Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

[Red Dawn]

Um 50% of the population paid nothing in 2009.

You have to ask what percentage of the population paid taxes in 1950 to really answer this question.

Wait, I thought you Raging Wingnuts said the Middle Class was getting taxed to death?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Wait, what? I thought that the government should burn in hell for taxing us to death. Hasn't this pretty much been the Tea Party's main cause -- that taxes are too high?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

If all you think the tea party movement is about taxes, then you know nothing about the movement. Go read up on it.

 

[juiio]

$83 Billion April Deficit Is Record For The Month, $30 Billion Worse Than Expected As Tax Receipts Plunge

Income was $245.3 billion, 8% below the total recorded last April. Spending was $328.0 billion, up 14% year-over-year. A year ago in April the deficit was $20.9 billion. And here is the data: tax receipts down 7.9% YoY, Individual Income Tax down 21.5% YoY, and more importantly, spending: Total spending up 14.2%, National defense up 17%, Medicare up 39.4%, Social Security up 4.2% and General Government up 5.6%. At least interest payments were down 9.5%.

 

[ProfJohn]

Pssst .... Johnny.

The last 365 Days of Bush the Federal Debt increased:

$1.436 trillion

If you dispute that number, feel free to take it up with the Treasury Department of the United States
--

If we start talking about the debt then we are in a totally different territory. It is a far more complicated topic than budgets since it deals with SS surplus and Medicare surplus etc etc.

Notice that even though Clinton had a 'balanced' budget the debt went up every year.


BTW the debt under Obama went up $1.6 trillion in his first year.

 

[ProfJohn]

(1) Tell us again what Bush and the GOP Crime Cabal paid for the last ten years?

(2) Give us a link on how they paid for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Give us a link explaining how they paid for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(3) Provide other links on how Bush and the GOP paid for the Part D drug program, homeland security and a 70% increase in the DoD.

(4) Provide for us all those links on the tough fiscal oversight and regulation by Bush and the GOP as this nations financial institutions leveraged derivatives from $50 trillion to $500+ trillion in five years.

(5) Then you can tell us about the new-found 'responsible' GOP and their fiscal conservatism ---- and then think about removing your clown make-up.
--

1. The same way Obama plans to pay for his first 4 years, by borrowing the money. I have to wonder though, if you are so upset about Bush's spending then why are you so quiet about Obama's when his own projects state that he will run up a bigger deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8.

2. Tax cuts don't cost a thing, it is spending that costs. Of course it is more complicated than that. Also keep in mind that the Bush's tax cuts end this year so starting next year you can no longer blame his tax cuts for Obama's budget problems.

3. The same way Obama is paying for his huge increase in spending.

4. Another question that is far too complicated for this thread. Just keep in mind that it was Democrats who blocked reforms aimed at keeping Fannie and Freddie on sound footing. And look at that quote from Barney Frank I posted earlier. The Democrats were as interested in our financial problems as the Republicans.

5. Many of us on this forum have been fiscal conservatives for a long time. Many of us, including myself, made multiple threads about the need for a balanced budget.

And if you really want to pretend that you care about a balanced budget then where are your posts complaining about Obama's spending or the fact that he is not even speaking about a balanced budget. Bush was on track to balance the budget prior to the economic downturn. Obama on the other hand has not even mentioned the need or desire to balance the budget since taking office.

 

[heyheybooboo]

... More Johhny Bush/GOP Apologist Bull Crap ...

Bush was handed a $230 billion annual surplus in the Unified Budget, incurred $5+ trillion in debt over 8 years, and in the last 365 days of his presidency the Federal Debt increased $1.44 trillion.

Good to see you support Obama's Debt Commission (even if you know nothing of its existence), agree with the President, acknowledge the need for the upcoming expiration of the Bush/GOP tax cuts in 2011, and support quickly bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

And you and your fellow Bush/GOP Apologists suck at fiscal responsibility.

Let's start with a single issue: In October 2007, the CBO projected the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017, inclusive of the debt incurred.

Do I need to link up the Official 2003 Bush/GOP Estimate of $50-$60 billion for you?

