This last year I made $20,000 as a sole proprietor. Doesn’t sound like alot does it?? I ended up owing $4800 in taxes because self employed individuals pay the medicare and ss tax twice like any other employer. If this government wants small businesses to succeed (they say that is what is supposed to pull us out of this economy slump) then why do they tax small business to death??

Maybe I should just stop being a hard worker and live off the government like my sisters?? The government will PAY me to do that. But if I try to make a better life for my family…well that definitely deserves to be PENALISED!! Stop spending money you don’t have government and get out of my pockets UNCLE SAM!!

I feel I should not have to pay any taxes from my pay check. On things I purchase yes…Didn’t our forefathers fight the british over this….LOL………Its not a human right to get anything for free….You need to earn it……With the current financial cris’ our home in Florida went from 240k to 99k… I am upside down…..Which is not my fought at all….I ask for a refinace and was just laughed at by all the banks….I have never missed a single payment…I worked since I was 15 years old…I have a BS degree from Towson State University……I figure I would ask for help which was hard for me because I am so use to working for what I earned…….They told me no………..I have no kids, I have all these money which I don’t because of some problems I needed to put on a credit card……….But in my neighborhood I have illegals getting help, renters getting help(yes their section 8) Me go f myself………..I talk to a lawyer how was awesome….He told me to file chapter 13 and walk away………Its not worth me fighting for my dream home…………Now these year I m in a higher bracket thanks obama due to the extra 20 dollars a week in the pay check……I am not a have not its time to move on…Just like these piece of shit government…its time to get the lifers out………And if they don t want to listen to us, vote someone else in….I almost wanted to start a don t pay your owed taxes…Since obamas people don’t have to pay…………Plus Income tax is unconsitional…………Its socialistic, thanks to FDR and woodrow wilson…………Also call your congressman and tell them you work for me not special interest and lobbyist…If you don’t listen to me you will not have a job like the rest of americans…………..

1) Deficits in the 1980’s averaged $200B and bumped around a range of 2.5% to 6% of GDP. The Deficit in 2009 was 10% of GDP and over a Trillion dollars. Next year will be 11% and close to 1.5Trillion. Yes, why let facts get in the way.

2) I have no idea if there were 3 times as many Welfare people during Reagan’s time. But there probably was. Who stopped that? Newt Gingrich. Ever heard of Welfare Reform of the mid-90’s.

3) Taxes were higher? Please. The Marginal rate may have been, but the effective was lower. 98% never paid more than the 28% bracket. Don’t ever imply that Reagan
supported high taxes. The ground may swallow you up….

Oppss…… forget it…..

During Reagan’s term the tax rates were higher, the deficits were just as high, and there were 3 times as many people on welfare.

On second thought….. let’s go with my first paragraph…… why let the facts get in the way a good right-way outrage…..

Jim Truesdale
Sacramento

I though some more about our friend Jerry’s comment. He is typical of the new left. His implication is that since I have certain political views, I might be a domestic terrorist. Now what do you do with people who are dangerous to society? (Oops, there’s that word I don’t know the definition to.) You lock them up! Yes, I’m extrapolating, but I bet I’m right.

How many times have we heard leftists try to keep their opposition silent? Reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, perhaps? And they get completely apoplectic about Fox News even though they’ve had ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN for YEARS. And PBS. And NPR. It seems our freedom loving liberals only want freedom of speech if you’re saying what they agree with.

Now, as for him saying it’s all about “me” and not “society” (there’s that word again), that is also typical of the left. It’s all about “society”, not the individual.

It Takes A Village.

Using a biological metaphor, assume society is a multi-cellular organism. Each person is a cell. Some are skin cells, other are liver cells, etc. Whenever a cell becomes dangerous to the overall organism, such as in a cancerous tumor, it should be removed. In fact, when things are working correctly, the cell should just kill itself via apoptosis. (I had to drive my pickup truck to the lie-berry to look that word up!) Something has to decide what’s best for the organism (society), since the machinery isn’t automatic like in a living being. For the leftist, that something would be government. Marx thought eventually it would be automatic in society as well, once everyone was enlightened and happy. Government would just disappear! LOL!

