truthfulpolitics.com

Tax Rate Effect on the Stock Market

 Posted by  Economic Performance, Taxes  336 Responses »
Oct 062010
 
Share

John Tamny in Forbes in February 2009 mentioned the following:

  • The top income tax rate in the 1950s was 91% and the S&P 500 rose 245%
  • During the presidency of George W. Bush, “the combined federal tax on income and investment” was “lower than at any time post-World War II” and the S&P 500 fell 36%
  • During the 1950s the dollar possessed a stable value
  • During the 1970s the dollar was weak, and “the S&P rose a pedestrian 17%”
  • In the 1980s the dollar was strong, and the S&P rose 121%
  • During the 1990s, the “dollar exhibited strength” and was also very stable and the S&P rose 208%
  • In the 2000s, the dollar was mostly in decline
  • Tamny concludes that “Broad evidence suggests the greatest economic predictor is the strength of the dollar, and more importantly, the latter’s stability in terms of value.”
  • And, therefore “Democratic talk about tax cuts being a ‘losing formula’ will simply be logically bankrupt, while Republican talk of tax cuts papering over all other economic ills will be a non-sequitur.”

To read the entire article, click on Tax Cuts Stimulate, But They Don’t Solve All Ills.

Should a “Fair Tax”/Sales Tax System Replace the Current Tax System?

 Posted by  Taxes  273 Responses »
Oct 062010
 
Share

FactCheck.org in May of 2007 mentioned the following:

  • The President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform “calculated that a 34 percent rate on the actual price of consumer goods would be necessary to make the program revenue-neutral.”
  • “William Gale, director of the economic studies program at the Brookings Institute, calculates that a 39.3 percent exclusive rate would be necessary for revenue neutrality.”
  • “Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff – working from Gale’s formula and adopting the same basic assumptions – determines that a 31.2 percent exclusive” rate would be revenue-neutral.
  • “We found that including all the taxes that the FairTax would replace (income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes), those earning less than $24,156 per year would benefit.”
  • “It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year.”
  • Therefore, “those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase.”

To read the entire article, click on Unspinning the FairTax.

Pat Regnier in Money Magazine in February 2008 made the following assertion:

  • “Let’s say a hedge fund manager has a good year and earns $1 billion. If he can somehow manage to scrape by spending, say, $100 million, the other $900 million is tax free. He’ll have paid about 2% of his income in taxes that year.”

To read the entire article, click on Behind Huckabee’s radical ‘Fair Tax’.

Cut Taxes for the Wealthy or the Middle and Lower Classes?

 Posted by  Taxes  971 Responses »
Oct 062010
 
Share

Robert H. Frank in The New York Times in April 2007 reported that “for a sample of 65 industrial nations, the economists Alberto Alesina and Dani Rodrick found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates.”

To read Mr. Frank’s entire article, click on In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up.

How Taxes Have Changed Since 1960

 Posted by  Taxes  807 Responses »
Oct 062010
 
Share

Tom Curry on msnbc.com in April 2009 mentioned the following:

  • In 1960, payroll taxes accounted for 16% of federal tax revenues
  • In 2008, payroll taxes accounted for 35% of federal tax revenues
  • Payroll taxes comprise Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
  • In 1979, the top 10% of income-earning households paid 40.6% of all federal taxes
  • In 2005, the top 10% of income-earning households paid 55% of all federal taxes
  • This change was primarily caused by a concentration in income rather than a more progressive tax system
  • In the 1970s, the top 0.1% of income earners received 2.5% of all income
  • In 2000, the top 0.1% of income earners received 9% of all income
  • In 1960, excise taxes accounted for 13% of total federal revenues
  • In 2009, excise taxes accounted for 2% of total federal revenues
  • Excise taxes are paid on items such as gasoline, alcohol, firearms, etc.
  • In 1960, corporate income taxes accounted for 23% of of federal revenues
  • In 2009, corporate income taxes accounted for 13% of of federal revenues
  • The primary reason for the decline was due to the introduction of new business entities that allowed corporate revenue to be taxed as ordinary income, thus showing up as individual income tax.

To read the entire article, click on How the tax burden has changed since 1960.

Federal Government Individual and Corporate Tax Revenue

 Posted by  Taxes  21 Responses »
Oct 052010
 
Share

truthful politics has several articles about U.S. federal government income and/or corporate tax revenue.  The following are some examples:

To see all articles involving the issue of taxes, click on Taxes.

truthfulpolitics.com Feedback

 Posted by  truthful politics Feedback  516 Responses »
Oct 022010
 
Share

If you have feedback or suggestions for the website, all ideas are welcomed. Furthermore, if you like the premise of our mission and would like to contribute articles and information, all ideas and potential contributors are welcomed.

Join Us

If you would like to contribute to truthful politics, either as a freelance journalist or guest blogger, please email freelancejournalist10@truthfulpolitics.com.

Contact Us

To email truthful politics (i.e., letters to the editor) or report technical problems with this website, please email beinformed10@truthfulpolitics.com.

 Newer Entries