SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Catfish who wrote (2607)7/30/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (2) of 769670
 
Well Darrell, I'm not an expert on the current tax structure, somebody else does my taxes, but this is my overall assessment of the situation.... FICA was actually increases dramatically during the Reagan years and not during Clinton. All the while the republicans were chanting about tax cuts. Thanks to the increases in Fica lots of people that worked for me had a net loss during that time. I believe Fica is the tax that needs to be reigned in most. Apart from that, salaried workers that work for me paid 28% or 33%, not too bad in itself but quite painful in conjunction with Fica and high state taxes we have. This is a rough guess but I would say someone earning 70K probably pays 40-45% real taxes when you add federal, state, fica, etc.

At the same time, thanks to the ballooning stock market, people were getting rich in equities and not even coming close to that 40-45% rate on huge windfalls (millions). Capital gains tax cuts seem very unfair to me. Why in the world would we make a 70K/year worker pay 40+% and a 2mm/yr investor 20%? Give me a break! You know how to get rid of Fica? Make everybody pay it!

It seems to me if you are going to say Clinton passed the largest tax increase ever, then equal distinction would be needed for Reagans fica record.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext