2 + 2 = (well, it's fuzzy) [Archive]

krossfyter

Dec 25, 2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Judo

Having the most powerful job in the world, while getting C grades at school dosn't cut it for me. He is a moron for the job he has.

He has been arrested for drunk driving (which he tried to cover up), so he is a criminal. Has nothing to do with running a country I know, but it kinda gives you a glimpse as to what kind of person he is.

no ones perfect and if everyone in washington were not elected because of some bad in thier history we would have a lot of empty seats up there.

a lot of smart people make bad grades in school. im not saying Bush is smart im just making the point that your argument isnt really that big of a deal. didnt einstien fail math somewhere in his grade school years? also didnt quienton terrentino drop out of high school? my point is that sometimes your past doesnt affect how you will perform in the future. there is always time for change and for learning and growing. the time is now. granted there are cases when your past should directly affect your future.... but in the case of Bush.... he did his time and he is a changed man. i beleive it. you dont have too. everyone has the right to believe what they want. im not saying Bush is a smart man.. im saying he is hella more honest and concerend for our country then Gore or Clinton... and thats my opinion.

Originally posted by Judo

A question Kross.
In the florida election, people with the same name as criminals where told they could not vote, this is because Jeb Bush made it so. I'm sure you don't think this is fair, but dosn't it sound dodgy to you??

whats the whole story behind this? there is always 2 sides to some given information. id like to find out whats up with this myself... but alas what does it have to do with Bush's charachter in office... if anything it wouldnt be as nearly as bad as clintions.

wdlove

Dec 25, 2002, 08:44 PM

I agree with you krossfyter, thank you for your astute analysis. George's intelligence, not just anyone can be a fighter pilot.

After all Bush has an approval rating of 63%.

wwworry

Dec 25, 2002, 09:19 PM

"Blah blah blah" is what you all say. Read the first post. I'll paraphrase it for you:

Bush cuts taxes for the super wealthy while the national debt gets ever larger.

Is this responsible? Spending is not being cut. You are going to pay for that tax cut (unless you are of the lucky few who will benefit from it).

or

Why do the majority of the tax cuts only go to the super wealthy? Why is he cutting taxes (for the people who need the money the least) when the deficit is getting bigger?

Just a reminder, neither Clinton or Nixon is president anymore.

alex_ant

Dec 25, 2002, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by cubist
Bill Clinton reneged on his promise for a tax cut before he even took office!

Hypocrats love for OTHER people to pay more taxes. "Soak the rich", that's their mantra.
It's funny how any criticisms of Bush lead to counter-criticisms of Clinton and "Hypocrats." What the hell does Bill Clinton have to do with anything? How is what you said a cogent argument? For all you know, everybody who criticized Bush in this thread up 'til that point disliked Clinton and Democrats as well.

idkew

Dec 25, 2002, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Glossybear

Two Words:
White Privilege

sure. have you ever seen how much poor white trash there is out there?

those are the people wanting the rich to pay their (W.T.) way.

You must be racist if that comment of mine brings non-white peole to your mind. You go ask a cop, a doctor, someone who works with all people, and the dirtiest, laziest, most worthless people most of the time are white.

krossfyter

Dec 25, 2002, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
"Blah blah blah" is what you all say.

thanks for demeaning us.

an opinion is a wonderful gift aint it?!

:D

krossfyter

Dec 25, 2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

It's funny how any criticisms of Bush lead to counter-criticisms of Clinton and "Hypocrats." What the hell does Bill Clinton have to do with anything? How is what you said a cogent argument? For all you know, everybody who criticized Bush in this thread up 'til that point disliked Clinton and Democrats as well.

just to make the point that bushes negatives are a ray of golden sunshine compared to clintion. to put things in perspective maybe. i hate to use clinton as a comparison but man... some people act like bush is a monster when in reality if he is ... he is but a small one compared to clinton. kinda should make us feel a bit relieved that someone is not in office in which his own concern is his legacy or himself only (selfish).

just my opinion.

alex_ant

Dec 25, 2002, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
just to make the point that bushes negatives are a ray of golden sunshine compared to clintion. to put things in perspective maybe. i hate to use clinton as a comparison but man... some people act like bush is a monster when in reality if he is ... he is but a small one compared to clinton. kinda should make us feel a bit relieved that someone is not in office in which his own concern is his legacy or himself only (selfish).

just my opinion.
My point was that even if Clinton or whoever was Stalin x 1000, he would still have nothing to do with this. What happened was:

1) Person A attacked President A
2) Person B attacked President B in response to Person A attacking President A, in order to counter Person A's argument

?!?!?!?

Come on now, that doesn't make any sense. That's what's wrong with political arguments - there are too many impassioned, not-critically-thinking people participating in them. It's amazing how some people can make perfect sense in every other aspect of their thought processes but be a complete burning shambles when it comes to being politically coherent...

G4scott

Dec 25, 2002, 11:18 PM

I think we need to have a classification on these political threads: YAPT- Yet Another Political Thread...

Moderators should stamp this prefix to the subject of any thread that goes into political mayhem...

As far as 2+2, I was always taught that it equals 42, but maybe it's just me... :cool:

Oh, and this is the first post with my new 'tar... What a place to post it...

krossfyter

Dec 25, 2002, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

My point was that even if Clinton or whoever was Stalin x 1000, he would still have nothing to do with this. What happened was:

1) Person A attacked President A
2) Person B attacked President B in response to Person A attacking President A, in order to counter Person A's argument

?!?!?!?

Come on now, that doesn't make any sense. That's what's wrong with political arguments - there are too many impassioned, not-critically-thinking people participating in them. It's amazing how some people can make perfect sense in every other aspect of their thought processes but be a complete burning shambles when it comes to being politically coherent...

i know i know i saw your point a long time ago. however i was goin after person C who attacked president B and goin after person A who is trying to paint president A as a monster when in fact President B makes him look like a kitty kat in perspective.
point is... get over it (not you alex) .. president A's wrongs arent that bad and infact the whole first post might not be true... but if it is... no need to cry over it.... it aint that bad when you put it in perspective.

i could be wrong... but hell im just human it happens.

im no elitist.

;)

wwworry

Dec 26, 2002, 06:21 AM

When Bush supporters are worried they start talking about Clinton, really like clockwork.

Let's not talk about Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Carter or Ford, because compared to Nixon, Clinton is a Saint, because compared to Bush, Bush is a monster.

Bush cuts taxes for the super-wealthy while raising the national debt limit.

We will all (unless you are of the lucky few who will benefit from it) have to pay for it. It gets even more expensive for us (the vast majority of taxpayers) because the the interest we have to pay on the debt. Why is my money going to pay for this Christmas gift to the super wealthy?

zarathustra

Dec 26, 2002, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
Why is my money going to pay for this Christmas gift to the super wealthy? [/B]

Well, considering that the "super-wealthy" already earned their money, you are not paying for their gift.

A movie quote comes to mind about this thread.

"She is a witch! Buuurn her! She turned me into a newt! ..... ???? .... It got better." (Monty Python's Holy Grail).

We are always looking for a scapegoat for our problems. Hitler pointed to the jews, Serbians pointed at the muslims and croatians, democrats point to republicans and vica-versa.

It's time we look at ourselves as individuals and start with the changes at home and locally .

Goblin2099

Dec 26, 2002, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by krossfyter
kinda should make us feel a bit relieved that someone is not in office in which his own concern is his legacy or himself only (selfish).

I'm assuming you mean Clinton, but Bush is worried about his role in the textbooks, too...He's grooming Frist (the new majority leader) to become the republican presidential candidate in 2008, over his own brother Jeb. Why? Because he doesn't want to be the middle Bush in the dynasty.

No, Bush isn't a complete imbecile. But he is not an intelligent man, either. He does not have the skills necessary to be an independent thinker and to make the decisions that shape our lives. Good thing Mr. Halliburton himself is making sure Bush doesn't forget his lines.

For the record, I'm not a democrat. I don't believe in big government spending...but to me, that includes the military.

cubist

Dec 26, 2002, 01:57 PM

You all have misinterpreted me as comparing Bush to Clinton. That was not my point at all.

Hypocrats hate ALL tax cuts. They use any excuse to complain about them. When Virginia set out to eliminate the automobile property tax, a tax that severely impacted poorer people, they couldn't oppose it on the grounds that it benefited the rich -- so they opposed it on the grounds that it was fiscally unwise, despite the fact that Virginia had a surplus. No more, of course, since a Hypocrat was elected this year, spending is outstripping income once again. He has already tried to raise taxes.

Hypocrats hate tax cuts on principle -- note how some of the respondents clearly view the money as belonging to the government, not the taxpayer? You have to go all the way back to the Kennedy administration, 40 years ago, to find a Hypocrat administration enacting a tax cut, and that only a modest one.

If you sincerely believe in the Hypocrat party and agenda, ask yourself: Why is it that no tax cut is ever possible with your party? Why must taxes and spending always increase?

mcrain

Dec 26, 2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by cubist
If you sincerely believe in the Hypocrat party and agenda, ask yourself: Why is it that no tax cut is ever possible with your party? Why must taxes and spending always increase?

Carter = low debt, nearly balanced budget
Clinton = balanced budget.

Reagan = trillions of debt spending
Bush = more of the same
Bush Jr. = abandon the balanced budgets, and propose deficit spending.

Taxes have to go up to pay for the spending. Now, you can complain all you want about spending on social programs, but the military's budget is huge compared to nearly everything else. If you really want taxes to go down, you have to take a slightly more open view of things than, "it's all the democrat's fault."

Oh, by the way, you kept referring to the "hypocrats." I thought you were referring to the Republicans! You do know the definition of a hypocrite right? If not, I'd be happy to provide you with the definition.

krossfyter

Dec 26, 2002, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
When Bush supporters are worried they start talking about Clinton, really like clockwork.

Let's not talk about Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Carter or Ford, because compared to Nixon, Clinton is a Saint, because compared to Bush, Bush is a monster.

Bush cuts taxes for the super-wealthy while raising the national debt limit.

We will all (unless you are of the lucky few who will benefit from it) have to pay for it. It gets even more expensive for us (the vast majority of taxpayers) because the the interest we have to pay on the debt. Why is my money going to pay for this Christmas gift to the super wealthy?

okay lets not talk about Bush then... cuase when people see some negatives now in the government they blame it all on the republicans. that sounds ludicrious right... well everyone has to blame someone... and you are not exempt from that.
like someone else said... we all look for scapegoats. all im saying is that i think that what you are crying about pales in comparison man.. all im doing is putting it into perspective. so sue me. i have a right to opinionate my arguement the way i am and you have no right to tell me otherwise. likewise you have a right to b*tch and complain... go for it... if that is what you are doing. you have a right to be un happy with Bush... go for it... i dont care. All im pointing out is that this country has been trough hell of a lot worse (if indeed this is true about Bush) from many other presidents.... thats all. You see a problem and you have a right to voice it... im not trying to take away that right... believe me. I just have a right to bring up the "pales in comparison" argument. Its your perogative to whine about it and likewise its my poragitive to say "hey man dont worry its not that big of a deal" ...

even if you see my opinion as wrong.

dont worry... wwworry!

mcrain

Dec 26, 2002, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
I just have a right to bring up the "pales in comparison" argument.

even if you see my opinion as wrong.

I just want to make sure I've got this right. Bush's efforts to destroy the arctic to make some bucks for his buddies in the oil industry, his efforts to destroy the national forrests, his efforts to make sure the families of the very wealthy stay very wealthy, his efforts to make sure big business gets every break imaginable, his efforts to wage war on the rest of the world, him calling other countries an "axis of evil," not to mention his efforts to shift the higher and higher costs of his administration to people who make less PALES IN COMPARISON to a guy who got a blowjob and lied about it because he was married?

You've got an interesting set of values my friend.

:confused:

krossfyter

Dec 26, 2002, 05:00 PM

alex_ant

Dec 26, 2002, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by cubist
You all have misinterpreted me as comparing Bush to Clinton. That was not my point at all.
Your point was to suggest that anyone who disagrees with Bush's tax policies are "Hypocrats" (Democrats). That's the only explanation for attacking a competing party in defense of a certain party. I would just like to point out that I disagree with Bush's tax cut policies, yet I'm not a Democrat. I'll wait for you to try to get your head around that one.

krossfyter

Dec 26, 2002, 06:41 PM

Have I mis interpreted the first post? Have I mis understood the post? If I have i apologize. Im not too sure though. Anyways regardless I am willing to see my wrong.... and please forgive me for being a little harsh to any of you all... alex ant or wwwory. I respect you all and I dont want to offend you all in any way.

peace

wwworry

Dec 26, 2002, 06:55 PM

and the reason I said "blah blah blah" is because there is a serious issue not being discussed: that taxes are being cut for the few while the national debt for everyone else is going way up.

I see this as somewhat cowardly by GWB. He is getting away with cutting his friends taxes without cutting services. Everyone is happy, right? Well someone is going to have to pay and he is leaving that as a "gift" to future presidents and future generations.

And as for the hypocrat label, I would like to see my taxes cut but I will not be pandered to by false promises and "gifts" that I will end up paying twice for when all is said and done. You people are forgetting how much of the budget goes each year to paying interest on the national debt. 10% I think, or more. Why not pay off the debt and give EVERYONE a 10% tax cut?

It is easy and cowardly to hand out money on credit.

krossfyter

Dec 26, 2002, 07:01 PM

okay my apologies to you wwwory.

forgive me for being harsh.

im learning to be more tolerant.

