Seriously - are there still those on here that hang on to the Laffer Curve myth?

And if the lower/middle income folks keep voting for those who've kept them impoverished for years, to secure their own perpetual power; the cycle will continue!! Add in millions and millions of illegals to further intrench the pattern, and you will continue the scenario. How's that "Hope & Change" working??

 

I agree, people who are middle and lower class that continue to vote for Republicans on soical issues that they do nothing about will continue to be fleeced and have to deal with stagnent wages, lay offs, no jobs all while the supply siders keep cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% when its obvious to everyone even those that used to advocate (see: Greenspan) that it has failed and doesn't work.

So, ace and 2 hump, you both think we can tax our way to prosperity?

 

No, I do not but everyone needs to pay their fair share and if you are making millions a year your fair share is more than someone making $35K. The middle/working class is bearing the brunt of this economic down turn while as the article I referenced points out while the top income earners are thriving. RTS, you still don't beleive we can cut taxes to the way to prosperity do you?

According to my old school math 15% of 1,000,000 IS more then 15% of 35,000, therefore even at that percentage someone who makes 1,000,000 would indeed pay more then someone who makes 35,000.

 

I'll ask you the saem question I asked someone else. Since you seem to favor increaseing taxes, as a matter of conscience do you refuse to claim any deductions so as to pay your fair share?

According to my old school math 15% of 1,000,000 IS more then 15% of 35,000, therefore even at that percentage someone who makes 1,000,000 would indeed pay more then someone who makes 35,000.

 

I'll ask you the saem question I asked someone else. Since you seem to favor increaseing taxes, as a matter of conscience do you refuse to claim any deductions so as to pay your fair share?

 

I don't itemize my taxes. I'm a single man and my ex-wife claims my son so what deductions do I even qualify for? So yes I pay my full share.

I agree, people who are middle and lower class that continue to vote for Republicans on soical issues that they do nothing about will continue to be fleeced and have to deal with stagnent wages, lay offs, no jobs all while the supply siders keep cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% when its obvious to everyone even those that used to advocate (see: Greenspan) that it has failed and doesn't work.

 

Didn't realize republicans had held power since 1973.

Also, is it really raising taxes to simply allow the disastorous Bush tax cuts to expire?

Also, is it really raising taxes to simply allow the disastorous Bush tax cuts to expire?

As a matter of fact yes. If taxes go up it is a tax increase. You call them disastorous but the numbers say differently. Fed revenue was on the decline big time from 2001-2003. Bush's cuts went into effect in 2003 and revenue hit an all time high in 2007 increasing 44% in just 4 years. Now how is that disastorous again?

I agree, people who are middle and lower class that continue to vote for Republicans on soical issues that they do nothing about will continue to be fleeced and have to deal with stagnent wages, lay offs, no jobs all while the supply siders keep cutting taxes on the wealthiest 1% when its obvious to everyone even those that used to advocate (see: Greenspan) that it has failed and doesn't work.

There is a huge difference between wealth and income. Wealth is the stuff of value a person already owns. It can grow just by sitting there and increasing in value.

 

A person could have a huge annual income, but if he also has a huge outflow via expenses, his actual wealth may be minimal or even negative.

 

The truly wealthy… that top 1% holding 38% of our nation’s wealth do not measure income the way the rest of us do. Their wealth is protected with Charitable Remainder Trusts and other financial instruments that are not taxed in the same way our incomes are taxed. Their homes and other property are owned by the trust. Many of their expenses are covered by the trust. AND when a member of the family passes away, there is very little to no tax in terms of an inheritance… because most of the actual wealth and property is already under the umbrella of the trust.

 

The idea that increasing taxes on the income of the wealthy will somehow make a dent in their holdings is naïve. We could levy income taxes and inheritance taxes at a 99% rate on the most wealthy and not make a small dent in their wealth. BUT these same policies are devastating on those aspiring to make a positive financial contribution to our society. Small businesses, family farms, etc. cannot be transferred from one generation to another because of ravenous government spending and short-sighted tax policies from power hungry politicians enabled by ignorant voters.

 

Very few farms under 100 acres are able to be financially self-sustaining. Most viable farms growing corn in the middle of Iowa are 500 acres or more. If a farmer labors 50 years to raise his family and pay off his farm, he cannot pass it on to his children without the government taxing the snot out of them to carry on what their father labored to provide them. They end up having to sell off the farm and split what's left after the government gets through reaming them. This is not right.

