This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Interactive Visualization Of The Bush Tax Cut Impact (And Obama's Proposed Tax Plan)
The Washington Post has created the following terrific interactive chart demonstrating precisely what various impacts the three tax options would cost to i) the government and ii) to the taxpayer. The options are, obviously, allowing all cuts expire, the implementation of Obama's alternative plan, and the extension of all cuts. The first extreme case (full extension) will cost the government $3.7 trillion, and result in no incremental taxation; the other extreme - full tax cut expiration, would cost the government nothing, would increase the average tax rate from 20.8% to 23.5%, and would increase the incremental tax payments by the top earners by $372k annually. This will surely be to most heated topic heading into the mid-term elections.
»
- 12238 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It is good that so many media companies have invested so much effort into creating "infographics," seeing as the proletariat educated in our great state schools have so much trouble interpreting raw data themselves.
Why should the slaves be allowed to keep so much of their money, anyway? Sheesh!
I love how, on the the third option, the result is (effectively):
$0!!!
(With a cost to the "government" of $3.7 trillion.)
looking at the top .1% of earners.
.... oh wait. now i get it. 4.4% is to $3 trillion over 10 years as 100% is to $68.18 trillion over 10 years(total earning of top .1% over 10 years) why the fuck did the Washington post put $2,727,123+ instead of the average earnings of the top .1% ($6.81 Trillion per year/ 180000 people = $37.83 million per top.1% person per year.
now if the top .1% really do earn $37 million per year then all fuck get the riot gear out.
you ever get the feeling that for the mass majority of us, taxes are an exercise in creating a belief that we get entitlements and that we should be happy with the scraps. they give us so little and yet most of us are brainwashed into thinking we are spoiled. it is so twisted.
OK its time to check the math. (( skip to the bottom to find out it is wrong ))
according to http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html the top .1% of returns filed would be 141,000 returns(2007 year) so pretty close.
(180,000 people was .1 percent of us labor force) (( also shows 2 Trillion yearly income of the top 1%. but where gonna prove this number below))
(us labor force was 58 percent of us population from from most recent "employment population numbers" from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm )
(us population was from http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html )
but according to wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire there are only 36,300 Americans with net worth of 30 million plus. and that there net worth. not there yearly earnings. I'm starting to think that we really should have a .01% break out. or even a .001 tax bracket.
also according to wikipedia there are 403 billionaires living in the US. or about 1 percent of the American with net worth above $30 million. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dolla...
29 of those 403 American net worth more then $10 billion. its a pretty even curve after that so (5 billion times 374 people give me 1.87 trillion net worth. add another half trillion for the other 29 richest. so thats 2.87 trillion net worth.) now add in the 36,300 minus the 403 , call it 36,000 for easy math. and there distribution curve is similar to the Billionaires (no data point to help we with this one but distribution curve should be simmilare) so will say that there total net worth is 1 percent total number times 1000 * base (30million) ... so 360 * 1000 * 30+millioniars is 108 Billion net worth.
so 108 billion plus 2.87 Trillion is 2.978 trillion net worth for the top .007 percent of the population.
In 1984 the combined net worth off the richest 400 Americans was 125 Billion (266 Billion in 2010 dollars). http://www.harpers.org/index/1984/12/35
and a 11 fold increase in net wealth due to the concentration of power over 26 years seems just about right so work with me a bit.
now to get the other 99 percent of the top 1%.
to get the rest of that top 1% I'm gonna take the 2001 number of 13.85 trillion ( http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10... page 21 ) convert to 2010 dollars and get $15.64 Trillion net worth for the top 1%
lets round up to 16 trillion for some of that concentrating of wealth mechanism going on.
