The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, based in Washington, D.C.. The Center is mostly composed of tax lawyers, accountants and former politicians; their main focus is to provide accessible analysis and facts about tax policy to policymakers, journalists, citizens, and researchers.


Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist


The Urban Institute was established as an independent organization in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to study the nation’s urban problems and evaluate the Great Society initiatives embodied in more than 400 laws passed in the prior four years. Gradually, its research and funding base broadened.

These organizations that make up the tax policy center.

5forfighting wrote:

The "rich" already pay far more in taxes than anyone else. How much further to you want to punish them for their success before you feel it's gone far enough. Just because you are a failure doesn't give you a right to something someone else earned.

like i said before, i'm not down with punishing the rich. i am down with the people who benefit the most from what america provides paying the most back to america for providing them with those opportunties. if the rich think it's not america that is giving them those opportunties or that there are better opportunties in a country that doesn't tax the rich they should go there.
ps-i'm a failure!!?? that shows how little you know about anything.

fred wrote:

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, based in Washington, D.C.. The Center is mostly composed of tax lawyers, accountants and former politicians; their main focus is to provide accessible analysis and facts about tax policy to policymakers, journalists, citizens, and researchers. Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist The Urban Institute was established as an independent organization in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to study the nation’s urban problems and evaluate the Great Society initiatives embodied in more than 400 laws passed in the prior four years. Gradually, its research and funding base broadened. These organizations that make up the tax policy center.

Gradually, its research and funding base broadened.

"But during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama said subjecting more of a person's income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president."

Come on they're liberal organizations. Everybody knows that.

I agree that under McCains plan "rich" people will get to keep more of their money than under Obamas plan. But so will poor people. Now if I get to keep 5% more of my money and a guy who makes 50,000 a year gets to keep 10% more of his money. I will get to keep more dollars than he does. Does that mean I benefit more?

fred wrote:

"But during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama said subjecting more of a person's income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president."

there is an independent, unbiased analysis of the candidate's tax plans posted, fred. it explains things very adequately. i quote from it:

"McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households."

fred wrote:

Come on they're liberal organizations. Everybody knows that. I agree that under McCains plan "rich" people will get to keep more of their money than under Obamas plan. But so will poor people. Now if I get to keep 5% more of my money and a guy who makes 50,000 a year gets to keep 10% more of his money. I will get to keep more dollars than he does. Does that mean I benefit more?

if you want to post some right wing "facts", the heritage foundation has a very excellent attack on obama's tax plan. it's not really very informative about both candidate's plans and they don't actually compare the specifics of obama's and mccain's plans (like the tpc does), but it's still fun to read.

Sorry jc you are wrong sir.I am bashing the ones who are making living sponging off of the welfare system not the ones who are in need.I disagree bailing out freddie and frannie and just read about aig.

Now if I get to keep 5% more of my money and a guy who makes 50,000 a year gets to keep 10% more of his money. I will get to keep more dollars than he does. Does that mean I benefit more?

fred wrote:

Now if I get to keep 5% more of my money and a guy who makes 50,000 a year gets to keep 10% more of his money. I will get to keep more dollars than he does. Does that mean I benefit more?

"McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households."

Now if I get to keep 5% more of my money and a guy who makes 50,000 a year gets to keep 10% more of his money. I will get to keep more dollars than he does. Does that mean I benefit more?

jc's locked in repeater mode again. It's what he does when he can't think of anything valid to say. I do think it's funny that Kermie stated that he doesn't have a problem with providing assistance to those that need it; that his problem is with those that take advantage of the system. jc's comeback? To automatically assume that everyone on welfare is abusing the system. Once again, jc's prejudices come out in his posts.

Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.

Senator Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed top tax rate.

The costs in economic terms of such high taxes are real. For example, of the six countries with higher tax rates than 55 percent, the average unemployment rate is 7.35 percent (see chart). This figure includes Denmark, which appears to have a very low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. However, Denmark spends over 5 percent of its GDP on unemployment programs and benefits, thereby increasing its unemployment rate

Is redistribution of the money socialist?


http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html

5forfighting wrote:

jc's locked in repeater mode again. It's what he does when he can't think of anything valid to say. I do think it's funny that Kermie stated that he doesn't have a problem with providing assistance to those that need it; that his problem is with those that take advantage of the system. jc's comeback? To automatically assume that everyone on welfare is abusing the system. Once again, jc's prejudices come out in his posts.

there is an objective, unbiased analysis of the candidate's tax plans. it was done by knowledgeable people. i post that whenever some clown posts some bullshit they make up.
you are lying again in your mouthpiecing for kermie. i said exactly why kermie is stereoptying poor people. if we want to talk about gov't welfare today, aig, fanyy, freddie and the rest of the corporate bailouts are the topic. yet you and kermie can't leave behind your hatred of the poor even in the face of these new giant corporate welfare programs.

fred wrote:

Senator Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed top tax rate. The costs in economic terms of such high taxes are real. For example, of the six countries with higher tax rates than 55 percent, the average unemployment rate is 7.35 percent (see chart). This figure includes Denmark, which appears to have a very low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. However, Denmark spends over 5 percent of its GDP on unemployment programs and benefits, thereby increasing its unemployment rate

there we go. now you are getting in the swing of things. heritage can always be counted on to bash anyone who isn't pretty far off on the fringe right wing.

fred wrote:

Is redistribution of the money socialist? http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html

fails to note that obama's plan is designed to correct the unequal redistribution of wealth to the rich by republicans over the last 8 years and that mccain's plan is designed to continue and expand that unequal redistribution to the rich. here, this explains it in very plain, straightforward language.
"McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their (the rich) after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households."

jc wrote:

fred wrote: Is redistribution of the money socialist? http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html fails to note that obama's plan is designed to correct the unequal redistribution of wealth to the rich by republicans over the last 8 years and that mccain's plan is designed to continue and expand that unequal redistribution to the rich. here, this explains it in very plain, straightforward language. "McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their (the rich) after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households."

Letting them keep their money is unequal redistribution?!?! Now I've heard it all!

jc wrote:

5forfighting wrote: jc's locked in repeater mode again. It's what he does when he can't think of anything valid to say. I do think it's funny that Kermie stated that he doesn't have a problem with providing assistance to those that need it; that his problem is with those that take advantage of the system. jc's comeback? To automatically assume that everyone on welfare is abusing the system. Once again, jc's prejudices come out in his posts. there is an objective, unbiased analysis of the candidate's tax plans. it was done by knowledgeable people. i post that whenever some clown posts some bullshit they make up. you are lying again in your mouthpiecing for kermie. i said exactly why kermie is stereoptying poor people. if we want to talk about gov't welfare today, aig, fanyy, freddie and the rest of the corporate bailouts are the topic. yet you and kermie can't leave behind your hatred of the poor even in the face of these new giant corporate welfare programs.

You are such a tool!

Kermie says he has no problem helping those in need, but he does have a problem with those that abuse the system.

You take that to mean that he has a problem with everyone on welfare.

Therefore, you feel that everyone on welfare is abusing the system.

That says far more about you than anyone else.