Dragional

If the tax rated were the same as in 2001, Bush and Cheney as well as other wealthy individuals would be paying higher taxes. My point which you choose to ignore is that people making incomes at the levels of Bush and Cheney are NOT OVERTAXED! This country is in a serious financial problem as has been clearly articulated by the Comptroller General. I have documented the increase in BOTH the national debt and the interest that higher debt required all of us to pay. What I am saying is that the Bush tax cut was justified on the premise that because we had the Surplus Bush claimed, we had overtaxed the American taxpayer. Using the Bush argument, since there was NO SURPLUS there was not legitimate reason to have cut the taxes in 2001, 2002, 2003. That coupled with the fact that when Bush took over we had a balanced annual budget. Bush immediately turned that in to a growing annual deficit that has added more then $3 Trillion Dollars to the total amount of that national debt with no end in sight. That REQUIRES higher taxes, elimination of PORK and more forceful collection action! Those that can afford to pay more are those who got the biggest porting g of the tax cut that should not have been granted in the first place since there was no justification for the cuts. They are also the people that will not suffer any real harm from paying a little more to help resolve the fiscal problems Bush and the GOP have created by cutting taxes while increasing spending!

I would also like to know since when are the capital gains and dividend regulations not a part of the federal income tax code. I believe the tax rates on both capital gains and dividend were also lowered since 2001. Another major tax cut that has yet to be fully implemented is the elimination of the Estate Tax. That will grant huge tax cuts to the top 1% of the population and do NOTHING for the other 99%. That will cut about $40 Billion more per year from the federal tax revenues and add even more to the deficit. In 2011 ALL these provisions will end if they are not renewed. I favor making the tax cuts that help middle income taxpayers permanent and END all the others. That will restore 70% of the lost federal revenue from the Bush Tax Cuts to help balance the budget! After the 2008 election that will happen.

Dragional If the tax rated were the same as in 2001, Bush and Cheney as well as other wealthy individuals would be paying higher taxes. My point which you choose to ignore is that people making incomes at the levels of Bush and Cheney are NOT OVERTAXED! This country is in a serious financial problem as has been clearly articulated by the Comptroller General. I have documented the increase in BOTH the national debt and the interest that higher debt required all of us to pay. What I am saying is that the Bush tax cut was justified on the premise that because we had the Surplus Bush claimed, we had overtaxed the American taxpayer. Using the Bush argument, since there was NO SURPLUS there was not legitimate reason to have cut the taxes in 2001, 2002, 2003. That coupled with the fact that when Bush took over we had a balanced annual budget. Bush immediately turned that in to a growing annual deficit that has added more then $3 Trillion Dollars to the total amount of that national debt with no end in sight. That REQUIRES higher taxes, elimination of PORK and more forceful collection action! Those that can afford to pay more are those who got the biggest porting g of the tax cut that should not have been granted in the first place since there was no justification for the cuts. They are also the people that will not suffer any real harm from paying a little more to help resolve the fiscal problems Bush and the GOP have created by cutting taxes while increasing spending!

No they WOULDN'T! You just don't get do you? There was NO change in the "capital gains" tax. Even if you "had" restored the earlier tax rates, they would have paid the same amount. Since their income was derived from "capital gains", their tax would still only have been 15%. Then or now. Capital gains are an income, but they are and always have been taxed differently. So NOW who's the dummy?

The difference would have been trivial. Heck, Bush and Cheney don't even fall into the highest tax bracket after deductions on the federal income tax scale.

It was the CAPITAL GAINS tax income that allowed them to make so much money and pay relatively so little in taxes.

This is like arguing that we should use sledge hammers to swat a fly because a sledge hammer is marginally more effective at killing flies than nothing at all.

I realize the parasite class can always find reasons to ask for more money from the productive class in any way they can, but if you want more tax income, you should learn some basics on how the super rich avoid taxes.

You think this because you have no idea on how our tax code works (obviously).  Capital gains are taxed at the (wait for it) CAPITAL GAINS tax rate.  Federal INCOME tax rates are for wages. The capital gains tax rate has not been touched since Bush arrived.

