Facts About Taxes The Republican Party Hides from its Voters

"Tax Ignoramuses. House Republicans Exploit Americans’ Misunderstanding of Marginal Tax Rates To Sow Fear About Obama’s Proposed Tax Hikes," By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2012, at 3:15 PM ET

"What’s striking about this whole debate is how the very business owners and politicians who seem certain that tax shifts will radically harm the economy are bizarrely uninformed about how the tax code actually works. In particular, they don’t appear to understand what marginal tax rates and tax brackets actually are.

The way U.S. income tax brackets work is that taxes are levied on marginal income. In other words, the rate applied to income earned over the $250,000 threshold is irrelevant to the first $250,000 worth of taxable income. If you have $250,010 of taxable earnings then only that last $10 is taxed at the higher rate. In all cases, higher pre-tax earnings lead to higher after-tax income.

As even House Speaker John Boehner has been known to admit, only 3 percent of small firm proprietors would be affected by these higher taxes, precisely because what’s taxed is profits, not gross revenue. Relatively few people—whether they’re highly skilled professionals, managers of large firms, or owners of small businesses—are successful enough to have more than $250,000 in take-home pay."

Robert Reich.org
The Truth About Obama’s Tax Proposal (and the Lies the Regressives are Telling About It),Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Mr. Reich is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock" and “The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

"To hear the media report it, President Obama is proposing a tax increase on wealthy Americans. That’s misleading at best. He’s proposing that everyone receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their incomes. Any dollars they earn in excess of $250,000 will be taxed at the old Clinton-era rates."

The Washington Post
"No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t ‘the largest tax increase in the history of the world’ (in one chart)"
Posted by Ezra Klein on July 2, 2012 at 8:15 am

"So no, the Affordable Care Act isn’t the “biggest tax hike in history.” It’s not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years."

Related books or media from post: 
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

( not mooches who own nothing) net worth GONE, VANISHED, all dust in the wind because of who this poster votes for and, he is worried about tax rates paid by business owners, who pass ALL Costs of doing business, INCLUDING TAXES, onto the consumer ?!

Once again, vapid, obtuse, and dissolute Liberal lying posters reveal their horrid public educations for all to see their complete and utter stupidity !

Woodward, Libbey, Scott, Waite, which cesspool of nothingness did you attend !?
Don't answer, it doesn't matter and quite frankly, I don't give a spit !

Marginal tax rates are highly misunderstood. I remember mentioning to someone at work that tax rates used to be MUCH higher--a top marginal rate of 90% at some point if I remember correctly. He thought the government took 90% of everything earned. I don't doubt many others are clueless. In truth, we all pay the same rates on what we earn.

If I make $50K, I'm in the 25% bracket. Bill Gates is also in the 25% bracket for his first $50K

Pink Slip

Something that is also of interest is what conservatives mean when they call something a "small business". We often picture the typical "Mom and Pop" store. Perhaps, if they are lucky, such a store might gross $200,000 or $250,000, which would mean a net income after expenses of $40,000 or $50,000 at most. This is NOT the conservatives' definition of a "small business"!

On the Small Business Association website, they are lobbying to have the definition of "small business" in one category changed to be increased to include "small" businesses with gross annual receipts of up to $30 million!! Now, in the world of high finance, a business with $30 million of gross annual receipts, is tiny! Remember, Exxon-Mobil had about $383 BILLION in gross receipts last year. Even Cedar Fair, the parent company to Cedar Point and several other amusement parks and water parks, had gross receipts topping $1 BILLION.

So, along with the information above about the nature of the graduated income tax, remember how different the conservatives' definition of "small business" is from what most Americans picture as a small business. Few, if any, families who run real "Mom and Pop" businesses will pay one penny more if the Democratic proposal to return the top income tax rate to that which the U.S. had in the very prosperous Clinton years, would become law.

The bottom line is the top 20% of wage earners pay the vast majority of the federal income tax.
Just admit that 0bama wants to redistribute the wealth in this country.

As Thomas Sowell said, "I'll never understand why is "greed" to want to keep the money you've earned, but not greed to want to take someone else's money".

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

"The bottom line is the top 20% of wage earners pay the vast majority of the federal income tax."

They should--they own most of the wealth, not to mention owning most of the politicians.

Pink Slip

If tomorrow I get a bonus check for $250,000, how does that hurt you? Would you be poorer? Would you have to pay more taxes? Would you get to pay fewer taxes?

If that $250,000 got you additional access to politicians that make the laws---then absolutely it could hurt me. And that's often the case--those with more money get special access to politicians and are more likely to get laws written in their favor--often to the detriment of the rest of society.

Pink Slip

Why is giving more money to the government the answer? What does the government do well? Keep the roads and bridges updated? Put enough firemen and policemen on the streets? Provide a wonderful education system? Keep criminals in jail? Keep illegal aliens out of our Country?

"They should--they own most of the wealth, not to mention owning most of the politicians."

This is a very revealing statement. Typical of liberal thinking.
So, if someone through their own initiative and hard work makes a lot of money they should be required to give a large portion of it to the government for redistribution correct?
Because wealth should be distributed evenly? If people that do nothing get the same as the people that bust their asses, why should the people that bust ass bother?

The U.S. doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

millionaires did not want to trade places with those in the working class. We're talking about a top rate today that is less than HALF of what it was when Republican Dwight Eisenhower was President. The Democratic proposal will NOT see that "...wealth should be distributed equally." You are grossly, and purposely, exaggerating the Democratic proposal! The top rate would return to the same rate it was when Bill Clinton was President, America had a very prosperous 8 years, and the top rate was still LESS THAN HALF of what it was under Republican Dwight Eisenhower! Yes, Virginia. Tax rates have come down in the last 50 years. A LOT!!

Since Willard and his wife paid a lower percentage of their gross income in taxes than did my wife and I, we don't have a high tax problem in America. In fact, when compared to most of the developed world, America's Federal tax rates are low! Look it up.

There I go again -- using those nasty facts that ideologues hate so much. Sorry, JM.

Again--why do you feel the need to defend the Government? Who cares if the rate of money that the government forcibly takes from someone is less than it used to be? Shouldn't that be a good thing?

If you're not rich, but feel jealous of the rich--then become rich! Get over it!

I support my opinions with facts, and it obviously drives you crazy!

I'm not jealous of anybody!
Charges like these by you, say more about you than they do about me.

I never said wealth should be distributed evenly. Take that shit elsewhere. The wealthy have better access to politicians, the markets, the courts, etc...so of course they should pay a higher percentage of taxes. It's also well-documented that when income inequality reaches a certain tipping point, the economy crashes and everyone else suffers. The latest Wall St crash is a good example. Income inequality was at it's widest gap since right before the Great Depression. Wealthy people wrecked the economy, and the poor suffered.

Pink Slip

Speaking of tipping points, how long until there are more people receiving governments handouts than there are working to pay for them? Are we already there?
How long can that go on?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.