quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Wrong on all counts... Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. CLICK The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several federal taxes in the United States. Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%. Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families. The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006. Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation. The act also provided tax relief for education savings and retirement accounts. Some expiring business tax provisions were extended. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997. CLICK

To this day it never ceases to amaze me how republicans continually try to claim credit for balancing the budget during the Clinton years through legislative majority after the fact ...

___________________
Retro ...

socialist socialist socialist!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I would propose that the gap grows because socialist-like tax policies ironically push the coveted top 5% into hiding, leaving the middle-class holding the bag (yet again).

But that's not socialism then is it? That's a tax policy that favours the rich. You need a progressive tax policy with no loopholes for the rich otherwise it simply is not socialist in the slightest. What we have today is an ideology prevalent (in all our countries in the West I would argue) that says "what's good for the rich and business is good for the rest". That's why our governments are so reluctant to close loopholes for the rich because they're on their side...

You also seem to be suggesting that those at the top do not pay enough tax and should shoulder more of the burden, and with that I can agree with you

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt socialist socialist socialist!

I need to find one of these rallies so I can fuck with idiots.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/10...west-level.html

quote:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data show that the total effective federal tax rate of the middle fifth of households declined after 2001 to its lowest levels since at least 1979, Congressman Jim Saxton, ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, said today. Under the 2001 and 2003 tax relief legislation, the income tax as a share of income for the middle fifth also has fallen to its lowest levels in decades (see chart above, click to enlarge). In 2005, the CBO data indicate that in the middle fifth, the total effective tax rate -- the share of federal taxes as a percent of income -- was 14.2%, while the effective individual income tax rate was 3.0%. These figures compare to 2000 levels of 16.6% and 5.0%, respectively. Between 2003 and 2005, the total effective tax rate for the middle fifth edged up, but still remained far below the levels of the previous 24 years. “The CBO analysis shows that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have lowered the tax burden on middle income taxpayers to the lowest levels since at least the late 1970s,” Saxton said. “The CBO tax figures, put into historical perspective, also show that the income tax burden of middle income households has been reduced to its lowest levels in many years,” Saxton concluded. The total effective tax rate includes income, payroll, and excise taxes. The CBO tax numbers do have limitations, and it should be recalled that most households do not remain in a specific quintile for extended periods of time. ~From the Joint Economic Committee of Congress (no link available yet)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SQYX5ME4K6I/AAAAAAAAHkc/9ibqYn9yFB0/s1600-h/tax2.bmp