BTW, dividend income IS a type of capital gains.  Do you understand what capital gains are?

This is why you have no business advocating tax increases -- you have no clue about our existing tax structure.  You just want other people to pay  more to the government so you can feel good about advocating more socialist programs. 

drmiler

There was NO change in the "capital gains" tax.

WRONG AGAIN READ YOU IDIOT

Dividends and Capital Gains Planning After the 2003 Tax Act

By Kathy Krawczyk and Lorraine Wright


E-mail Story
Print Story

One goal of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was to jump-start the economy and generate investment in the stock of American companies. As a result, the 2003 Tax Act included changes in dividend tax rates and capital gains rates applicable to individuals as taxpayers. The changes require both individuals and corporations to consider new tax planning strategies.

Capital Gains

Capital gains arise from the sale of capital assets, such as stocks, bonds, and land, at a price higher than the asset’s cost or basis. If a capital asset has been held longer than one year, the gain is considered a long-term capital gain. If the capital asset has been held for a year or less, the gain is considered a short-term capital gain. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the taxpayer’s regular tax rates. Before the 2003 Tax Act, long-term capital gains were taxed at 20% for taxpayers in the 25% or higher tax bracket (10% for individuals in the 10% and 15% marginal tax brackets).

Special rules applied to the gain on the sale of capital assets held more than five years where the holding period began after December 31, 2000. These gains were taxed at a maximum rate of 18% (8% for individuals in the 10% and 15% marginal tax brackets). Individuals in a tax bracket higher than 15% had the opportunity to make a special “deemed sale election” on their 2001 tax returns, which allowed them to pay the applicable capital gains tax on the asset as though it was sold on January 1, 2001, and then begin the holding period anew on that date. This was to be an irrevocable election.

The 2003 Tax Act’s provisions lowered the rates on long-term capital gains to 15% for taxpayers in the 25% bracket or higher and lowered the 10% rate to 5% for individuals in the 10% and 15% tax brackets, effective May 6, 2003, through December 31, 2008. This provision eliminated the five-year holding period rates of 18% and 8%. In 2008, the new 15% rate remains the same but the 5% rate drops to 0%. In 2009, the capital gain rates will return to the old 20% and 10% rates, and the five-year holding period rules and rates return. The act did not change the capital gain rates for collectibles (28%) and unrecaptured section 1250 gains (25%). The new capital gain tax rates apply to both the regular tax and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) calculations.

Dragional

Please read the post above. Where you and others on this Blog Site get your BS from is a mystery!

It's a little more complicated than that, Gene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#United_States

For one thing, after 2003, if you sold your stock within a year, you were taxed at your federal income tax level. This closed the massive loophole of people simply buying a massive amount of stocks and selling them instantly to convert their income taxes into capital gains.

Secondly, Bush & Cheney's capital gains tax rates (particularly Bush's). 

I do stand corrected that they monkeyed around with capital gains at all in 2003 as my understanding was that this was done in 1999. 

But that doesn't change the result -- the government gets more money through capital gains than they were getting before because before, someone making $10 million who would have been at the 39% tax bracket would just convert it all into capital gains and be taxed only at 20%.  Now, they can't do that. They're taxed at the "lower" rate rate of 35% (the Bush income tax cut) but they can't convert it to short-term dividends.

In exchange, they lowered the long-term capital gains tax from 20% to 15%. 

Gene: Your article is about how Bush and Cheney made out. But in the case of Bush, he would have paid nearly the same in taxes. He's not even in the top income tax bracket for wages (after his deductions, he's one spot below).

The other thing you fail to mention is that the capital gains structure is already going up in less than 3 years. I somehow doubt you knew that.

