Free Dating Site    

Low unemployment, more home owners, more jobs than any preceding president and still you think the economy is bad?

In Case Of Financial Meltdown - Break glass

To begin with, Carter had systematically dismantled the military by continued slashing of the budget, had he been re-elected, we would have been throwing rocks as defense of Soviet Missiles to this day. We were knee deep in a post war recession

post war recession

First of all MG, whats wrong with the rich getting richer, who are you, and who am i ever to criticize anyone for working thier tails off to become rich. So many forget the rich pay 80% of the taxes in this country, the poor pay the least, and the poor get most of the government assistance.

Income: The federal income tax, when it began in 1913, applied only to the highest incomes. It expanded to most wage earners after World War II, but it retained an essential fairness, since the tax is based on ability to pay. The poorest pay no tax, while as taxpayers go up in income, they pay a higher percentage. That fairness has been eroded by successive waves of tax changes benefitting the very rich. At the end of World War II, the top rate was 94 percent — on regular income above $200,000. That top rate drifted mostly downward until it reached 33 percent in 1988, and then went up in the Bush Sr. and Clinton years to about 40 percent. Under President George W. Bush, the top rate was cut again — to 35 percent.

Capital gains: In the Clinton and Bush Jr. years, the tax rate was also cut in half on capital gains — the increase in value of stocks or real estate when it is sold. The top capital gains tax rate fell from 28 to 20 percent under Clinton, and from 20 to 15 percent under Bush, Jr. A capital gains tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich. On average, capital gains make up 3 to 4 percent of the income of taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year. But capital gains make up about 60 percent of the income of those earning over $10 million a year.

Dividends: Taxes on dividends have also fallen — from 70 percent in 1980 to 15 percent today.

Estate: Under a law passed by the Bush Jr. Administration, estate taxes are scheduled to fall from 50 percent to 0 percent through 2010.

Paying less in income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax and estate tax, the wealthiest have been able keep much more of their wealth — and use it to make even more.

Bob McIntyre of the Washington, D.C.,-based Citizens for Tax Justice calculates that since the Reagan era, the cumulative value of all of the federal tax cuts adds up to roughly $2.8 trillion. In other words, a very sizable portion of today’s $7.4 trillion federal debt is the result of these tax cuts.

What makes the tax cuts on the wealthiest especially unfair is the fact that taxes on working people have been going up at the same time. Medicare taxes, in response to rising health care costs, have risen from 1.8 to 2.9 percent, split between employees and employers.

Changes to Social Security have been more significant still. Since its founding in 1935, Social Security was always a “pay as you go” system, funded by a flat tax with half paid by the employer and half by the employee (on income up to a certain amount, currently $90,000). In other words, today’s workers and employers pay to support today’s retirees.

But in the ’70s and ’80s, a change was made, on the recommendation of a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan. The retirement age was raised, benefits above a certain level would now be taxed, and the Social Security payroll tax was increased from 9.9 to 12.4 percent.

Now, workers were to pay in advance for future benefits, with the money held in a “trust fund,” which is “loaned” to the federal government at interest, currently 6 percent. Last year, for example, Social Security took in $531 billion in taxes and paid $479 billion in benefits and administrative costs. The difference was added to the trust fund, which totalled $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004.

The theory was that this extra tax revenue would help the federal government pay down its debt, so that when the baby-boom generation came due for retirement, it would be feasible for the government to borrow money again.

Instead, the government cut taxes on the richest.

http://www.nwlaborpress.org/2004/11-5-04Taxes.html

I'm a believer in "noblesse oblige". If one makes a great fortune in a country due to his effort, then he should be glad to pay back some extra money to support it. I'm not crying for any millionaires, if they pay a lot in taxes.

They've still got a lot left to enjoy.

They also have a responsibility to society to make sure that the economy runs well, that wealth is given to others, and that everyone gains overall. If they can do that, then they've truly earned their money well.

If they are simple parasites that put Americans out of work for their profit , or design bad products, or make a pirate's treasure in profit while doing little to justify it (like those mediocre/failed CEO's) then they create more problems than they solve.

It seems you have mistakenly missed most of the points Montreal Guy made. Perhaps you should read his post again.

mike -lol, I don't doubt it. As you can see here I made a point and yet for some reason I am being attacked for it

please shut up with REALLY dumb postings. The same people more or less voted bush twice and clinton twice...and Clinton was the worst ever. Wish W could go 4-more!!

.....and if you haven't taken a COLLGE LEVEL GOVERNMENT COURSE ON POLITICS whereby you truly understand the fundamental platform differences between parties.....