However the net worth to income ratio of the top 1 percent is about ***important number***7 to 1. data not given for the top .1 percent. net worth slightly outpaced income from 1984 to 2004 and will assume it continues this trend so will say in 2010 it's a 8 to 1 ratio***important number***. (source http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf page 16 )
8 to 1 is 16 trillion to x, x being yearly income. so x is 2 trillion ...
that means that 2 trillion dollars is the total yearly income of top 1 percent. we will assume that the entire 1% tax bracket is paying the highest taxes. Oh shit sherlock! This matches table one from http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html almost exactly... (2.008 trillion actual number)
lets assume that the top one percent feels the greatest tax hit at 4.4 percent more of there income vanishes. so 4.4 percent of 2 trillion is 88 billion.
Alright now lets get those 10 years in. 10 times 88 billion is 880 billion total cost to the government!!!!!
I repeat .88 Trillion total cost to the government. NOT 3 Trillion unless you believe in 500% percent annual inflation for the next 10 years.
(math) 880 billion in more taxes from the top 1% vs. 3000 billion from the top 0.1% (article shows).
you do realize that the top 0.1% is in the top 1%. . . right? right? right?
I'm going with my math. fuck the MSM
Now I'm gonna be an even bigger dick to the main stream media and tell you how they came up with the 3.6 trillion dollar amount.
( table one-top 1 percent at http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html ) see the actual tax rate. it's 22.45% for hte top 1%. either MSM or Obama or somebody believe that after bush tax cut expire they will go up to 36 and 39.6 percent for the highest earners(see the pretty infographic they give us in feature article. ) 39.6% minus 22.45% is 17.15%.
let us use that 2 trillion income number again. why that's 343.0 billion more per year in tax revinue. 10 year of that is 3.43 Trillion. add in everyone else and lo and behold we darn near to 3.6 trillion.
whew-but John Forbes Kerry (who served in Vietnam) has had his second wife's first husband's trusf fund advisors put a majority of their money into soon to be doomed muni-bonds that sidestep this nasty problem.
- Ned
The terminology says it all about their attitude: "Cost To The Government". Not "Cost To The Taxpayers" whose hide it's coming out of. Incredible logic.
I agree completely, unfortunately there are no easy answers this time.
Door #1 - You continue tax breaks for everyone (which normally spurs growth and wealth creation) but sadly we are in a secular decline (akin, but not the same as the Japanese disaster). The continuation of the tax cuts will obviously help growth MORE than increasing taxes, but by how much? I haven't found one reputable economist that says the increase in growth achieved by maintaining the tax cuts will offset the growth in the untenable deficit.
Door #2 - increase taxes, this will help lower the deficit but will certainly slow growth in a period of little to no growth. Increasing taxes could easily propel us further into recession/depression.
The third option, continuing tax cuts for all but the rich, will never happen so it shouldn't even be considered. There is no way the Republicans are going to let the Democrats extend tax cuts for the middle class and vote against their own self interest by raising taxes on the top 3%.
It is such an easy political choice for the Republicans, just obstruct everything you can until the mid-terms and cash in on the inefficiency of the "Democrats". Also, if the Democrats are stubborn enough to not re-up all of the Bush tax cuts and let the policy lapse they will instantly raise taxes on everyone in the country, thus crushing economic growth and ensuring Obama loses in 2012.
How bout this- CUT FEDERAL SPENDING 30%!
I wouldn't say no to that, but what's never on the table is ending Corporate Welfare. Get the Corps to actually start paying taxes, end the subsidies, and anything else is gravy.
Corporations don't pay taxes, regardless of what the rate is or what loopholes are closed. It's passed through to the consumer.
then a vat or ceo tax !!!!!!!!!!!
Just 30%?
Someone should start a "movement" with a catchy acronym that argues essentially that, maybe with three letters, like Taxed Too Much, or Too Much Tax, or Enough With Taxes. Help me out here! I think I'm on to something and I think there may be a handful of us out there. Maybe we could lead with some graphics showing the growth rate of government job pay+benefits vs that in the competitive, productive sector over the last ten years, with a little sidebar about how difficult it is to get fired in the one versus how hard it is to keep a job in the other.
Sigh, How about Taxed Enough Already?!
4th option: Gold bitchez, and watch it all burn down! THis is an easy answer, and this option does not require figuring out who the Democrats or Republicans really are. FYI the whole republican/democrat thing is a charade anyways.