Dragional

My point was that people with the income levels of Bush and Cheney have received a large cut in their tax liability because of the three tax cuts that Bush was able to get passed by the GOP controlled Congress. Bush was able to effect these changes with the very slim majority in both the House and Senate. In fact I believe at least one and may more of the tax cuts was decided by Cheney casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate. The net result of the tax cuts so far is than the treasury has lost between $300-400 Billion in tax revenue per year and that as of the analysis I saw of the 2005 data, 70% of the total tax cuts went to the top 10% of wage earners. The big tax cut that has not been fully implemented is the Federal Estate Tax which will be eliminated in 2011. That cut will only help the top 1`% and will cut another $40 Billion dollars per year from federal tax revenue. Given the Annual Deficit we are running and the huge increase in the National debt, we need to end the tax cuts (70% of the total) to the wealthy. The original justification Bush used for these tax cuts was that we had a $5.7 Trillion dollar surplus over the ten year period starting in 2002. That was not true. There was NO SURPLUS and thus his justification for cutting taxes was NOT VALID!

Oh please Gene, you didn't even know about the capital gains rate until I pointed it out to you.

The big tax cut you've been complaining about for years is the income tax (wages).

The capital gains rate wasn't changed until 2003 and the difference in income is marginal. As I mentioned it wasn't so much a tax cut as it was a chagne in the rules to close loop holes. They eliminated the massive short-term loophole and replaced it with a slight decrease in the long-term capital gains -- which goes away anyway.

Can't you be honest for once in your life? I think it's time for you to leave, Gene.  You're just here to spout out propaganda and lies and frankly, I'm tired of it. 

I'm sure there's some socialist site that will be happy to have you.

Dragional

This has NOTHING to do with Socialism. It has to do with bringing the spending and revenue of this country into balance. YOU NEVER address the fact that Bush justified his tax cuts on a SURPLUS that NEVER existed. It must be at the same location as the WMD in Iraq. There should not have been the Bush tax cuts given the fact the basis upon which they were justified did not exist. As Both Greenspan and O’Neil said in 2001, the tax cuts should have been tied to the available surplus to pay for them. If that had been done that tax cuts would have ENDED as soon as they were passed when it became clear the Bush SURPLUS was an illusion!

Dragional

Read This:



Bush: Surplus Justifies Tax Cut

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP)


Quote

"Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place"
President Bush, in his weekly radio address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(AP) President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.

Oh please Gene, you didn't even know about the capital gains rate until I pointed it out to you. The big tax cut you've been complaining about for years is the income tax (wages). The capital gains rate wasn't changed until 2003 and the difference in income is marginal. As I mentioned it wasn't so much a tax cut as it was a chagne in the rules to close loop holes. They eliminated the massive short-term loophole and replaced it with a slight decrease in the long-term capital gains -- which goes away anyway. Can't you be honest for once in your life? I think it's time for you to leave, Gene. You're just here to spout out propaganda and lies and frankly, I'm tired of it. I'm sure there's some socialist site that will be happy to have you

So I would guess that Colon Gene is "STILL" the head dummy around here. Right?

drmiler

I am the one that posted the cut in the Capital gains and dividend article Dragional admitted he was wrong. This is his response: I do stand corrected that they moneyed around with capital gains at all in 2003 as my understanding was that this was done in 1999.

What is your comment on the quotations from Bush about the Surplus is the basis of his tax cuts:

"Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place"President Bush, in his weekly radio address

Even when I post quotations that PROVE what I have said is true from Bush you refuse to accept the truth!

What the hell does this have to do with your original topic you posted?

You tried to claim that the tax cuts were why Bush and Cheney were paying less of their total income in taxes.

You were wrong.  The difference in taxes has to do with WHERE their income came from (investments vs. salary). Their taxes would have been virtually the same regardless of the tax cuts. Bush isn't even in the top income tax bracket for crying out loud.

The difference between you and I is when I make an error (such as the capital gains tax rate change) I'll admit to it.  You, on the other hand, won't admit errors that are blatantly obvious.

