Bush Vs Obama: 2003 Bush Tax Cuts Vs 2009 Obama Stimulus
Bush Tax Cuts Vs Obama Stimulus Package - The 12 Following Months of Each In 2003, President Bush signed into law a large tax cut for all "net taxpayers." Net taxpayers are those whose final tax payment, exceeds any form of offset or reduction. Net taxpayers must be distinguished from those who could be classified as "net tax receivers." Net tax receivers, get credits and other transfers from "net taxpayers" turned over to them, in the form of cash--thousands of dollars of cash, to millions of recipients. The 2003 tax cuts went 100% to "net taxpayers." The Obama portion of his-misnamed-tax cuts, went/go almost 100% to "net tax recipients." We Must Force Politicians To Start Using The Term "Net Taxpayers" When Discussing Who Pays What Millions of individuals, classified as taxpayers, file a tax return, have taxes temporarily withheld, before those payments are refunded. Beyond that, recipients receive huge amounts of cash paid by "net taxpayers." This is a welfare payment done through the tax code. The amounts received are based on means-testing, as are all welfare programs. They are also classified as transfer payments. 2003 Bush Tax Cuts Vs. 2009 Obama Stimulus Package--12 Following Months of Each 2003 Bush Tax Cuts---Net Jobs Gained (plus) +1.1 Million 2009 Obama Stimulus---Net Jobs Lost (minus) -3.1 Million Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor Cost To Taxpayers 2003 Bush Tax Cuts---0 2009 Obama Stimulus---$862 Billion Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Avg. Cost To Individual "Net Income Taxpayers" Applied To Present Workforce 2003 Bush Tax Cuts--0 2009 Obama Stimulus--$9269 Source: Tax Foundation--Based on Statistics From The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 2006 Latest data available Most recent data available lists 93 million "net income tax" payers Receipts To Government: Two Quarters Following Each 2003 Bush Tax Cuts--(Plus) +$90.7 Billion 2009 Obama Stimulus--(Minus) -$65.8 Billion (Third Quarter Receipts Not Yet Available) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce Disposable Personal Income--Third Full Quarter Following Enactment of Tax Cuts and Stimulus---Inflation Adjusted per capita (every man, woman and child) 2003 Bush Tax Cuts-------(plus) +$658 2009 Obama Stimulus---(plus) +$290 (Fourth Quarter Data Not Yet Available) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bush Vs Obama President Obama's constant utterance "I gave tax cuts to 95% of Americans." is not only untrue but it is very close to being 100% untrue. Practically all payments given to recipients were "transfer payments" of other taxpayers' money, received under the euphemism "credits." A tiny few, who in the end did make a "net tax payment", reduced their taxes for one year, through such credits as the home buyers credit, but this giant $ 8000 giveaway, was also available to those who paid no taxes whatsoever, which means that in the long run it will be an added cost to all "net taxpayers" Credits at one time were only a payment to reduce taxes actually paid. Taxpayers originally lowered their tax but could never go lower than zero. Now in most cases, credits are simply transfers or redistribution, from those who earned the money from their own business or employer, to those who have not earned it in any way. Businesses get credits, but in most cases, only reduce the amount of the final tax, actually paid. If credits were completely removed from all taxpayers, tax rates not only could be lowered to individuals and business, but revenues to government would dramatically increase as they have done historically. This would give our economy an enormous boost. This actually happened to a great degree in 1986 but congress as always, undid the improvements, using the usual tactic of class warfare. Many voters mistakenly believe that corporations actually "receive" money from government. The reality is they contribute quite substantially. Corporations, initially, do receive tens of billions in credits. However, the final amount of "net taxes paid" is hefty. In 2006 for instance, when tax revenues to government were soaring from all revenue sources, corporations turned over a "final net amount" of $395 billion dollars. This is after credits, subsidies, allowances, etc. whatever term anyone chooses. That final amount paid, represented a full 1/8 of federal revenues for the year. President Obama's Stimulus package on the other hand, borrowed $787 billion of taxpayers' money which must be repaid by taxpayers now and in ensuing years. $787 billion was the original cost estimate submitted by the