;)

alex_ant

Dec 26, 2002, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
Have I mis interpreted the first post? Have I mis understood the post? If I have i apologize. Im not too sure though. Anyways regardless I am willing to see my wrong.... and please forgive me for being a little harsh to any of you all... alex ant or wwwory. I respect you all and I dont want to offend you all in any way.
You can offend me, I don't mind. I actually wish you would, because that would make these political threads a lot more fun. :)

krossfyter

Dec 26, 2002, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

You can offend me, I don't mind. I actually wish you would, because that would make these political threads a lot more fun. :)

haha you are a good sport man!

thanks

wwworry

Dec 28, 2002, 06:06 PM

So we are agreed that deficit spending is not a good idea?

And America would be better served by tax cuts that go to more people rather than less people, if there is money in the budget to pay for the tax cuts?

wdlove

Dec 28, 2002, 08:04 PM

When you talk about more people getting a tax cut, remember its not the poor that create jobs. Tax cuts need to be done to encourage investments.

A surplus is bad also, its means that the government is taxing us too much.
They will always find a way to spend if its there.

Centris Fan

Dec 28, 2002, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
So we are agreed that deficit spending is not a good idea?

And America would be better served by tax cuts that go to more people rather than less people, if there is money in the budget to pay for the tax cuts?

You folks do understand why we are now back into deficit spending, don't ya?

First of all, the surpluses weren't really there in the first place since they were based on a continued level of high economic growth not what we actually had.

Second of all, some things happened oh around September 11th that may have prompted some increased emergency spending. Perhaps not all of it justified, like certain bail-outs and pay-outs, but they were passed in a bipartisan fashion...

Thirdly, um, you really ought to take an introductory macroeconomics class to understand that if you freeze spending and taxing during times of growth, when you reached economic stagnation you ain't going to have a surplus because the revenue is there.

Before people start whining about how these economic problems were started by Bush, let me say a few things. First of all, economists saw that true economic decline started in 2000 before Bush took office. Secondly, all of these scandals that people point to happened under Clinton's watch, not Bush's. Enron and all that were happening in the 90s. Who was President then.. hmm... and what former secretary of the treasury advised the govt not to investigate Enron.. hmm... Robert Rubin.

Also, the government is not giving money to the rich, they are just taking less. But if you cut taxes percentage wise, people who pay most of the taxes will see the biggest decline. It's simple mathematics.

Some people think that the products of people's labors is not theirs, but the government's who may return some of it at its pleasure. People are never going to agree on policy if they come from two different outlooks in this regard.

The Democrats of today are hardly looking out for the interests of the poor. If that were the case you would see them pushing more to save Medicaid, not Medicare. If that was the case you would not see them caving on welfare reform. What the Democrats do is just play for survival by courting the middle class who vote, and ignoring the lower class who do not.

If we want to talk deficits we should see where the original root was. That would be FDR and the New Deal. Good or bad, the programs he started bloated the government to an unforseen extreme in this country which is still with us today. You can continue this when looking a LBJ and his social programs and involvement in the Vietnam War. Fiscal responsability has only recently become part of the Democratic platform with Clinton, but it was only forced upon him by the Republican Congress in 94. (When I say fiscal responsability with the Democrats I referring to after FDR, Cleveland was quite the fiscal conservative.)

If you want to talk about where the majority of our money is going than you can look no further to social security where the young and the poor subsidize the old, whether they be poor or rich. One of these days Social Security will die. It relies on productivity gains (usually around 2%) or an increasing population. You can get a better deal by putting money in the bank and the population ain't increasing enough on the young end to support it.

I am tired, so I apologize for typos.

MrMacMan

Dec 29, 2002, 12:59 AM

Great post, expect that I disagree on what you said.

During the many times our goverment has had Rep. in control the budget wasn't balanced. Sure American LOVES to spend money we don't have but Clinton was there he balanced it and we had a surplus.
During the 90's people didn't know about the courption that was to come and don't tell me Rep. Forcasted it cause most of the Wealthy-Upper Class are Rep.
If they wanted lower earnings they could of been truthfull, but they weren't.
Many new Spending was to up our super-duper military and defense budgets, sure a little is fine, creating new wars to add to it is not.
We will go to war against iraq and maybe even N. Korea if they keep dis-abling U.N safe-guards... eh. What a wonderful mess.
Anyways back to the tax-cuts, this latest round of cuts because if you are in a certain bracket you benifit more, not tell me its not like.
bracket 1 (low income) get 3% (making up numbers here)
bracket 5 (higher income) in a non-rich way SHOULD be 3%. But these cuts are different the people in cracket 5 get more like 8%.
A significant increase. (I'm playing around with numbers, if you need the real ones it would be a hassle but I might post ém.)
If you care to look up some of the WORST SPENDING EVER.
Look up the "Total Information Awarness" Agency.(More Commly Called: Information Awareness Office) It's members include: John Poindexter.
You may remember me from such scandels as the Iran-Contra Fiasco. I was convicted but then I was pardonded, WASN'T THAT NICE? :eek:
*looks at page* I SENT YOU AN HOUR AGO!

Centris Fan

Dec 29, 2002, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by MrMacman
Great post, expect that I disagree on what you said.

During the many times our goverment has had Rep. in control the budget wasn't balanced. Sure American LOVES to spend money we don't have but Clinton was there he balanced it and we had a surplus.
During the 90's people didn't know about the courption that was to come and don't tell me Rep. Forcasted it cause most of the Wealthy-Upper Class are Rep.
If they wanted lower earnings they could of been truthfull, but they weren't.
Many new Spending was to up our super-duper military and defense budgets, sure a little is fine, creating new wars to add to it is not.
We will go to war against iraq and maybe even N. Korea if they keep dis-abling U.N safe-guards... eh. What a wonderful mess.
Anyways back to the tax-cuts, this latest round of cuts because if you are in a certain bracket you benifit more, not tell me its not like.
bracket 1 (low income) get 3% (making up numbers here)
bracket 5 (higher income) in a non-rich way SHOULD be 3%. But these cuts are different the people in cracket 5 get more like 8%.
A significant increase. (I'm playing around with numbers, if you need the real ones it would be a hassle but I might post ém.)
If you care to look up some of the WORST SPENDING EVER.
Look up the "Total Information Awarness" Agency.(More Commly Called: Information Awareness Office) It's members include: John Poindexter.
You may remember me from such scandels as the Iran-Contra Fiasco. I was convicted but then I was pardonded, WASN'T THAT NICE? :eek:
*looks at page* I SENT YOU AN HOUR AGO!

It is actually not the case that most upper wealthy class people are Republicans. The 2000 election had a near split in people in the highest income bracket. If you go to many college campuses, wealthy professors often are liberal. Wealthy people in the city are often liberal, pseudo-intellectual types that identify themselves with the Democratic party and it's superior attitude. You might be interested that the poorest people in this country live in rural areas not urban ones. More and more these people are voting Republican rather than Democrat. Again, the Democrats have ignored the underclass in order to pander to middle class votes.

Clinton did not embrace fiscal responsability until the Republicans were in Congress. You do understand that spending bills must originate in the House? His health care plan was going, no matter how effective it was, was going to cost an extremely large sum of money. Like the Democrats, the Republicans have conflicting bases in the party, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, strong military, values driven, etc...Carter may have had some amount of budgetery discipline but at a huge cost, i.e. stagflation. If you say that he helped produce the good economic times that followed him out of office, then you'll have to credit the first Bush for the Clinton boom. Especially since the economy was growing at around 3% or so around the 1992 election. (Unemployment is a lagging indicator).

Whatever the cuts were in the last Bush cuts, the rich still pay a higher percentage of income taxes than others. I am on the low end of wealth by the way.

As far as military spending goes, it's about 15-17% of the budget at most, compared to around 51% going to Social Security and the like. If you want to talk about wars and spending then you should look at Clinton who kept us involved in Somalia beyond humanitarian relief at a great cost, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. Lyndon B. Johnson really brought about the Vietnam escalation. Isn't it better to overspend on military than underspend? Better have a little extra of the juice pumping through the economy then not having enough and be at risk. Besides, the best wars are the ones you don't have to fight, meaning by having a stronger military people are less likely to find you weak and more likely to avoid conflict with you. Much of the money is used in R & D which can filter out into the consumer world, the Internet, Satelites, GPS, etc... or can help minimize civilian casaulties (smart bombs, more accurate cruise missiles) or can help keep the people defending your freedom alive. Like by developing ways to make soldiers safer (the new vests in Afghanistan for example).

The North Korea is something that was inherited by the Bush administration after bad handling by Clinton. He went the whole, we will help you out if you promise not to make weapons route and where did it get us.. they were lying to us the whole time... In case you forget, Iraq was attacked by the air several times by Clinton, with little success and no guts to go the whole way. The UN looks like it's a joke if when it's treaties and agreements are flaunted without any real punishment. Iraq was going on it's merry way ignoring all tenents of the cease fire agreement, while we ignored them. Now, because we had a real threat of force, we have some progress in the area and yeah, we have inspectors there. Without the threat, Iraq wouldn't be letting them in. Sometimes you need a littl

Centris Fan

Dec 29, 2002, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by mcrain

I just want to make sure I've got this right. Bush's efforts to destroy the arctic to make some bucks for his buddies in the oil industry, his efforts to destroy the national forrests, his efforts to make sure the families of the very wealthy stay very wealthy, his efforts to make sure big business gets every break imaginable, his efforts to wage war on the rest of the world, him calling other countries an "axis of evil," not to mention his efforts to shift the higher and higher costs of his administration to people who make less PALES IN COMPARISON to a guy who got a blowjob and lied about it because he was married?

You've got an interesting set of values my friend.

:confused:

The point of bringing up Clinton is to compare Bush to his most recent predecessor. To me it doesn't matter that what Clinton did was about sex, what matters is that he commited perjury, which last time I checked was a crime and a pretty serious one. For someone who claims he's so religious, it seems pretty sad that he would save an oath to God and lie. Beyond perjury, where are we supposed to draw the line on lies? Can he lie to us about bribery? Because, really, who wouldn't lie about getting bribed? Can he lie about giving missle technology to the Chinese, oh wait he did. Can he lie about getting campaign contributions from the Chinese government, oh wait he did. When are we allowed to take his words as fact and when can we just expect him to lie? It wasn't like a report asked him and he just said no. He had the gall to make a little press conference and emphatically said he did not have sex with Monica, then we he got caught, he didn't apologize for lying he basically just apologized that people were out to get him. If it wasn't so important, why did he make it so by having that speech and acting all angry about the accusations? Oh wait he did it because Dick Morris' polls told him too.

Clinton made bad foreign policy decisions in North Korea, Iraq and Somalia. He went into Haiti to replace one bloody dictator with another. His lasting legacy was supposed to be peace in the Middle East which wasn't there. In response to Osama Bin Laden bombing and killing hundreds of innocent Africans and Americans he just lobbed some cruise missles and thought that was the end of it. No going into Afghanistan and facing the threat on, just wussy, no risk, higher poll number bs.

The only new public policy iniative he brought into office was universal medical care, which he quickly abandoned when he saw weakening public support, instead of standing up for what he believes in. When the Republicans swept into Congress in 1994, after 40 odd years of being out, he was so depressed until Dick Morris said he man, don't worry, we can make them look like extremists and take credit for their popular programs. Which the Republicans learned from. He sold out the poor with welfare reform because he saw the polls and wanted to co-opt the Reps on it. He all of a sudden became a true believer in fiscal responability which was brought by cuts in social programs, mind you... What meaningful thing did he do in office besides be lucky enough to preside over prosperity? What was his mark, where was his leadership? The guy just did what he had to do to stay popular enough and keep in office.

Is it so hard to talk about your differences in economic policy without just saying he's doing it for his oil buddies? Are your positions so weak they rely on name calling and accusations? Maybe it's a little less cut and dry than you might think.

Again, sorry for the typos.. can't sleep.

Hugs and Kisses!

wwworry

Dec 29, 2002, 07:37 AM

Centris Fan is another person who talks about Clinton when the question is about a Bush policy. Nixon was much worse.

So you do think deficit spending is a good idea because it's all FDR's fault anyway and Clinton was dumb about N. Korea and even though the latest tax cuts sift more of the national debt on to you personally the super-wealthy really need tax cuts more than you (coo-coo), and better yet, the actual real money surpluses we had of $313 billion were not real, blah blab.

wdlove we have quite a large DEBT. Running surpluses to pay off that DEBT does not mean government is taxing us too much. It means we might be able to cut off the 10% yearly penalty on interest payments.

If you look at the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office numbers you will see that about:
40% of the deficit comes from the Bush tax cut
25% comes from the recession
the rest comes from increased spending

There is no way around these numbers. States have to balance the budget but Bush can make cowardly false promises.

Why does everything your precious GWB does have to be defended? For GWB apologists deficits are now good, and you, personally, paying for a rich man's new Mercedes is good. It does not make sense.

You are going against your own principles. If you want to pay less taxes then you'll have to figure in your future taxes and figure in the national debt. If spending does not decrease and one person is paying less taxes (the super-wealthy) then someone (you) will end up paying more taxes in the long run.

Unless it really is fuzzy.

mnkeybsness

Dec 29, 2002, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Glossybear

Two Words:
White Privilege

white privilege is such a hard thing for us whites to admit we have, just as male privilege is

but we've all seem to come accustomed to it, we are even taught not to see white and male privilege, yet it exists and it's not going away soon or easily

i'm a white male...and i think this privilege is bull

it's totally not fair

idkew

Dec 30, 2002, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
Centris Fan is another person who talks about Clinton when the question is about a Bush policy. Nixon was much worse.

