Going back to the Clinton tax rates would be a huge increase on the middle class.

 

What were they during his tenure vs. What are they now? I'm not very well-versed on the tax rate situation.

I have been on the add revenue side of the argument with you, but I just don't trust our leaders to make the tough decisions. So I have come to believe it is better for now to keep revenue low, keep taxes where they are and let this deficit put so much pressure on DC that they have no choice but to act on spending. Look what it took to get this bill enacted and all everyone is doing is complaining about it. Give them more money and they won't make the tough decisions. I know I am contradicting my statements above about the failure of supply side theory and reducing revenue, but I think we are in such a hole financially and it is so apparent to voters that it is better to keep taxes where they are and keep the pressure on.

You guys are missing it. No one but he economy is keeping revenue low. The answer to increased revenue isn't to raise taxes. And make no mistake, when you talk about taking away credits that is what you are doing. If you own a company and sales are down you don't raise your prices to generate more revenue. You take steps to fix your sales. If you want to increase revenue then job creation is the best and really only way.

You guys are missing it. No one but he economy is keeping revenue low. The answer to increased revenue isn't to raise taxes. And make no mistake, when you talk about taking away credits that is what you are doing. If you own a company and sales are down you don't raise your prices to generate more revenue. You take steps to fix your sales. If you want to increase revenue then job creation is the best and really only way.

 

I agree. Hopefully this debt deal helps with the economy and increases revenues. But the fact remains that taxes have been extraordinarily low for the last 10 years and our economy has stunk it up pretty much that entire time. Our debt has increased. Our deficits have increased. All while taxes are low. Let's not go Mike Brown on this and ignore the facts.

What were they during his tenure vs. What are they now? I'm not very well-versed on the tax rate situation.

According to the tables I was able to find....

 

In 2000

0-43,850 - 15%

43,850 - 105,950 - 28%

105,950 - 161,450 - 31%

161,450 - 288,350 - 36%

288,350 and up - 39.6%

 

In 2010

0 - 16,750 - 10%

16,750 - 68,000 - 15%

68,000 - 137,300 - 25%

137,300 - 209,250 - 28%

209,250 - 373,650 - 33%

373,650 and up - 35%

According to the tables I was able to find....

 

In 2000

0-43,850 - 15%

43,850 - 105,950 - 28%

105,950 - 161,450 - 31%

161,450 - 288,350 - 36%

288,350 and up - 39.6%

 

In 2010

0 - 16,750 - 10%

16,750 - 68,000 - 15%

68,000 - 137,300 - 25%

137,300 - 209,250 - 28%

209,250 - 373,650 - 33%

373,650 and up - 35%

 

And those are all marginal rates, correct? So someone making $210,000 is not paying 33% in taxes. Their effective rate is lower because of the brackets below being lower.

I agree. Hopefully this debt deal helps with the economy and increases revenues. But the fact remains that taxes have been extraordinarily low for the last 10 years and our economy has stunk it up pretty much that entire time. Our debt has increased. Our deficits have increased. All while taxes are low. Let's not go Mike Brown on this and ignore the facts.

That simply isn't true. When Bush took office in 2001 the economy was on the decline. The economy was in a recession and revenue was declining. Then 911 happened and it got worse. Revenue bottomed out in 2003 and Bush passed the rest of this cuts. From 2003 - 2008 revenue increased at record rates averaging 9.5% per year. The problem was so was spending because Bush was spending like college student with his first credit card. Then in 2008 the economy tanked and with it revenue and spending continued to increase at record rates.

 

Also saying taxes are/were low is subjective. I happen to think their still too high.

And those are all marginal rates, correct? So someone making $210,000 is not paying 33% in taxes. Their effective rate is lower because of the brackets below being lower.

Yes.

This is from earlier this year, but if true, how can anyone support refunds for companies making billions in profits?

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

 

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

 

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

 

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

 

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

 

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

 

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

 

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

 

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

 

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html

This is from earlier this year, but if true, how can anyone support refunds for companies making billions in profits?

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html

 

A refund is simply an overpayment of taxes returned to it's owner.

And those are all marginal rates, correct? So someone making $210,000 is not paying 33% in taxes. Their effective rate is lower because of the brackets below being lower.

A married couple with no kids having a taxable federal income of $50,000 would pay $6662 in fed tax under the 2011 bracket and $8299 under the 2000 bracket.

This is from earlier this year, but if true, how can anyone support refunds for companies making billions in profits?

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html

 

Financial and energy institutions mostly...and ..GE... no surprises here...

 

Carnival is a dual listed company. So not of all its profits reported are 'American'. It shows up as a British-American-Panamanian corporation.

A refund is simply an overpayment of taxes returned to it's owner.

 

I couldn't agree with this statement more. A tax refund is not a gift from the government it is the government returning money that it borrowed from you. IMVHO they should pay interest on it when they refund it. That's why I would love to see the current system of withholding abolished and make everyone actually write a check to cover their income taxes. Can you imagine the outcry when people actually had money taken out of their pockets.

And those are all marginal rates, correct? So someone making $210,000 is not paying 33% in taxes. Their effective rate is lower because of the brackets below being lower.

 

True, effective rate for Federal INCOME tax can be around half the 'top rate' of your W2 number.

 

But layer back Social Security and Medicare taxes. Easily the FEDERAL taxes are around $50,000 annually. Layer in State and local taxes (2.25% in Fayette County), property tax (almost 1% of your home value) and your overall tax bill is easily over $60,000. And do not forget about the AMT. If you have little or no mortgage interest or do not give much to charity it swoops in at around the $180,000 mark and can jack up taxes thousands of dollars.

 

Personally, none of the major tax changes has made much difference to the actual dollars - as is the likely the case with most people. Most of this is political drama. Use the 2000 rates or 2010 rates....your family taxes likely do not change much at all.

 

What is very sad is that that none this even starts to fix deficit problem. Raise individual earned income tax revenues overall by 5% - an astounding feat if it can be done - and the deficit problem is still a monster. Increase corporate tax revenues by 10, even 20%. Still not even close to 'fixing' the deficit problem. And notice I do not say 'tax rate' but rather 'tax revenues'. Rates and realized revenue are two different things. As I have noted - we had spikes in revenue under Clinton and Bush - under the two different tax schedules. It is the economy and the impact of capital gains that increases realized revenues - the rates were NOT the drivers to those two events. Like I said, this entire discussion on 'rates' is needless drama. Going back to 'Clinton' rates will not kill the economy. Any additional cutting will not likely help either.

 

Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Interest on the debt driven by the first two. These are the 3 things that MUST be addressed. Tax rate tweaking and cutting other parts of the federal budget (that are already scheduled for unprecedented reductions) is folly.

This is from earlier this year, but if true, how can anyone support refunds for companies making billions in profits?

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html

Everything I have found so far puts Citigroups bailout at around $45 billion. Where did this guy come up with $2.5 trillion. Anyone have a link to that?

A refund is simply an overpayment of taxes returned to it's owner.

 

Good point, but still several listed as paying zero U.S. income taxes. If true, I wouldn't have an ounce of regret in closing loop holes so that they pay their share.