Congressional Budget Office; since then, a CBO revision added $85 billion. Bush Vs Obama The most important figure above for individuals would seem to be DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME (DPI). This tells how much more or less taxpayers had to spend. As of this date, the data greatly favors the Bush tax cuts, which shows a gain of over 2 1/4 times that of the Stimulus, with not one penny of debt added on to taxpayers, from the tax cuts. Notice too, that receipts to government increased after the Bush Tax Cuts and decreased after the Obama Stimulus. Obama Vs Bush Bush Vs Obama ### ### ### The following data presents the FACTS highlighting the destruction taking place from the misnamed Obama Stimulus initiative and compares it to the dramatic improvements to our economy and to individuals under the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. This presentation uses data only from only the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (BLS), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)and those on which we rely for accurate data. [[[[[[[[[[the sources which the government has been using for most of our history.]]]]]]]]]]]]] If any data or other type of information is sourced from other than those government sources, they will be reported here as such. After Thirteen Months of the misnamed stimulus package, the economy is still in woeful shape Receipts To Government: Two Quarters Following Each 2003 Bush Tax Cuts--(Plus) +$90.7 Billion 2009 Obama Stimulus--(Minus) -$65.8 Billion (Third Quarter Receipts Not Yet Available) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce 2003 Bush Tax Cuts---Net Jobs Gained (plus) +1.5 Million 2009 Obama Stimulus---Net Jobs Lost (minus) -3.0 Million Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor 2009 Obama Stimulus---16.5% 2003 Bush Tax Cuts---10.7% 2009 Obama Stimulus---12.6% 2003 Bush Tax Cuts---10.7% Disposable Personal Income--Third Full Quarter Following Enactment of Tax Cuts and Stimulus---Inflation Adjusted per capita (every man, woman and child) 2003 Bush Tax Cuts-------(plus) +$658 2009 Obama Stimulus---(plus) +$290 (Fourth Quarter Data Not Yet Available) Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bush Vs Obama FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS May 22, 2003 JS-408 Tax Provisions of the Jobs and GrowthTax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 Accelerated 10-Percent Bracket Expansion: The expansion of the 10-percent bracket scheduled for 2008 is accelerated to apply in 2003 and 2004. The endpoint of the 10-percent tax bracket increases from $12,000 of taxable income to $14,000 for married couples (and from $6,000 to $7,000 for single taxpayers). This expansion benefits married taxpayers with taxable income over $12,000 and single taxpayers with taxable income over $6,000. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $5 billion. Bush Vs Obama Accelerated Reduction in Income Tax Rates: The reductions in income tax rates in excess of 15-percent scheduled for 2004 and 2006 are accelerated to 2003, resulting in new rates of 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% (from 27%, 30%, 35% and 38.6%). These reductions benefit married couples with taxable income greater than $47,450 and single taxpayers with taxable income greater than $28,400. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $29 billion. Accelerated Reduction of Marriage Penalty: The standard deduction for married couples is increased to double the amount of the standard deduction for single taxpayers in 2003 and 2004. The width of the 15-percent tax bracket for married couples is increased to twice the width for single taxpayers in 2003 and 2004. These provisions were scheduled to phase-in over the period between 2005 and 2009. These reductions benefit married couples who claim the standard deduction or who have taxable income greater than $47,450. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $19 billion. Accelerated Increase in Child Tax Credit: The amount of the child tax credit is increased to $1,000 in 2003 and 2004 (from $600), accelerating a scheduled phase-in over the period between 2005 and 2010. In 2003, the increased amount of the child tax credit will be paid in advance beginning in July 2003 on the basis of information on the taxpayer’s 2002 tax return filed in 2003. Advanced payments will be made in a manner similar to the advance payment checks that were issued in 2001 to reflect the new 10-percent tax bracket. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $16 billion. Bush Vs Obama Reduction in Tax Rates on Dividends and Capital Gains: The maximum tax rate on dividends paid by corporations to individuals and on individuals’ capital gains is reduced to 15% in 2003 through 2008. For taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax rate brackets, the rate on dividends and capital gains is reduced to 5% in 2003 through 2007, and to zero in 2008. The new rates apply to capital gains realized on or after May 6, 2003, and to dividends received in 2003 and after. This provision reduces the double taxation of corporate earnings. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $8 billion. Increase in Small Business Expensing for New Investment: The amount of investment that may be immediately deducted by small businesses is increased from $25,000 to $100,000 beginning in 2003. The amount of investment qualifying for this immediate deduction begins to phase out for small businesses with investment in excess of $400,000 (increased from $200,000). Both parameters are indexed for inflation beginning in 2004. These changes are effective for taxable years beginning in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $3 billion. Bush Vs Obama Increase in First-Year Bonus Depreciation: The additional first-year bonus depreciation deduction is increased from 30 percent to 50 percent for investments acquired and placed in service after May 5, 2003 and before January 1, 2005. Taxpayers may also continue to use 30 percent bonus depreciation for property acquired and placed in service before January 1, 2005. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $20 billion. AMT Hold-Harmless Relief: To ensure that the benefits from the acceleration of the tax reductions are not reduced by the AMT, the AMT exemption amount is increased by $9,000 for married taxpayers and by $4,500 for single taxpayers in 2003 and 2004. Tax Relief: CY 2003: $9 billion. Total Tax Relief: CY 2003 $109 billion. Bush Vs Obama Fox NewsFox News Calculator Showing By Income Category How Much You Paid For The $862 Billion Misnamed Stimulus Package Which Should Be Called The Scamulus or Porkulus or Shamulus Package You are young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters. Plato, Dialogues, Theatetus Everything that deceives may be said to enchant. Plato, Barack Obama 1. The General Explanation 2. The Specific Explanation 3. Proof Shown on IRS Form 1040 -The transfer of other taxpayers' money to favored constituencies is in no way a tax cut. -Nor does creating a new benefit, by printing money, unmatched by accompanying wealth creation. This new benefit has nothing to do with paying taxes on income, so making the benefit a part of the tax code, is simply a diabolical means to an end. It does do two very harmful things to America's future. It recklessly and dangerously adds debt and will likely cause inflation. It is just another of President Obama's decisions bringing us closer to the fate of Greece. VERBAL JIU JITSU-The 2 STEP PROCESS In STEP 1, millions received an increased refund, above the amount they paid, after subtracting the tax owed. Many others, who paid zero "net taxes" to begin with, received amounts well above $10,000, of other taxpayers' money, all through redistribution. This has been going on for years in such programs as the Badly misnamed Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now costing over $50 billion a year and sends out the highest percentage of fraudulent payments of all federal welfare programs. The highest percentage of those fraudulent payments go to illegal immigrants. Step 2 Invent a credit, then give it a EUPHEMISM, such as the FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS CREDIT. Make it a part of the Tax Code, even though it has nothing to do with tax payments made. On the President's Recovery.Org Page, he shows 3 categories of expenditures as follows: Tax Cuts $288 billion, Contracts, Grants, Loans $275 billion Entitlements $224 Billion, of the total $787 billion package, which since first announced has become $872 billion. This is how the badly misnamed EARNED INCOME CREDIT ALREADY WORKS. In that program, the maximum benefit is $5657. This program has the highest percentage of fraudulent payments. Recipients recover all income tax, social security tax, and medicare taxes paid, if temporarily withheld, then get a cash payment of thousands more. There are two tiny "new deductions", not tax cuts, which can reduce payments made by "net taxpayers" listed a little further down. The are deductions from taxes paid, which is a bestowed benefit to "net taxpayers" but still not a tax cut. It may sound trite to distinguish so carefully but it actually has great significance. Why? Because a tax cut, would lessen the government's