Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Were are Taxes going to go next?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    Partial History of
    U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
    Since 1913 Applicable
    Year Income
    brackets First
    bracket Top
    bracket Source

    - Woodrow Wilson Elected – D Taxes went up
    1913-1915 - 1% 7% Census

    1916 - 2% 15% Census
    1917 - 2% 67% Census
    1918 - 6% 73% Census
    1919-1920 - 4% 73% Census
    1921 - 4% 73% Census

    - Warren G. Harding Elected - R Taxes went down
    1922 - 4% 56% Census
    1923 - 3% 56% Census
    1924 - 1.5% 46% Census
    1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% Census
    1929 - 0.375% 24% Census
    1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% Census

    - Franklin D. Roosevelt Elected – D Taxes went up
    1932-1933 - 4% 63% Census
    1934-1935 - 4% 63% Census
    1936-1939 - 4% 79% Census
    1940 - 4.4% 81.1% Census
    1941 - 10% 81% Census
    1942-1943 - 19% 88% Census
    1944-1945 - 23% 94% Census
    1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% Census
    1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% Census
    1950 - 17.4% 84.36% Census
    1951 - 20.4% 91% Census
    1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% Census

    - Dwight D. Eisenhower Elected - R Taxes un-changed

    - John F. Kennedy Elected - D Taxes went down
    1954-1963 - 20% 91% Census
    1964 - 16% 77% Census
    1965-1967 - 14% 70% Census
    1968 - 14% 75.25% Census

    - Richard M. Nixon Elected - R Taxes went down
    1969 - 14% 77% Census
    1970 - 14% 71.75% Census
    1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS

    - Jimmy Carter Elected - D Taxes un-changed

    - Ronald Reagan Elected - R Taxes went down
    1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
    1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
    1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 33% IRS
    1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS

    - Bill Clinton Elected - D Taxes went up
    1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS

    - George W. Bush - R Taxes went down
    2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
    2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
    2003-2008 6 brackets 10% 35% IRS

    - Barack H. Obama - D Taxes went……(He promises up)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I was a wage slave in the Reagan years, and the change from 11% to 15% was not a decrease, thank you.

    -ljp

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    I was a wage slave in the Reagan years, and the change from 11% to 15% was not a decrease, thank you.

    -ljp

    I was looking at the overall change, especiallyon the upper end of the brackets.

    Remember I gave Jimmy Carter an (un-changed) even though the cap was first raised and then blown off of FICA, which was a huge increase under Carter.

    I worked in the oil industry during the Regan Years, and he destroyed that industry in order to topple the Soviet Union.

    I am still personally suffering financially from the Reagan Years. I still don't make today, what I made in 1983.

    I have never liked McCain, and every time he ran I worried about the future if he was elected, but I fear for the life of my country and the worldwith Obama.

    There is no way in the world that Obama can come across with even a fraction of what he has promised.

    The re-distribution of wealth alone with be problematical. Those to whom the wealth will go will not be happy as they squander what they receive. Unrest will grow and eventually they will want to take by force what ever you or I have.

    If ever in the annals of time, you needed to be ready to protect your family, it will be during the next 4 years.

    Now would you like to know how I really feel?


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Um, what is that chart in the OP there? I am not following...
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Socialismnormally starts with a heavy tax and then when that runs out and they want more money to spend they confiscate what you have, In my opinion there will be a great sucking sound from every body pulling their money out of 401Ks and IRAs. This will probablycrash the stock market like it did in 1929. Nowit appears thatthey have started confiscation first. There are plenty more articles on this subject so it ain't fake. Imagine 8 Trillion dollars in the hands of our ever wise bureaucrats in D.C.

    http://www.wallstreetsurvivor.com/CS/forums/t/20940.aspx



    http://wordpress.com/tag/401k-ira/



    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread409464/pg1




    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    I was a wage slave in the Reagan years, and the change from 11% to 15% was not a decrease, thank you.

    -ljp

    I was looking at the overall change, especiallyon the upper end of the brackets.

    Haha... yea because the US tax system is that simple. I didn't know we had a flat tax rate. Fail. Try again.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    I was a wage slave in the Reagan years, and the change from 11% to 15% was not a decrease, thank you.

    -ljp

    I was looking at the overall change, especially*on the upper end of the brackets.
    *

    Haha... yea because the US tax system is that simple.* I didn't know we had a flat tax rate.* Fail.* Try again.
    The only thing that is flat around here is your Head

    TROLL

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    The only thing that is flat around here is your Head

    TROLL


    Solid response. I see you're a master of argumentation as well as finance.

