13% of Taxpayers pay 72% of the tax burden

Why do you call it the "Clinton Surplus" when he requested higher spending every year in office than was authorized and it was Gingrich and Kasich who forced the tax rate cuts, the spending restraint and welfare reform, which he vowed to repeal if the Democrats took congress back, that produced them?

Just curious.

- - - Updated - - -

Inability to refute the facts noted.

 

Yes as I said.

DUH. Your point being what?

Since it is your side which harps on the 1% paying 40% of income taxes while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, please state what would be fair then.

How is not having to pay ANY income taxes and in fact MAKING money off the tax system not a reward and a benefit? How is having to pay 40% of the income tax burden being rewarded and a benefit?

Facts show otherwise.

Spare me.

Not necessarily but then I thought you like the idea of those at the bottom not paying any income tax.

Again not necessarily and "wealth" has nothing to do with, government has no business with regard to the wealth of private citizens nor using the tax system to satisfy the envy of others which is all taxing wealth is about.

Proof of what that the high income earners have less of a reporting burden than someone making minimum wage..................again you have cross the line into the realm of the absurd and more than happy to watch you claim this tax expertise you do while posting such nonsense.

 

Who signed them into law? Just curious.

 

Because when Clinton took office there was a deficit of 290 billion, and he and a Democratic congress enacted tax increases on the wealthy, despite the GOP cries that this would bring a deep recession, the tax was retro active to 1/1/93, and the deficit fell, in 93, and 94, after rising nearly every year Reagan and Bush were in office, before the GOP took congress, and it continued falling at the same rate until there were 4 years of surplus. Then Bush took office and we were plunged into record deficits shortly thereafter.
So Bush and the congress that you want to credit for the Surplus, created record deficits from record surpluses, so the congress clearly were there, but they had little to do with the surplus. The main driver of the road to the surplus was the tax increases of 93, passed by a Democratic congress, and signed by a Democratic president, and when those tax increases were removed by a Republican President and a Republican congress, massive deficits ensued.

 

Explain how they were limited? The BEA has all of the resources used by all economic agencies such as the linear model, the stationary equilibrium and various of other methodologies to study the effects of tax rates and capital formation, which are the same resources most economist and agencies have available.

All we have that the BEA is limited is your ignorant say-so...

There was no such paper. There was only one paper in 2010 conducted by the CBO in 2010, which studied the economic effects of reduced capital gains, it there is no mention of the effects regarding capital formation in the entire paper. Not that it isn't already evident that you don't have a clue what you are rambling about, but you are going to have to present some evidence if you want me to take your claims seriously.

That is exactly what happened as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts. The size of business capital stock, both corporate and non-corporate expanded relative to the size of the capital stock devoted to housing and consumer durables and to state and local capital. After the bust in the NASDAQ bubble, equipment, sharply declined. The evidence points to the reduction in rates that resulted in its rebound. This already a re-model of the various studies of several of economics who have used the General Equilibrium Model of Differential Asset Taxation, which studies the various changes in capital investment in regards to changes in tax treatment of different assets and differences in marginal rates among the taxpayers.

I already explained it to you. Are you really that daft?

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=351284&page=28&p=1063810048#post1063810048

 

Maybe you should take basic governmental accounting. The money invested by the US treasury is what is used FOR government receipts for the General Fund.

The revenue for the payroll taxes (and many other taxes), are what makes the surplus.

 

I fail to see what that has to do with how government accounting works. The government also accumulates revenue by borrowing from itself, which is already included in government receipts. It is already false to say that revenue is "money that comes into the Government, except borrowing," unless you are going to 1) exclude payroll taxes from the equation or 2) somehow explain why borrowing from the Trust is different from borrowing from the Public.

I'm using information from the Treasury, which already confirms that the government borrowed money from government trust.

Table 6, Schedule D: http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0900.pdf

As I have already said, it is false to assume that Social Security was the only Trust with a Surplus that year. Every Trust from the federal government accumulated surplus that year, and the government borrowed money from all of them. Intragovernmental debt increased by relatively the same margin as the decrease in the public debt. Public debt decreased by $223 billion, while internal debt grew $246 billion. The money from the trust was used to finance the debt of the public, which indicates a deficit of $17.9 billion in 2000.

 

Draw a line around the government, only count monies that cross that line.
When the General fund borrows from a trust fund it's all inside the line, it's the Federal Government borrowing from the Federal government, and the federal government holds the asset as well as the liability, they cancel out, no money enters or leaves the government, it's just accounting entries, so you ignore it.

 

Tax rates have had most of the progressivity taken out of 'em over the years so it's my guess that the 13% makes about 72% of the income.

And look how great the economy is doing. We don't even bother to pay our bills anymore.

 

Teddy wasn't a Marxist, he was a virulent Progressive. One who significantly influenced the policy of both right and left. The establishment's foreign policy ever since developed out of that precedent, as did most Progressive ideology, obviously.

I'm not sure who you're talking to on Eisenhower - none of the 20th century presidents were great, but libertarians generally think of Eisenhower as one of the better ones. He reduced waste in the military budget, ended the Korean War, and, perhaps most importantly, sought somewhat diplomatic relations with the USSR. Much more of a 19th century Democrat than people give him credit for.

 

Has anyone found a source showing the amount of tax revenues that were collected when we had extremely high top marginal rates?
Did anyone actually pay taxes at those rates or did they use some means by which they were able to avoid the top marginal rates?

Kind of like Warren Buffett, a multi billionaire, who I believe claimed his taxable INCOME is $30,000 a year, or Steve Jobs who I think drew a $1 annual salary, yet was worth billions.

 

Maybe that should be stated "Everybody pays taxes one way or paid by another." If you earn nothing, and government provides your means, then someone else is paying for not only your needs and wants, but the taxes applied to their costs as well.