|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Dan
Goncharoff
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 6:19
AM
Subject: Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P
Update
Bob wrote:
That makes entirely too much sense
Clyde....:)
I looked a little deeper into this CBO report
and as expected we only received a couple of snippets that support a
peculiar point of view. Besides the numerous assumptions the data is
based on we also had some other glaring, um, irregularities. Here are
a few highlights:
- all taxes were included, not just
federal
Wrong. Only federal taxes were included, but not just income tax. State
and local taxes, some of which are regressive, like sales tax, were not
included.
Wrong.
- the AMT was not
considered
Sure it was.
Where?
- the fact that 14M people were taken
off the tax rolls was also not considered
How does that change the effective federal tax rate?
Any one of these, or any of the
assumptions built in to the data, can affect the percentage spin game
being undertaken.
The fact remains that everyone's taxes were
lowered and the 80/20 rule is still very much in effect. In fact it
actually got worse for the 20% who pay 80% of the taxes - prior to the tax
cuts they paid 78.4% of the burden and now they are responsible for 82% of
the burden.This 80/20 rule reflects meaningless
percentages, since they don't take into account what percentage of total
income income pays that 80% of taxes. For example, if that 20% of taxpayers
paying 80% of the taxes earned 90% of the income, that would clearly be unfair
to the rest of us. The 80/20 rule sounds a lot worse than 80/65, which is
closer to reality.
Interesting world we live in. First
we're told that rolling back a tax cut is not a tax increase, then we're
told that after reducing someone's taxes we have somehow increased their tax
burden. But when you think about, this is entirely consistent
with positions taken on other issues.
We are also told that reducing taxes without reducing spending somehow
lessens a burden, when in fact it just pushes it onto someone else's
shoulders. Whether that is consistent with positions on the solution of other
problems is for you to judge.
We weren't told that, and I'm not defending the
excessive spending on non-national security items. But I do know what we
will get based on a 5 year Jane fonda period and a 20 year voting record in
the Senate. RegardsDanG
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Clyde
Lee(clc)
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Friday, August 13, 2004 8:23 PM
<DIV
>Subject:
Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P Update
If you really wanted a FAIR tax then consider
this:
On every transaction in which value was
exchanged
(purchase of goods, purchase of stocks, purchase of
homes,
anything you might dream of) there would be a very
small
tax based on a percentage of the dollar value of the
transaction.
Simply take the GDP and find out what % of that
would be
required to generate the equivalent of our current
taxes and
suddenly we would see FAIRNESS in taxes as a
function of
those capable of paying taxes.
This would simplify the collection -- % of gross
sales -- and
reduce the IRS audit problems to almost
nothing. No exemptions,
no alternate minimum tax, no BS, just a simple
method of
supporting our incessant desire for Government
intervention
in all aspects of our life.
Clyde
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Clyde Lee
Chairman/CEO (Home
of SwingMachine)SYTECH
Corporation email:
clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxx
7910 Westglen, Suite 105
Office: (713) 783-9540Houston, TX
77063
Fax: (713) 783-1092Details
at:
www.theswingmachine.com-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Bob
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Friday, August 13, 2004 7:37 PM
<DIV
>Subject:
Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P Update
Who's tax increased by 18%?
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
<A title=mr.ira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">mr.ira
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Friday, August 13, 2004 6:30 PM
<DIV
>Subject:
Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P Update
If your tax increased by 18+% you didn't
pay less taxes.
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Bob
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Friday, August 13, 2004 3:42 PM
<DIV
>Subject:
Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P Update
It's a cute argument but only deals
with percentages.....everyone's "burden" was in fact
reduced.
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Pete
Holt
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Friday, August 13, 2004 4:07 PM
<DIV
>Subject:
Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P Update
Hope this is the last on this subject as here
are the correct figures from a Congressional Budget Office
(non-partisan) report issued yesterday - 8/12/04.
Impact of the 2001 Bush tax cuts:
Wealthiest 20% of tax payers (av.
income=$182,700 in 2001) paid 64.4% of total federal tax payments
in 2001 decreasing to 63.5% in 2004.
Top 1% (av. income =$1.1 million) paid 22.2
% in 2001 decreasing to 20.1% in 2004
Middle income tax payers with incomes of $51,500
increased from 18.7% in 2001 to 19.5 in 2004.
Upper middle income tax payer with incomes of
$75,600 increased from 18.7% in 2001 to 19.5 in 2004.
The effective federal tax rate for the top 1% of
taxpayers fell from 33.4% to 26.7 %, a 20% drop. The tax
rate for those with incomes averaging $51,500 saw their tax rates
drop by 9.3%. The poorest taxpayers saw their tax rate drop
by 16%.
Conclusion - the 2001 tax reforms shifted the
burden of taxes from the poorest and the richest to middle income
tax payers.
These figures are for federal taxes only, and
include Medicare, social security and other federal
taxes . Were state sales and other local taxes
included, the differences would be even more stark.
The report is available from the CBO and,
probably, your congressional representatives, if you want
additional information. BTW, the CBO is headed by a former
senior economists from the Bush White House.
-- <IMG
src="jpg00060.jpg"
border=0>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtraders/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Attachment:
Description: ""
|