The political knifes are drawn

[Pico and ME]

Ok, Im feeling lost because I cant find this .....

Quote:
According to calculations at mytaxburden.org, created by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.:
n A single person making $50,000 will pay $605 more in taxes.
n A couple making $50,000 with two minor children will pay $2,143 more in taxes.
n A single person making $100,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.
n A couple making $100,000 with two minor children will pay $4,010 more in taxes.
n A single person making $250,000 will pay $7,484 more in taxes.
n A couple making $250,000 with two minor children will pay $6,254 more in taxes.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

ok. I put in my info and this is what it looks like.

My taxes will increase by $61 dollars if the tax cuts expire. For myself, 60 dollars is not that much of an increase, but if I were making some serious money, then I can plainly imagine having hundreds of dollars less to spend.

If you were making serious money, hundreds less to spend doesn't amount to much. Say $700. Thats about $14 a week.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

My taxes will increase by $61 dollars if the tax cuts expire. For myself, 60 dollars is not that much of an increase, but if I were making some serious money, then I can plainly imagine having hundreds of dollars less to spend.

You'd also have serious money.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Ok, Im feeling lost because I cant find this .....

geez, I know. I've been looking for that too. I'll find it. It's there someplace.

Keep clicking links

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You'd also have serious money.

nod

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

spex

Here is a simple google search. Take it for what it's worth. If you don't like what it says, maybe you can find something to the contrary.

http://libertyworks.com/will-a-tax-h...an-fewer-jobs/

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...owth-jobs.html
Also, I am a democrat. I voted for Clinton. The unemployment rate at the time was about half it is now. The country was able to afford higher taxes.

As far as individuals go. This is the tax burden people have to look forward to in a shaky economic climate.



In January, If the person making 50,000 is paying $605 more in taxes, it isn't hard to assume they will be spending less.

What's striking is the couple who make $50,000 will pay $2,105 more in taxes.

The dispute is about the taxes for the wealthy not the people making $50k. The Clinton era top bracket was 39.6%, Bush lowered it to 35%. Looking just at the effect of this change, if a small businessman nets $500k per year, and is married, his taxes will increase by $11,500. His net income for the amount above $250k would go from $162.5k to $151k. That's not counting his income from the first $250k he makes. Will he create jobs with this additional income? Who knows?

Looking at the big picture, this guy probably owns an investment property in Key West (tax protection). Every time he goes to check on his investment (vacation) it's a business expense, and the cost of his trip is not taxed. Wealthy people are able to hide income those sorts of ways.

The 1950s was a period of low unemployment and low inflation. From 1951 until 1963, income over $400k was taxed at 91% or 92%. I've heard the theory that because of this high tax, people reinvested in their business, through capital improvements and better standard of living for their employees. I don't believe that there is a causation of higher taxes on the wealthy and high unemployment. I believe that an increased disposable income for the middle class will increase jobs. Let's say the man in the example above owned a company that makes refridgerators. Instead of giving him the $11.5k, suppose that money is distributed to 23 middle class people, each of whom needs a refridgerator. That may increase the man's business enough that he would have to hire workers to keep up with the demand for his product.

[skysidhe]

No luck. Maybe they edited? I thought maybe I had been on the Taxfoundation site instead, but they have the same info.

The only chart I can find regarding the above tax brackets is this chart.
http://www.mytaxburden.org/taxbrackets.htm

and this one

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/26320.html

That site is enough to give a person a headache. Where's the Tylenol...


@ spex You have valid arguments. Perhaps I am having selective vision. I am just a{ hopeless optimist } sometimes.

[Undertoad]

From 1951 until 1963, income over $400k was taxed at 91% or 92%.

Those numbers are simply not interesting in isolation.

* No adjustment for inflation. $400k in 1951 would be $3,267,908 today.
* No adjustment for what is considered income. The definition has changed.
* No consideration of taxing capital gains which happened at vastly different rates and different rules over time.
* Different world conditions, changing whether rich people were immigrating or emigrating and much more.