Well, that works great for cells and multi-celled organisms such as the family dog. But people are not cells. They are complete beings with wants and desires that live best with other complete beings in a symbiotic relationship. The symbiosis works best when each organism takes care of its own well being first.

When I’m happy and productive, I may decide to go buy, say, a car from Fred. Now Fred is happy. Fred goes and buys a new TV from Sam. Everyone working in their own best interest makes everyone better off. Does that mean they’re being selfish? What would happen when Sam was forced to go make TVs, and Fred forced to make cars for the good of society? And the those TVs and cars were confiscated and redistributed to, say, Jerry, who likes to sit on his butt all day and swill beer? Does that make the system more “fair”?

Just my 2 cents worth. 1 cent after tax.

You mistake passion for anger. Name calling? Really? Do you mean my use of “Statist-Progressive”? Or my implication that Pattie may be an idiot? At least I didn’t assume she was a domestic terrorist as Jerry seemed to be implying about me.

Yes, it wasn’t until W’s second term that revenues exceeded what he inherited from the previous administration. Do you think the reduced revenue may have had anything to do with the recession after the dot-com bubble? Or the further economic problems caused by 9/11?

Yes the Republican Congress dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to a surplus. No they didn’t do it with Bush. I wish they had. If there’s hypocrisy, it’s Republicans forgetting why they were elected and turning into entrenched Statist-Progressives. That’s why they were taken to the woodshed in ‘06.

Yes, spending bills originate in the House. Section I Article 7 of the US Constitution says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” Now strictly speaking, that means the House originates tax bills, not necessarily spending bills. But Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 66 that “originating money bills” originate in the House. In fact, the House has traditionally interpreted this to mean tax AND spending bills must originate in the house. When the Senate has attempted to originate a spending bill in the past, the House has sent them a “blue slip” that basically told the Senate to go pound sand. Since the House would have to agree to pass a Senate spending bill, and they don’t, the bills wither and die. See this link for more info: http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp

As for the cost of the wars, I’m obviously speaking about what they have cost up until now. I have no idea what they will cost in the future. And I don’t have a problem killing people who want to kill us and / or have actively done so.

Yes, we won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets. I think that’s a much better solution than ending it via a nuclear war. I don’t have a problem with military spending. It’s one of the few activities our government does that is actually constitutional. And I would love to divert a little money spent on weapons systems in order to double or triple current military pay rates. Those people deserve a hell of a lot more than we’re giving them. (Actually, that’s not correct: we’re not giving, they earned it.) And I wish the VA was worth a damn.

Yes, the 1986 tax act removed a lot of deductions. But it tended to flatten the tax rates. If you calculate the portion of income that was taxed at 33% and offset it against the lower brackets, then the rich paid a flat 28% tax rate on all their income. Everyone else paid some graduated rate up to 28%. Everyone lost some deductions, but look what the deductions were doing: encouraging people to go into debt. Tax policy shouldn’t do that. People who paid cash were punished by not getting the deduction. Granted, in times since then people have still gotten over their heads in debt… even more so… but that’s largely the result of artificially low interest rates and the current culture of instant gratification.

You say you didn’t vote for Reagan in his second term. Did you vote for Mondale? Do you really think he would have done a better job?

I was ecstatic about the ‘94 congressional takeover. I too wish they had followed through. I wish W. had turned out to actually be a fiscal conservative on something other than tax cuts.

Yes, in a perfect world, I’d get rid of the entire crop of professional politician in Washington and in state governments. But I think there’s as much chance of that happening as of a forty pound gold meteorite falling in my yard. So, I’ll hold my nose and give the Repubs another shot. A vote for a Democrat, even a “blue dog” empowers the Pelosis and Reids and we can’t survive them much longer.

