Now you're off to the races with a general diatribe against taxes and for supply-side economics, and I am not interested in going there. My first post in this thread was on the very specific point of whether the rich pay less taxes under Bush than they did before. I know I am not going to convince you on the larger issues.


>That article makes a mistake by considering revenues to be stagnant regardless of tax policy. When taxes are lowered, revenues increase. More investment, leads to an expanding economy which results in more income and thus more tax revenue.
>
>Simply look to 2006, 2 years beyond that article's scope, for the proof.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>
>Contrary to the article's headline, the only surprising thing is that after all these years publications like the New York Times are still surprised that lower taxes produce greater revenues.
>
>
>>This has long been known. It has been that way ever since we first had an income tax. My point was that the rich are paying less, relatively, under Bush than they were before, the main vehicle being the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.
>>
>>Here is a link to an article with a lot of facts and figures. It also discusses the disastrous effect the tax cuts have had on the national debt at a time when it was already soaring due to costs in Iraq.
>>
>>http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
>>
>>I am out of here until Monday. Have a good weekend, all.
>>
>>
>>>The numbers say it all. The top earners pay more than their share in taxes compared to their share of total income due to our progressively rated income tax system. The idea that they don't is populist fodder for the ignorant masses.
>>>
>>>>Those are really misleading statistics. They compare total dollars paid and say nothing about the rates different people pay. Some bond trader or litigator who makes $2 million a year pays a lot of dollars even if their rate is relatively low. It takes a lot of 40K wage earners to equal what that one individual paid.
>>>>
>>>>The first one, about those making 67.5% of income paying 80% of taxes, why is that presented as an outrage? Or even a problem? We do have a progressive income tax, as much as some might wish we didn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns." -- emphasis mine
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fortunately for the UberRich they have had good protection the past 7 years ;-( And who gets to pay the bill so they don't have to? Those of us who are not poor but are far from rich.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The AMT tax will effect many normal people in the near future. It is assessed on top of your regular tax if their formula determines you have too many legal deductions. Since it is not indexed for inflation, more and more people will 'qualify' for it until they change it. Things like having a lot of children or living in a high income tax state can trigger it at suprisingly low levels. I have had to jump through hoops to avoid it myself, but I won't be able to for 2007 and beyond. It was originally written to target a couple hundred of the UberRich.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't really understand the details of the AMT. I know it was featured prominently in the news back in the dotcom bust days. Something about paying taxes on stock options based on the price of the option vs. the market price of the stock the day the option was excercised.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There were many stories of people who had excercised options and had yearly incomes of 50-70k. They ended up with 300k tax bills.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think there are similar stories today. But I'm not sure what triggers the hugh AMT assesment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There's good and there's the bad:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20071024%5cACQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A small section:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Middle and upper-middle income families would benefit under the plan by a repeal of the alternative minimum tax starting Jan. 1, 2008.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The surtax will also make possible an expansion of the earned income tax credit, an increase in the standard deduction, and an increase in the value of the child tax credit for those earning too little to owe federal income taxes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A third section of the plan would address a number of pressing tax issues, including a temporary patch of the alternative minimum tax prior to Jan. 1, 2008, and the extension of a number of expiring tax provisions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Absent a patch, the alternative minimum tax will expand to hit roughly 25 million taxpayers, up from 4.4 million in 2006, increasing their taxes by a total of nearly $50 billion, according to congressional estimates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And a Republican rebuttal:
>>>>>>>>>http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=133