Don't tax the rich says Bush - WTF?!
 

Link

Who does he want to tax then? The poor?

I really can't understand how this guy's politics are so popular in America.


Mr Mephisto

Me neither, Bush hopes to get re-selected based on the fact that most people are not very interested and care little about politics.

If they just figure out a way to dodge the taxes then why do you need to give them an additional tax cut?

Half of an obscenly large amount of money is still an obscenly large amount of money.

"fact that most people are not very interested and care little about politics."

...or care about what he actually said. You're right "what the fuck??" He never said don't tax the rich. This author apparently took the quote "rich people find a way to dodge their taxes" and ran with it.

This speech was in annendale, Va. and i just got finished watching it. He was simply referring to the fact that small business owners are the ones who will bear the brundt of any additional tax burden inacted by liberals, because these are the rich as defined by the left. as much as they would like you to believe gaudy, private-jet owning, pompous, born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-their-mouths rich people are the ones they would like you to believe they are going after (hell, these people find a million and one loopholes in getting out of their taxes anyway - hence, the above quote).

It really was a benign statement, not selling some tax plan on his behalf - but arguing against a tax plan Kerry would have.

what the fuck did the second half of the article have to do with the first anyway.

...his point was (and this is how you quote somebody) "Nobody in this country should pay more than 35% of their earning" (OH MY GOD - HOW COULD HE SAY SUCH A THING!!)

There's no point in criminalizing money laundering, extortion, and racketeering either because the real money launderers, extortionists, and racketeers are the mafia and they'll just figure out how to do it anyway.

No point in making murder illegal because people will commit murder anyway.

Hail to the Chief!


Oh and here's the full quote:

so yes, he is making a statement critical of taxing the rich.

...and could you point me to where he said "Don't tax the rich."

as i said before, he was being critical of a kerry Tax plan, not rich people paying taxes.

When he's supporting tax relief for the top teir of the country that's what he's saying.

he's supporting tax relief for everybody. That "nobody pay more than 35% of their earnings."

But regardless of what tax strategy you support, that's not the point of the thread. The article was the point of the thread, and the article is bogus, as i've pointed out - and your trying to sidestep.

I won, you lost, thread closed.

Ahh. Stop debating everybody. Nothing to see here. Matthew330 has declared himself the victor in this argument, and he must be right ;)

Can you tell me how his statement was NOT critical of taxing the rich?

The point of the article is that Bush is talking out his ass once again. People in the top 1% make over 300k/yr. Those are the ones that stand the most to gain if the tax cuts remain permanent. He isn't cutting the budget to balance the decrease in funding so who else but the lower and middle classes and future generations do those cuts fall on?

People making over 300k/yr are not running struggling mom and pop shops. They might be running a mom and pop shop, but it sure as hell isn't struggling.

I think in conversational terms, we understand what he was saying.

1. the rich - as the term is promulgated by Democrats - are in actuality the small business owner

2. real rich people - the super-wealthy one percent - such as Heinz-Kerry, use legal tax loopholes to avoid taxes (anyway)

But why just not use this as another opportunity to execute a favorite rhetorical exercise or three?

The super wealthy one percent are not just those like Heinz Kerry. People making somwhere a little more than 300k are in the top 1%. It's very misleading to try to depict someone making that much money as some struggling small business owner.

I think this may be the one thread that has turned me off completly to the TFP. I just can't believe that there are so many people in this country that can't understand simple economics. I thought the people here at the TFP were smarter. ART, and MATT thank you, you seem to be the only ones here that have not been mind controlled by the anti bush hating liberals.

lol, I consider myself a bush hating liberal!

Care to explain yourself, or just bash other members? :rolleyes:

While Im not a fan of Bush (and must therefore be a "bush hating liberal", which I proudly am), I think this quote has been taken out of context. I dont support Bush's economic policies, but I think this really was just a rather innocent statement taken out of context. Sure, when you isolate it, it looks horrible, but in the context of the statement, its not the worst thing ever.

I am so tired of people not thinking, and just accepting something as truth cause it is anti bush.