YES, I want to see the Fed done away with. YES, I want to see Keynesian economics die a long deserved death.

Actually, I think we agree on more than we disagree.

Come on. Give us a break will you? You are ( I thought) one of the more intelligent and logical posters on this board. Please, don’t make me cross you off that short list.

So are you trying to imply that my statement about lowering taxes causing tax receipts to increase is somehow false? Because the latest example “only worked for half of Bush’s term”? Really? Were you joking? The Bush tax cuts came in 2 phases – 2001 and 2003. With the more significant being in 2003. So 2004-2007 is where you would expect to see the impact. Revenues don’t automatically go up as soon as you pass a law. First you lower taxes, then people invest in businesses, then they hire people, then they pay their taxes. You do get that right? Same thing happened with the Reagan cuts.

My point was to disprove the widely repeated Liberal falsehood that tax cuts cause revenue to the government to decrease which causes deficits. I pretty clearly disproved that. If you want to present some facts that counter that, please do.

One final thing. Enough with the damn “Clinton Surplus” that was squandered. He had a surplus in only his last 2 years. It was almost entirely driven by massive, massive capital gains taxes from the stock market pretty much doubling in those 2 years. And greatly aided by the huge job creation of the Dot Com bubble. Those jobs, and those tax revenues, disappeared overnight when the bubble burst.

Bernie Madoff had a pretty good surplus going for a while too………

My point is that this surplus was not caused by any great fiscal restaint by Clinton or the House Republicans. It was pure fantasy caused by an unsustainable asset bubble of historic proportions. Without major changes, we will NEVER see an annual surplus again, much less any meaningful reduction of the Debt.Unless you want to promise me we can have another Dot Com bubble that will last for 30 or 40 years before popping.

Unlikely…..

One small example…you talk about wars and the cost of lives and then you criticize Reagan for spending his way to victory over the USSR rather than going to war. What is it you want.

You obvuiously have a disdain for the military which protects you…to call our men and women who service “moochers” is an act of cowardice. It’s those big sallaries they collect for putting thier lives on the line that must bug you!

Josh was right? He only mentioned four years of W’s eight years in office. Doesn’t that make him only half right? And while revenues did go up (44%) during the years mentioned, it wasn’t until W’s second term that revenues exceeded what he had inherited from the previous administration. Unfortunately spending was never adjusted for the decline in revenues. Even with a Republican Congress. Hard to imagine that a Republican Congress could drag Clinton kicking and screaming to a surplus but didn’t have the balls to drag a Republican President to do the same. I smell hypocrisy.

You keep saying spending bills originate in the House. Currently, they are debating a House version and a Senate version of Health Care Reform. That is clearly a spending bill, so how did one version originate in the Senate if spending bills originate in the House? Also, why do both branches of Congress have Appropriation Committees? (Side Note; Interesting definition for Appropriation – The taking of something that belongs to or is associated with somebody else, especially without permission. THAT might explain why both branches have an Appropriations Committee.)

Clinton changed his stripes while in office so there may be hope for O. Just be careful what you wish for.

We got two wars that are still in progress. How on earth do you know how much they will cost? And in the terms of human life, how much will Obama’s stimulus bill cost?

I guess killing people is okay as long as it doesn’t cost too much. Makes winning the Cold War all the more worthwhile.

“Reagan: Josh pretty much already covered this. Revenue increased dramatically during his term. Spending increased MUCH faster. Yeah, Reagan could have vetoed some of the spending, but he had to let some of it slide to get other things he wanted out of the Democrat controlled congress (remember, he had a Cold War to win… which he did win).”
We beat the Big Red Threat with barely firing a gun. We just had to outspend them. I guess its okay to let the military mooch off the taxpayers. Afterall, our fighting men and women were, and are, compensated so well for putting their life on the line during the Cold War and the current wars.

