• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Were are Taxes going to go next?

Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
199
Location
, Texas, USA
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)
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
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
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
199
Location
, Texas, USA
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?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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

 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
199
Location
, Texas, USA
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
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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/money/tax/article1996735.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
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
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?
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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!!!



bush_head2.jpg




reagan-wiggled.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
199
Location
, Texas, USA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
199
Location
, Texas, USA
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. ;)
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
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....
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
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.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
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.
 
Top