So you do think deficit spending is a good idea because it's all FDR's fault anyway and Clinton was dumb about N. Korea and even though the latest tax cuts sift more of the national debt on to you personally the super-wealthy really need tax cuts more than you (coo-coo), and better yet, the actual real money surpluses we had of $313 billion were not real, blah blab.

wdlove we have quite a large DEBT. Running surpluses to pay off that DEBT does not mean government is taxing us too much. It means we might be able to cut off the 10% yearly penalty on interest payments.

If you look at the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office numbers you will see that about:
40% of the deficit comes from the Bush tax cut
25% comes from the recession
the rest comes from increased spending

There is no way around these numbers. States have to balance the budget but Bush can make cowardly false promises.

Why does everything your precious GWB does have to be defended? For GWB apologists deficits are now good, and you, personally, paying for a rich man's new Mercedes is good. It does not make sense.

You are going against your own principles. If you want to pay less taxes then you'll have to figure in your future taxes and figure in the national debt. If spending does not decrease and one person is paying less taxes (the super-wealthy) then someone (you) will end up paying more taxes in the long run.

Unless it really is fuzzy.

the reason the rich are getting tax cuts is because they PAY taxes. you have to get taxed to get a cut in taxes.

now i am not saying that most people don't pay taxes, but if the average joe's tax was cut, it would make little difference, the amount AND percentages they pay are pale in comparison with what the rich pay.

i am not a wealthy man. i am going to graduate in may poor as hell. i will be poor for quite a few years, but i still don't want to milk off the rich because i am too much of a hypocrate to pay for the services i get fromt he government. and when the day comes when i am paying 75% of my income to the government, i won't be a hypocrate.

i propose a special "top tax bracket" lane on all roads since those people deserve something extra since they are taxed unproportionately.

trebblekicked

Dec 30, 2002, 05:44 AM

i'm confused about something--

now, my political education isn't very rounded and i'm only 23, so i haven't seen a lot in my years, but didn't we try the whole tax-cuts-for-the-rich-to-stimulate-the-economy thing before? Wasn't it called trickle-down economics? Wasn't it an unmittigated disaster?

one other thing,
i've been hearing that consumer spending is the real driving force in our economy, not investment. If thats the case, tax cuts to the middle and lower class would make more sense to me. These people are more likely to need a new car, computer, house, whatever. They would be more likely to put tax refunds back into the economy right away. This would drive up bottom lines in the retail industry, which feeds all sorts of other markets (manufacturing, shipping, marketing, etc), and hopefully get us out of the slump we're in.

ahh, politics.

wwworry

Dec 30, 2002, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by idkew

i propose a special "top tax bracket" lane on all roads since those people deserve something extra since they are taxed unproportionately.

highways are funded by gas taxes. What you are proposing is a SUV lane, which would be fine by me as long as it lead off a cliff...
even then gas taxes don't cover the money we spend for the military in the middle east

&

Teddy Roosevelt’s debt to society argument. He argued that “the man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.”

The wealthy individual needs to pay for the “protection” that the State provides for his or her property ─ a military force that defends private property from foreign threat and a legal system/police force that protects private property from domestic theft. As Adam Smith observed in the Wealth of Nations: “It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of valuable property can sleep a single night in security.”
and how many of you can call up your senator and get special language in tax bills specifically protecting your business or receive your own private tax cut. Ask Bill Frist about the protection he gave to Eli Lily. He will deny it. He will lie.

&

I guess you do not understand that if the wealthy get a tax cut and spending is not reduced the less wealthy end up paying a greater share of the current budget and the future debt. It's quite simple to all but the simpleton. But then, a poll was taken and 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income earners.

zarathustra

Dec 30, 2002, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by trebblekicked
i'm confused about something--

now, my political education isn't very rounded and i'm only 23, so i haven't seen a lot in my years, but didn't we try the whole tax-cuts-for-the-rich-to-stimulate-the-economy thing before? Wasn't it called trickle-down economics? Wasn't it an unmittigated disaster?

one other thing,
i've been hearing that consumer spending is the real driving force in our economy, not investment. If thats the case, tax cuts to the middle and lower class would make more sense to me. These people are more likely to need a new car, computer, house, whatever. They would be more likely to put tax refunds back into the economy right away. This would drive up bottom lines in the retail industry, which feeds all sorts of other markets (manufacturing, shipping, marketing, etc), and hopefully get us out of the slump we're in.

ahh, politics.

I am not much older than you are, but I do see that the trickle-down-economics work. They do not have the immediate result you are looking for with you proposal, but they have a much deeper, longer lasting effect. The fact that after Reagan and Bush, Clinton got into office, we did not see economic well-being peak.

It started under Bush, but people were tired of waiting - they elected Clinton and in a little while Clinton was riding on the coat-tails trickle-down-economics. After 6 years in office the economy started going down hill, because all the elements of T-D-E that were put in place were slowly removed or counteracted. By the time Bush Jr. took over and 9.11 happened, the real legacy of Clinton kicked in.

trebblekicked

Dec 30, 2002, 08:51 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarathustra
[B]
. The fact that after Reagan and Bush, Clinton got into office, we did not see economic well-being peak.

It started under Bush, but people were tired of waiting - they elected Clinton and in a little while Clinton was riding on the coat-tails trickle-down-economics.

i remember a war-time recession and a tax hike when Bush was in office. Not economic health.

I don't see how Clinton rode coattails. Wasn't his whole economic platform about fixing the disaster that was TED? The balanced budget was a misnomer of sorts-- any economics "expert" counting on the .com fiasco being a permemnant fixation of the american economy should have his degree revoked. But the plan was an answer to the problems we had in the early 90's (are about to see again-- less tax base, higher spending). Bush proposes to lose tax base, but any social plans he plans to cut are made up for between exponential military spending and this whole new cabinet level office to be headed up by a man MORE LIFELESS THAN AL GORE!

If we're going to cut government spending, lets start with this corportae welfare BS. I'm sick of programs that benefit average people being scrapped for the sake of advertising the Pillsbury Doughboy in Latin America (. Get people health insurance. Let the poorly run airline industry fend for itself, not the family of five getting by at $50K a year. Right?(The Big One - Michael Moore)
Maybe i just care too much about people who could be a-holes for all i know...just the way my mind works, i guess.

trebblekicked

Dec 30, 2002, 09:04 AM

Sorry, but i forgot to look at the wisdom of 1980's sitcoms before i put up my last post:

Now the world don't move to the beat of just one drum
what might be right for you may not be right for some...
it takes diff'rent strokes to move the world.

Where are Gary Coleman and Todd Bridges when you really need them?

mcrain

Dec 30, 2002, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by idkew
the reason the rich are getting tax cuts is because they PAY taxes. you have to get taxed to get a cut in taxes.

now i am not saying that most people don't pay taxes, but if the average joe's tax was cut, it would make little difference, the amount AND percentages they pay are pale in comparison with what the rich pay.

i am not a wealthy man. i am going to graduate in may poor as hell. i will be poor for quite a few years, but i still don't want to milk off the rich because i am too much of a hypocrate to pay for the services i get fromt he government. and when the day comes when i am paying 75% of my income to the government, i won't be a hypocrate.

i propose a special "top tax bracket" lane on all roads since those people deserve something extra since they are taxed unproportionately.

You're wrong when you say that the rich pay more as a percentage of their income in taxes than the poor. Statistically speaking (if you ignore the super-wealthy who can control their taxes and effectively reduce them to very low percentages) the percentage of taxes paid by just about everyone, across income levels, is pretty flat.

The assumption you make is that the only taxes people pay are Federal Income Taxes. The fed tax is graduated in a progressive manner. Social security, medicare and medicaid have caps on them, so that if you make in excess of a certain amount, the amount of tax stops going up, therefore, as you make more, the percentage of your income you pay in those taxes goes down. State taxes are generally flat, but most state deductions are available only if you have significant income.

Now, the true regressive taxes are property, sales, lottery and excise taxes. As a percentage of income, these taxes make up a huge percentage of a person's income when that person makes between $10,000 and 60,000 per year. But, if you make a million a year, those taxes are tiny as a percentage of income.

If you (assuming you are in a low fed. income tax bracket) add every tax you pay, you will find that the percentage of your income that goes out the door in the form of taxes is pretty much the same as the wealthy guy who is in the highest fed tax bracket.

If you lower the federal tax brackets, even if the lowering is an even percentage across the board, what you end up doing is reducing the overall tax burden on the higher income tax brackets, and shift the tax burden to the lower tax brackets.

I'll give you an example. The legislature passed a law reducing the real estate assessments on farmers. That's all well and good, except, the local governments had to make up the money somehow. Thus, you have fairly substantial (17%) property tax increases being levied against every homeowner. Because property taxes affect someone who is poor (as a percentage of their income), this increase shifts the tax burden most drastically from large farmers who are well off to people who are far less well off.

Whenever I hear people talk about tax policy, they either say that the rich aren't paying enough or that they are paying too much. Both sides are brainwashed.

mcrain

Dec 30, 2002, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Centris Fan
Carter may have had some amount of budgetery discipline but at a huge cost, i.e. stagflation. If you say that he helped produce the good economic times that followed him out of office, then you'll have to credit the first Bush for the Clinton boom. Especially since the economy was growing at around 3% or so around the 1992 election. (Unemployment is a lagging indicator).

So, which is it? Your saying that the good times under Clinton were a result of what Bush did, yet you won't say that Carter's policies generated the successes under Reagan? But wait, Reagan was such a great president, the good things that happened while he was in office were as a result of what he did? Well, then, you're admitting that the good things that happened under Clinton were a result of his policies.

You can either have your belief that Reagan was a great president or that Clinton wasn't responsible for the good things that happened under him (necessarily making Bush Sr. a non-factor).

idkew

Dec 30, 2002, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by wwworry

highways are funded by gas taxes. What you are proposing is a SUV lane, which would be fine by me as long as it lead off a cliff...
even then gas taxes don't cover the money we spend for the military in the middle east

&

Teddy Roosevelt’s debt to society argument. He argued that “the man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.”

The wealthy individual needs to pay for the “protection” that the State provides for his or her property ─ a military force that defends private property from foreign threat and a legal system/police force that protects private property from domestic theft. As Adam Smith observed in the Wealth of Nations: “It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of valuable property can sleep a single night in security.”
and how many of you can call up your senator and get special language in tax bills specifically protecting your business or receive your own private tax cut. Ask Bill Frist about the protection he gave to Eli Lily. He will deny it. He will lie.

&

I guess you do not understand that if the wealthy get a tax cut and spending is not reduced the less wealthy end up paying a greater share of the current budget and the future debt. It's quite simple to all but the simpleton. But then, a poll was taken and 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income earners.

well, you have some good points, if it were 1803, but it is almost 2003. Wealth is not longer solely based on land ownership. My guess is that little old billy in redmond has some land, but nowhere near the amount of land that a struggling farmer owns. that farmer's 10,000 acres do not make him rich, in fact they may be a burden to him now.

so now you are saying that the wealthy should pay of the whole's debt, and that people shouldn't just pay off their proportionate amount. sounds pretty socialist to me. and of coarse the less weathy will end up paying a greater share. right now MOST of the richest people's money goes to the government, if the government is not being funded by the top 10%, the rest fo the country must actually kick in.

oh yeah- the lane thing was a JOKE. i was just pointing out the unequal taxing that goes on right now.

and- we have property tax, which has nothing to do with income, it is just based of the amount of land you own. and anyway, who cares about the amount it costs to defend each acre of land. wether i rent, or i own 300,000 acres, i don't want my country invaded, sacked, and burned. either way i still have nowhere to live. i guess we had better start taxing people on the coasts, alaskans, and hawaiians, more since it costs more per acre to defend their land than it does in the heartland.

TimDaddy

Dec 30, 2002, 11:46 AM

A friend emailed this to me the other day and I like it. I did choose to delete the last couple of lines that basically call all liberals stupid. I believe MOST politians have the good of the nation in mind, but disagree on how to best serve it.

The Truth about Taxes
by Anonymous

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

mcrain

Dec 30, 2002, 01:18 PM

Actually, if you tax someone who is very, very wealthy an additional 5%, they will typically take their liquid assets and other investments that are currently invested in conservative things like t-bills, bonds, mutual funds, etc... and seek out more lucrative places to invest their money to make up the 5% shortfall in their expected earnings. Typically, a more lucrative investment is one with higher risk. Typically, the higher risk ventures are those that are on the cutting edge, either technologically speaking or cutting edge in that their new. Which, my friends, is why the periods of highest growth in this country have occurred shortly after tax INCREASES.

idkew

Dec 30, 2002, 01:50 PM

nice post timdaddy, i think that most people can understand that, as opposed to non simplified arguments i was putting forth.

maybe i was confusing them.

mcrain

Dec 30, 2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by idkew
nice post timdaddy, i think that most people can understand that, as opposed to non simplified arguments i was putting forth.

maybe i was confusing them.

Or, maybe you were wrong.