In your douchery and convoluted Wing Nut propaganda, those "trillions of dollars" are now Obama's fault ???


Gotcha.








Asshole.






--

 

[blackangst1]

Bush was handed a $230 billion annual surplus in the Unified Budget, incurred $5+ trillion in debt over 8 years, and in the last 365 days of his presidency the Federal Debt increased $1.44 trillion.

And Obama has already surpassed that. And the CBO has already projected debt to hit $8.5 trillion in 10 years.

Good to see you support Obama's Debt Commission (even if you know nothing of its existence), agree with the President, acknowledge the need for the upcoming expiration of the Bush/GOP tax cuts in 2011, and support quickly bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure he does. Getting the tax cuts to expire in the senate, however, may prove a bit harder. There are a handful of Dems who dont want it, and of course the GOP doesnt. Remember...this is the same GOP that can single handedly kill shit in their minority.

And Afghanastan? lols Yeah sure he does. There is no end in sight at this point. He talks about an end, but only to appease his flock. But theres no evidence of an end any time soon. The opposite in fact. Afghanastan is Obama's Iraq.

And you and your fellow Bush/GOP Apologists suck at fiscal responsibility.

Let's start with a single issue: In October 2007, the CBO projected the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017, inclusive of the debt incurred.

Do I need to link up the Official 2003 Bush/GOP Estimate of $50-$60 billion for you?

In your douchery and convoluted Wing Nut propaganda, those "trillions of dollars" are now Obama's fault ???

Yes, the GOP has sucked at fiscal responsibility; however, they are fucking AMATEURS at running up debt compared to the drunken spenders in office now. And I love remembering Pelosi and Reid's comments about the Bush spending...dangerous and unpatriotic lol.

And lets not forget the latest CBO projections:

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

So yeah. If Bush spent money like a drunken sailor on leave in Thailand (which he did), Obama is a fucking four star general.

edit: Everyone knows this

 

[piasabird]

Well you have a good point. However, the data seems to indicate we are at the bottom of a giant dip. It is just not logical that we can keep spending at our current rate and expect our taxes not to go up dramatically. Someone has to pay for this spending and usually it is the guys in the middle class. i.e. everyone with a job who makes over 20k per year. So get ready to pay and pay more and pay even more and pay so much that you cant pay any more and then there will be a revolt just like in Greece.

The gluttons sucking on the governmnet Tit will eventually have to be weaned.

 

[Fern]

Wait, what? I thought that the government should burn in hell for taxing us to death. Hasn't this pretty much been the Tea Party's main cause -- that taxes are too high?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

The article is garbage.

I don't see the bolded part in the article (today), I suppose it was edited out?

Here is another quote from the article that is absurdly incorrect:

Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.

Income tax rates have not fallen since 2007.

The lower incomes resulting from the recession and the progressive nature of income taxes means that, on average, people are paying a lower rate; but only because they have less income.

So, NO, somebody making $102,000 now won't be paying $3,400 less than when they made $102,000 in 2007.

They'll pay something slightly less due to the inflation adjusted deductions such as the personal exemption. But it's faaar less than the author claims.

The article is garbage.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Bush was handed a $230 billion annual surplus in the Unified Budget, incurred $5+ trillion in debt over 8 years, and in the last 365 days of his presidency the Federal Debt increased $1.44 trillion.--

According to YOUR link the Federal Debt went UP $100 billion in Clinton's last year.

If Bush had a surplus handed to him then why was the deficit still rising?

 

[heyheybooboo]

According to YOUR link the Federal Debt went UP $100 billion in Clinton's last year.

If Bush had a surplus handed to him then why was the deficit still rising?

So. You are now denying the surplus in the Unified Budget?

You Fail.

Because, Johnny, the Clinton Treasury Department invested the surplus in 'refinancing' the high-interest bonds from Raygun/Bush41 into lower-interest, shorter-term paper (in order to save tens of billions of dollars). Smart, wasn't it? Not surprisingly, Bush43 was a huge beneficiary of this action in reduced interest on the national debt. Safe to say, not only did Bush43 drop the debt ball, he drop-kicked it out of the ballpark for the next 15 years.

