Income Tax Burden Lowest Levels In Decades

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

When I make statements of opinion, I like to back it up with material I have read somewhere, so I'm not just speaking out of my hat. Yes, the "unbiased source" is "The American Conservative" magazine.

You are speaking out of someone else's hat, as that is not an unbiased source.

Frank

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

You are speaking out of someone else's hat, as that is not an unbiased source.

Frank

No, it's not an unbiased source. It's a magazine for conservatives. I thought you might appreciate that.

What do you consider an unbiased source?

And, I think the evidence is clear that the Republicans are statists and imperialists, even without this author's opinion.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

No, it's not an unbiased source. It's a magazine for conservatives. I thought you might appreciate that.

Even if a source conforms with my own internal bias, doesn't mean it is unbiased. I will always point out biased sources, regardless of which side they fall on.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

What do you consider an unbiased source?

Assocated Press, Reuters, many major newspapers, local newspapers, anything where it is not clear that there is a bias (example, a publication that has the word conservative or liberal in the title is probably a biased source).

Originally Posted by Etta Place

And, I think the evidence is clear that the Republicans are statists and imperialists, even without this author's opinion.

Show us the evidence. No cut and pastes please.

Frank

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Even if a source conforms with my own internal bias, doesn't mean it is unbiased. I will always point out biased sources, regardless of which side they fall on.



Assocated Press, Reuters, many major newspapers, local newspapers, anything where it is not clear that there is a bias (example, a publication that has the word conservative or liberal in the title is probably a biased source).



Show us the evidence. No cut and pastes please.

Frank

Bush and the Republicans increased spending at a level not seen since Lyndon Johnson. I'm sure you would think of him as a statist.

Bush and the neocons have committed the U.S. to military dominance around the globe, have invaded and occupied one country, and have threatened to invade others. Plus, they continue a policy that has been in effect for the past 60 years of having U.S. military bases garrisoning the planet.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Sorry, but there is a BIG difference between digging up old posts than claiming that someone wants to murder people and putting them up on a pedestal with bin laden and hitler. A BIG difference...

Really? He said it. I found it objectionable. I stated how I felt about it. You disagree and think it's a joke. End of story. End of discussion. Talk to yourself if you like (it certainly would be very far from the first time...who else here has ever done what you do? Make a half dozen or so consecutive unanswered posts.....obviously you like to "hear" yourself.....have at it!!!!!)

Peace,
D.

[Powerman]

I was looking for more info on this and came accross this:

Recent Tax Cuts Have Primarily Benefited High-Income Households

Although middle-income taxpayers, and particularly those with children, have benefited from the tax cuts enacted since 2001, the bulk of the benefits from those tax cuts have accrued not to middle-income families but to those with high incomes.

• Households that make more than $1 million a year are receiving an average tax cut of about $111,000 in 2006 from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, according to estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is nearly 150 times the size of the average tax cut that families in the middle of the income scale are receiving ($74.

• In 2006, the tax cuts will increase the after-tax incomes of this “millionaire” group by 5.7 percent, more than twice as much as the percentage gain for families in the middle of the income scale (2.5 percent).

• This increase in after-tax income for those at the top of the income spectrum will exacerbate underlying trends that have led to an increasing concentration of income at the pinnacle of the income scale. CBO data show, for instance, that the average after-tax income for the top one percent of households grew 129 percent between 1979 and 2003, after adjusting for inflation, while households in the middle of the income spectrum experienced an average increase of only 15 percent over this period.[3]

This is the same CBO data displayed in the OP. While I agree that the rich should not be penalized, they did in fact receive a larger break as some claim.

Full info:

Federal Tax Burdens at Lowest Levels in Decades, 4/10/06

There is also some more info on government spending and tax revenue.

[Powerman]

Here is PDF from the Tax Foundation. "Local and State tax burdens hit 25 year high."

Interesting stuff. See where your state ranks. Sorry Vermonters.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr153.pdf


So I am up to 23% and have not included Medicare and Social Security yet.