 

The ignorance of most our population HOWEVER, and the petty envy and jealousy that gets stoked by politicians hungry for power via votes, has led to greater and greater division between the haves and the have nots BECAUSE our government keeps spending more and more and more in order to keep more dependents in a system that is wiping out the middle class through punitive and short sighted taxation on incomes. We punish those from humble beginnings who aspire to become wealthy in the slow and steady traditional manner. We are making it virtually impossible for more and more to ever build meaningful wealth.

 

So IMO, your burning desire to stick it to the rich is misguided and ineffective to the extreme. Under this current system, the truly wealthy will remain truly wealthy for generations.

 

But hey… if you wanna put your faith in idiots and liars claiming to be Robin Hood… that’s your right. :thumb:

As a matter of fact yes. If taxes go up it is a tax increase. You call them disastorous but the numbers say differently. Fed revenue was on the decline big time from 2001-2003. Bush's cuts went into effect in 2003 and revenue hit an all time high in 2007 increasing 44% in just 4 years. Now how is that disastorous again?

 

What did expenditures do in the same time frame? That's how.

There is a huge difference between wealth and income. Wealth is the stuff of value a person already owns. It can grow just by sitting there and increasing in value.

 

A person could have a huge annual income, but if he also has a huge outflow via expenses, his actual wealth may be minimal or even negative.

 

The truly wealthy… that top 1% holding 38% of our nation’s wealth do not measure income the way the rest of us do. Their wealth is protected with Charitable Remainder Trusts and other financial instruments that are not taxed in the same way our incomes are taxed. Their homes and other property are owned by the trust. Many of their expenses are covered by the trust. AND when a member of the family passes away, there is very little to no tax in terms of an inheritance… because most of the actual wealth and property is already under the umbrella of the trust.

 

The idea that increasing taxes on the income of the wealthy will somehow make a dent in their holdings is naïve. We could levy income taxes and inheritance taxes at a 99% rate on the most wealthy and not make a small dent in their wealth. BUT these same policies are devastating on those aspiring to make a positive financial contribution to our society. Small businesses, family farms, etc. cannot be transferred from one generation to another because of ravenous government spending and short-sighted tax policies from power hungry politicians enabled by ignorant voters.

 

Very few farms under 100 acres are able to be financially self-sustaining. Most viable farms growing corn in the middle of Iowa are 500 acres or more. If a farmer labors 50 years to raise his family and pay off his farm, he cannot pass it on to his children without the government taxing the snot out of them to carry on what their father labored to provide them. They end up having to sell off the farm and split what's left after the government gets through reaming them. This is not right.

 

The ignorance of most our population HOWEVER, and the petty envy and jealousy that gets stoked by politicians hungry for power via votes, has led to greater and greater division between the haves and the have nots BECAUSE our government keeps spending more and more and more in order to keep more dependents in a system that is wiping out the middle class through punitive and short sighted taxation on incomes. We punish those from humble beginnings who aspire to become wealthy in the slow and steady traditional manner. We are making it virtually impossible for more and more to ever build meaningful wealth.

 

So IMO, your burning desire to stick it to the rich is misguided and ineffective to the extreme. Under this current system, the truly wealthy will remain truly wealthy for generations.

 

But hey… if you wanna put your faith in idiots and liars claiming to be Robin Hood… that’s your right. :thumb:

 

Well since over 80% of farms in Iowa receive subsidies (Ag welfare) I guess they should feel fortunate that they were able to maintain the farm for as long as they did without being reliant on the government to prop them up. Right? If the farm is not self sufficient he should just move on to where the jobs are, shouldn't he? (Burrowing from some conservative themes on this board)

 

I'm not jealous of anyone but I am a little tired of supply siders insisting that wealthy folks be given more and more breaks while most of the population suffers.

What did expenditures do in the same time frame? That's how.

 

The cuts themselves were not disastorous. Now if you want to argue that the feds have spent way too much in the same time frame you will not get an argument for anyone on here. But it's goofy to say the cuts didn't work because the feds don't know how to balance a budget.

No, I do not but everyone needs to pay their fair share and if you are making millions a year your fair share is more than someone making $35K. The middle/working class is bearing the brunt of this economic down turn while as the article I referenced points out while the top income earners are thriving. RTS, you still don't beleive we can cut taxes to the way to prosperity do you?

No, but I understand what's being said in the article and what happens when they try to raise taxes too much on the rich.

Well since over 80% of farms in Iowa receive subsidies (Ag welfare) I guess they should feel fortunate that they were able to maintain the farm for as long as they did without being reliant on the government to prop them up. Right? If the farm is not self sufficient he should just move on to where the jobs are, shouldn't he? (Burrowing from some conservative themes on this board)

 

I'm not jealous of anyone but I am a little tired of supply siders insisting that wealthy folks be given more and more breaks while most of the population suffers.