    Now to add some reality and so everyone can see that in addition to pulling things out of your ass, you're pulling those numbers off the HIGHEST tax bracket (the one none of us, nor anyone you know is in) and also failed to mention the bracket ranges, which have changed vastlyover the years (both in number and in range), largely effecting who gets taxed at what rate. And also to show just how complicated the US tax system is.

    http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm



    There's also many facts thatyour pre-school level list leaves out. Like the fact that the wealthiest individuals in this country, those poor souls that get soooo over-taxed, get the majority of their income, not from a salary, but from capital gains (which are taxed a 15%) and securities (which aren't taxed at all). The ACTUAL amount of tax a given person pays into the system is grossly more complicated than your simpleton,singleincome taxpercentages.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle1996735.ece
    Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

    Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    To be fair, you should present the national debt in concert with these tax hikes and decreases.

    There are 2 presidents who are responsible for something around 10 Trillion of the 11+ Trillion of our national debt...Guess who?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    codename_47 wrote:
    To be fair, you should present the national debt in concert with these tax hikes and decreases.

    There are 2 presidents who are responsible for something around 10 Trillion of the 11+ Trillion of our national debt...Guess who?
    oooooooooo! ooooooooo! I know!! Let me answer!!!









  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    There's also many facts thatyour pre-school level list leaves out. Like the fact that the wealthiest individuals in this country, those poor souls that get soooo over-taxed, get the majority of their income, not from a salary, but from capital gains......
    Since you are such a simple minded liberal.....I think the following might put in terms that you can understand.



    "U.S. Tax System explained in Beer

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

    The fifth would pay $1

    The sixth would pay $3.

    The seventh would pay $7.

    The eighth would pay $12.

    The ninth would pay $18.

    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfallso that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded towork out the amounts each should pay.

    And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%

    savings).

    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).

    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I"! "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?" "The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" "The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics University of Georgia"



    On a side note...I went to Sportsman's Warehouse on Friday Night and stocked up a little on ammo......Have never seen their stock so low. I think some of us are getting it.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Brilliant. Emailed widely.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    FYI the attribution of David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia is incorrect.

    It doesn't change the content, just thought I'd share.

    http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    There's also many facts thatyour pre-school level list leaves out. Like the fact that the wealthiest individuals in this country, those poor souls that get soooo over-taxed, get the majority of their income, not from a salary, but from capital gains......
    Since you are such a simple minded liberal.....I think the following might put in terms that you can understand.

    Once again, you've failed to take into account capital gains and income in forms that are not monetary. A simpleton, chain email with zero proof of accuracy does absolutely nothing to discredit a direct quote from Warren Buffett or the reality of the tax structure in this country. You fail miserably.




    Single people in this country that make under $150,000/yr are a net LOSS to the tax system. Given your woeful lack of intelligence I'm sure you make well, well under this figure. I don't see you offering up extra tax dollars to help ease the burden on these poor, poor overtaxed rich folk. If you want to whine about taxes being too high and rich people paying so much, then start contributing more so they don't have to. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your services that far exceed the value of the taxes you pay.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Once again, you've failed to take into account capital gains and income in forms that are not monetary......



    Once again you have failed to realize that everyone in this country works for a company or the government, or they don't work and the Government pays them not to work.

    The government, of course, gets its money from those who work as well as the companies for which they work.

    All Capital gains taxes should be abolished. If they were then there would be more companies making money...employing more people making money and the rest of you, who don't work or work for the government, which is about the same thing, could starve to death.

    Those of us who do work , would have more money to buy more guns and ammo to protect ourselves and our familieswith our openly carried personal defense weapons, when, those of you who don't work, or work for the government,come and try to take what we, with thesweat of our brow, have earned.

  16. #16
    Lone Star Veteran Gator5713's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Aggieland, Texas, USA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    I suggest that we do away with 'income' tax all together!!!
    Go to a straight consumption tax. For general figures 10% on all domestic goods and 15% on all foreign goods. That would promote domestic production and our own economy. The 'rich' have more money and thus spend more thus they would continue to pay more in taxes. The 'less fortunate' would pay less in taxes as they spend less... There would be less 'corporate tax evasion' as there wouldn't be anything to 'evade'..... The pros go on and on and on....

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Gator5713 wrote:
    I suggest that we do away with 'income' tax all together!!!
    Go to a straight consumption tax.* For general figures 10% on all domestic goods and 15% on all foreign goods.* That would promote domestic production and our own economy.* The 'rich' have more money and thus spend more thus they would continue to pay more in taxes.* The 'less fortunate' would pay less in taxes as they spend less...* There would be less 'corporate tax evasion' as there wouldn't be anything to 'evade'.....* The pros go on and on and on....
    You assume that the rich will spend their money, when the depressingly small number of rich people I know aren't as spendthrift as most people think (in fact, they got rich by doing just the opposite.)