Door #4 Start shutting down some of the useless, Dept. Of Bullshit Oversight government bureaus or at least saying "no" to some of the wall-to-wall, electric everything bells and whistles most of those public sector employees surround themselves with.
Yeah, get rid of all those financial oversight departments!
But seriously, thinking that eliminating govt is going to magically fix things is worse than hoping, that is, if you're one of the elites (who only maintain their status via govt teet-sucking).
"Yeah, get rid of all those financial oversight departments!"
Superb idea. They will now create a cabinet post "For reducing Financial Oversight Departments".
@Mercury
the reason i didn't suggest cutting spending (military spending, social security, medicare, etc) is that this NEVER happens. Republicans will tell you they are going to cut things during the run up to an election but when was the last time government actually shrank? Exactly it has been growing exponentially since Reagan took office!
Republican apologists always blame this on democrats in congress thwarting the honest Republicans from trying to cut spending. The reality is this is all just Kabuki theater. Both parties have entrenched special intersts backing them and will NEVER cut government (either on the military empire side or on the domestic social welfare side). If history is any guide (and it seems to be pretty accurate) the only way government ever shrinks is through total collaps (via revolution or debt implosion).
All of you people who flagged my original comment as 'junk' because i didn't suggest cutting 30% of the government are delusional. Even if that is the obvious choice to stave off collapse it will still never happen. With the political gridlock in washington and entrenched political special interests it is only a matter of time before the wheels fall off the emipre. No military empire has every wilfully cut its own power (expressed in terms of military spending). Military Empires always fall due to over spending, it is like clockwork people.
I mostly agree about the growth of government and endgame although I don't think the US is an empire in the traditional sense of the term - or at least it sure seems to incur most of the hassles of running an empire without much direct benefit. Iraq wouldn't have enough oil to lube a bicycle chain by now if a real empire had decapitated it's leadership. Also, the US has sharply reduced military spending several times (and built it back up again) in the last 200 years. And I don't bother with junking.
Mercury,
I agree America is not an "Empire" in the star wars sense (or Roman Empire for that matter). In fact i think we are very much a "well intentioned" Empire (we spend billions protecting the ungrateful south koreans, kuwatis, etc). Still the impact to the American tax payer is much the same, even if we are using our military to make the world a more "organized" place. (safer for some, more organized for all) :)
The "no cost to government" (which is bullshit terminology) doesn't recognize that tax receipts could actually be less despite higher percentage tax rates. At least not that I see.
Nice analysis, but I have to question this part of it:
"The third option, continuing tax cuts for all but the rich, will never happen so it shouldn't even be considered. There is no way the Republicans are going to let the Democrats extend tax cuts for the middle class and vote against their own self interest by raising taxes on the top 3%."
My readings on the subject show that the middle-class is more Republican/Conservative than Democratic/Liberal and "the rich" are far more liberal and Democratic than conservative and Republican. I've read this in several sources (apologies for lacking sites) and anecdotally I'm thinking of the coasts, the city and suburbs of where I live (Chicago), etc.
This is a good example of how labels like liberal and conservative serve to obscure the details of reality.
Certainly the conspicuous elimination of various axes of comparison in preference for a polar division preferably expressible with vulgar terminology (e.g. anchor baby) should make one suspicious.
I can be fiscally conservative (bring the troops home, eliminate the home mortgage deduction, and phase out SS and medicare), while being socially liberal (legalize pot, gay marriage, etc).
Thankfully, the conservative yahoos never fail to put enough poison pills in their platform to leave enough room for the dems to scratch out an existence, but we really get to choose between those that want to actively destroy the US (Gingrich, Bolton, Armey), and those who are too incompetent to save her (Hairy Reed, Plushy, Chuck the Schmuck).
You seem to be confusing conservative with Rinos.
