Where is the US economy headed?

No, it's not a tough call. The guy does it for a living, whereas you have no training whatsoever and don't know **** about economics. So why should we believe you over him?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, it's not a tough call. The guy does it for a living, whereas you have no training whatsoever and don't know **** about economics. So why should we believe you over him?

Cycloptichorn

A question for you, cyclops, who is a better expert on football, an ESPN analyst or a successful player in the league for over 25 years.

I would suggest Krugman go run a company or a business as a career instead of being nothing more than a biased analyst favoring one team or certain teams.

To be totally honest, I would need to look at the specific tax rates and make a judgement in regard to them. I might favor eliminating some tax rate changes during the Bush years.

By the way, are you aware that Bush, at least I think so, that Bush was responsible for giving greater tax cuts to the very low wage earners, thus helping the poor, often resulting in tax rebates over and above what the wage earners paid in, which is directly contradictory to the charge that all of Bush's tax cuts were for the rich

Essentially, Democrats have been blatantly lying about this, right cyclops?

You've already admitted that you don't know much about Krugman, yet feel perfectly comfortable labelling him as a 'biased analyst.' Upon what do you base this assertion? The fact that he disagrees with the analysis you would like to see?

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

By the way, are you aware that Bush, at least I think so, that Bush was responsible for giving greater tax cuts to the very low wage earners, thus helping the poor, often resulting in tax rebates over and above what the wage earners paid in, which is directly contradictory to the charge that all of Bush's tax cuts were for the rich

What a ******* joke. The 'poor' got back higher percentages, true; but so what? That means a poor person might recieve a few hundred dollars in tax cuts and rebates, maybe a few thousand. The rich, on the other hand, receive dozens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax cuts - even though they are getting a lower rate cut than the poor.

I think percentages and tax brackets confuse you, Okie. The vast majority of the savings of the tax cuts Bush passed went to the Rich.

Quote:

Essentially, Democrats have been blatantly lying about this, right cyclops?

No, they haven't.

I think you should stick with some area other than economics, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

I admit to not knowing much about him, I give you that, you win. I cannot help but notice however that you always use Krugman as your reference

I will do this for you, with time and opportunity, I will try to make a point of paying attention to what the guy says, in order to get a better handle on what he is really about.

The above is a beautiful example of the liberal twisting of the facts to suit their pattern of demagoguery. Of course, the people paying higher amounts of taxes might receive most of the tax cuts, by virtue of the fact that they are paying most of the taxes. If you pay no tax, it is difficult to receive a tax cut.

Cyclops, what is it that you want, simply rob the rich people of more of their money so that it can be given to the people that earn nothing and pay nothing in, is that what you really want? That is the only logical conclusion that I can draw from your outlandish and twisted logic.

Lets get down to brass tacks, what marginal rate structure do you favor? How about some numbers?

Isn't this what we already have, which is pretty heavily weighted onto higher earners.
10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50

Let me clarify, when you say double the brackets for the top 3, are you saying 10% on the first 32K, or 20% on the first 16K ?

I would not favor increasing the rate over the 10% at all for the lowest brackets. For example, when I add the 15% SS and Medicare to the income tax I pay, I end up paying to the government over 20 grand on an income of considerably less than 100K, or close to 30% of every dollar I earn.

I assume you're not rich Cyclo. Don't you ever wonder why?

What.... you don't like libertarians all of a sudden?

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, it's not a tough call. The guy does it for a living, whereas you have no training whatsoever and don't know **** about economics. So why should we believe you over him?

Cycloptichorn

A question for you, cyclops, who is a better expert on football, an ESPN analyst or a successful player in the league for over 25 years.

Another example of one-dimensional thinking on your part. You can't say with any assurance that one is a better expert on football than the other.

10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50

Double the brackets for the top three. Increase the rest by half.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50

Double the brackets for the top three. Increase the rest by half.

Cycloptichorn

So here's your proposed tax table:
15% on the first $16,750
22.5% on the income between $16,700 and $68,000; plus $2512.50
37.5% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $14,055
42% on the income between $137,500 and $209,250; plus $40,042.50
66% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $70,177.5
70% on the income over $373,650; plus $178,681.50

Using this table a typical married couple making $75,000 would have a federal tax bill of $2962.50 compared to $1975.00 today. I don't think you're going to get a lot of support in raising the lowest levels by half.

oops, wait.... I only doubled the top two not the top three. The bottom rows are correct.