11) I case you didn’t notice, Reagan’s tax reform eliminated many of the tax breaks the “rich” took advantage of. BUT it lowered the top marginal rates down to a relatively reasonable amount.
Many have stated that the 1993 Tax Act under Clinton was the largest tax increase in America’s history. I believe the Tax Reform Act of 1986 under Reagan was a greater tax increase for the middle class than Clinton’s 1993 bill, because of the elimination of credit card, auto loan interest, changes on mortgage refinancing and other provisions. It also introduced us to passive and non-passive income which impacted the upper middle class and higher, so the reform hit everyone. I also think the Act had a direct cause on the October, 1987 market crash and the subsequent Savings and Loan crisis. The 1986 Act was “re-distribution of wealth” with the Resolution Trust and the liquidation of billions in real estate at pennies on the dollar. Anyone posting here get in on that ride or is currently buying assets from the FDIC? My, how history does repeat itself regardless of party in control of the White House or Congress.

The average American taxpayer was paying 10.4% of their income to Federal Income Taxes before the 1986 Act to 13.2% after. I think the middle class picked up the majority of that tab. I voted for Reagan, the first term. But did not vote for him on his re-election primarily for firing David Stockman. But I do credit Reagan for making me give the Republican Party a closer look. I supported their 1994 campaigns and the subsequent Contract With America. Unfortunately, they couldn’t follow through on it. Made them look just as hypocritical as Democrats.

For many years I didn’t have a problem paying taxes, I just wanted value for my money. But I learned over the years how to play their game and work within the system to keep as much as I could. Then I saw Aaron Russo’s “America: Freedom To Fascism” which compelled me to pick up a book on the Federalist Papers and The Constitution. Opened my eyes to how both parties sell us out.

Both parties spent years re-aligning voting districts. This resulted in the ranting and raving and greater polarity in America, along with the emergence of cable stations like MSNBC and FOX. So they narrowed the playing field and the dialogue. Mostly to keep the peons distracted.

I’m done with my opinions and rants. I only came here to get the projected tax tables to help my clients keep more of their money. All this other noise is becoming too much of a distraction.

I do enjoy the exchange of ideas and opinions, though. Yes, Josh and TimT, that includes you two (minus the name calling from TimT).

I do hope we vote them all out for the next 20 – 30 years.

We also need to get rid of The Fed. No private entity should be allowed to print money and charge interest to the Federal Government for the use of that currency. It’s in the Constitution; Section 8 The Congress shall have the power to coin Money. Shame on the Congress for circumventing their responsibility and shame on the American voters for allowing it to continue.

Previous attempts at a Central Bank were done under 20 years Charters. Representatives had the foresight to subject the previous banks to review and re-approval. That no longer exists. It’s time to get it back. Between The Fed and the Keynesian economic model it pursues there will be more social engineering and the further expansion of the Federal Government. Politics got us into this mess and politics will get us out of it. Start local, get involved, and keep an open mind and the BS to a minimum.

The Fed made $45 Billion and has no competition. Nice business model, no?

Bye all.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/index.cfm

Jerry just throws out the same old hackneyed phrases that he’s probably read on the Daily Kos. All conservatives are clones of Tim McVeigh. Same old villains – Banks, Energy, Insurance, Drugs. As a side note, I’d love to see what this country would be like without the Banking, Insurance, Energy and Drug companies. Probably a lot of very cold people dying at the age of 45 living under bridges because they couldn’t get a loan to build a house or find a company to build it because they couldn’t get insurance! But that’s another point…

Thank you Jerry for showing your elitist attitude over and over by calling Tim “small minded”. Your argument was extremely compelling about trickle down economics. The data you presented was impressive. I especially like all of the specific historical facts you used. You painted a brilliant picture that is impossible to dispute.