@mnevins2
You are certainly correct that not all of the top 3% are rich (many of them are liberals) but from my experience anyone who works for their money tends to be fiscally conservative. (this includes people from all income levels)
There is no doubt though that the Republicacn party (be they real conservatives or RINOs) go out of their way to pass legistlation benefiting the top wage earners. (bush tax cuts are a prime example). Now i'm not saying that is a bad thing at all (i happent to think lower taxes are always better), but there is no way to square deficit reduction with increased (or continued) tax cuts at this point in our country's financial meltdown.
When you are in a true debt spiral lowering your monthly credit card payment does NOT lower the amount still owed (this is how government accounting works, they never cut spending, they just lower the monthly payment and let the balance accrue towards infinity).
The MSM in trying to spt BO do the same thing as the CBO in this analysis is static and not dynamic. People's handling of a pending tax increase changes habits and generally does not result in the estimated tax being collected. The CBO refuses to dynamic analysis.
Many will remember the tax on yacht construction to raise tax money did not result in an increase but less $$, and the loss of the jobs in the US and the jobs have not returned.
CA recently raised taxes and did not get the estimated tax money.
Hook 'em (oops, sorry),
Art Laffer agrees with you:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/06/08/wealthy-shift-their-income-to-avo...
And the tax on Yachts?
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1271519?
Well, John Kerry agrees with you as well.
- Ned
Yeah, because the republicans are the rich.
Funny, over at Slate.com, they just posted an article with a title something like "Are the rich all liberals now?"
There are more millionaire Dems in Washington than R's. Bill and Hillary are just a few you may have forgotten.
Mitchman
Nader used to say there is a Business section in the paper but not a Labor section.
The entire rest of the newspaper is effectively aligned with "Labor." J-school turbo poets and their ignorant group think lean that way.
The only reason this is a hot topic is because the richest 2% are intimately acquainted with our politicians.
I'm not afraid to say it: Obama's plan won't cost me a dime.
First they came for the fat cats and I said nothing because I wasn't a fat cat...
Don't worry. I'm sure the fat cats will get everything they want. And more.
Yea, then they came for the Not So Fat Cats because they still had something the kleptocrats could steal.
Somehow that old phrase doesn't work so well when the subject is the uber-wealthy.
Super pussy? Forget it. Too adult urban.
Right, because the uber-wealthy are most able to avoid the iron fist. So the iron fist moves down the ladder to those who aren't so able. Notice how there are plenty of countries in the world with uber-wealthy people that also happen to be shitty and dangerous places to live if you aren't uber-wealthy.
The uber-wealthy avoid the iron fist because they are the ones wielding it. That is exactly the problem here, it's a classic case of class warfare.
I try to explain that its not rich vs poor but the uber-rich trying to suppress the middle and "upper" class to liberals and they look at me like I'm retarded. They don't understand that someone making 250k is not "rich" in the grand scheme of things. They can't wrap their head around why the middle class is seen as a threat by the ruling elite.
Liberals have a deep-seated aversion to acknowledging class conflict. I believe because it reminds them that they are peasants dreaming they are kings.
Replace "liberal" with "conservative" and you are absolutely correct.
Otherwise your statement has no relationship with reality.
I wouldn't consider the public-sector employee class uber-wealthy or on the losing side of any kind of societal warfare. If anything it's the top and the bottom classes against the middle (where the bulk of the accumulated wealth is). Plus, given how powerful affirmative action is now - who wouldn't want to be born smart, self-disciplined, poor and African-American? I don't think "class warfare" is all that accurate here, at least not in the old fashioned, Karl Marx sense. We better hope not anyway because those wars tend not to work out so great for anybody.
"I wouldn't consider the public-sector employee class uber-wealthy"
Neither would I. But if you think more than a tiny fraction of public-sector employees make more than $250K a year, you've been listening to too much propaganda.
The public sector in aggregate is a big deal. It's the gold-plated benefits for life (and beyond) plus the on the job perks, the ultra job security, better than what you have healthcare plus who knows what else that really adds up...
A $50k/yr. diversity counselor can cost taxpayers many, many, many millions of dollars over a lifetime...
