I think increased taxes are pretty much a forgone conclusion for residents of The United States...given the magnitude of the debt and the financial crisis inherited from George II. The irony is that the teabaggers and their financial backers are the very ones responsible for this travesty. The future of American and world business is now squarely on the shoulders of Obama. If he needs to keep these Teabaggers under control. We will need not only to cut costs (e.g. healthcare reform) but also to increase taxes. And those most responsible for this mess need to pay their share for the cleanup of this mess. Tax rates are incredibly low if you are rich in the United States. We have a variety of taxes in the United States, and Republicans are fond of ignoring the total tax burden in the United States because it would not be a pretty picture. If you are wealthy in The United States and are not working, you are a fool if you are paying more than 15 percent of your income in tax while the poor working stiff is faced with a minum tax of 15 percent...and most working stiffs are paying much more than that.
The U S debt didn't grow only with Bush, as this chart shows, but with Clinton as well. Why don't you bring Clinton up when you want to discuss the debt because he did as much damage as Bush. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Cosmic, you charts show that debt declined in the Clinton years. I think you need to read your charts. Clinton came to office in 1992. By the end of his term, debt as a percent of GDP was declining and the federal budget was in surplus. Two gross debt is really not an important figure. It includes debt the government owes to itself. The public debt is the number to worry about.
joepistole, Of course. We knew this before we even voted for Obama. "George II" added unnecessary debt by the war in Iraq and presuading congress to cut taxes. Greenspan was responsible for the credit bubble that burst, causing most of the current crisis, he and a bought-off congress. No, a retarded and corrupt congress is responsible for our problems. Good luck with getting politicians to do anything that will cost them "campaign contributions" or votes. That depends on the amount of your income and which bracket you fall within. Again, that depends on income and how many kids are in the family. Some "poor working stiffs" with large families do not have to pay any federal income tax. Yes, the 'teabaggers' were in control of the congressional pursestrings then. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is why I said not working. If you you are living off investments the capital gains tax is 15 percent. And if you invest in master limited partership, income is totally tax free. So there is no reason to pay more in tax. The working rich and poor pay pretty much the same percent of their income in taxes. The working rich pay almost no income tax as a percent of income whereas a working stiff on the lower end of the earings scale is paying 15 plus percent in payroll taxes. The working stiff at the lower end of the earnings scale may not pay much in income tax, but he/she is still paying the 15 plus percent in payroll taxes. So when I speak of income taxes, I am talking about the total tax picture...not just the federal income tax.
joepistole, Again, it depends on your income bracket. Most will pay 15%, but single individuals receiving dividends of less than $32,550 per year and married couples receiving less than $65,100 will pay zero tax in 2008. It used to be a 5% bracket. If you sell investments, the capital gains tax rate can vary depending on the investment. Some of those harping gold may not realize they will have to pay a 28% capital gains rate on their profits. Not true. As you move in the income scale, tax brackets become steeper for your taxable income. The deductions a family of six receives are a much higher percentage of total income for low wage earners than it is for high wage earners. Income taxes are paid on the taxable income after deductions. ???? Some businesses may avoid paying taxes with enough deductions, but salaried executives have to pay taxes on their taxable income like everyone else, and at a higher bracket rate. Social Security tax is 6.2% of income (capped at $102,000) and MediCare is 1.45% (no cap). Hopefully, both those 'taxes' will provide direct future benefits to the payer.
I think that drastic cuts in government spending might be a good idea. Politicians and their addiction to government intervention/spending are most responsible for this travesty. Well, then, we're really screwed. He needs to keep politicians and government spending under control. This problem wasn't caused by our health care system. Again, that would be the government.
Let me say this again Zinquistive, it is possible that some folks do not pay any "federal income tax". But the federal income tax is not the onld federal income tax workers are subject too. Workers must also pay the Social Security Tax which is paid at a rate of 15.1 percent of income. Half of that amount is shown as deducted from the wage of the employee and the other half is paid by the employer. The bottom line is the 15.1 percent is a cost of the employee's labor. It is rigthly the fruit of the labor of the employee and is a cost to the employee even if paid by the employer. Republicans are fond of saying that a lot of lower income folks are not paying any federal income tax...it is a fine splitting of hairs. The Social Security Tax is a major burdend on the lower end of the income scale. And there are no deductions against it as exists in the federal income tax where it is possible as you mentioned, that an entity pays zero tax.