Prediction: Jerry is 26 and lives in his parent’s basement. He went to a small LIberal Arts college where he had a dual major in English Lit and Political Science. He is bitter at “big business” for not valuing that education in the slightest and thus he has no career at all to look forward to unless he gets a hack, government job (which are growing by leaps and bounds). He drives a Prius with no less that 40 Obama/Liberal bumper stickers on it.

How is that for stereotyping?

I’ll ignore your childish comment regarding my intelligence. It’s obvious you’re a statist elite who thinks if we only get the right set of looters in power over the all-powerful government, then heaven on earth can be achieved.

Trickle down does work. The government isn’t “making a few top people at the top rich”. In fact, the government taxes the ability to *become* rich.

When a rich person has extra money, what does he do with it? Put it under his mattress? No. He spends it (someone builds his luxury yacht, car, and home… those were not millionaires who built them). Or he invests it which creates capital for new business and jobs.

How many time have you ever been employed by a poor person?

You say Wall Street caused the collapse. Wrong. Artificially low interest rates along with government distortions of the market like the Community Reinvestment Act conspired to get a lot of people into houses they could not afford. This pushed house prices up which created the predictable bubble. And when the bubble burst, everyone was hurt. I was against the bail-outs, BTW. Housing prices still need to go down a long way before reaching their long term trendline.

Let me detail the specifics of how the crash happened: Fannie and Freddie (at the direction of people like Barney Frank) wanted to get “the poor” into houses. So they changed their rules so they would buy up risky loans like no-doc loans and 110% loans. Mortgage brokers knew these crappy loans would be bought by Fannie and Freddie, so they wrote the loans and sold them. (You would say that’s greed. I say that’s just the result of a distorted market.)

You deride me saying it’s “big Gubment vs. Small Gubment” and then say the problem is who the government works for. See, you are a big-government Statist. You think big government is fine as long as it’s working for the “right people”. I submit that if a government is kept small then it doesn’t matter who it’s “working for”. A government that sticks to its proper functions (protecting from external threats, adjudicating disputes, protecting the rights of the people [actual rights, not made-up rights that most Statist-Progressives say people have], and insuring there is a fair, free market [ie, not inherently tilted to any given players]) then there will be little incentive for big evil corporations to pull the strings of government.

BTW, the poor are not poor because the rich take advantage of them or steal their money (they’re poor… they don’t have any money to steal by definition). The rich are not rich because someone gave them their money. No, the rich are rich because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor. (Yes, there are a very small number of people that just have terrible luck). How may poor people live paycheck to paycheck, unable to save for emergencies or investment, but have plenty of money for beer and cigarettes? How many “poor people” have cell phones and cable TV?

I live way below my means. I could afford much more “bling” if I was willing to spend every penny I make and then go into debt. Instead, I save and invest so I can have a more secure future. But Statist-Progressive-Looters such as yourself want to take my carefully saved money and give it to Moochers so they can buy more beer and cigarettes and whine about their predicament in life while they head to the polls to vote for Looters like Obama so they can get even more goodies. Yeah, that system works much better than trickle-down.

You may be right in your analysis (I highly doubt it), but you are seemingly illiterate when it comes to presenting your position.

1) How did Trickle Down Economics destroy the middle class?
2) What is a government that work for the people (is it one that give them equal opportunity or one that redistributes wealth)?
3) Are not “Insurance companies, banks, energy companies, drug companies, etc owned by the people (with the small exception of some large privately owned companies)?
4) Whose going to pay for the “gubment” that works for the people…the 50% that pay all the Federal Income taxes or the 50% that are too lazy to get off their ass and make something of themselves while they whine about more entitlement?

Every ‘Gubment” that has worked for the people (let’s call it what it is – Socialism) has failed because it has run out of money and its economy collapsed beyond the point of recovery). They also tend to be run by ruthless, maniacla dictators.

The real problem is “Gubmentmaniacal” does not work, it only takes…with the exception of building and maintaining some infrastructure and a sound national defense, the “Gubment” should not work at all.

Talk about a small mind!