right, to your tax payment, this year and in future years. But in the case of the sales tax deduction, out of the 93 million "net taxpayers", a miniscule number of people would qualify to take advantage of the $1.7 billion designated. This means 6/10 of 1% of $288 billion can be deducted for some car purchasers, if eligible and if there are sufficient eligible taxpayers, to use up even this tiny amount. Democrat congressman always want every penny they can get their hands on, for potential redistribution to those who will reelect them. So a tax cut would be giving up money already owed to the pot, this tax year and future tax years. A tax deduction on the other hand, does not hand out any cash and can make that same Democrat a hero to the favored constituent, recipients who get satisfied as that congressmen takes credit for voting away other people's money as if it were his own. There are 4 others credits, in the PAYMENTS section, which are paid by "net taxpayers." Those payments come from those taxpayers, who actually pay taxes to the Treasury. If that money stays with the Treasury and is not offset by a return payment of any kind. That taxpayer is a "net taxpayer" whose final payment remains with the Treasury through their employment and/or business, along with taxable profit of every kind, rental income, dividends, capital gains, etc. Benefits Bestowed By Redistribution and Future Debt Creation Are Not Tax Cuts It is accurate to say that the tax code was used to provide certain "benefits" to 95% of taxpayers, by giving a name to a redistribution program, then creating a "credit." Example: (The Worker, Homeowner and Business Assistance Act of 2009) but mostly they represent future debt increases, to those same net taxpayers, like yourself. In that same section lines 61, 62, 68, and 69 represent taxes actually paid from net taxpayers. To receive an actual reduction in tax payments made, those who paid a "net tax" from the 4 lines in the 60's above, would need to have "those" payments reduced. Line 71 of the "payments" section adds actual payments to the so-called credits and calls that number "total payments" which for tens of millions of taxpayers, many of whom have made little or no payments--even received thousands in cash, is not at all true. This happened to no one in America. Practically all of these benefits come from future debt are a big factor in the exploding 2 deficits and of course the total debt. Let's summarize: A tax payer with 3 qualifying dependents under 12, has WAGES of $15,000, no other type of income and no itemized deductions and also qualifies for the full homeowner's credit referenced above. His own exemption and the standard deduction, that all taxpayers can opt for, allows him to have no income tax withheld. Refund to this couple $16,257. This taxpayer paid 0 (zero) taxes to begin with and used only 2 of the 5 "CREDITS" that redistribute money from those who actually pay to those who pay zero or who pay far less than the share of other taxpayers' money, they receive.
In the section 100% of the misnamed "tax cuts" came from 1. redistribution of other taxpayers' paid by those who actually pay a final "net tax" cut Recovery.Gov $225 Billion Entitlements-$82.5 billion Food Stamps and other Welfare programs -$147.7 Medicaid and Medicare Just 2 months after winning the contest for having the best chicken wings in Tucson, East Coast Super Subs just kept rolling along as an establishment known for practically everything on their menu, being knockout delicious. Maybe a place does exist, such that when the server replies with the automatic "Everything" when asked what he/she recommends, it's totally legitimate here. Below is what the University of Arizona's ARIZONA WILDCAT HAD TO SAY ABOUT EAST COAST'S MEATBALL SUBS. East Coast Super Subs, tucked away in the South of Sixth neighborhood, cooks up submarines from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York for the residents of the Old Pueblo. Their menu boasts that they strive “to be the best and NOTHING LESS.” They aren’t kidding when it comes to The Hammer, a meatball sub jam-packed with meatballs and parmesan cheese toasted on buttery garlic bread. This savory sub practically falls apart in your mouth, which makes for a great taste but is not so good for personal hygiene. It’s so juicy that it seems like it should come on a plate, with utensils. Although it is a “lick your fingers, I want to have more” kind of good, I highly suggest you pace yourself. A little goes a long way on this 8” submarine. Like many heavy foods, The Hammer stays with you long after you take the last bite. Full article Alex Gendreau