Here's a list of historical bond rates:

1981, 13.45
1982, 12.76
1983, 11.18
1984, 12.41
1985, 10.79
1986, 7.78
1987, 8.59
1988, 8.96
1989, 8.45
1990, 8.61
1991, 8.14
1992, 7.67
1993, 6.59
1994, 7.37
1995, 6.88
1996, 6.71
1997, 6.61
1998, 5.58
1999, 5.87
2000, 5.94
2001, 5.49


I had an 8 3/4% Raygun bond called early. I kept it for its 'intrinsic' value. Wanna see a picture of it?

Your denial, obfuscation, Bush-apologizing and intellectual dishonesty continues. Do we need to whip out the threads where you proclaimed, " ... Bush would have the budget balanced by 2010 ..." ?




--

 

[ProfJohn]

What does bond rates have to do with the link you provided showing that Clinton increased the deficit during his last year in office?

You showed a link and proclaimed that Bush increased the debt by $1.5 trillion in his last year.

I used the same link to show that Clinton raised the debt by $100 billion in his last year.

Therefore, by the link you provided Clinton never had a real balanced budget and instead relied on accounting tricks to produce one.

The key to all of this is the use of Social Security money to reduce the size of the deficit and proclaim that we have a balanced budget. But in reality the government is borrowing money from itself via the SS 'trust fund' and therefore the true amount of our debt was still rising.

The whole point I was trying to make is that you are trying to argue apples vs oranges.

In terms of increased debt Bush's last year saw a $1.6 trillion increase.
But in terms of budget deficit Bush's last year saw a $400 billion deficit.

As for Obama his increase in debt and budget deficit both were around $1.4-1.6 trillion.

I believe the numbers for Obama are the same is due to strange account by our government when it comes to the tarp program.

When our government was handing out that $300 billion it was counted against spending and thus raised the deficit. As it was paid back it was used to lower our overall debt, but they didn't change the deficit numbers.

The best analogy would be if you loaned your buddy a $20 and then put that down as an expenditure on your monthly budget, but when he paid you back you didn't include it as revenue on your monthly budget.

At the end of the day it is all irrelevant.

Bush sucked at spending, and most of us on the right are unhappy with his spending.

Obama though makes Bush look good when it comes to spending, but those of you on the left seem to have no problem with is spending.

So why is it that you complain about Bush's spending, but give Obama a pass??

 

[werepossum]

One more time - presidents don't spend money, Congress does. Presidents are responsible only when they have the popularity to actually lead their party when it is in control of Congress, as does Obama, and to the extent that they fail to veto irresponsible spending. Clinton vetoed only to raise spending, and Bush vetoed on for parting out babies with federal dollars, not for spending. The same Republican Congress that exercised great fiscal responsibility under Clinton spent like drunken sailors (which is to say, slightly more responsibly than Democrats) under Bush. If you will recall, the Democrats refused to even submit Clinton's budgets (which showed no balanced budgets, ever) after '94, and voted against them when submitted by the Republicans. Republicans get the credit for the pseudo* balanced budgets under Clinton, and Republicans (including Bush) get the blame for their spending under Bush.

*The budgets were balanced only by spending the surplus of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid funds, and by ignoring off-budget items.

 

[Descartes]

What I find most aggravating is that there never, ever seems to be an answer with partisans. Show any evidence for something, and if you don't want to believe it you just find any way possible to make excuses.

The only way to progress is to find ways to focus energies on useful arguments. Are we being taxed to death right now? No. How many Americans actually believe that though? Probably very few.

Will taxes rise? Probably. Is that a trend that should concern us? Absolutely. Let's focus on THAT and not the bullshit tea party arguments.

I remember listening to Boortz a few months back and hearing "business owners" (i.e. lies) talk about how they had to fire people because they were being taxed to death. Not only is that pure insanity, it just disrupts the level of discourse in this country.

So let's move beyond things a bit. NO ONE in this country wants to be taxed to death. If ever there was an issue that we should all rally behind, it's this one. Somewhere in there is a balance that makes sense.