Roger1

Dec 30, 2002, 03:57 PM

My .02

I think we need a national sales tax. If we did that instead of the income tax, everybody would be taxed at the same rate. This would eliminate the graduated income tax, and all deductions could could be eliminated. This would also eliminate the April 15 deadline. Taxes would be paid at time of purchase, and then turned over to the IRS. We could even pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget every year, or even every 4 years, if deficit spending is required. I think something like this would work to help eliminate the tax problems our country is having.

mcrain

Dec 30, 2002, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Roger1
My .02

I think we need a national sales tax. If we did that instead of the income tax, everybody would be taxed at the same rate. This would eliminate the graduated income tax, and all deductions could could be eliminated. This would also eliminate the April 15 deadline. Taxes would be paid at time of purchase, and then turned over to the IRS. We could even pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget every year, or even every 4 years, if deficit spending is required. I think something like this would work to help eliminate the tax problems our country is having.

Sorry, but that's far, far more unfair than what we have now. The second you go to a national sales tax, you put the vast vast majority of the tax burden on the lower/middle class.

Think about one thing. If you won the lottery tomorrow and got, say 50 Million dollars, how many TV's would you buy? How many cigarettes could you smoke in one year? Do you think you'd buy 1666 times more tvs than a guy who makes 30,000? Do you think you can smoke that many times more cigarettes than someone else? How about everything else? A national sales tax spreads the tax burden among consumers of goods, and the rich are not that much larger consumers than the poor. Thus, you end up with a massive shifting of the tax burden, and you end up with a very, very regressive tax system.

OutThere

Dec 30, 2002, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

When will the democrats finally realize that Bush is a) not a moron, and b) not a criminal mastermind? And even if he was one of those, you can't be a criminal mastermind and a moron at the same time.

how 'bout a criminal moron?

OutThere

Dec 30, 2002, 05:10 PM

Bush seems to be doing everything in his power to make other countries question the leadership even more than I'm sure that they already do. I haven't read all the posts yet, but we need more posts by people from europe and other places outside of the US, it would be interesting to hear their opinions on these kinds of comments.

wwworry

Dec 30, 2002, 05:14 PM

idkew and TimDaddy, you don't make any sence and you don't know your history.

Since the 1950's the total tax burden on Americans has shifted dramatically off the super-wealthy and corporations and on to your (presumably) middle to lower income backs. You are paying more of the burden than you once were. Now you would like to pay even more of the tax burden. What's wrong with you?!!!

Instead of huge subsidies to large agribusiness wouldn't you like to see more schools being built? Instead of $50000/year given to someone who is richer than you can imagine wouldn't you like your social security taxes reduced?

There is plenty of room in conservatism for economic populism. Go ahead and be conservative but every time you spout off some misleading anecdote about taxes it's costing you money.

Do some research. Examine:
The percentage history of total taxation by economic class.
The historic differences between the lowest, middle and highest income brackets and how society reacted to the differences.
What services used to be federally funded and now are state and locally funded.

I ask you to do the (currently) most American thing you can do and vote for YOUR MONEY not someone elses.

bobindashadows

Dec 30, 2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
White House Aides Push for 50% Cut in Dividend Taxes

...The 50 percent cut would cost the Treasury more than $100 billion over 10 years, and the tax benefits would overwhelmingly flow to the nation's very wealthiest taxpayers.

+

Bush Seeks Increase in National Debt Limit

...The deputy Treasury secretary, Kenneth W. Dam, in a letter to the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, cited the cost of combating terrorism and the economic slowdown for the government's growing indebtedness.

Yes I know $100 billion is small beans but the last tax cut that overwhelmingly went to the very wealthiest taxpayers didn't help much either.

I would just like to explain right now to all the whiny liberals who haven't passed a tax cut in who knows how long -

No matter what percent of a tax reduction you make, it is going to benefit the rich more DOLLAR WISE. Maybe you think that the perfect tax cut is one where each person gets a certain dollar amount back from the gov't. That's ************. I don't see why people don't understand that tax cuts benefit everyone, and of course they are going to benefit the rich. I'm sure every single one of you would love to pay 50% of your income to the government. THe numbers may be different, but even if your family makes say... 300,000 a year, which is about what my family makes, that's 150,000 (roughly... some years it's been higher, recently it got a little lower) back to government. Not to mention every single thing that we buy we have to pay more money in taxes, though that's much less of a problem. Next year we are going to be spending 60,000 a year on education. I myself attend a private high school and my sister is going to college. From that 150,000 a year, that hardly equates to being able to spend that much.

So do you think that the say.. upper class, but not millionaire class would enjoy a tax break? Yes! Do you think it would help free up some useful cash for them? YES! It isn't as if every single person above middle class has bushels of cash to throw around. But the tax rate still goes way up. The math isn't fuzzy about how rich people are benefitted more by tax cuts: a 1% tax cut means 500 bucks more to the 50,000 salary (this is assuming no other taxes or other things), 1,000 bucks more to the 100,000 dollar salary, and only 200 bucks to the high school teacher who earns 20,000 dollars. Obviously there should be some balance to the tax cut, higher cut for lower class, lower cut for upper class. But you shouldn't bomb the rich for benefitting from tax cuts, and saying they shouldn't get diddly squat.

trebblekicked

Dec 31, 2002, 01:27 AM

I know i'm about to open up a huge can of worms, but i have no choice--i'll just come out and say it. I'll try to slip in a Mac reference somewhere to take the edge off--

I SUPPORT RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!

This perpetuated feudalism under-the-guise of the American dream BS has blinded us to the point of no return. Do you really think a working, single mother of four who brings in $35K a year (too much for welfare, not enough to pay the bills) gives a rat's a** about your private high school or your sister's college or what you do with the $90K that's left over? Of course not. And believe me. She doesn't know you, but she hates you.

What else can she do? Send her kids off to public school and hope for the best. Only she lives in a demilitarized zone, in a school district with lower test scores than the temperature in Manitoba come Valentines Day, and presuming her kids survive and stay off drugs and graduate, what then? Pick up another job to put the one that drew the short straw through college?

Do you know who she blames for her troubles? Do you know that someone who makes $300,000.00 a year looks like a billionare to her? Is it her fault that she didn't succeed in life? Who are we to tell. For all we know she grew up in Alabama and went to school in a burned down shack while the rich white kids got the good education. Or maybe she was forced to abandon her dreams of college because her immigrant father lost his job and she had to work to support her parents (because they didn't go past 8th grade). Or maybe she makes less at the office than a man, dispite her seniority.

Don't mistake her anger for racism. It's socio-economicism. And don't think that there can't be that many people who have stories like this. I watched it happen all around me when i was growing up. I could write out a list three pages long if i had to.

I don't mean to harp, or call out the wealthy or insult anyone. I am simply saying that the disparity between the ulra-wealthy and the poverty stricken is pretty bad. But the gap between rich and poor is growing wider. The gap between CEO and laboror pay is widening exponentially. The anger that exists at the bottom of the economic ladder boils over every once in a while. Remember when LA burned? Why do you think wealthy african americans weren't burning down Starbucks on Rodeo Drive? Why do you think starving Muslims are lining up around the block for a chance to blow up some Jews or Americans? Why do you think the disenchanted European students are calling America the #1 Rogue Nation? Because the balance of wealth is heavily tilted against the majority of the world's population, yet somehow the 5% manage to control the 95%'s economic and political future. Until the gaps between rich and poor and upper- and lower-middle class are narrowed, violence, anger, hate, distrust and bravado will continue to build and build and build until something truly wicked happens (like 9/11).

I'm not saying let's all be socialists. I am saying put that tax money into programs that break the cycle of poverty, and give a helping hand to those who are trying their damndest to help themselves. Fix up the rathole High School i went to. Teach inner city kids how to write AppleScript, and see how many take to it. Find ways to use the nation's blessing of wealth to bring up those our forefathers kept down by will. This is why us whining liberals don't think tax cuts are a great idea. Because WE HAVE SO MUCH WORK TO DO!

Bush giving these two tax cuts to the wealthy and bailing out poorly run airlines and calling on a sluggish private sector and a weary middle and lower class to pick up the slack all in the face of corporate scandals galore- breath-it's just salt in the lash marks.

Ain't no democrat or republican gonna fix this. Ralph? Ralph??!

Choppaface

Dec 31, 2002, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by trebblekicked
I SUPPORT RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!

but i thought true, untainted socialism totally rejected the use of money in society ?????? :D

wwworry

Dec 31, 2002, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by bobindashadows

I would just like to explain right now to all the whiny liberals who haven't passed a tax cut in who knows how long -

Obviously there should be some balance to the tax cut, higher cut for lower class, lower cut for upper class. But you shouldn't bomb the rich for benefitting from tax cuts, and saying they shouldn't get diddly squat.

I couldn't agree more with the balance part. I, personally, would like a 4% decrease in my tax rate just like the uppper 1%'s got.

First of all we have been saddled with a huge national debt for the longest time. The republicans pass tax cuts and the debt goes up. Way up. I'm telling you it's cowardly how they do it.

You go on and on with your talk of sports ("whiny liberals") but you never do the research. Just read some of the articles on this page which uses actual numbers from the non-partisan CBO:
http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/fedtax.htm
like the following:

ARE TAXES TOO CONCENTRATED AT THE TOP? (http://www.cbpp.org/12-16-02tax.htm)

Where Has All the Surplus Gone? (http://www.cbpp.org/11-1-01bud.htm)

Are We Soaking The Rich? (http://www.cbpp.org/4-16-02tax.htm)

Acceleration of Upper-Bracket Rate Reductions Would
Be Costly and Ineffective as a Stimulus Measure (http://www.cbpp.org/11-12-01tax.htm)

Permanent Repeal of the Estate Tax Would Be Costly,
Yet Would Benefit Only a Few, Very Large Estates (http://www.cbpp.org/6-3-02tax.htm)

wwworry

Dec 31, 2002, 06:32 AM

I'm sorry to have to add to your reading but schools in rural Kentucky are going to a 4 day week because they do not have any money. Poor children are being affected. Here is an article that explains how federal tax policy is keeping children out of school.

MANY FEDERAL “STIMULUS” TAX CUTS UNDER
CONSIDERATION WOULD BE HIGHLY COSTLY FOR STATES (http://www.cbpp.org/12-23-02sfp3.htm)

mcrain

Dec 31, 2002, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by bobindashadows
I would just like to explain right now to all the whiny liberals who haven't passed a tax cut in who knows how long -

No matter what percent of a tax reduction you make, it is going to benefit the rich more DOLLAR WISE. Maybe you think that the perfect tax cut is one where each person gets a certain dollar amount back from the gov't. That's ************. I don't see why people don't understand that tax cuts benefit everyone, and of course they are going to benefit the rich. I'm sure every single one of you would love to pay 50% of your income to the government. THe numbers may be different, but even if your family makes say... 300,000 a year, which is about what my family makes, that's 150,000 (roughly... some years it's been higher, recently it got a little lower) back to government. Not to mention every single thing that we buy we have to pay more money in taxes, though that's much less of a problem. Next year we are going to be spending 60,000 a year on education. I myself attend a private high school and my sister is going to college. From that 150,000 a year, that hardly equates to being able to spend that much.

So do you think that the say.. upper class, but not millionaire class would enjoy a tax break? Yes! Do you think it would help free up some useful cash for them? YES! It isn't as if every single person above middle class has bushels of cash to throw around. But the tax rate still goes way up. The math isn't fuzzy about how rich people are benefitted more by tax cuts: a 1% tax cut means 500 bucks more to the 50,000 salary (this is assuming no other taxes or other things), 1,000 bucks more to the 100,000 dollar salary, and only 200 bucks to the high school teacher who earns 20,000 dollars. Obviously there should be some balance to the tax cut, higher cut for lower class, lower cut for upper class. But you shouldn't bomb the rich for benefitting from tax cuts, and saying they shouldn't get diddly squat.

You know, I'm starting to get tired of saying this, but since your a little denser than average, I'll say it one more time. Federal income taxes are not the only tax people pay.

In your example, if you take two people, one who makes 300,000 per year, and another who makes a 50,000 salary, and then break down all the taxes paid by both of those people, you will find that the person who makes 50,000 pays his 27% in federal income taxes. Then, he pays his 7.65% SS, FICA taxes. Then his state income tax (between 2 and 10%, let's use 5% here). Then, he pays about 7.25% sales tax (lets include in this figure telecommunications taxes, energy taxes, etc... although in reality those taxes would make our example a little higher) on the 15,000-20,000 of his income he spends during the year. Now, add in about $1500 or so in property taxes.

So, our 50,000 salary person pays 13,500 in federal income taxes, 3825 in SS and Fica, 1087 to 1450 in sales taxes, and $1500 in property taxes. That's 21725 so far, and that doesn't include any excise taxes (taxes on booze and cigarettes) or taxes on gas, road tolls, lottery tickets, etc, which bring the amount of taxes paid by our 50,000 salary person to just about 50%.

Now, let's look at the guy who makes $300,000. First, SS and Fica taxes are only up to a maximum amount of income (in 2003 it's about 87,000, so he pays only $5,394.00 in SS,Fica taxes. Second, he pays $36,690 plus 35% of the excess over $141,250 (For a total federal income tax of $92,252.50). Property taxes on a very large house are around $10,000, and assume this person spends considerably more on "stuff" each year. Assume a base purchase amount of 45,000 per year, for a sales tax of $3,375. So, this person (not allowing for any reduction in taxes due to income being in the form of capital gains, or for itemized deductions) pays a total tax of $111,021.50 or 37% of his income in taxes.

Now, who pays more of the tax burden? The guy who ONLY pays a total of just over $20,000 in taxes, or the guy who pays over $110,000 in taxes? Wait, what if you look at it from the standpoint of who pays the higher tax burden? The guy who pays 44% of his income in taxes or the guy who only pays 37% of his income?

