| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/29 |
| 2003/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:29216 Activity:insanely high |
8/1 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0115-05.htm How the Bush Tax Cuts really break down. \_ What an idiot. You mean people who make $1 million+ get much more back than people who make less than $10,000? Wow, what a surprise. Hey, what precisely is the average tax burden of someone making less than $10,000? Moron. \_ Do yourself a favor and actually track down the statistics of who pays income taxes and the distribution of rates. What you posted in partisan vitrol - it only reveals how irrational you are. \_ And do yourself a favor and track down who really pays social security tax, sales tax, etc. \_ Here ya go, somehow I doubt you care, you much rather demagogue and assuage your liberal guilt: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/sitemap.cfm#overview This is Brookings Inst, so it is still left of center. Exactly how do you think this country survived until Wilson had the 16th Amendment passed? One does not tax yourself into prosperity - in order to increase economic prosperity we need to make it cheaper to do business in America. This entails eliminating taxes and government restriction. \_ iraq, liberia, most of the former soviet union have no ability to collect taxes and no government restriction, you should move there. \_ You only included federal taxes. This is state tax in CA: http://www.cbp.org/2002/qh020415.htm One cannot "tax cut" youself into prosperity either. Look at the countries with the lowest tax rates, they are hardly examples of prosperity. I think we can agree there is a golden mean, somewhere between nothing and everything, that the State should take. \_ Yes but you're making the common mistake of seeing causality in cases where there is none. There are many countries with low taxes doing very well, but one assumes a minimum degree of economic, social and political stability before this is applicable. Monaco, Luxembourg, the UK (compared to Germany and France), and Switzerland have at least relatively low taxes and show higher degrees of growth and investment than their neighbors. Germany recently cut both business and personal income taxes and noticed a strong surge in growth and job creation. -John \_ The fastest growing economies in Western Europe, Ireland, Norway and Luxemborg, are all high tax states, at least for individuals. They all have low corporate tax though, so there might be something there. \_ Don't forget to lower minimum wage! Also, make sure to let the largest corporations import their work force and set up tax shelters so we don't have to deal with those pesky unions and accountants. \_ In order to prosper in America, we need to round up all the scared little white men like you and castrate them. \_ Hmm lets consider the contributions to modern civilization. I sense race envy. Your very presence in this country exposes your hypocrisy. \_ How do you know? Perhaps its a part of a nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion to infiltrate your country and impregnate your women. \_ Yes, but that's stupid, so I'm not overly worried. \_ You are far to easy to troll, but then that may be because you too are in fact a troll. \_ Having done plenty of fact-checking on Ivins, I can't believe anyone listens to her anymore. She's her own little New York Times. \- ivins is a dumb cow. she's certainly not politically insightful but the amazing thing is she's not funny. she and andy rooney should be tied together and floated out to sea. ALFRANKEN at least can be pretty funny. --psb \_ The Mobile Uplink Unit finds truth where others fear to tread. -John |
| 5/29 |
|
| www.commondreams.org/views03/0115-05.htm I grant you, the overall effect is pretty spectacular, too -- a plan that has almost no stimulative effect but still opens a future of zillion-dollar deficits to drag down the economy. That's the back-asswards of what we need, but it's not the fun part. Look at these goodies: Think because you have money in the stock market you might have a stake in eliminating the dividend tax, the centerpiece of the president's tax cut -- $300 billion over 10 years? The money in your 401K from both savings and dividends are tax sheltered until you withdraw the money -- then all of it gets taxed as ordinary income. You don't get any tax break on your dividends -- that only goes to the investor class. According to Kevin Phillips, 1 percent of investors pocketed 42 percent of the stock-market gains between 1989 and 1997, while the top 10 percent of the population took 86 percent. According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the effect of eliminating dividend taxation is that the average benefit for those making less than $10,000 would be $6, and average benefit for those making more than $1 million would be $45,098. Quick, high-schoolers, let's practice up for the those SATs by figuring out by what percentage $45,098 is bigger than $6. Bush also wants to accelerate the income-tax cuts slated for 2006. The top 5 