[Rhodes22-list] TAXES - What's with these (non-political) newbies???? for thewindbags..; ^)

Mon Jul 21 21:38:38 EDT 2008

Mike,

Fred Thompson said during his short run for POTUS (man I'd love to have that
money back) that every candidate was for change but the incumbents.  I've
done a quick and dirty calculation of what CHANGE will do for my family and
it will cost a brand spanking new Rhodes 22 every year from now on (10 years
according to the Messiah constitutional scholar).

Here's one more Inconvenient Truth (posted below).  I can't get excited
about CHANGE.  I HOPE I have some change left when this is all over!

Brad

-----------------
Their Fair Share
July 21, 2008; Page A12

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to
make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on
who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for
the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003
Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the
rich in American history.
[image: [Their Fair Share]]

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above
$388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at
least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904,
paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom,
but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income
below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top
50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes
to support the other half.

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share
of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income.
But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of
income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the
top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover
in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who
started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest
declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade,
according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to
stay king of the hill in America for long.

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans
who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to
2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000
in a mere three years after the tax cuts.

This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax
rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would
grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and
companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would
invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would
rise, which did happen.

The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the
left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled
to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever
plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax
cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in
the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.

This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the
rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates
will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by
raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s.
The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center
that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1
trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would
gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager
that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were
as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only
19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because
they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income
from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data
provide more powerful validation of that proposition.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Michael D. Weisner <mweisner at ebsmed.com>
wrote:

> Yup.  It's the NEW American way.  We need CHANGE!
>
> Your ball, Brad.
>
> Mike
> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
> Nissequogue River, NY
>
>
> From: "elle" <watermusic38 at yahoo.com>Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:31 PM
> >I cannot believe these newbies who complain about the content of 'da
> list'.
> >
> > Do these people go to others' homes & criticize the decor???
> >
> > They just waltz in & feel that the list has to conform to their
> > preconceived notions......
> >
> > Do they not have a 'delete' key on their keyboards??
> >
> > We have the same problem with our museum photo group...just the other
> > day...instead of sitting back & getting the lay of the land, & seeing who
> > is who & who does what, they start right off with how we could do things
> > 'different...better...otherwise'.....not knowing that we've been there &
> > back....
> >
> > Ok, I'm done.
> >
> > elle..the roseanne roseannadanna clone
> >
> >
> >
> > We can't change the angle of the wind....but we can adjust our sails.
> >
> > 1992 Rhodes 22   Recyc '06  "WaterMusic"   (Lady in Red)
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/21/08, Jack Wyman <jackwyman at mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jack Wyman <jackwyman at mindspring.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Brad's 25 minute demonstration of true
> >> evil[political]
> >> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> Date: Monday, July 21, 2008, 5:56 PM
> >> I'm a newbie to the R22-list. I'm an oldie on a
> >> couple of other
> >> sailboat lists.
> >>
> >> Would you believe that other lists' postings nearly all
> >> relate to sailing?
> >> Wow. What a concept. The postings are frequently
> >> interspersed with good
> >> humor, and camaraderie. Political and religious postings
> >> are nearly
> >> non-existent. In other words, these other sites are
> >> interesting, useful,
> >> friendly and entertaining. It appears to me your R22-list
> >> has been
> >> mostly taken over by a few political "experts".
> >> (With answers
> >> to all the nation's problems, I wonder why they
> >> don't run for high office.
> >> Isn't it their patriotic duty to do so?)
> >>
> >> And what a shame that such an innovative boat as the Rhodes
> >> 22 somehow
> >> attracts (and tolerates) these windbags. Is there no
> >> moderator to rein them
> >> in?
> >>
> >> I suppose the R22 political experts will pillory me now,
> >> but I'll be
> >> unsubscribing today, so I'll never know. What a loss.
> >>
> >> Jack Wyman
> >> Manchester, Michigan
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing
> >> list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> __________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>