It gets worse when you factor in the fact that (as it is for the guy making $300,000) if any of your income is from capital gains, you can offset those with losses, you can generate cash flow without liquidating assets by using loans, and then deducting the interest, you can utilize itemized deductions, etc...

mcrain

Dec 31, 2002, 09:58 AM

A quote from one of the links in wwworry's post:

Finally, all of the aforementioned studies take account only of federal taxes. Yet taxes are also levied by state and local governments, and many of those taxes — such as sales and excise taxes — place a greater burden on low- and middle-income families than on upper-income families. When all taxes — including state and local taxes — are taken into account, the overall tax system becomes less progressive.

idkew

Dec 31, 2002, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by trebblekicked
I know i'm about to open up a huge can of worms, but i have no choice--i'll just come out and say it. I'll try to slip in a Mac reference somewhere to take the edge off--

I SUPPORT RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!

well, all i can say about that is if she could not provide for herself, why did she open her legs?

she could have bit the bullet, started taking night classes, and after about 5-10 years of hell, get a college degree. then she could have gotten a better job, maybe met a good man who would actually have stuck around. then, when she could afford kids, she could have had them, raised them better, helped them through college and broke her family's cycle of poverty.

it CAN be done. some of the richest people in america came from worse than your story. the wierd thing about amarica that people don't seem to see is that you have to WANT to be successful. you have to WORK for it.

i don't want to hear your sob stories, i can go downtown and see all kinds of "sob" stories, but what it boils down to is that it was easier for these people to do the absolute minimum to get by. as little as possible. well, guess what, you get the absolute minimum for doing the absolute minimim.

I will be taking 9 extra years of schooling, thereby putting off my "real" life for 9 years. to these people, thier 70 years of lower income were a fair trade off for not taking 9 extra years of schooling. that was their choice.

i don't want to hear about priviledge, i am one generation off the farm. and this was not some southern gentile, it was a rugular working man's farm. there wern't millions behind me to make me want to do this. you can afford a state college by wrking 40 or more hours a week in the summer ans part time in the school year. little or no debt. after that, work a few years, save some money from not smoking... having kids... whatever and then you can go to grad school. become a ceo if you want.

what my point is is that it CAN be done. there is no cast system in america. when you go for a job- they don't say, "oh, your name is smith, you can't go above middle management". you just work your ass off until they want you in upper management.

bobindashadows

Dec 31, 2002, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by mcrain

You know, I'm starting to get tired of saying this, but since your a little denser than average, I'll say it one more time. Federal income taxes are not the only tax people pay.

In your example, if you take two people, one who makes 300,000 per year, and another who makes a 50,000 salary, and then break down all the taxes paid by both of those people, you will find that the person who makes 50,000 pays his 27% in federal income taxes. Then, he pays his 7.65% SS, FICA taxes. Then his state income tax (between 2 and 10%, let's use 5% here). Then, he pays about 7.25% sales tax (lets include in this figure telecommunications taxes, energy taxes, etc... although in reality those taxes would make our example a little higher) on the 15,000-20,000 of his income he spends during the year. Now, add in about $1500 or so in property taxes.

So, our 50,000 salary person pays 13,500 in federal income taxes, 3825 in SS and Fica, 1087 to 1450 in sales taxes, and $1500 in property taxes. That's 21725 so far, and that doesn't include any excise taxes (taxes on booze and cigarettes) or taxes on gas, road tolls, lottery tickets, etc, which bring the amount of taxes paid by our 50,000 salary person to just about 50%.

Now, let's look at the guy who makes $300,000. First, SS and Fica taxes are only up to a maximum amount of income (in 2003 it's about 87,000, so he pays only $5,394.00 in SS,Fica taxes. Second, he pays $36,690 plus 35% of the excess over $141,250 (For a total federal income tax of $92,252.50). Property taxes on a very large house are around $10,000, and assume this person spends considerably more on "stuff" each year. Assume a base purchase amount of 45,000 per year, for a sales tax of $3,375. So, this person (not allowing for any reduction in taxes due to income being in the form of capital gains, or for itemized deductions) pays a total tax of $111,021.50 or 37% of his income in taxes.

Now, who pays more of the tax burden? The guy who ONLY pays a total of just over $20,000 in taxes, or the guy who pays over $110,000 in taxes? Wait, what if you look at it from the standpoint of who pays the higher tax burden? The guy who pays 44% of his income in taxes or the guy who only pays 37% of his income?

It gets worse when you factor in the fact that (as it is for the guy making $300,000) if any of your income is from capital gains, you can offset those with losses, you can generate cash flow without liquidating assets by using loans, and then deducting the interest, you can utilize itemized deductions, etc...

look ok, for one i mentioned that the federal tax was only one of the taxes. so back off. Second, I'll admit I don't know all the specifics of taxes - but I do know that at 300,000 a year, you don't pay 92,000 a year in fed taxes. I look at our taxes every year - They are in excess of 140,000. So assuming you got the other numbers right, then that means that he's paying $158,769 in taxes. Meaning %53 of his income. And I like the analogy above about the 10 men eating dinner. Quite true. So I'll just say that your numbers don't impress me.

Just to be a little more specific, I'm not a die hard republican. I'd be a socialist, if human nature allowed it. But guess what - There are evil, greedy, selfish, violent, disruptive, angry people in the world who throw true socialism into a twisted subclass of it. So it cannot succeed because there will always be people who seek to take more than they deserve, more power than is allowed, and always those who want to rise above the others. This is why I'm a capitalist - it has succeeded in keeping domestic liberty and freedom for 200 years, and of course there are problems within the country. There are problems within every country. I think that with a major overhaul of the federal budgeting system we could solve a lot of these problems without touching taxes. We could easily cut out all the damn pork barrel, move money around from departments that are stuffed with unneeded money and put them into what's important - education, health care, homeland security. Take money from offensive military campaigns and put off the stupid war against iraq that is inevitable anyway, whether they did anything wrong or not. I may not agree with universal health care but we should at least get a little closer. Do I think that we need to solve lots of problems in the country, in regards to education and finding alternative energy sources, etc.? Yeah... of course. But i think we can get a good start on solving those before raising taxes.

Oh, and before anyone jumps on me with crap like "oh you're part of a rich bloodline you probably inherited everything and your family never had to work and went to big colleges" and other crap, that's completely untrue. My father dropped out of school in 9th grade, and my mother barely graduated. My father dropped out of an urban public school in california, near L.A. To some this might signal "oh wow he hasn't had any chance to get a good job, he deserves a second chance" well he realized he needed to get up off his ass and he did. He worked hard for 25 years in different companies in the same industry before he could get where he is today. He knows a lot about being part of the lower classes, but he had actual ambition and rose out of it. Plenty of the lower class could do so as well if they had the ambition to. This has turned into such a ramble i'm not even going to reply anymore - I have better things to do than argue with people i don't know about subjects that can be correct from either side.

bobindashadows

Dec 31, 2002, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by idkew

well, all i can say about that is if she could not provide for herself, why did she open her legs?

she could have bit the bullet, started taking night classes, and after about 5-10 years of hell, get a college degree. then she could have gotten a better job, maybe met a good man who would actually have stuck around. then, when she could afford kids, she could have had them, raised them better, helped them through college and broke her family's cycle of poverty.

it CAN be done. some of the richest people in america came from worse than your story. the wierd thing about amarica that people don't seem to see is that you have to WANT to be successful. you have to WORK for it.

i don't want to hear your sob stories, i can go downtown and see all kinds of "sob" stories, but what it boils down to is that it was easier for these people to do the absolute minimum to get by. as little as possible. well, guess what, you get the absolute minimum for doing the absolute minimim.

I will be taking 9 extra years of schooling, thereby putting off my "real" life for 9 years. to these people, thier 70 years of lower income were a fair trade off for not taking 9 extra years of schooling. that was their choice.

i don't want to hear about priviledge, i am one generation off the farm. and this was not some southern gentile, it was a rugular working man's farm. there wern't millions behind me to make me want to do this. you can afford a state college by wrking 40 or more hours a week in the summer ans part time in the school year. little or no debt. after that, work a few years, save some money from not smoking... having kids... whatever and then you can go to grad school. become a ceo if you want.

what my point is is that it CAN be done. there is no cast system in america. when you go for a job- they don't say, "oh, your name is smith, you can't go above middle management". you just work your ass off until they want you in upper management.

Exactly what I was trying to say in my post... SOrry to DB btw, but I've seen (beyond my own family) a lot more drastic "rags to riches" stories, from no 9th grade education and several drug addictions plus alcoholism, to rehab, clean up, hard work and now make over 150,000 a year. It's called looking at the big picture when you make your decisions.

sturm375

Dec 31, 2002, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by idkew

well, all i can say about that is if she could not provide for herself, why did she open her legs?

Cathlic, ie no birth control what-so-ever.

Quadruplets? A $35K salery should definatly be enought for a single parent of 1, but what happens when God provides 4 kids instead of 1, and the father has a heart attack when he finds out.

bobindashadows

Dec 31, 2002, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

Cathlic, ie no birth control what-so-ever.

i.e. get a fertility monitor so you know when not to have sex all willy nilly so you don't end up bringing children into the world you won't be able to support. I'm not saying the poor don't deserve to have children, because it's a wonderful thing, but to have children when you know they won't be able to live up to what they deserve because you will only be able to feed them once every other day, that's unfair to the child.

mcrain

Dec 31, 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by bobindashadows
look ok, for one i mentioned that the federal tax was only one of the taxes. so back off. Second, I'll admit I don't know all the specifics of taxes - but I do know that at 300,000 a year, you don't pay 92,000 a year in fed taxes. I look at our taxes every year - They are in excess of 140,000. So assuming you got the other numbers right, then that means that he's paying $158,769 in taxes. Meaning %53 of his income. And I like the analogy above about the 10 men eating dinner. Quite true. So I'll just say that your numbers don't impress me.

Ok, so my numbers don't impress you? How 'bout we try numbers from the IRS. If you're parents are paying taxes in excess of $140,000 on an adjusted gross income of $300,000, then they need a new accountant.

2002 Unmarried-Single Return
Taxable Income ........................Tax

Not over $6,000..........................10% of the taxable income

Over $6,000 but
not over $27,950.........................$600 plus 15% of the excess over $6,000

Over $27,950 but
not over $67,700........................ $3,892.50 plus 27% of the excess over $27,950

Over $67,700 but
not over $141,250.......................$14,625 plus 30% of the excess over $67,700

Over $141,250 but
not over $307,050.......................$36,690 plus 35% of the excess over $141,250

Over $307,050............................$94,720 plus 38.6% of the excess over $307,050

So, if you make $300,000, you pay $36,690 plus 35% of 300,000 - 141,250. That's, for those of us who have difficulty with math, a federal income tax of $92,252.50.

mcrain

Dec 31, 2002, 12:24 PM

Where is your tax dollar spent? (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm)

MrMacMan

Dec 31, 2002, 12:57 PM

Ahhhh gotta LOVE that military/defense Budget!
776 Billion on Current and Past Millitary. w00t!
'I loves my millitary, loves my military' --- U.S

For all of you TOO LAZY TO CLICK A LINK:
http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY03.jpg

Do we need more Defense budget increases?

wwworry

Dec 31, 2002, 07:18 PM

Idkew, of course, "anyone can make it in America with a little hard work", not. From you comment that you "will" be taking 9 extra years of schooling it makes me think that you probably have not yet encountered the myriad of ways that one can end up not being well off. Death, dismemberment, illness of yourself or your family can come at any time, not to mention economic instability, war or mental illness. Any of these things can put the best laid plans on hold. Before going on about how someone (those people downtown??) should "not open their legs" it might be wise to actually talk to "those people" and even live a little. Nothing about human behavior is so cut and dried as you would like.

But I am not really focusing on the sob stories as some incentive to equitable taxation policies. I would like to talk about policies that, latlely, benefit the super-wealthy at the expense of the more typical earner. This is cut and dried. All the numbers are there if you would take the time to look at them.

And anyway, captialism, by definition, is going to have rich people and poor people. You can't blame people for being poor. It's built into the system. But what you can have is capitalism with some checks and balances so that the natural inclination for wealth to concentrate is tempered. The middle class did not arise "naturally" it took a lot of hard work and a lot of laws and regulations.

But maybe you would rather a more ridgid class structure and ever greater disparity of wealth. That's what you are advocating when you defend the Bush tax cuts. No one here has said they want to pay more taxes. We just want fairer taxes.

Roger1

Dec 31, 2002, 08:19 PM

Sorry, but that's far, far more unfair than what we have now. The second you go to a national sales tax, you put the vast vast majority of the tax burden on the lower/middle class.

Think about one thing. If you won the lottery tomorrow and got, say 50 Million dollars, how many TV's would you buy? How many cigarettes could you smoke in one year? Do you think you'd buy 1666 times more tvs than a guy who makes 30,000? Do you think you can smoke that many times more cigarettes than someone else? How about everything else? A national sales tax spreads the tax burden among consumers of goods, and the rich are not that much larger consumers than the poor. Thus, you end up with a massive shifting of the tax burden, and you end up with a very, very regressive tax system.

You ask if I won 50 million dollars, how many TV's would I buy? I would probably buy more than one, and FAR more expensive than what I would buy otherwise.

My point being is if everybody paid say, 10% sales tax on everything they bought (we can exclude food; no tax on that now), it would be fair because
1) Everybody is paying the same rate
2) People can control the amount of tax they pay, by selecting what they want to purchase.

