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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (585720)9/15/2010 6:05:53 PM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573950
 
The AMT is pure theft from the middle class. I blame George W. Bush for not reforming it when he had a chance.



To: TimF who wrote (585720)9/15/2010 6:23:39 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573950
 

Also those past high top rates kicked in at much lower levels, compared to the mean or median income, then the new 39.6% rate will kick in, and the wealthy tax payers had an easier time avoiding the top rates. There where many deductions that are not available now (for example non-mortgage interest could be deducted), and the AMT didn't start until 1970, didn't effect many people to awhile after that, and had a lower rate before 1993. Also other tax rates where generally lower when the federal income tax's marginal rates where higher.


The comparison of raw tax rates as that graph does is a sure sign of a person with an agenda trying to make some point or other.

A person cannot competently compare tax rates from 1980 with those of 1989, for example, and take away anything meaningful. Rates were lower in '89, but as you pointed out, deductions were gone.

Reagan moved us toward a "flat" tax, cutting the tax rates and the number of brackets, while the deductions were cut massively. Other programs like Investment Credits, Income Averaging, etc., went away as no longer necessary. And Ronald Reagan eliminated tax shelters -- so-called "loopholes", which were a huge problem prior to the TRA86.

A simple comparison of the "maximum" rates means nothing. The often-cited "91%" rate was a rate for married couples filing separately -- something that practically never happens. Even the high rates of 1918 applied only to incomes exceeding a million dollars, which probably would have numbered fewer than 100 in 1918.

Totally misleading, but some people are easily misled.



To: TimF who wrote (585720)9/15/2010 6:28:43 PM
From: Alighieri  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573950
 
But the main point is just that its harmful. It doesn't have to be outrageous to cause harm.

Now suddenly it's harmful? We went two decades nearly with it in place and we experienced the largest and longest economic expansion through it all. Then came bush and he lowered the top rate and what did we get? C'mon Tim...more proof of your ideology based bias.

Al



To: TimF who wrote (585720)9/15/2010 10:46:42 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573950
 
Doesn't the 39.6% rate kick in above 380K??



To: TimF who wrote (585720)9/27/2010 4:48:54 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573950
 
Bill Maher: When Will Obscenely Rich A**holes Stop Crying About Taxes?

By Bill Maher, Huffington Post
Posted on September 26, 2010, Printed on September 27, 2010
alternet.org

New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being "rich", or what tax rate is "too much." But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.

And let's be clear: that's 3.6% only on income above 250 grand -- your first 250, that's still on the house. Now, this week we got some horrible news: that one in seven Americans are now living below the poverty line. But I want to point you to an American who is truly suffering: Ben Stein. You know Ben Stein, the guy who got rich because when he talks it sounds so boring it's actually funny. He had a game show on Comedy Central, does eye drop commercials, doesn't believe in evolution? Yeah, that asshole.
I kid Ben -- so, the other day Ben wrote an article about his struggle. His struggle as a wealthy person facing the prospect of a slightly higher marginal tax rate. Specifically, Ben said that when he was finished paying taxes and his agents, he was left with only 35 cents for every dollar he earned. Which is shocking, Ben Stein has an agent? I didn't know Broadway Danny Rose was still working.

Ben whines in his article about how he's worked for every dollar he has -- if by work you mean saying the word "Bueller" in a movie 25 years ago. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's just that at a time when people in America are desperate and you're raking in the bucks promoting some sleazy Free Credit Score dot-com... maybe you shouldn't be asking us for sympathy. Instead, you should be down on your knees thanking God and/or Ronald Reagan that you were lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket.

And you're welcome to come on the show anytime.

Now I can hear you out there saying, "Come on Bill, don't be so hard on Ben Stein, he does a lot of voiceover work, and that's hard work." Ok, it's true, Ben is hardly the only rich person these days crying like a baby who's fallen off his bouncy seat. Last week Mayor Bloomberg of New York complained that all his wealthy friends are very upset with mean ol' President Poopy-Pants: He said they all say the same thing: "I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. But I didn't expect to be vilified." Poor billionaires -- they just can't catch a break.

First off, far from being vilified, we bailed you out -- you mean we were supposed to give you all that money and kiss your ass, too? That's Hollywood you're thinking of. FDR, he knew how to vilify; this guy, not so much. And second, you should have been vilified -- because you're the vill-ains! I'm sure a lot of you are very nice people. And I'm sure a lot of you are jerks. In other words, you're people. But you are the villains. Who do you think outsourced all the jobs, destroyed the unions, and replaced workers with desperate immigrants and teenagers in China. Joe the Plumber?

And right now, while we run trillion dollar deficits, Republicans are holding America hostage to the cause of preserving the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% of people, many of them dead. They say that we need to keep taxes on the rich low because they're the job creators. They're not. They're much more likely to save money through mergers and outsourcing and cheap immigrant labor, and pass the unemployment along to you.


Americans think rich people must be brilliant; no -- just ruthless. Meg Whitman is running for Governor out here, and her claim to fame is, she started e-Bay. Yes, Meg tapped into the Zeitgeist, the zeitgeist being the desperate need of millions of Americans to scrape a few dollars together by selling the useless crap in their garage. What is e-Bay but a big cyber lawn sale that you can visit without putting your clothes on?

Another of my favorites, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, "I don't know where they're going to get all this money, because we're running out of rich people in this country." Actually, we have more billionaires here in the U.S. than all the other countries in the top ten combined, and their wealth grew 27% in the last year. Did yours? Truth is, there are only two things that the United States is not running out of: Rich people and bullshit. Here's the truth: When you raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, it obviously doesn't destroy the economy -- we know this, because we just did it -- remember the '90's? It wasn't that long ago. You were probably listening to grunge music, or dabbling in witchcraft. Clinton moved the top marginal rate from 36 to 39% -- and far from tanking, the economy did so well he had time to get his dick washed.

Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points.A
And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor fag-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died -- which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father's pecker-snot.

We don't hate rich people, but have a little humility about how you got it and stop complaining. Maybe the worst whiner of all: Stephen Schwarzman, #69 on Forbes' list of richest Americans, compared Obama's tax hike to "when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." Wow. If Obama were Hitler, Mr. Schwarzman, I think your tax rate would be the least of your worries.