Arizona Daily Wildcat China 2009 PPP IMF 99 China, People's Republic of $6,567 -------World Bank$--------------------------------------$5,962 -------CIA FACT Book------------------------------------&6,600 Tax cuts Total: $288 billion[edit] Tax cuts for individuals Total: $237 billion * $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[27] * $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[27] * $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes). * $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000. * $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[39] * $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009. * $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children. * $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners. * $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000. .1972%=.020 of Stimulus-2/10 of 1% 5.9027=.059=6/10 of 1% of $288 billion If we apply this percentage of the stated amount of tax cuts to the 93 million "net taxpayers" it would mean 186,000 people can use the sales deduction. [edit] Tax cuts for companies Total: $51 billion * $15 billion: Allowing companies to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds. * $13 billion: to extend tax credits for renewable energy production (until 2014). * $11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year. * $7 billion: Repeal bank credit: Repeal a Treasury provision that allowed firms that buy money-losing banks to use more of the losses as tax credits to offset the profits of the merged banks for tax purposes. The change would increase taxes on the merged banks by $7 billion over 10 years. * $5 billion: Bonus depreciation which extends a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009. Single Workers Get Hammered By Redistribution Single workers pay higher rates, and in most cases, do not qualify for deductions, granted to most taxpayers.Responsible workers who persist and move up the income ladder, year after year from such persistence, get punished severely for that success http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUMCsrzpGtE Chris This article is a combination of adolescent, moronic and hysterical drivel, based solidly on the Nanny-State-Activist role in which E.J. Dionne is a lead player--posing as a journalist--and who might even convince himself that he's objective. The sweeping generalizations based on huge exaggerated emotionalism are again perfect to the robotic liberal brain. Wow, ask someone for ID? Wow!!!!! Unthinkable that by a million to 1 shot, the person may be illegal.? What did you say officer????? Show you identification? What is America coming to?? Howard Your comment ..."it was obvious that outgoing Republican President George W. Bush Bush Vs Obama had made a hash of the economy" is obvious to you in the Nanny-State-Media, and your robotic talking heads, who like you are essentially "economically illiterate." constantly ignoring the laws of economics. Bush Vs Obama Using association (the economy crashed, therefore the crash resulted from Bush poicies,,.) By 2003 Barney Frank was not only resisting-with ferocity-any attempt to rein in Fannie and Freddie, or sub-prime lending, he was accusatory of those who were trying. Bush Vs Obama You tube has plenty of footage of his arrogance and scorn at Republicans and federal regulators. Not only that he continued to brag about how much America was being helped. Frank was joined boisterously by every Democrat on the Housing Committee. Bush Vs Obama Then Secretary of the Treasury, Snow begged Frank to cooperate and hold hearings. Not even close. Sen. Dodd also threatened a filibuster on any hearings or legislation going forward, a filibuster that would not have been overcome. Bush Vs Obama Clinton crony, Franklin Raines cooked the books for billions in either Fannie or Freddie-got millions as a reward, making a total of $90-100 million in salary and bonuses for such deserving efficiency. Housing Market crashed, economy crashed. Could add volumes to every Democrat contribution to this whole mess. But typical of liberal robotic thinking you made the reckless one-sided statement that comes naturally to the liberal brain Decoding The Lie "We Passed a Broad and Sweeping Tax Cut For 95 Percent of Americans." The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. --Plato Contrary to President Obama's blatant deception on the American people, not a single person received an actual cut in the taxes he paid. Giveaway benefits received using the Internal Revenue Service to redistribute taxes paid by those who are actually "net taxpayers" are the number one deception is this scheme. The second-again