If nothing else, I think our government should try it for a few years, sort of an experiment. Or for that matter, since the state I live in already collects a sales tax, and an income tax, I think they could go ahead and switch over to a system similar to what I proposed.

Roger1

Dec 31, 2002, 08:20 PM

wwworry

Jan 1, 2003, 10:53 PM

Your points being
1) wrong
and
2) false

makes me think you watch too much TV already, so in love with it that you would buy 1666 of them or one TV that costs $358,190 plus tax.

Charivarie

Jan 2, 2003, 03:43 AM

In my ideal world, there would be a low flat tax for essentials only the government can supply, privitization for everything else, the needy could undoubtably rely on religious and non-religious charity organizations, and Apple would dominate the computer world.

*Dreams are Free!*
:cool:

Sedulous

Jan 2, 2003, 04:14 AM

A flat tax rate for everyone would mean that someone pays the same percent of their income as everyone else. At first, this seems fair. To me, a bigger issue isn't that the wealthy might pay more money in. So what if a millionaire (or billionaire) pays more than I might. The wealthy still would have millions (or billions) and don't have to worry if they can afford medical care, food, etc. after taxes. But middle class folks do have these same basic expenses that consume a larger percentage of their income. It is a question of, I guess a break-even point, or "cutoff". Traditionally, I believe that the government has used the poverty line listed as about $14,000/year. Of course, this is absurdly low and hasn't been updated in years. Nor does it address cost of living differences in different parts of the country. The poverty line should be increased and there should be a new cutoff point that determines what a person needs to make to afford the basics of modern life. People making more than that should begin to pay a scaled tax.
I would think that the absurdly wealthy should pay more. It isn't going to break their bank and they can still more than afford whatever they want. If they don't like it, hey, they can always move to Monaco.
For those of you who think the top tax bracket is high in the United States... try places like Sweden (50% I believe). Of course, this isn't so terrible since this covers things such as health care, and to my knowledge, is essentially the only tax (no sales tax, no "state" income tax, etc).

wwworry

Jan 2, 2003, 05:55 AM

Well it all sounds fair until you get to actual numbers and the super-rich end up paying less once again (with most proposed flat-tax schemes).

You just have to look at who pays how much. People keep mistaking simplicity for fairness.

sturm375

Jan 2, 2003, 07:19 AM

Let's face it, no real tax reform will take place until we get money out of politics. When a person who donates $1 million to a campaign can get the ear of the elected official, while the little guy can't, the real tax rate for the wealthy will continue to go down. They may be in the minority, but they have the majority of the money, and it speaks much louder than us poor loosers.

Roger1

Jan 2, 2003, 08:20 AM

Your points being
1) wrong
and
2) false

1)Why,
2)and Why?

makes me think you watch too much TV already, so in love with it that you would buy 1666 of them or one TV that costs $358,190 plus tax.

I probably do watch too much TV :D, but I would limit my spending on one to about $6000 or so (of course, I might buy two, since they're small :D) ...compared to the $500 I will spend on one next year.
The 352,190 left over would probably go to charity.

dabirdwell

Jan 2, 2003, 11:28 AM

Lets all remember that before WWII almost noone paid income taxes at all (and that was with the New Deal in Place), but the nature of government is to grow itself if not checked, so we have a supermassive bureaucracy resulting from incoherent policy and programs funded by the neverending revenue of the capitalist media-driven American economy.

We are taught to live by the next dollar we spend, not by how we can help direct our society towards real progress.

And- A flat sales tax would cost poorer citizens a greater percentage of their total income than higher earning people. Should we start charging the poor a greater percentage tax burden when the items they purchase are rarely luxuries anyway. Do we shift our tax burden to the purchase of necessities by the working poor?

idkew

Jan 2, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
Let's face it, no real tax reform will take place until we get money out of politics. When a person who donates $1 million to a campaign can get the ear of the elected official, while the little guy can't, the real tax rate for the wealthy will continue to go down. They may be in the minority, but they have the majority of the money, and it speaks much louder than us poor loosers.

the tax reform being proposed / examined here is that of lowering taxes for the rich. poor, not the rich, ARE paying less right now, no matter how you look at it.

if that donator did not help pay for a political campaign, you would be paying for it. we already pay for a certain amount of political campaigns, would you like that dollar amount to increase out of your tax dollars?

idkew

Jan 2, 2003, 12:23 PM

us goes to "flat" tax, which includes some type of mandatory donations to charities such as school, homeless shelters, orphanages, YMCA's..., for those who would be able to afford it.

this would lower the amount the others need to spend, thereby stretching thier dollar further. the rich would not only be happy their money did not goto the government, but would most likely get some sort of a warm fuzzy out of it too.

mcrain

Jan 2, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Roger1
I probably do watch too much TV :D, but I would limit my spending on one to about $6000 or so (of course, I might buy two, since they're small :D) ...compared to the $500 I will spend on one next year.
The 352,190 left over would probably go to charity.

So, you donate $352,190 to a charity. What do you think that does to your tax burden? It's a deduction, thus reducing the amount of taxes you would pay, further reducing the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes. Gee, that's fair... :rolleyes:

sturm375

Jan 2, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by idkew

the tax reform being proposed / examined here is that of lowering taxes for the rich. poor, not the rich, ARE paying less right now, no matter how you look at it.

That's what I said: the real tax rate for the wealthy will continue to go down

Originally posted by idkew
if that donator did not help pay for a political campaign, you would be paying for it. we already pay for a certain amount of political campaigns, would you like that dollar amount to increase out of your tax dollars?

This is somewhat off topic, but yes. I'd rather use tax money for campaigns, than allow the few to be able to bend the ear of the elected official.

Look at the typical large corporation: Ford, GM, M$, Apple, etc. They don't just donate to one party/canadate. They donate to both major parties, so no matter who wins, the still have the ear of that elected official. It doesn't end there, as the wealthy, corporations, unions, special intrest groups pay for "fund raising venues". They rent out the room, pay for the food and service, while the politition just shows up, and collects a check.

Put yourself in the politition's place. Would you listen more to someone who donated $100,000 to your campaign, or someone who donated $50. Let's find a way to get rid of this temptation. Either have everybody who wants to donate to politics put it into a big pot, to be distributed evenly, or all donations must remain anonomus. This way the politition can return to the business of serving the people they represent, not the people who bought them.

Charivarie

Jan 2, 2003, 08:11 PM

I meant flat income tax, not sales tax

MrMacMan

Jan 2, 2003, 08:39 PM

Who else thinks the goverment is too big?
It has power over everything, it really wasn't meant to be that way...
Last time I checked I was supposto have some power too (besides voting).

wrylachlan

Jan 2, 2003, 09:32 PM

Just up front, I am against cutting the taxes on the rich. But, the reason they are doing this has less to do with wanting their buddies to have more money, and more to do with trying to bail us out of a weak economy.

Look at it this way: where does that money in the rich people's pockets go? Do they put it in a mattress, taking it out of circulation? No. They put it in banks, or bonds, or more likely the stock market. But any way you cut it it goes back into the economy. The companies whose stock they own employ people. Banks employ people and invest in companies who employ people. Bonds go back to the government if their T-Bonds, or into a company that employs people. This is the trickle-down theory of economics which was derided during Reagan's presidency, but it could be argued that it was deficit spending that allowed the R&D that led to the internet boom.

The problem is that it just doesn't FEEL right to put more money in the hands of the rich when there are poor all around, even if in the long run the trickle-down economics may benefit the poor.

As a side note, we are not a pure capitalist society nor would we want to be. A pure capitalist society would not have Medi-Care, Medicaid, Welfare, student loans, government sponsored education, etc, etc. These are all essentially socialist concepts.

And the reason we have these programs is that our stated goal of equal opportunity for all is impossible without them. Simply put, the poor tend to beget the poor, for numerous reasons. A malnurished child in a household where both parents work long hours to make ends meet, tends not to do as well in school as the child of a stay at home mother or father with the other parent as a substantial breadwinner. So even if those poor parents dont DESERVE government aid (they are crack addicts, or lazy, or whatever), we have an obligation to give them aid or we will be reneging on our promise of equal opportunity for the child.

And this basic idea, that the more money your parents make, the more of an advantage you have going into life, is the basis of the ethics of taxing the rich more heavily than the poor. Which is something I approve of.

wwworry

Jan 3, 2003, 06:28 AM

But then again, and your points seem sound, some might say that this current recession is a result of over-investment in certain parts of the economy. How can that be? The over-inflated stock market is one example where money was being dumped in without good reason. Another example is the excess capacity in fiber-optic lines and internet infrastructure and, as I know all too well, internet developers.

We just suffered a trillions-of-dollars disappearence in the stock market that most economists see as a "correction". Also, many economists see the fiscal disipline begun bi-partisanly in 1993 as one of the major contributors of the boom. Foreign investment was a big part. THe US government was one of the only ones that was beginning to run without deficits, and thus US bonds and US dollars were highly sought after.

What I am saying is that fiscal resposibility was good but the stock market was overblown. The two can co-exist.

Unfortunately, this economy is driven by consumer spending. If you really want to kick-start this economy you would put more money in the hands of the average consumer because they will spend it. As has been stated before, there are only so many TVs a rich person will buy. I say "unfortunately" because consumer spending is like a sugar high with nutritional value.

It seems to me that the best government investment in the economy we could make now is in schools and education. The govt. could fund a massive school building project similar to the size of an unworkable-missile-defense-shield. Instead of two wars we could fight one war and put the money into long-lasting well-equiped schools, relieving local governments of that burden so that they could spend the money on teachers and smaller class-room sizes - the only guaranteed path to a better education. Think of it, an education lasts a lifetime.

I also believe that when it seems like there are possibilities for lower and middle income workers, when it seems like education is possible, easily available and hard work will pay off, everyone, including the rich, are better off. Imagine smaller modern new schools that poor neighborhoods and poor rural counties could be proud of instead of crumbling over-crowded schools. Just the vision of that national investment might allow a kind of hope and good-will that would trickle up. A proud community given opportunity might see less of need for drugs and crime. Given a tomorrow, they might live for tomorrow.

trebblekicked

Jan 3, 2003, 07:01 AM

well put, wwworry.

but i think education is a frightening concept to those in power. They give it good lip service, but their record (student loans, national standards, alternative education, hell, even going back to desegregation) and attitudes (Nixon's paranoic fear of student 'dissidents' in the 60's) tells a different tale. It may require major third-party involvement to give the education system the boost it needs and deserves.
:(

trebblekicked

Jan 3, 2003, 07:03 AM

Roger1

Jan 3, 2003, 08:14 AM

So, you donate $352,190 to a charity. What do you think that does to your tax burden? It's a deduction, thus reducing the amount of taxes you would pay, further reducing the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes. Gee, that's fair...

No,no,no. This is under a hypothetical system that had a national sales tax, not income tax. So the money wouldn't be given away as a tax deduction (enlightend self-interest), merely out of the kindness of my heart :D

mcrain

Jan 3, 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Roger1
No,no,no. This is under a hypothetical system that had a national sales tax, not income tax. So the money wouldn't be given away as a tax deduction (enlightend self-interest), merely out of the kindness of my heart :D

Nice thought, but unlikely. It seems that everyone is complaining about these high taxes and that we should be able to keep more of "our" money. Do you really think it likely that the people who are complaining about not having that $300k really will, once they get to keep it, just give it away?

Nope.

Strangely, congress enacted a deduction to encourage gifting to charities, but still, to this day, the vast majority of giving to charities is done by people who don't or can't itemize.

idkew

Jan 3, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by mcrain

Strangely, congress enacted a deduction to encourage gifting to charities, but still, to this day, the vast majority of giving to charities is done by people who don't or can't itemize.

I find that extremely hard to believe. Show me some proof of this.

I bet that the most donations of any type come from rich people seeking a tax writeoff. We just had a $26,000,000 library built becase a guy wanted his name on it, and was willing to pay for it. This happens all the time, and there is no way that thousands or millions of casual donations can beat hundereds of doanations of that type.

wwworry

Jan 4, 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by idkew

I find that extremely hard to believe. Show me some proof of this.

Maybe it's hard to believe because the poor don't get their names on everything.

evidence in England:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/fundraising/story/0,8150,623492,00.html

and since it is a whole lot easier to track itemized charity deductions than purely generous (non-naming, non-itemized) ones there is less data here. There is the Generosity Index (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php) that shows that the poorest states are usually the most generous.

How many times have you seen a $1,000,000 tv advertisement extolling the generosity of a $50,000 gift? way too often, but any gift is good.

edit: I don't really mean to suppose the moral superiority of the poor but just to say that the idea of a CEO that lays off thousands of workers while bringing huge bonuses even when his company is going down the tubes may be a faulty one, anecdotal, such as it is (verizon, etc.). It is a rare greedy bastard that will save us.

& There are some things that govt. pays for that can't be left over to charity. Would you have national defense given over to charitable gifts?

mcrain

Jan 5, 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by wwworry

edit: I don't really mean to suppose the moral superiority of the poor but just to say that the idea of a CEO that lays off thousands of workers while bringing huge bonuses even when his company is going down the tubes may be a faulty one, anecdotal, such as it is (verizon, etc.). It is a rare greedy bastard that will save us.

I believe it was Henry Ford that at one point tried to donate money from Ford Motor Company some time after it had gone public, and he and the company got sued by some of the investors. The investors won on the grounds that a company's purpose is to make money for its investors, not to give its money away to charaties.