The politicians ARE (in) the top 2%! With the exception of perhaps Dennis Kucinich, ALL make more than $277k (which is actually the top 1% - http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/; base salary in the House and Senate is something like $174k, which puts everyone in the top 5%).
Well then that makes for one big happy family doesn't it?
Oh come on, Charlie Rangel was just . . lucky . . to become a millionaire as a congressman. Well, there was luck and not paying his taxes. That helped, too. Hmm. Tim Geithner seems to be pretty well off, too. I wonder . . .
More static scoring BS. Yes, more taxes needed. Yes, expense cuts needed. No much actually going to happen. Need. Reset. Now.
Cost to the government. That viewpoint is why the Loser in Chief is taking the economy to hell. The Dims think our money is their money. Been dere, dun dat enough.
First of all the title, Cost the Government, is bullshit. It doesn't cost the government anything, no matter what. If the government simply cut spending problem solved. That is what people do not understand. With the tax cuts under Bush receipts went UP, not down however spending also went crazy which is why they did not "work" which is complete nonsense as they did work, the government is broken. Finally, the WaPo, Ezra Klein specifically, who came up with these nice charts is a complete and utter moron. Listen to them on the Rachel Maddow show sometime as they fuck up the simplest of economic theories into some radical bullshit screw job to convince their loyal watchers that tax cuts don't work and everyone, except for liberals I might add, need to pay our fair share, determined by them.
Can we have an option for "cut spending" ?
How many years will it take to get a critical mass of the populace to support a political group that pushes aggressive spending cuts rather than rallying back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats who grow the waste every year while howling that the other side is worse?
I hope the tide can turn within my adult lifetime.
Cutting spending. Why not start with eliminating the tax deduction for real estate interest and taxes. Their original purpose was to promote home ownership, but at this point, that is counter productive. Think about the government benefits that affect you, personally, rather than just sticking it to retirees and welfare queens. Those are the benefits you should be cutting. By the way, don't touch the military!
While I agree with that (*all* tax deductions should be eliminated, as they are nothing more than social engineering by means of bribing people with their own money), eliminating deductions won't cover the deficit. Government spending as a share of GDP is simply too large.
Someone here posted a link the other day I found quite interesting. If you haven't heard of the APT tax before, I recommend checking it out.
http://apttax.com/
Yeah, can't wait for all that money to go to private companies, like the financial sector!
Anyone delusional enough to believe that it's going to make a difference deserves what's coming; to paraphrase George Carlin, you're not in the rich club, in which case you're fucked. But, if it makes you feel better, continue cheerleading for the rich! (doesn't matter what side of the Titanic you're singing on)
option 4: Begin a massive dismantling of Feral government. Here's a few ideas just to get the ball rolling.
Eliminate dept. of education
Eliminate dept. of transportation
Sell off Feral land, the US govt. owns 85% of Nevada!
Dept of "Defense" - the thieves' hit men... There's an easy $1 trillion right there! It's going to all go under anyway, let's just get serious and do some REAL hacking! Of course, the Tea Party types totally ignore this money suck (because without it they can't readily kill brown people)
T.E.A. = Taxed Enough Already. Nothing to do with race.
The ones I know don't think that way but if you don't want to admit the variety of thought out there, no one can make you.
Don't forget the Dept of Energy, created by Carter to end US dependence on foreign oil.
Epic fail.
"This will surely be to most heated topic heading into the mid-term elections."
No, that will be a phony "muslim scare" drummed up by the GOP.
If you are referring the whole midtown mosque thing, and its genuinely oily imam and absolutely opaque funding, and odd choice of 9-11-2011 for its opening celebrations, and so and so forth, well...possibly the issue got legs because 3000 families of all political stripes were projectile vomiting over the whole thing.
Personally I don't care either way, as long as the funding, for ALL religious establishments is transparent, and as long as a gay bar and BLT sandwich shops and muslim deprogramming clinic can all set up in close proximity, at the request of any private parties that would like to start such businesses.