using the tax forms-was to First invent a credit, and give it a EUPHEMISM, such as the MAKe WORK PAY Credit, in which the Treasury adds $400 to single payers who have made as little as $2800 and have paid no income taxes, or other "net" taxes come into $400 dollars of other taxpayers' money. Then when the welfare crowd fills out its tax form, it gets either other people's money or future debt, created by printing money were provided by a 100% future debt increase. By inventing CREDITS. First invent a credit, and give it a EUPHEMISM, such as MAKING WORK PAY. Then when the welfare crowd fills out its tax form, it gets either other people's money or future debt, created by printing money. Most of this adds Worse, that piled more debt on those who are actually paying a final "net tax" to the government to giving even more welfare in one year, than the whopping $800 billion, they were already giving in all forms to federal and state governments. The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil. Plato 5-20 URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMirE4ykfLY 5-20 Embed Posted by: Grant from Comfort May 22, 12:55 AMNo thanks. Newt is another old guard pol that needs to get off the playing field. Efforts toward rehabilitation are, in my estimation, more about power seeking than redemption. Sure he's a bright guy....but then at times he seems to be utterly out of touch. Seriously...all these fossils need to go...including Romney. What they know best is calculation. They want to avoid what authenticity brings to guys like Rand Paul: controversy. In so doing, they also avoid legitimacy. Chris Cristie is probably the best model of what will attract votes in the next few election cycles: a plain spoken sometimes blunt guy with a strong personal constitution and a functioning moral compass. A guy (or gal) that doesn't suffer fools and doesn't enable the press. A leader. EZINE REVISIONS Proof Shown on IRS Form 1040 After the personal information section of form 1040, lines 7-22, are for income on which taxes are due, wages, interest, capital gains, etc. These are actual payments to the treasury. Lines 23 through 37 are deductions against those payments to arrive at Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). So far so good. Lines 38 through 43 are lines in which taxpayers deduct itemized deductions or if more advantageous, they use the standard deduction allowed to all taxpayers. Here too, taxpayers deduct the proper amount relating to the number of qualifying dependents, thus arriving at taxable income based on taxes they actually paid. A taxpayer with no further income to report or no other deductions/subtractions arrives at what is his TAXABLE INCOME. Most taxpayers have more withheld than the amount owed, so here they would subtract the amount due from the amount paid and get back a refund. That refund a taxpayer receives is his own money. Government gave him nothing. Always be reminded and remind others, government has no money of its own. So let's say there had actually been tax cuts in the 2009 stimulus package, America's history of actual tax cuts, a simple thing called cutting the tax rates or tax payments took place. For instance under George W. Bush, the lowest rate was 15% before his tax cuts took place, a taxpayer with TAXABLE INCOME of Lowest paying taxpayers did better than everyone under President Bush. Hard to believe after 8 years of LIBERAL LYING. While we're dispelling lies might as well prove that one too, with this example. Phase 1 of the Bush tax cuts cut the lowest rate on net taxpayers from 15% to 10%, and the amount on which a tax was due was (raised?) So a taxpayer who had, for example, who in 2001 and 2002 had income of $40, 000 and deduction $12, 000 of taxable income , would have paid a final tax of $1800 (15% of $12,000). In 2002, the lowest rate was dropped to 10% if he had The target Attribute The target attribute defines where the linked document will be opened. The code below will open the document in a new browser window:ExampleVisit W3Schools! Try it yourself »The name Attribute When the name attribute is used, the element defines a named anchor inside a HTML document. Named anchor are not displayed in any special way. They are invisible to the reader. Named anchor syntax:Any content The link syntax to a named anchor: Any content The # in the href attribute defines a link to a named anchor.Example: A named anchor inside an HTML document:Useful Tips Section A link to the Useful Tips Section from the same document: Jump to the Useful Tips Section A link to the Useful Tips Section from another document:Jump to the Useful Tips Section#
|