 

Let’s look as at a realistic case study.

 

A farmer in Iowa begins with a small farm in 1960, and begins a steady process of growing produce, fighting the elements, raising a family and gradually increasing his land holdings to provide added revenue possibilities.

 

Over time he accumulates 600 acres of average Iowa corn growing farmland. In 1996 it costs him $1.19 a bushel in seed, equipment, fuel, pesticides, irrigation and other expenses to produce a bushel of corn valued at $2.71 for a net margin of $1.52 per acre. This does not include the cost of the land he is growing the corn on and the home he is raising his family in. He averages 173 bushels per acre. At the end of the year, it costs him $123,522 to grow 600 acres of corn. His gross sales on the corn are $281,298 producing a net margin of $158,776. From this, he pays for his land, his house and other expenses not directly included in the process of growing corn, and provides shares to his now grown kids for helping raise, tend and harvest the crop… all of which is taxed as INCOME by the federal, state and local governments.

 

In November 2010, this old farmer has a sudden and unanticipated stroke. He has not set up a family trust, and languishes in a near coma. The farmer’s kids are told that if they pull the plug and allow their father to expire before the end of 2010, their tax bite on his estate would be much less than if he passed away after January 2011. Being good people, they won’t hear of it.

 

The farmer lingers for two and a half months before passing away in February 2011, leaving his grown kids 600 acres valued at $2,500 per, plus a nice house, barns, John Deere equipment, irrigation systems, etc. The farmer’s estate is modestly valued at $2,750,000. Under the new estate tax repeal, only the first $1 million is exempted, leaving $1,750,000 to be taxed at 55%. Being farmers themselves, dependent upon what their farm can generate, the farmer’s children are faced with a tax debt of $962,500 due immediately just to keep the family farm.

 

Whether you will admit that this fits your mental image of “soaking the rich” or not, this is reality for this family and others just like them. This is the antithesis of the “American Dream”. If this scenario makes you feel righteous, so be it. But please don’t mistake for one minute that the truly wealthy are not basking in the comfort of great generational wealth protected from our greedy little hands in the form of charitable remainder trusts and other layers of security from punitive taxation.

 

So who really has the last laugh?

 

Who really is at fault for killing jobs and the middle class?

Let’s look as at a realistic case study.

 

A farmer in Iowa begins with a small farm in 1960, and begins a steady process of growing produce, fighting the elements, raising a family and gradually increasing his land holdings to provide added revenue possibilities.

 

Over time he accumulates 600 acres of average Iowa corn growing farmland. In 1996 it costs him $1.19 a bushel in seed, equipment, fuel, pesticides, irrigation and other expenses to produce a bushel of corn valued at $2.71 for a net margin of $1.52 per acre. This does not include the cost of the land he is growing the corn on and the home he is raising his family in. He averages 173 bushels per acre. At the end of the year, it costs him $123,522 to grow 600 acres of corn. His gross sales on the corn are $281,298 producing a net margin of $158,776. From this, he pays for his land, his house and other expenses not directly included in the process of growing corn, and provides shares to his now grown kids for helping raise, tend and harvest the crop… all of which is taxed as INCOME by the federal, state and local governments.

 

In November 2010, this old farmer has a sudden and unanticipated stroke. He has not set up a family trust, and languishes in a near coma. The farmer’s kids are told that if they pull the plug and allow their father to expire before the end of 2010, their tax bite on his estate would be much less than if he passed away after January 2011. Being good people, they won’t hear of it.

 

The farmer lingers for two and a half months before passing away in February 2011, leaving his grown kids 600 acres valued at $2,500 per, plus a nice house, barns, John Deere equipment, irrigation systems, etc. The farmer’s estate is modestly valued at $2,750,000. Under the new estate tax repeal, only the first $1 million is exempted, leaving $1,750,000 to be taxed at 55%. Being farmers themselves, dependent upon what their farm can generate, the farmer’s children are faced with a tax debt of $962,500 due immediately just to keep the family farm.

 

Whether you will admit that this fits your mental image of “soaking the rich” or not, this is reality for this family and others just like them. This is the antithesis of the “American Dream”. If this scenario makes you feel righteous, so be it. But please don’t mistake for one minute that the truly wealthy are not basking in the comfort of great generational wealth protected from our greedy little hands in the form of charitable remainder trusts and other layers of security from punitive taxation.

 

So who really has the last laugh?

 

Who really is at fault for killing jobs and the middle class?

 

http://www.cbpp.org/files/estatetaxmyths.pdf

 

See myths 3-4.