Puncturing a Republican Tax Fable

[maniclion]

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=118.html

Taxing the rich ensures that we get at least part of what they owe, I mean rich folks have staffed accountants who dig through every letter of tax code and find tiny pinholes to slip hundreds of thousands out of our nations pocket every year. Giving them tax cuts isn't keeping them from minimizing their tax responsibilties for every nickel they can save. They know how to work the system so well they even got a President in to open the largest hole ever. Tax cuts for the rich what a scam. And to think that that extra money trickles to the working class is laughable, unless your the accountant that they hired with their extra bonus to find more loopholes. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice - I won't be fooled again.
[font=Arial, Helvetica][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]"And that???s not all. Also counted as ???small business owners??? would be:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica]--A corporate executive who made $500,000 in salary and bonuses, and who also had $3,000 in income from renting out his yacht.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica]--A TV anchorwoman making $1 million in salary and reporting $25,000 in speaking fees as Schedule C income.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica]--A partner in a national accounting firm who has no side business at all, but who gets a big chunk of his income as a share of the giant partnership???s profits.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica]It???s silly to call any of these ???small business owners,??? but Gillespie went even beyond what the report said. He said 80% of the tax relief went to ???small businesses ,??? (as opposed to ???owners???). Not even the Republican staff report can back that statement."[/font]

 

[ASSPUNCTURE]

this is over my head


but i just want to say, great verbage in the thread title

 

[milliman]

I guess the Repubs are distorting too.
Damn ! ! ! They have a perfectly good logical argument and they have to go and blow it all out of proportion. makes them lose credibiity.


Do you know what the highest tax rate in the US was ?


After WWII, it hit 96% if you made more than 1 million dollars.
Now 1 million was the ultra rich, but still . . . 96%.
Why bother even working anymore.

 

[maniclion]

After WWII, it hit 96% if you made more than 1 million dollars.
Now 1 million was the ultra rich, but still . . . 96%.
Why bother even working anymore.

It only hit 94% on incomes over $200,000 and back then they were happy to since we were fighting a huge threat on both shores.

"Pulitzer Prize-winning tax analyst David Cay Johnston estimates that our nation???s wealthiest households are now paying federal income taxes at a mere 17.5 percent rate, after exploiting all available loopholes. America???s richest households in 1943, after exploiting all available loopholes, paid nearly 78 percent of their total incomes in federal tax." http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/040531Pizzigati.shtml

 

[Big Smoothy]

Those interested in recent Tax issues should look into the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

I'm sure Google will have something about.

Incidentally, Ronald Reagan was in the 91% tax bracket during the days of his acting career. He actually stopped working when he reached this bracket until the following year. Hence his revulsion at certain aspects of taxation, and his monumental Tax Reform Act of 1986, much of which has been rolled back by Congress.

 

[milliman]

It only hit 94% on incomes over $200,000 and back then they were happy to since we were fighting a huge threat on both shores.

Lion,

I won't dicker over 2%.

But I beg to differ that "they were happy to". The US public opinion was that they did not want to get into WWII. Why lose our soldiers fighting on foreign soil. We only got involved after Pearl Harbor. Even today, people say FDR new about the attack and did nothing just so he would have a reason to join the war.

No one is going to "be happy" about paying that much.
How much money did Bill Gates, Democrat that he is, contribute to help the 9/11 victims. Do you think he would grouse or be happy about paying 94% of his 2001 income to help them ?