percent of taxpayers would get 70 percent of the benefits on that one. One of those people who can't handle numbers, need something visual to work with? You can bareley see the lines that measure the relief until you get above the 99th percentile. Naturally there will be a lot of spinning on these tax cuts in the weeks ahead, with numbers being tossed around like confetti. We'll probably need John Paulos, the innumeracy guy, to referee. Speaking of damn lies and statistics, one of the little games being played in Washington is that the Republicans want to switch to Enron accounting on the economy. They're leaning on both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to change the way they make their economic estimates. According to the R's, "static scoring" -- as opposed to your "dynamic scoring" -- overestimates the cost of tax cuts by ignoring their role in boosting economic growth. Bring on Arthur Andersen and mark-to-market accounting -- that'll perk up the economy. The only good part of the Bush's tax cut plan is the $400 increase in the tax credit per child -- at least that spreads it around a little. Naturally, that's the one part of the plan right-wingers hate. As we all wade into these numerical battles over exactly how much of this tax cut goes to the very rich, the more fundamental question is whether it's a good idea -- either economically, or in terms of social justice, to have the very rich get very much richer than they already are. Contrary to the paranoid fantasists on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, populists are not motivated by some burning resentment of the rich -- we don't spend our lives in an envious funk that someone else is better off than we are. According to the Houston Chronicle, just 48 wealthy Texas families provided more than half the campaign funds for the major Republican state candidates this fall. How dumb do you have to be not to be able to connect the dots here? Law, policy and regulation are consistently shaped to favor the rich over the rest of us, and that, dammit, is not fair, it is not right, it is not the country we want and for which we are asked to sacrifice. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Common Dreams 19 NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. |
| www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/sitemap.cfm#overview State | 10 International | 11 Links 12 Tax Facts Home Page 13 Tax Policy Center Home Page 14 Sitemap 15 Contact Us Tax Facts columns Brief 16 Tax Policy Center columns in Tax Notes magazine provide explanations of Tax Facts data and current tax policy issues. Gale (Tax Break) 20 Short-Term Stimulus, Long-Term Growth, and JGTRRA William G. |
| www.cbp.org/2002/qh020415.htm The total tax burden on California's families is a function of the state's highly progressive personal income tax and regressive sales and excise taxes. Households also bear a share of the burden of taxes imposed on business through higher prices and reduced corporate earnings. Higher income households pay a relatively greater share of the corporate income tax, while lower income households pay a greater share of businesses' sales and excise tax burden. A family of four with two children will have no 2001 state income tax liability unless their income exceeds $41,770. California's high income tax threshold is attributable to the increases in the dependent credit enacted in 1997 and 1998. The state's high tax threshold also means that low- to moderate-income families receive minimal or no benefits from the state's various credits, deductions, and other tax benefits since they have little or no tax liability to offset. California's 2000 median household income, the income where half of all households earned more and half earned less, was $46,808. The most costly corporate tax credit is the Research and Development (R&D) credit. Conventional wisdom holds that California is a high tax state. When total state and local taxes are combined, California ranks 21st among the 50 states. Over the past two decades, the burden of funding state services has shifted from corporate to personal income taxpayers. New, increased, and expanded corporate tax breaks are responsible for the decline in the share of state revenues provided by the corporate income tax. California has enacted a series of major tax cuts in recent years. In 1999, the most recent year for which data is available, 338,960 taxpayers reported incomes in excess of $200,000, 550 of these households paid no California personal income tax. California 19 Franchise Tax Board, 1999 Annual Report, p. The California Budget Project (CBP) was founded in 1994 to provide Californians with a source of timely, objective, and accessible expertise on state fiscal and economic policy issues. The CBP engages in independent fiscal and policy analysis and public education with the goal of improving public policies affecting the economic and social well-being of low- and middle-income Californians. Support for California Budget Project comes from foundation grants and individual 21 donations and subscriptions. |