[HungLikeJesus]

While looking for information on Sweden's 101-percent tax, I found this interesting discussion on tax rates and the effect on employment:

Required reading: Robert Reich in today's NYT on ending the Great Recession: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09... For those in a hurry, Reich's main points:
--Since 1970 real wages of American workers have declined. To compensate working families adopted three stratagems: a second member of the household went to work, typically the wife/mother; work more hours per year; go into debt, esp. home equity loans.
--Since 1970 the share of national income flowing to the top one per cent rose from 9% to 23.5%. In effect this siphoned off demand for goods and services produced by the larger work force that was working more hours.
--Increased production from abroad (China) put further downward pressure on real American wages.
(These are Facts, or what American Teahadists refer to as a "pack of lies." http://coloradopols.com/showCo... )

The rest is here.

P.S. I noticed that the site's tag line is from the Alferd Packer trial:

"Stand up, Alferd Packer, you voracious, man-eating, son-of-a-bitch. There were seven Democrats in Hinsdale County, and you ate five of them."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't believe that there is a causation of higher taxes on the wealthy and high unemployment. I believe that an increased disposable income for the middle class will increase jobs. Let's say the man in the example above owned a company that makes refridgerators. Instead of giving him the $11.5k, suppose that money is distributed to 23 middle class people, each of whom needs a refridgerator. That may increase the man's business enough that he would have to hire workers to keep up with the demand for his product.

That's why it's silly to think that giving money to rich people makes jobs. To employers, jobs are expenses. They'll get by with as few as they can, no matter how good the economy is or how much cash they have on hand. The only way to get them to employ more people is to increase the money available to their customers, so a new hire is needed to handle enough business to offset the cost of their job.

That's why Ford paid his workers more than the prevailing wage - he figured he'd get his money back when they bought a car. It works on a national scale as well.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

UG reports that global warming is cooling down because there are fewer jobs generating all that human activity.

Ah, what the hell -- I'll too!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's why it's silly to think that giving money to rich people makes jobs.

Define "rich".

To employers, jobs are expenses. They'll get by with as few as they can, no matter how good the economy is or how much cash they have on hand.

Yea, that is how they make money. But the fact is that many would hire back people they let go if they had the capitol to do so.

The only way to get them to employ more people is to increase the money available to their customers, so a new hire is needed to handle enough business to offset the cost of their job.

Incresing money strickly on that basis in these times will not get people to spend more, they will save it or pay off bills, but I doubt they will spend it. Look at the boondogle infusions of cash in the last 12 years. There was no sudden splurge of economic activity.

That's why Ford paid his workers more than the prevailing wage - he figured he'd get his money back when they bought a car. It works on a national scale as well.

Wait... I thought you said you don't think "rich" people should have more money, and Ford was certainly among the rich of the time.

[TheMercenary]

[quote=HungLikeJesus;699856]

--Since 1970 the share of national income flowing to the top one per cent rose from 9% to 23.5%. In effect this siphoned off demand for goods and services produced by the larger work force that was working more hours.

I wonder if they looked at the time of the Vanderbuilts and others in that period and could make the same statistical assessment. I believe that statistic is suspect, not to mention the author is well known in his bias of the current economic situation and how he thinks we should deal with it. Just an observation.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, that is how they make money. But the fact is that many would hire back people they let go if they had the capitol to do so.

They have the capitol. US corporations are sitting on record amounts of capitol right now.

Incresing money strickly on that basis in these times will not get people to spend more, they will save it or pay off bills, but I doubt they will spend it. Look at the boondogle infusions of cash in the last 12 years. There was no sudden splurge of economic activity.

If you think the lack of activity resulting from those was impressive , it's nothing compared to the lack of activity from the Bush tax cuts. And even if people pay bills instead of spend, allowing people to pay off their bills reduces drag on the economy much better than letting corporations sit on even more capitol.

Wait... I thought you said you don't think "rich" people should have more money, and Ford was certainly among the rich of the time.

And giving money to Henry Ford would have been silly. But he understood that in his own mini-economy, the best way to stimulate it was to give money to its poor. If he'd given himself and his executives raises with that money, it wouldn't have grown the company nearly the same amount.

[HungLikeJesus]

No, no. Capital.

[Happy Monkey]

D'oh!