Senate Votes to Side With the Middle Class, Gauntlet Thrown Down to House Repubs.

[Full-Auto]

His link clearly says he is using NON inflation adjusted numbers. Which means his entire "analysis" is based on faulty information.

God, you guys suck at this.

Sorry, but you lose.

Bush stuck those filthy rich for a cool trillion more in extra taxes than Clinton.

And the rich paid a whopping 38% of their incomes to tax versus 33% under Clinton.

Bush stuck it to The Man.

Open your eyes and stop living the Liberal Lie.

I'm starting to wonder how Conservatives ever got the reputation as the ones who are good at Economics. Because you guys really, really, really suck at it.

Inflation adjustment

By adjusting for inflation, you uncover the real growth, if any. You also may stabilize the variance of random or seasonal fluctuations and/or highlight cyclical patterns in the data. Inflation-adjustment is not always necessary when dealing with monetary variables--sometimes it is simpler to forecast the data in nominal terms or to use a logarithm transformation for stabilizing the variance--but it is an important tool in the toolkit for analyzing economic data.

So what Duke University is telling us that you don't HAVE to adjust for inflation, unless you want to see real growth. So yeah, have fun looking at your numbers through a Conservative Prism, dummies.

Comical from the side that says a 5% increase in spending is a cut..............

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm still waiting for our resident Lefties to explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent response.

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue. It decreases revenue. It's something we have known for a long time. The only thing that increase revenue is productiviy and commerce. Raising taxes influences neither.

 

[SniperFire]

Inflation does not account for nearly $800 billion in new taxes extracted from those filthy rich in just 4 year period, Libtards.

That the evil rich paid 38% under Bush versus just 33% under Clinton is the reason.

Liberal Lie gotcha down?


LOL

 

[Stephanie]

But it has put the 51 Senators who want to raise taxes on record.

keep this in mind and pass it around

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Bush tax cuts EXPLODED Federal tax receipts, Libtards.

He also forced the filthy rich to pay 38% of their incomes versus 33% under Clinton.

Why do you want to go back to Clinton?

Where the fuck are you getting your numbers from? The top marginal rate under Clinton, which was in place when he left office, was 39%. The first Bush tax cut dropped it to 38% and then the next one brought it down to 35%. Making shit up doesn't work when you can google.

Historical Top Tax Rate

 

[ConservaDerrps]

But it has put the 51 Senators who want to raise taxes on record.

keep this in mind and pass it around

Raise taxes on who? The rich? Somehow I think America as a whole won't give a fuck.

 

[SniperFire]

The top marginal rate under Clinton

That has little to do with it, retard.

Bush extracted 38% of earnings from those dirty, evil rich people you envy.

Clinton only got 33%.

Bush stuck it to The Man, and you live the Liberal Lie.

 

[Claudette]

I'm still waiting for our resident Lefties to explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent response.

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue. It decreases revenue. It's something we have known for a long time. The only thing that increase revenue is productiviy and commerce. Raising taxes influences neither.

Raising taxes on the rich does make the liberal, Dem idiots happy though. They can point out their great accomplishment to the middle class. Kinda like Obamacare. Another great Dem accomplishement.

Oh yeah. Lets watch the economy take off like a rocket because we raised taxed on the "rich."


Hint. I won't hold my breath and you shouldn't either.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Where the fuck are you getting your numbers from? The top marginal rate under Clinton,

That has little to do with it, retard.

Uh. No, you fucking mouth-breathing simpleton. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Did you, or did you not JUST claim that Bush's top marginal tax rate was 33% and Cilinton's was 38%?

 

[SniperFire]

Where the fuck are you getting your numbers from? The top marginal rate under Clinton,

That has little to do with it, retard.

Uh. No, you fucking mouth-breathing simpleton. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Did you, or did you not JUST claim that Bush's top marginal tax rate was 33% and Cilinton's was 38%?

No, asshole.

 

[SniperFire]

See. Libtard, Clinton whacked capital gain taxes.

 

[DontBeStupid]

From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

Ain't numbers fun?

See, Libtard, Bush tax cuts drove Federal tax receipts to record highs - just as planned.

Cool. So you adjusted your numbers for inflation then?