That obviously isn't a 100% truth, but as a CEO, you're investors are the owners of the company, and as such, a charitable donation has to somehow be framed to fit into the purposes of the company in order for it not to expose the company, board of directors and executive officers to shareholder suits.

I don't think the problem is that the CEO's are all so greedy, but they really are bound to certain fiduciary standards. They owe a duty to their shareholders, and that duty supercedes their moral desires to give company money to charities.

Bill Gates can give his own money away, but if Microsoft did it at his direction, its shareholders may be able to sue.

wwworry

Jan 5, 2003, 09:52 AM

working on sunday - procrastination

hense the ad that costs more than the charity it's advertising.

I guess I meant to say that the wealthy individual will not save us, not that CEOs have an obligation to charity. Noblesse Oblige is more common in anecdote than in fact.

I might add that CEOs and board members will often look after their own interests over the interests of their workers and, due partly by greed and due partly by the way options and other payments are structured, even undermine the long term interests of the company itself.

My point being that gifts thrown at those who already have much are rarely valued and rarely reciprocated.

idkew

Jan 5, 2003, 11:08 AM

from the article about giving...........

A study published today finds that the least well-off give a higher proportion of their income to charity than the wealthy, no matter what their age, class or beliefs.

......................

well, if a poor person gives $10, the wealthy person probably has to give $10,000 to make a proportionate donation. you can't measure generosity that way. not to mention- there are obviously more poor than rich. that rich guy has to make a lot of those $10,000 donations to stay in proportion.

you can't expect any rich person to give away all their money, after all they did work for it, and chances are a hell of a lot harder than that poor person.

what you seem to be advocation is wealth redistribution. punish those damn rich people for doing something for themselves and give their money to the "less fortunate". that way people will really aspire to work so hard to be rich.

wwworry

Jan 5, 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by idkew

you can't expect any rich person to give away all their money, after all they did work for it, and chances are a hell of a lot harder than that poor person.

what you seem to be advocation is wealth redistribution. punish those damn rich people for doing something for themselves and give their money to the "less fortunate". that way people will really aspire to work so hard to be rich.

What you seem to be advocating is unchecked capitalism that, historically, has always led to civil unrest and economic colapse. Go read your history. Go out and meet the mass of people working 70 hours a week that are still poor. You think progressive taxation is attacking your precious parents suburbs but it's the only thing that made it possible in the first place.

No one is talking about punishing rich people. When their tax rate was at 39% they were hardly being punished. In fact they were making more money faster than anyone else.

You obviously have not been in this world very long to assume that poor people do not work hard. Besides what I'm really saying is that even middle income earners are worse off under the latest Bush tax plan. It's rich people proposing laws that benefit rich people.

I just do not agree with "What's good for the oil executive is good for America".

idkew

Jan 5, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by wwworry

What you seem to be advocating is unchecked capitalism that, historically, has always led to civil unrest and economic colapse. Go read your history. Go out and meet the mass of people working 70 hours a week that are still poor. You think progressive taxation is attacking your precious parents suburbs but it's the only thing that made it possible in the first place.

No one is talking about punishing rich people. When their tax rate was at 39% they were hardly being punished. In fact they were making more money faster than anyone else.

You obviously have not been in this world very long to assume that poor people do not work hard. Besides what I'm really saying is that even middle income earners are worse off under the latest Bush tax plan. It's rich people proposing laws that benefit rich people.

I just do not agree with "What's good for the oil executive is good for America".

sure, there are some poor people who work hard for their money, and deserve more, but the vast majority took the easy way out. they quit school, took up a menial job that they wanted or setteld for, instead of aspiring for more than their parents had. they have kids immediately, instead of waiting until they can afford them. then they expect that the rich should pay their taxes because they can not afford the kids, cigaretts and the big screen tv.

lowering taxes for the poor is not going to change this. it is not going to teach the parents that they need to take an active role in raising thier kids. it does not teach them that they need to actually make the kids to homework and go to class. that is the problem, and that is why there is a gap between the rich and poor. parents have given up and the next generation wants to do less for themselves and their kids than the generation before. they would rather buy their cigarettes, beer and cable tv, than something that will give thier kids some advantage in life.

there needs to be a fundimental change in the way people live in the us. taxes have nothing to do with this, unless these taxes go to programs to help this change, but i do not see this. i don't care how much you spend on education, it is all waisted if the parents do not reinforce it at home. some of my richest friends in high school have gone nowhere because they did not see education as an asset. their parents taught them this. money does not mean you will go somewhere.

those people who work 70 hours a week are not necessarily poor. i know some "rich" people who work 80-100 hours a week so they can send his kids to a nice school. in fact, i do not know a single rich person who works less than 40 or 50 hours a week, while most work more. people to not get to high positions in life by doing the absolute minimum. they work the extra hours, and sacrifice for future benefit. this seems to allude poor poeple.

and, to clarify it, when i say righ i mean middle, middle up and upper class people, while poor i mean lower middle to lower class.

mcrain

Jan 5, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by idkew
sure, there are some poor people who work hard for their money, and deserve more, but the vast majority took the easy way out. ********* they quit school, took up a menial job that they wanted or setteld for, instead of aspiring for more than their parents had. they have kids immediately, instead of waiting until they can afford them. then they expect that the rich should pay their taxes because they can not afford the kids, cigaretts and the big screen tv.

lowering taxes for the poor Actually, no one has proposed that. Bush has proposed lowering the taxes on the wealthy, which WILL end up increasing the tax burden on the poor. is not going to change this. it is not going to teach the parents that they need to take an active role in raising thier kids. it does not teach them that they need to actually make the kids to homework and go to class. that is the problem, and that is why there is a gap between the rich and poor. Wow, if only it were that simple. parents have given up and the next generation wants to do less for themselves and their kids than the generation before. they would rather buy their cigarettes, beer and cable tv, than something that will give thier kids some advantage in life.

there needs to be a fundimental change in the way people live in the us. taxes have nothing to do with this, unless these taxes go to programs to help this change, but i do not see this. i don't care how much you spend on education, it is all waisted Obviously... of the parents do not reinforce it at home. some of my richest friends in high school have gone nowhere because they did not see education as an asset. their parents taught them this. money does not mean you will go somewhere.

those people who work 70 hours a week are not necessarily poor. i know some "rich" people who work 80-100 hours a week so they can send his kids to a nice school. in fact, i do not know a single rich person who works less than 40 or 50 hours a week, You're not rich enough to know them while most work more. people to not get to high positions in life by doing the absolute minimum. they work the extra hours, and sacrifice for future benefit. this seems to allude poor poeple.

and, to clarify it, when i say righ i mean middle, middle up and upper class people, while poor i mean lower middle to lower class.

wwworry

Jan 5, 2003, 09:01 PM

Where to start? So much of it is faulty, I will ignore the upper middle class high school kid from the suburbs and his tips on parenting.

idkew

Jan 5, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by wwworry
Where to start? So much of it is faulty, I will ignore the upper middle class high school kid from the suburbs and his tips on parenting.

thanks, i am far out of high school. not from any suburbs, and not middle class. you probably think i am a wasp also.

your a real good one, hit the nail on the head with charactorizing me.

i have a better grasp on what the real world is like if you think that what i said about parenting is false. you must be one protected guy. you should listen to school teachers, doctors, cops... people who see all types of people. they will tell you that many a parent does not do anything for their children besides feed them. they don't help with homework, encourage them to succeed, push them to make good grades.

but, i guess my 13 year old self, according to you, knows nothing.

iJon

Jan 6, 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by idkew

thanks, i am far out of high school. not from any suburbs, and not middle class. you probably think i am a wasp also.

your a real good one, hit the nail on the head with charactorizing me.

i have a better grasp on what the real world is like if you think that what i said about parenting is false. you must be one protected guy. you should listen to school teachers, doctors, cops... people who see all types of people. they will tell you that many a parent does not do anything for their children besides feed them. they don't help with homework, encourage them to succeed, push them to make good grades.

but, i guess my 13 year old self, according to you, knows nothing.
i am gonna have to agree with you on this one. parents play a major factor in all of this. but one thing, it is gettign easier and easier to become rich and to get rich from not doing much. I have so many friends who will never have to have a job in their life and will still be multi millionaires or ever billionaires. i have a friend who is in the walton family, he will never have to work, and my other friend who is 17, who's grandpa is jb hunt and his grandpa has helped him invest so much money into businesses my friend already owns more than half of two companies and he will never have to work. but yes, i believe parents have a big part but i also believe some people in this life aer very lucky and some are just not and barely get buy. but probably everyone i know who is a millionaire or a billionaire earned it the hard way, and now my friends will pick up the cash when the pass away.

iJon

wwworry

Jan 6, 2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by idkew

but, i guess my 13 year old self, according to you, knows nothing.

Well it certainly seems that way, but if I am wrong, my apologies. You seem to be blaming poverty on bad parenting and have expressed, more than once, an opinion that poverty can be equated with low morals.

...they would rather buy their cigarettes, beer and cable tv, than something that will give thier kids some advantage in life]

...(paraphrased) she should not have opened her legs etc.

The obverse of that is: one is a more moral and righteous person when one has wealth.

This idea that poverty comes from immorality is old and long discredited and a simple way for people in power to ignore any responsibility for the world around them. Your examples of why people become poor are stereotypical and simplistic. It just makes me think you are closeted because you obviously do not know many poor people or, it seems, the way most people live. Is it true that 99% of the rest of the world suffers from bad parenting?

But forget poor people for a moment. If you are in the middle class, the lower middle class, even the upper middle class (??) you still get screwed by the Bush tax cuts. They mostly go to the top 1%. If you are not in that tax class you will end up paying more of the national debt. It's a give-away to his rich friends that you and I will end up paying for.

sturm375

Jan 6, 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by idkew

well, if a poor person gives $10, the wealthy person probably has to give $10,000 to make a proportionate donation. you can't measure generosity that way. not to mention- there are obviously more poor than rich. that rich guy has to make a lot of those $10,000 donations to stay in proportion.

you can't expect any rich person to give away all their money, after all they did work for it, and chances are a hell of a lot harder than that poor person.

what you seem to be advocation is wealth redistribution. punish those damn rich people for doing something for themselves and give their money to the "less fortunate". that way people will really aspire to work so hard to be rich.

Jesus measured generosity this way. Remeber the parable about the rich man donating more money than the poor woman, but the woman gave more percentage wise than the rich man. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

Ovi

Jan 6, 2003, 11:50 AM

sturm375

Jan 6, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Ovi

Jesus also gave us two other great examples.

First is the parable which comes to mind is that of the talents. He gave talents to different people. Those who invested them and came back with more were rewarded while the man who hid it and stayed poor, Jesus took his talent away. The point being that God wants to to succeed by working hard not hoping and praying the rich will share their wealth with us and make us rich as well. In the case of liberals they hope the gov. will somehow make them rich.

The second is the story of the rich ruler when he asked what he must do to get to heaven. Jesus told him to sell is riches and give to the poor. He went away disappointed. Each rich person will be judged on how he used his riches to help others.

He did not say give all you have to the gov. through higher taxes and the gov. will give it to the poor through social programs. Why? Well take a look at our social programs. They encourage poverty and promote laziness. Walk over to your local SS office and you will be amazed to see so many healthy people waiting for SS checks even though they could work. For some it is easier to be poor and not work.

I agree. I was simply making a point that using percentages for a genorisity "index" is a valid way of doing things.

1 counter point to your statements. Our tax dollars go to more than "Social" programs. Granted, these social programs have been bloated to the point of being detrimental. However using my tax dollars to help buy a Stealth Bomber, helps us all. Supporting our military protects our right to own property. Tax dollars go to Fire Departments, Police Departments, EMS, and many more. These are all useful programs where they pool monies together (some put more in the pot than others) and we all get (theoritically) equal benifits from them.

I still firmly believe, and would do so no matter what side of the income spectrum I was on, that the wealthy should provide a higher percentage of their income to the "greater good." Whether that be through taxes, charities, or other community programs.

wwworry

Jan 6, 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Ovi

Well take a look at our social programs. They encourage poverty and promote laziness.

Sorry this is wrong. Look at the poverty rate in the elderly before Social Security and after. Clearly SS has had a beneficial effect.

Look at medicare (which, by the way has the lowest administration cost of any US insurance plan). It has saved lives. Would you rather poor sick people just die or go to the highly expensive emergency room.

As for welfare, the data is mixed. Read This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/op043097.htm)

I was out of work for months because of the Dot-Bomb. If it wasn't for unemployment insurance I surely would have lost my apartment.

Ovi, you will pay more taxes overall because of Bush's tax cuts. Why do you insist on paying more taxes? Why do you want to pay more of the national debt? One can not eat forever on unpaid credit cards.

Just a reminder from a mcrain post:
Federal income taxes are not the only tax people pay.

In your example, if you take two people, one who makes 300,000 per year, and another who makes a 50,000 salary, and then break down all the taxes paid by both of those people, you will find that the person who makes 50,000 pays his 27% in federal income taxes. Then, he pays his 7.65% SS, FICA taxes. Then his state income tax (between 2 and 10%, let's use 5% here). Then, he pays about 7.25% sales tax (lets include in this figure telecommunications taxes, energy taxes, etc... although in reality those taxes would make our example a little higher) on the 15,000-20,000 of his income he spends during the year. Now, add in about $1500 or so in property taxes.