    The rich have a lower 'time preference' than the poor (meaning they prefer savings to consumption.) So a consumption tax would have a disproportionate impact on the poor and wouldn't bring in as much revenue as the confiscatory income tax.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Once again, you've failed to take into account capital gains and income in forms that are not monetary......



    Once again you have failed to realize that everyone in this country works for a company or the government, or they don't work and the Government pays them not to work.


    Epic fail. Your understanding of economics is sub-kindergarten level. Your statement about capital gains makes no sense, and you still can't comprehend that highly paid peopleare paidin forms other than a straight cash salary. No use arguing with an idiot.



    As for the "fair tax," or any consumption tax in general, people are horribly misguided in their thinking. Rich people do not spend more and poor people do not spend less. Poor people spendVASTLY more (proportionally) of their income than rich people do. Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, spending nearly their entire wage just to get by. A consumption tax would tax these people heavily on every penny they make; while the rich would continue to save/invest the majority of their income, spending only a very small percentage of it to maintain their luxurious living.


    The article like the roman posted gives an excellent break down of why it wouldn't work. I'm reading through right now.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    I know!! We can just have the employers send our paycheck to the fed and they can give back what they feel we need to live on. That's fair for everyone.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    Edit to add something on topic: I think taxes are going to go up. Primarily for the 6 figure+ crowd, but I predict everybody making over 30k a year will get a least a mild hike.

    On the abolition of federal income taxes, at my current (admittedly limited) understanding, and really only in accordance with how that would affect me, I'm not seeing many downsides.

    The last couple of years I got minimal as far as money back from my tax return (I have the minimum withheld -- the gov't doesn't need a free loan thank you very much).

    So, losing the income tax would see me net ~3000/year more income.

    Switching to a straight consumption tax to replace the income tax -- at a flat rate ideally seems like it would help more than it would hurt. If I had the time, it would be interesting to get some numbers and do some math to see where things would be using that idea.

    Tax law would be greatly simplified (wouldn't it?) thus requiring a much smaller IRS, and by that costing the government less in administrative and staffing costs. I'm not sure on the numbers, so it may not work out entirely, but those factors alone surely would help offset some of the problems.

    Granted the income tax may be a necessary evil, and if it must remain, why not simplify it? A flat percentage to me is the only "fair" tax, and the rich folks still end up putting in many, many more dollars than the less rich folks. Again, it simplifies taxes in general -- I would even do away with deductions, just make the tax rate a mite lower to compensate.

    Tax forms then would have 3 sections. 1) who you are 2) how much you made 3) multiply line 2 by xx% and this is your tax

    Again, shrinking the IRS, costing the gubmint less money to collect those taxes, and simplifying the entire mess.

    Granted, these ideas may be WAY oversimplified, but there should be some interesting concepts for minds to chew on and expound upon.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    squisher wrote:
    The last couple of years I got minimal as far as money back from my tax return (I have the minimum withheld -- the gov't doesn't need a free loan thank you very much).

    Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.



    As for a flat tax rate... how much tax are you willing to pay? Setting a flat tax will only up your tax rate, not decrease it. Either it's going to come up the level the top bracket has to pay, or the top bracket is going to come down by a fraction and you're once again going to have to come up to meet it. Either way, you're making a significant move up (unless you're already way up there).

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Once again, you've failed to take into account capital gains and income in forms that are not monetary......



    Once again you have failed to realize that everyone in this country works for a company or the government, or they don't work and the Government pays them not to work.


    Epic fail......



    HankT

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    squisher wrote:
    The last couple of years I got minimal as far as money back from my tax return (I have the minimum withheld -- the gov't doesn't need a free loan thank you very much).

    Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.



    As for a flat tax rate... how much tax are you willing to pay? Setting a flat tax will only up your tax rate, not decrease it. Either it's going to come up the level the top bracket has to pay, or the top bracket is going to come down by a fraction and you're once again going to have to come up to meet it. Either way, you're making a significant move up (unless you're already way up there).
    Tax I'm willing to pay? 0. Period.

    However, I understand that it is a necessary evil at the time being. I don't see how the flat rate from where I stand will go up significantly honestly, because the way I see it, there are going to suddenly be a number of people who previously didn't pay taxes (made below whatever the threshold is) who will be paying them. Their contributions to the overall revenue remains small for sure, but it will be revenue that didn't previously exist (remember, no deductions).

    Plus, the answer to the government isn't more money, it's less government. Hopefully an approach to taxes like that is also accompanied by a similar cut in the size of the government (Yes, I know I'm dreaming here).

    I need to find some of my sources back, but I know that historically an overall drop in tax rate usually precedes an overall increase in revenue -- so I'm not really seeing the problem in having the "rich" tax rate come down overall to the flat rate.

    Again, I admit that I am likely oversimplifying a complicated problem.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •