|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I suggest you do the same, and that we end this
thread agreeing to disagree.
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Dan
Goncharoff
To: <A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:35
AM
Subject: Re: [RT] Fwd: Bond and S&P
Update
I suggest you read the document again. It is referring to
effective tax rates, defined as "the total federal taxes people bear measured
as a percentage of their income".There is no simple list of taxes
included, but there is a description of the methodology used that will
suffice:
The analysis assigns taxes to households on the basis of who bears the
burden of the taxes. In particular, it assumes the following:*
Households bear the burden of all taxes that they pay directly, specifically,
individual income taxes and the employee’s share of payroll taxes.*
Households pay excise taxes according to their consumption of taxed goods,
such as tobacco and alcohol. In the case of excise taxes on intermediate
goods, suchas components of consumer goods, households bear the taxes in
proportion to their overall consumption.* The burden of taxes levied on
businesses actually falls on households. In line with most economists, CBO
assumes that the employer’s share of payroll taxes fallson employees and
thus assigns those payments to employees both as income and taxes paid. The
analysis assumes that corporate income taxes fall on the ownersof capital
and allocates those liabilities—again, both as income and as taxes—to
households in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, rents, and
capitalgains.Because of uncertainty about the incidence of other
taxes and some data limitations, the analysis excludes estate and gift taxes,
tariffs, and other miscellaneous sources of revenue.
What about AMT? Although not mentioned in this section, there is an active
discussion about the changing impact of AMT on the effective tax rate
calculation in future years on page 5, which shows that the effects of AMT are
included in the calculation for past years.You still haven't addressed
the importance of your 14m "taken off the tax roles" in a calculation that is
based on household income.Your last comment speaks for itself as an
abandonment of fact-based argument. When you can find facts that support the
way you think the world works, please let us
know.RegardsDanGBob wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
>
<DIV
>-----
Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Dan
Goncharoff
<DIV
>To:
<A title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV
>Sent:
Saturday, August 14, 2004 6:19 AM
<DIV
>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:
<A title=clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">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: <A
href="">clydelee@xxxxxxxxxxxx
7910 Westglen, Suite 105
Office: (713) 783-9540Houston, TX
77063
Fax: (713) 783-1092Details
at:
<A
href="">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:
<A title=BHEISLER@xxxxxxxxx
href="">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="jpg00063.jpg"
border=0>
-- <IMG
src="jpg00064.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: ""
Attachment:
Description: ""
|