 

Draginol

Taxpayers with the income levels of Bush and Cheney are paying less tax due to the tax cuts. They are both in the top 10% of taxpayers and that is where 70% of the nearly $400 Billion per year in tax cuts is going. You say I am a socialist for saying the tax cuts were not justified because there was no surplus which was the reason Bush gave for reducing the tax rates. The United States was NOT a SOCIALISTIC Country during the 1990's when the higher tax rates, I believe we need to restore, were in place. If you believe America was a communist country before Bush cut taxes you have lost your mind! Thus restoring the rates and provisions for Dividends and Capital gains to the pre 2001 levels will not turn us into a Marxist state or cause any harm to the wealthy of our country. What it will do is help restore fiscal stability to our country!

Yes, this is true he said this. Now put what he said in context. At the time the democrats were spending the surplus as fast as possible. They had proposals to spend all ten trillion dollars in one year all on social programs. The president stopped this waste by this proposal. The money spent was money collected instead of money not collected. The priorities were paid off first. I remember people in the news saying why not pay off all the debt. The president replied with a simple statement that I will paraphrase. All the current debt is paid off. To pay off more would mean the government would lose money not save money. Instead of paying off all the debt we are paying off the debt each year as it becomes due instead of past practices of paying late and incurring more interest. The next thing you need to keep in context to the presidents statements is that they were made prior to the attacks on 9/11. Once a nation goes to war all resources are devoted to winning that war unless you want to lose.
Our debit has gone up but not because of the tax cuts but because of the war. Wars are expensive unless you did not know this I can’t respect your arguments. The tax cuts have helped fund the war better than a tax increase, we were in a recession when the President took over and the tax cut got us out of it very quickly and allowed us to go to war on a better financial footing that you complain about.
The money paid by the President in taxes was honestly made and his fair share was paid. You say it was not enough yet you don’t complain about the Kennedy family keeping only 10% of their wealth in the United States while keeping the rest off shore to avoid paying the fair share. What is a billion dollars stashed away from the government? When Senator Kennedy says he wants to help the poor why does he not pay his taxes? At least the President pays his taxes.

Taxpayers with the income levels of Bush and Cheney are paying less tax due to the tax cuts. They are both in the top 10% of taxpayers and that is where 70% of the nearly $400 Billion per year in tax cuts is going.

You are a COMPLETE MORON! How many times must we beat it into you head before you get it, that the reason Bush an Cheney paid less tax is because of CAPITAL GAINS? It has NOTHING to do with tax cuts. It has EVERYTHIING to do with "how" they made their money.

Paladin77


"At the time the democrats were spending the surplus as fast as possible.”

That is NOT TRUE. The GOP controlled congress since 1994 and they controlled the spending. The spending increased when Bush took over with the help of the GOP controlled Congress. We have NEVER had the level of Pork or the number of Earmarks as when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House. The republicans have increased spending MORE then the democrats. The largest unfunded increase in the entitlement programs since the 1960' took place when Bush and the GOP controlled Congress and passed the Prescription Drug Plan. Yes I am aware that the Democrats also supported this new entitlement plan but it was the GOP and Bush that controlled the fate of this legislation and they refused to increases taxes to pay for this added entitlement. To this day, there is NOT ONE CENT of tax revenue to pay for this $60 Billion dollar per year program which will get even bigger as the baby boomers retire!

Please understand that it is easier to discuss a topic when you have even a basic knowledge of a topic. The surplus was announced just before the election if I remember correctly. This was to show that Clinton Gore had done a good job and if Mr. Gore was elected the good times would continue. It was also used to counter Mr. Bush's claims that we were heading into a recession because of bad fiscal policies by the Clinton Gore team. Mr. Gore was not elected and just as Mr. Bush stated the recession kicked in at the end of November. All the while the democrats in Congress suggested bill after bill on how they were going to spend the surplus. Plan after plan was proposed but because the President and Congress did not take power until January nothing would or could be done till then. The President had to fight All of the Congress to keep the money the Clinton Administration said was coming in.