Are you actually trying to argue that the RECORD $785 billion in increased Federal tax receipts during those 4 years was due to inflation?


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

In 2000, income tax revenue was $980.521B. This is based on the link in the article you provided earlier.

Adding inflation to this number for the next 7 years, you get $1,180.844B. So, if nothing else happened but gradual inflation, we should have had $1,181B in income tax revenue in 2007.

According to the article YOU posted, we had $1,116B in 2007. $65B LOWER than what we should have had if we had done nothing.

Inflation numbers here: Historical Inflation Rate | InflationData.com

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Cool. So you adjusted your numbers for inflation then?

Are you actually trying to argue that the RECORD $785 billion in increased Federal tax receipts during those 4 years was due to inflation?


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

In 2000, income tax revenue was $980.521B. This is based on the link in the article you provided earlier.

Adding inflation to this number for the next 7 years, you get $1,180.844B. So, if nothing else happened but gradual inflation, we should have had $1,181B in income tax revenue in 2007.

According to the article YOU posted, we had $1,116B in 2007. $65B LOWER than what we should have had if we had done nothing.

Inflation numbers here: Historical Inflation Rate | InflationData.com

And suddenly Lie-Ability is silent. Gee. Wonder why.

 

[8537]

LOL DAMN THAT IS DESPERATE.

When you can show all Americans pay the same tax rate, your argument will have merit.

Until then you make a wonderful useful idiot intent on keeping the division of Americans alive.

Every American pays the exact same tax rate on each dollar of taxable income.

Thanks to this move by the Senate, every American will pay a lower rate on each dollar of taxable income between 0 and $382,967.

This legislation benefits reduces future taxes for everyone who works.

Your argument that this legislation only cuts taxes for the middle classes is not only without merit, it's a lie. Quit getting your education from the radio.

Middle-Class Tax Cuts Preserved For A Year In Bill Passed By Senate (UPDATE)

That is the article.

Point it out...............

I'm not responsible for what you read at Huffpo. I'm simply explaining how this legislation reduces the future tax obligations of all working people, not just the middle class.

 

[8537]

LOL DAMN THAT IS DESPERATE.

When you can show all Americans pay the same tax rate, your argument will have merit.

Until then you make a wonderful useful idiot intent on keeping the division of Americans alive.

Every American pays the exact same tax rate on each dollar of taxable income.

Thanks to this move by the Senate, every American will pay a lower rate on each dollar of taxable income between 0 and $382,967.

This legislation benefits reduces future taxes for everyone who works.

Your argument that this legislation only cuts taxes for the middle classes is not only without merit, it's a lie. Quit getting your education from the radio.

Tax Cuts

WASHINGTON -- Senators blinked in the political standoff over how much of the Bush-era tax cuts to extend for another year and voted Wednesday to keep current rates for people with incomes of less than $250,000.

Tax rates would rise by 4 percent on incomes above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for single filers. Popular breaks like the child tax credit would be preserved.

Whos lying you or the OP?

^you don't understand marginal rates.

 

[8537]

Bush tax cuts EXPLODED Federal tax receipts, Libtards.

That's how we got the longest post-war period between peaks in real revenues. An "explosion" in tax revenues.

 

[8537]

I'm still waiting for our resident Lefties to explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent response.

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue. It decreases revenue.

Oh really? So why did Reagan pass the largest tax hike in modern US history and also nearly double the FICA tax?

Was he trying to reduce revenues?

 

[BlindBoo]

For the record you do know that everyone in the upper tax bracket will still be getting the tax break in the 15%, 25% and 28% brackets (everything below $200,000 for individuals). And extending the cuts for the lower brackets will increase the debt 800 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

 

[Conservative]

Outstanding work by the democrats fighting for the middle class

By extending the Bush Tax Cuts. You neglected to include that part in your post, dumb ass.

 

[Conservative]

I'm still waiting for our resident Lefties to explain WHY they believe raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent response.

Raising tax rates will lead to increase revenue which will help lower the deficit.

You're welcome.

Raising taxes does not automatically increase revenue. Additionally, increasing revenue does not automaticazlly lower the deficit.

Dumb ass.