwed just because someone else is getting screwed more than him.

Under the basic tax plans presented, we've already established that Joe was whining about nothing though.

[NickD 203]

RJ, that table is too good not to share here, so I took a screen shot of it so people who won't bother to click the link can see for themselves.

What this chart really shows is over half the people living in this country that are filing an income tax return, do not have enough income to live on. What about the people that didn't file a return, how many of those? Not good for the richest country in the world.

[HAL 9000 96]

So is it not interesting how a campaign dehumanizes its fellow citizens by instantly insulting what was it- 40% of the population for [ REAL reason not having the income ] to file tax returns?

[dalegg 143]

RJ, that table is too good not to share here, so I took a screen shot of it so people who won't bother to click the link can see for themselves.

What this chart really shows is over half the people living in this country that are filing an income tax return, do not have enough income to live on. What about the people that didn't file a return, how many of those? Not good for the richest country in the world.

Maybe not in California, but you can live on $31,000. A lot of these returns are being filed by people just out of school who have roommates to make the rent. We've all done that. This is not some new fad.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation)."

Steven, can you get the last chart in the article?

A bit late, but here it is.

[William33 110]

One must assume their position in this scenario. more detail will be appreciated.....

[mawilson 2,133]

You have to look closely, but what you can see is that Joe the Plumber is really re-distributing his wealth upward instead of downward.

How so?

Redistribution of wealth means taking money from one person and giving it to another person

in the form of a tax credit.

What I see here is that the highest earners (top 1%) paid about 27-28% of their AGI in taxes

before the Bush tax cuts and about 22-23% after. Obama wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts

for the top 1%, so their average tax rate will go back to 27-28%. At the same time, the middle

class and the poor (who pay no taxes) will get a tax credit. That's wealth redistribution

downward, not upward.

[rebeccajo 14]

You have to look closely, but what you can see is that Joe the Plumber is really re-distributing his wealth upward instead of downward.

How so?

Redistribution of wealth means taking money from one person and giving it to another person

in the form of a tax credit.

What I see here is that the highest earners (top 1%) paid about 27-28% of their AGI in taxes

before the Bush tax cuts and about 22-23% after. Obama wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts

for the top 1%, so their average tax rate will go back to 27-28%. At the same time, the middle

class and the poor (who pay no taxes) will get a tax credit. That's wealth redistribution

downward, not upward.

The highest one percent aren't Joe the Plumber.