Here we go again. We know they are going to raise taxes so why not do so by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which overwhelmingly benefit the very rich, as has already been well-established? Why do "conservatives" or "austerity enthusiasts" continually advise us to cut off our noses (us, the middle class--ie, proletariat) to spite our faces? I should probably be for extending the Bush tax cuts, because nothing short of naked favortism of the rich along with a completely demoralized former middle class has any chance of changing anything.
At any rate, they've trotted out some character called "Lamny", whom no one has ever heard of until now, on Yahoo finance, who is, of all things, making the argument that the Bush tax cuts should be extended because trickle-down works! It's really hopeless, folks. There's not a chance in hell the US will ever have social justice in the next hundred or five hundred years. Welcome to the peasantry.
The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the people it removed from the tax rolls entirely, whose tax burden went down 100%. In some cases, more than 100%, since they now receive "refundable credits" from the government. The tax code is more progressive after Bush, not less, as the richest percentile's share of the overall tax burden is bad. But I agree with you--we'll never have social justice as long as success is punished and half of the society consumes federal services without paying their fair share.
Nonsense.
What part's "nonsense?" The part where I said the U.S. tax code is more progressive now? That's a fact. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/20/cbo-rich-got-richer-paid...
What about the part where people were removed from the tax rolls entirely? Also a fact. Bush removed 7.8 million families from the tax rolls, i.e., their tax burden was reduced by 100%. Around 40% of Americans pay no tax under the Bush tax cuts.
You can have your own opinion about whether or not that's a bad thing or a good thing (I think it is a bad thing--everyone needs to have skin in the game, so to speak), but you can't simply pretend that it's not true. You know what they say about having your own facts.
Are you aware that the "news organization" you cited is owned by a billionaire cult leader? It's very obviously a vehicle for propaganda, it's never turned a profit and has in fact lost an estimated $2 billion over the past decade.
Are you aware that the blog on which you posted is owned by someone who was sanctioned by FINRA for insider trading???
/sarcasm
I'm guessing you are looking at something like percentage tax reduction vs gross income on a tax bracket group basis. However, if you just look at the overpayments of tax at each income level, say in increments of $10000, you will easily see that the lion's share of the actual cash benefits at each level amount to a huge transfer of wealth to the elite. Make a pie chart of the aforementioned $10000 increments, ie, those earning $10000 to $20000, those earning 20000 to $30000 and so on and will easily see that the overpayments of tax due to the Bush tax cut benefit overwhelmingly the top 1% of taxpayers on an individual basis--ie, your tax and my tax, not the total tax of the group we are in. Do not try to distort this argument by saying that because there are more taxpayers earning below $100000, for instance, they receive the bulk of the overpayments. We are interested in the actual dollar amount of tax impact at each level for individual taxpayers.
It's evident that you don't read critically your sources or you don't understand basic arithmetic or both. Alternatively, you are a shill for the rich or think aping their attitudes will cause them to smile municifantly on your abject groveling and throw some crumbs under the table for you. If it is the latter, I suggest at least questioning that attitude, or later in life you will end up a bitter old person.
By the way, I'm under no illusions that any arguments for social justice will prevail. In that sense you have already won the argument even if you say nothing, so be of good cheer.
You apologists for the rich just never cease to amaze me.
The only time in US history that the US govt DIDN'T raise taxes during time of war and you people, now that the bill is coming due, continue to try and ditch this. It's too late, it was stupid-ass tax cuts that helped sink things this low to begin with. NOTE: I'm far too wise to assume that it wouldn't end up any other way- this is empire collapse, wrought by crusades abroad, entanglements with foreign governments: yeah, there actually was something to what those rich elitists who wrote up our constutution had to say.
Where, again, did all those billions go in those bailouts? And the trillions that pour through the Dept of "Defense?"
What country are you going to move to?
Ever been hired by a poor person?
Absolutely! According to the SBA, half of all workers in the US are employed by small businesses: http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf. If you think those folks are rich, well...
"apologists for the rich" These are "good Samaritans" for the rich. When John D Rockefeller descends from the heavens in glory in His second coming, these are the very people who will sit at His right hand side! Heaven will be populated by folks from the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, etc.