So, our 50,000 salary person pays 13,500 in federal income taxes, 3825 in SS and Fica, 1087 to 1450 in sales taxes, and $1500 in property taxes. That's 21725 so far, and that doesn't include any excise taxes (taxes on booze and cigarettes) or taxes on gas, road tolls, lottery tickets, etc, which bring the amount of taxes paid by our 50,000 salary person to just about 50%.

Now, let's look at the guy who makes $300,000. First, SS and Fica taxes are only up to a maximum amount of income (in 2003 it's about 87,000, so he pays only $5,394.00 in SS,Fica taxes. Second, he pays $36,690 plus 35% of the excess over $141,250 (For a total federal income tax of $92,252.50). Property taxes on a very large house are around $10,000, and assume this person spends considerably more on "stuff" each year. Assume a base purchase amount of 45,000 per year, for a sales tax of $3,375. So, this person (not allowing for any reduction in taxes due to income being in the form of capital gains, or for itemized deductions) pays a total tax of $111,021.50 or 37% of his income in taxes.

$300,000 pays 37%
$50,000 pays 50%

You being closer to $50,000 than $300,000 have a right to complain but at least choose your target correctly.

idkew

Jan 6, 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by wwworry

Well it certainly seems that way, but if I am wrong, my apologies. You seem to be blaming poverty on bad parenting and have expressed, more than once, an opinion that poverty can be equated with low morals.

...they would rather buy their cigarettes, beer and cable tv, than something that will give thier kids some advantage in life]

...(paraphrased) she should not have opened her legs etc.

The obverse of that is: one is a more moral and righteous person when one has wealth.

This idea that poverty comes from immorality is old and long discredited and a simple way for people in power to ignore any responsibility for the world around them. Your examples of why people become poor are stereotypical and simplistic. It just makes me think you are closeted because you obviously do not know many poor people or, it seems, the way most people live. Is it true that 99% of the rest of the world suffers from bad parenting?

well, youy are correct, i have only focused on the more negative sides of poverty. as i said before, there are some people who work hard for the little they bring in. unfortunately, we can not pay janitors, road workers and such a lot of money. those jobs require litttle skill and anyone can do it, therefore will always be a lower bidder. these are admirable jobs, we need clean places to work and roads to get there, but it is impossible to pay people a lot for somthing that anyone can do.

my point is that if you are pushed in to povery because you can not support your child, why were you not on birth control (free), used a condom (free) abstained (free). obviously, you were not taught that this kids are expensive and that you should use one or more of the things i just stated.

if you want to get out of poverty, it may take a few years, but it CAN be done. you can take night classes and get your ged. go to community college at night and then university. you WILL get a better job with a college degree and pull YOURSELF out of poverty. loans and grants are readily available for this. or, this could have all been done years before if your parents were to stress education to you.

the thing is, you may have to put off the big screen tv, $40-$100 a week of cigarettes and beer. i have seen people come in to a store, with their last penny and buy beer. they can do that if they want, but then i end up helping them with their poverty because they would rather drink than save.

i am not positive on this, but you can work at mcdonalds and support yourself above the poverty level. you can't afford all that the doctor or lawyer down the street can, but that is YOUR fault, you did not take it upon yourself to go the extra mile. the lawyer did. his parents may have elped with the bills, but they do not make you go to class, make grades and pass the bar. the lawyer did that, and that is why he is rewarded with a high salary, which then the government takes 30-75% of, which the person who did not aspire to anything gets use of.

Ovi

Jan 6, 2003, 09:35 PM

wwworry

Jan 7, 2003, 07:06 AM

Show how those numbers are wrong!
The title of this discussion refered to the fact that you can not deny the truth by calling it "fuzzy math".

...and you did not try to make money before? "The top income bracket is 39%, I'm just going to watch TV and drink beer instead..."

and I'm sure your parents would have liked to have even more debt so the people in the bigger house would have less debt.

OVi, these facts are not spin. You deny the facts and call Bush a "savior". That sounds like blind submission to the glorious cause to me.

again using non-partisan CBO numbers

Acceleration of Upper-Bracket Rate Reductions Would Be Costly and Ineffective as a Stimulus Measure
http://www.cbpp.org/11-12-01tax.htm

and something new!

THE COST OF THE TAX CUT COMPARED WITH THE COSTS OF VARIOUS FEDERAL AGENCIES
http://www.cbpp.org/4-17-02tax.htm

One way to grasp the magnitude of the tax cut when it becomes fully effective — and of the costs of making the tax cut permanent — is to compare the tax cut's cost when it is fully in effect to the costs of various federal agencies.(1) When fully effective, the tax cut will be —

* four times as large as the budget for the entire Department of Education;

* more than three times as large as the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Transportation; and

* twenty-four times the size of the Environmental Protection Agency.

here is money mostly going to the top 1% more than the department of education. It shows where this administrations priorities are.

wdlove

Jan 7, 2003, 02:30 PM

2004 campaign is on!

Democrat proposals submitted are going to mean higher taxes! Their plan will give $300.00 to everyone, even if they never worked a day. Guess who will pay for this, you.

Republican proposals submitted are going to mean lower taxes! Their plan will give money to those that work and pay taxes. Will create more jobs!

sturm375

Jan 7, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
2004 campaign is on!

Democrat proposals submitted are going to mean higher taxes! Their plan will give $300.00 to everyone, even if they never worked a day. Guess who will pay for this, you.

Republican proposals submitted are going to mean lower taxes! Their plan will give money to those that work and pay taxes. Will create more jobs!

Today, in Chicago, Bush43 proposed the creation of yet another T.L.A. (Three Letter Acronym). He proposed the Personal Employment Account (P.E.A.). This plan would alocate $3k for each unemployed person to use nearly at their descresion to "Help find a job." How many people will steal this!?! Any money from this $3k that is left over upon getting a job, will be given to the person.

This sounds good, but will prove to be nothing but a headache, and a drain on an already overly burdoned workforce. Where is he going to get this $3k for everybody not working, simple: Taxe$!

wdlove

Jan 7, 2003, 03:26 PM

The Democrats are on the run, left with discussing how large the tax cut will be, not if there will be a tax cut.

Only private business can create jobs. More jobs mean an increase in tax revenue.

I'm ashamed at the Bush proposal for Personal Employment Account (P.E.A.), a Socialistic proposal. But I realize that in this time of unemployment, he has few choices.

Ovi

Jan 7, 2003, 04:38 PM

wwworry

Jan 7, 2003, 04:48 PM

Ok maybe you people will understand some graphs. wdlove, get it through your head that lower taxes for the top 1%, without decreased spending means more debt. If the top 1% pay a smaller share then you will pay a greater share of the debt. You will pay more taxes!
Why do you want to pay more taxes so the very wealthiest pay less?

Marginal Tax Rate (in percent) by Level of Taxable Income (in 1987 dollars)
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/fig6.gif

Share of Total U.S. Income (percent), 1977 and 1990
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/fig8a.gif

Percentage Growth in Real Income, 1977?1990
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/fig8b.gif

wwworry

Jan 7, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Ovi

Now your talking numbers! Let's go farther!

First of all, you have not, and can not deny mcrain's post on total tax burden. Presenting actual numbers is not spin, crying "class warfare" is spin.

quoting from our other battle:
If it is not class warfare then how come all the tax cuts go to just one class?

As for the benefits to the stock market most will say that the stock market was overinflated and part of the reason for the current recession is the correction in the over-inflated stock market.

And the key thing you said is ...as long as both parties control spending. So far the party in power has not demonstrated any willingness to control spending. They are like the kid in the candy store with an unlimited credit card.

Right now all I see is more debt and my income class, and yours too, paying a greater share of it. And promises that it will get better later are worthless.

wdlove

Jan 7, 2003, 05:45 PM

I agree that spending needs to be cut. Too much pork spending; spending money to buy votes is wrong. Americans need to elect a candiate that will trim spending. That Congressional Credit Card is the most expensive in the world. We don't have a income problem, but a spending problem.

After all the income that you make who owns it?

mcrain

Jan 8, 2003, 09:33 AM

Two quick things.

First, Jesus also had a little statement about giving unto Ceasar, so maybe you should all stop complaining, and do what He said.

Second, I won't repost what I said about dividends in another thread (the one with my name in the title), but I will say this: If you eliminate the tax on dividends, you change the internal economic dynamics of companies, both large and small. In large companies, the very large shareholders demand reinvestment of profits into the company (gee, you don't think that stimulates the companies' growth do you?) rather than just blindly giving the money away to the shareholders. They prefer capital gain (company growth) rather than cash because it tends to generate higher income (oh, and don't forget that capital gains are at lower tax rates), and there is a tax incentive (dividends) for that course of action. If you eliminate the dividend tax, what do you think will happen?

In small family type businesses, most income is transferred to their owners by characterising the transfer as a salary. This gives the company a deduction, reduces the company's income to zero (or thereabouts) reducing the companies taxable income to next to nothing, and provides the company a deduction. If you allow that transfer to be in teh form of a tax free dividend, you eliminate the tax base for a huge amount of social security, medicare, medicaid, state and local taxes. That money WILL HAVE TO BE MADE UP. Federal and State governments don't run on wishes and dreams.

mcrain

Jan 8, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Ovi
Good try. Mccrain despite his tax job is no authority on taxes.

Well, let's see here. Yes, I am an authority on taxes, not just because of my job, but because I've studied and worked with taxes for 8+ years.

If I'm not an authority, are we supposed to believe you are?

Ovi

Jan 8, 2003, 10:15 AM

sturm375

Jan 8, 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Ovi

you provide us with one example of a theoretical comparison between the tax burdens of two individuals.

There are over 100 million taxpayers and we are going to rely on your one example which even you admit that there are a number of assumptions made about spending habits.

no i am no authority, but being able to have deductive reasoning and analytical ablities entitles me to interpret inacurate data as such.

by the way if i had a 300K salary I would mostly likely pay less tax percentage wise only because with the help of my accountant and financial advisor I would transfer a fair amount of earnings in tax differed investments. I am sure this is one area you should be an authority on.

in the end all i know is that the gov. gets too much money presently given its spending habits. if the gov. invests in its people by letting them keep more of their money it will be rewarded in the end.

Lots of people are talking about rewarding us by letting the wealthy keep more of their "earned" income. Doesn't this also mean that we are punishing the poor for not earning more money?

Let's face it, the government will not, in my lifetime, reduce it's spending. The best we can hope for is a lower rate of increase. That being said, if we reduce the tax burdon of some income brackets, are we not increasing the burdon on the other brackets?

Ovi

Jan 8, 2003, 12:17 PM

idkew

Jan 8, 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

Lots of people are talking about rewarding us by letting the wealthy keep more of their "earned" income. Doesn't this also mean that we are punishing the poor for not earning more money?

Let's face it, the government will not, in my lifetime, reduce it's spending. The best we can hope for is a lower rate of increase. That being said, if we reduce the tax burdon of some income brackets, are we not increasing the burdon on the other brackets?

i don't understand? are you saying we should reward people for making little money then?

nothing will ever change if you do not try to change it. if you want a smaller, more efficient government, vote for candidate who believes in that also.

sturm375

Jan 8, 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by idkew

i don't understand? are you saying we should reward people for making little money then?

nothing will ever change if you do not try to change it. if you want a smaller, more efficient government, vote for candidate who believes in that also.

I am saying the we shouldn't punish, or reward anyone.

Take the current taxes, then reduce all income taxation by the same percent. So:

Someone making $300K gets a 5% tax cut and

Someone making $25K gets a 5% tax cut.

No targeted tax cuts. If you reduce say the estate tax, how about cutting a tax that only affects the poor?

mcrain

Jan 8, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Ovi
you provide us with one example of a theoretical comparison between the tax burdens of two individuals.

There are over 100 million taxpayers and we are going to rely on your one example which even you admit that there are a number of assumptions made about spending habits.

no i am no authority, but being able to have deductive reasoning and analytical ablities entitles me to interpret inacurate data as such.

by the way if i had a 300K salary I would mostly likely pay less tax percentage wise only because with the help of my accountant and financial advisor I would transfer a fair amount of earnings in tax differed investments. I am sure this is one area you should be an authority on.

in the end all i know is that the gov. gets too much money presently given its spending habits. if the gov. invests in its people by letting them keep more of their money it will be rewarded in the end.

It was one example using fairly accurate numbers and fairly accurate assumptions, which were, by the way, all slanted against my proposition, that nevertheless demonstrated the flaw in your argument.

If you used real world numbers and accountants to prepare the tax returns, you would find that the results were often more dramatic than those I put forth.

The government would get less of your money if it spent less, not if it cut taxes, or if it redistributed the tax burdens. But, if you do that without changing the amount of spending, all you're doing is increasing the burden on someone else.

wwworry

Jan 8, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Ovi

in the end all i know is that the gov. gets too much money presently given its spending habits. if the gov. invests in its people by letting them keep more of their money it will be rewarded in the end.

This is because , from a past quote, you make in the 30 to 40 k range. Not a good tax bracket to be in. The middle class, the actual middle class, has not seen lower taxes or much real income growth (on average) these past twenty years. You have a right to complain (who doesn't about anything) but it would be better for all of us if you concentrated on making things better for yourself rather than that 1 in onehundredth person in the class whose taxes have been falling for the past twenty years and whose real income has been going up.

They have had it pretty good for a while, why not some tax relief for us, right? And of course, you'll want a balanced budget, right? Self-interest and fiscal responsibility! You can't be against that!

and I hate to break it to you idkew, Al Gore reduced the size of the federal government much more than Bush has. (though, in absolute terms not much)