The money was a ten trillion dollar surplus over ten years. It was a projection of revenue not hard cash in the treasury. All based on the last years income tax collection. Based on that figure they projected the surplus. The projection means that if everything stays the same and there is no recession then we would continue to build money until after ten years we will have accumulated ten trillion dollars, not a trillion dollars a year, or even eight hundred billion the first year. But the politicians saw the numbers at the end of the projection and wanted to spend it all that year. Yes, our democrat friends wanted to put us in a ten trillion dollar hole during a recession. To stop this the President came up with a plan to build the surplus and end the fighting over money not in the treasury. The tax cut ended the recession in record time. In fact by the time it registered as a recession it was already over and the nation was back on the mend. Yet you give the President no credit for that do you? We get attacked by AQ and instead of trying to make friends with them or ignoring them as the previous administration he attacked them. We have been attacked by AQ throughout the Clinton Administration yet noting was done to stop them. One of the reasons AQ is not attacking us like before is because they never thought we would fight back or fight back so long.
I mention the war on terror because it is the sole reason we have a deficit at this point in time.

Paladin77

It was Bush who claimed there was a $5.6 Trillion dollar surplus that was to exist between 2002 and 2012. That was the reason for the tax cuts to return this surplus to the taxpayers. The truth is there was NO surplus. Bush was not a little off he was totally wrong. Both Greenspan and O'Neil were skeptical that such a surplus existed and recommended that the tax cuts be tied to the available surplus. They BOTH warned NOT to return to annual budget deficits and guess what-- That is just what Bush did! When it became clear there was NO SURPLUS, the tax cuts should have been reversed!

Without the tax cuts we would be taking in less money and go right back into a recession. So your plan is to have the government take in less money and at the same time fight an expensive war. Won’t that mean we would have higher deficits and less money to spend on social programs that you love?

paladin77


"Without the tax cuts we would be taking in less money "

NOT TRUE. The Comptroller General has documented we are only getting 1/2 the lost tax revenue from growth. For every dollar of the tax cuts we get back .50 cents. I agree we should have the tax cuts for middle income taxpayers who spend all the added money and help the economy. It is the 70% going to the top 10% that needs to stop and help balance the budget. No one that does not have enough money to pay their bills CUTS their income to help solve their fiscal problem except GWB! He is an idiot! I can assure you what Bush is doing to the fiscal affairs of this country was not what he was taught when he got his MBA.

Paladin77

What is your answer to the fact that the REASON Bush gave for the tax cuts, the $5.6 Trillion dollar surplus that NEVER EXISTED?

If you learn how to read try #43 The answer to your question was there. You must have missed it while jumping to conclusions.

Paladin 77

The issue that the tax cut was to correct overtaxing of the American taxpayer is not addressed in your post 63. Bush and I posted from his own statements said there would be a $5.6 Trillion projected surplus over a ten year period which was his rational why we had to give back that surplus. When it became clear there was NO surplus, the tax cuts should have ended just like Greenspan and O'Neil recommended. There is simply no justification for tax cuts to the wealthy that the Comptroller General has shown are only returning $.50 on the $1.00. You could make a case that the tax cuts that went to the middle income taxpayer helped the economy since they spend almost all the added disposable income they got from the lower taxes. However as the analysis of the 2005 data shows, 70% of the total tax cuts went to the top 10%. That is the money that should have been kept by returning tax rates and the rules on Capital Gains and Dividends as they were prior to 2001.

The surplus you are talking about never existed it was a figment of the Clinton Administration used to help Mr. Gore elected. The projections are real and if we were not in a war they would have shown up years ago. Instead we had the war eat up a lot and Katrina ate up a lot as well as the attacks on 9/11. You on the other hand enjoy sinking deeply into your ignorance by ignoring those minor facts that impact the economy. You remind me of my wife in this respect. I would tell her that we save money and hold back spending for three months and we would be able to buy what she wanted without going into debt. She continued to spend and at the end of three months she had noting saved and expected me to buy the item anyway. You see a projection of trillions of dollars and say that because you don't see the surplus we shold stop the one thing that has funded our expansion and growth. The surplus is there but it is being spent as fast as it comes in. I explained this partly in #43 but I foolishly thought you could connect the dots. My mistake.