"The tax code is more progressive after Bush, not less, as the richest percentile's share of the overall tax burden is bad. "
If the richest percentile's share of the overall tax burden increased under Bush it's not because the tax code was more progressive, but because the richest percentile's share of the overall income increased far more than their overall share of the tax burden :
between 2002-2007 the top 1% took 2/3rd of the overall income growth of the entire nation. The bottom 99% took only 1/3.
Think about it, there's a pie and 100 people in a room. They play a game and the most succesful one of them gets 2/3 of the pie and the other 99 get to share the remaining 1/3; And that's what you call "punishing success" ?
It's a pity that so much energy is spent arguing among ourselves. Divide and conquer is the master plan and it's up and running at full throttle.
Yours is the smartest comment so far...
Falling for politics is the kool-aid. Drink up.
Amen bitchez
"It's a pity that so much energy is spent arguing among ourselves. Divide and conquer is the master plan and it's up and running at full throttle."
+1
So, if you make 40K and currently pay an effective tax rate of say $2,000. With the elimination of the 10% on the amount say of over $20,000, you now pay 15% so your tax bill increases to $3000. So your tax results in having $1000 less to spend.
Hey pal! That's the government's thousand dollars. I'm sure they're much smarter than any mere <snicker> citizen and know better how to spend it.
The graph is misleading, both in scale and in how the hikes are presented. For instance, in the 112K+ trace, the actual increase in your tax bill is (28.3-25)/25*100 = 13.2%. If the Washington Compost put it THAT way, serfdom might not think that it's "no big deal".
I fucking hate the establishment with every bone in my body.
Skip the rage. Get yourself together and prepare. Your being distracted by anger is counter-productive. Be proactive and make your efforts count by bringing down the existing system. Surreptitiously, to be sure, so that you can live to fight another day.
Just look to operate outside of it. As Buckminster Fuller said:
"You never change anything by fighting the existing. To change something, build a new model and make the existing obsolete."
.
I know you mean well RockyRaccoon but rage is what we need now more than ever before.
Constructive rage that is. Good night.
Yeah, anger is a good place to start, but one must progress to action. I'm of the "Don't get mad -- get even" school. At some point all methods become acceptable, nay, encouraged. We've been beaten into submission with our own systems and tools. Fight back with heavier hardware. The big boyz have not only killed the goose that layed the golden eggs, they now plan to eat it as well. Whatcha gonna do about it? Get angrier?
"Skip the rage. Get yourself together and prepare. Your being distracted by anger is counter-productive. Be proactive and make your efforts count by bringing down the existing system. Surreptitiously, to be sure, so that you can live to fight another day."
Yes.
deleted by poster for failing basic math. (i got it eventually)
How about this: Static analysis is bullshit.
Just free relating riff on that comment: Laffer Curve
From anger comes division, or action. Let's go with action.
And one day it's in the newspapers how a team of men wearing black had stormed through a better neighborhood and a luxury car dealership slamming baseball bats against the front bumpers of cars so the airbags would explode in a powdery mess with their car alarms screaming. - Fight Club (The book - not to be confused with ZH.)
Ridiculous Visualization.
For example, the capital gains and dividends tax increases 0.1% for the top middle 20%???
How is that calculated - is it because the top middle 20% are earning close to nothing in cg and dividens anyway?
And, for good measure, I'd like to see a pie chart showing what income group pays what percentage of overall taxes for each of the 3 options.
Another poster commented recently on the taxing of money as an alternative to a consumption tax...or individual/corporate taxes....
This would be cash in an account .....borrowed or not....
The rate would be ie 40 basis points per month....
...............................................
THIS may just be a better solution....in addition to limiting the size of government ....ie not greater than 10% ....by a specific date....
This would be progressive and as broad based as it gets....and minimized as to its effects.....versus other options....
I already moved our household income lower enough in total so to defend against rising taxes. According to this interactive chart, our gross is low enough not to really matter. Now dear Uncle Sam will get a few more dollars each year if the Bush Tax Cuts expire. I don't mind at all.
Had we stayed at our old gross income it will definately hurt us in the thousands of dollars in new taxes to pay each year.
It's my State that I worry about. The Taxes have increased an order or two of magnitude in the last 10 years and no end in sight as medicare and unemployment burden the state and add to our deficit.
The Government is going to face increasing expenses on our existing Federal Debt should interest rates start to rise. You can probably sink all the wealth and income from all working americans into this pit and still not stay ahead and pay down this growing monster of a debt.
What about all those 99'ers on unemployment? Don't they have to pay taxes too?
I would also eliminate the ceiling and exemption for SS taxes, but I am OK with this. Looks good to me.
Ordinary is the farewell show of the arrogance of ignorance of the deep after. It is thepandora jewellery 's Day surprise for you, ordinary life, this is not a dim light is not put out the fire of life, not aloof indifference. pandora bracelets is an extraordinary kaleidoscope of each, left for each ordinary fresh, the sun lights up for each ordinary world of a bright. It is composed of countless ordinary days of our life colorful is composed of numerous days of this magnificent world. pandoraallows you to become a stage of life the pursuit of that thrilling scene at the same time,
or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down Jo me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.
Go when he was blown down in the taxi , my friend pandorasaid, smiling ? he can't concern you. i asked, and you think of him? she said, very handsome, and he said, feeling a bit embarrassed. and he gave my favorite pandora bracelets and then received his letter ? good night, and dream about. every time i came home, the stale is the air was saturated pandora jewelrywith mud, "the fragrant?There is the sea salt wet, in the city,
yes and all the queer little streets and pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used
"terrific interactive visualization" You're hitting bottom. This is a piece of garbage.
Circles are used to visualize amounts, but the amount is used as the diameter instead of the area. Thus the display exaggerates the actual amount by pi r2.
How to Lie with Statistics - A classic
+1 !!
Having reviewed the article, I found it lacking. First, what are there assumptions for economic growth? Second, as tax increases lead to the suppression of income, how is that factored in?
To put it simply, a static model of a complex issue that is based on faulty assumptions. Worthless.
I was thinking the same while looking at the chart. I'm thinking, "What is the real-world impact on the broader economy, not just the government balance sheet, for each of these options?" It most certainly would not be equal in any of the three cases.
I'm not smart enough to figure out which of the options would produce better results. But without a good-faith attempt to reasonably estimate those outcomes -- based on an economy at stalling speed -- the chart seems like a lot of good masturbation wasted.
How about ... If you dont pay income tax, you dont get to vote
Every tax that treats individuals differently is automatically unfair. Therefore there is none of these plans that do anything but keep all the class warriors armed to the teeth.
Rather than tax that tiny little slice lovingly called "Adjusted Gross Income" we should have a real-time scoring based on the actual use of the monetary system.
Pay to play, baby. It's a casino-gulag economy, so civil war all you like about marginal rates. When GS is paying 1% it's as obvious that it's all the same rigging going on.
Something close to $4Q sloshes around every year to generate $15T in GDP. Yeah, that's a .375% return. And a portion of that is what is actually taxed.
Burn it all. All taxes are evil, unfair and a drag. User fee on money. Don't want to pay? Let it sit. Want to play? Ante up. .0049 rake. Half sit out? $10T is a good start to pay off the debt.
But every single mother loving last one of those social-engineering tweaks to the tax code have to leave with the bastards twiddling the knobs they were never supposed to have, anyway.
Real-time numbers and total anonymity, bitches. If you can't come up with something that puts the IRS out of business, your little echo chamber box is drinking that communist manifesto, high fructose, colored starlink juice.
Oops! replied to wrong post. Gotta quit this early morning drinking...
Reposting this, yes, even in the same thread, great idea that I hadn't previously heard of.
http://apttax.com/
There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration.I read and understand the entire article and I really enjoyed it to be honest.
virtual server hosting
windows 2008 vps hosting
mssql hosting
windows vps server