I'd love to be enlightened by our resident econ professor. So far, in two out of two posts you've hurled insults but haven't managed to say anything clever. Are you going to go for a hat trick, or are you going to explain what you're talking about?

He was talking about the super wealthy - sorry, I meant to say "less than one percenters, such as Heinz Kerry"

The point remains the same.

See, in my view, I see people accepting what the government tells them is good because they arent thinking. Taking anything at face value is no good--and that includes pro-bush sentiment as well. That door swings both ways.

Im with Shakran on this one--two posts in a row that have done nothing but hurl insults. Shape it up, please.

that is the point I am trying to make, matt and Art both have tried, but nobody is willing to listen.

Everything that I have seen from other who disagree have not come up with anything that would work, they would rather just criticize. which leads me to believe that they are not independent thinkers and are just spouting anti-bush rhetoric.

Here is where he said it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html

The very bottom of the page, the appendix. He's cutting out the top bracket, so you pay the same marginal rate(well, less, actually) if you make 137,000/152,000/166,500 (depending on filing status) or 300,000. Great if you make a lot of money. True, you get a break in the other brackets too -- except you don't. Hey, thanks for shifting that first friggin' bracket to half the poverty level! That's useful! No break for what used to be the first bracket, and split the difference on the next two brackets, so the 27K-65K group get a three percent cut and the 65K-137K get a 6 percent cut -- as does the top bracket.

THAT'S "not taxing the rich", my friend. You lose, I win -- try again.

Of course it does and just cause it has come from the government is not the reason that I believe that it is true. I feel that it is true because it makes good economical sence. I am just pointing out that opposers are against it cause the president says it is good. they don't oppose it because it does not make bad economic sence but only cause the president supports it.

Please, enlighten us. I havent seen any suggestions here...

The Kerry tax plan the discussion was talking about suggested repealing the Bush tax cut because we are sitting on the largest deficit in history--something that came about after a rather large surplus four years ago, I remind you. That doesnt leave me very pleased with Bush's economic policies, and I agree that we should repeal the tax cuts as part of a plan to get the deficit under control. Bottom line, Im not an econ professor (I am an intro Econ major, though :)), but I realize that going from a large surplus to a tremendous deficit in the span of a couple years isnt the greatest plan in the world, and that destroys any confidence I may have had in the Bush administration's ability to handle money. It feels wierd feeling that one needs to vote Democrat to put someone in office who can handle money, but thats the way I see it this election year.

EDIT: Sorry, hit submit twice :(

thats not "not taxing the rich" that is just a bigger tax break for people who make more cause right now they pay more % wise then people with lesser incomes. Its called evening things out.

And as for Kerry's plan of increasing the tax on the rich and lowering for the middle class you would be worse off then you were now that your low income tax braket are paying even less and the high tax bracket are avoiding taxes by being smart. therefore not decreasing the deficit. trickle down economics people.

Socialism at its best, stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

OK, now we get some suggestions :)

Personally, I think a large part of trickle down economics is bullshit. Giving affluent people more money doesnt often make life better for those with less money, just those who got the benefits in the first place. It has a small part in a larger economic plan, but alone, or even as a major part? No go.

And as for socialism, a bit of it is a good thing. Don't necessarily think a bit of helping fellow man is a bad thing. I by no means support total redistribution of wealth, thats also a load of junk. But I do think that those with means have a bit of a moral obligation to do what they can to help those that arent so fortunate.

The world isnt so cut and dry as you like to present it. As someone who likes to tout his economics, you should know that ;)

Well this is going off topic, but yes helping your fellow man is good, but it depends on how you do it. As my father once told me "the difference between a liberal and a conservative is a liberal would like to give a man a fish everyday for the rest of his life, whereas a conservative would rather teach the man how to fish so he can support himself."

I know it is an old saying but I think it makes sence.

OK, the concept of that saying is good. I dont agree with the labels presented on it--I am of the opinion that liberality is something that we all owe to fellow man, and doing more to paint it in a negative light, as well as casting such stereotypes, does nothing to help it. But, I agree with the point.

Im assuming that what you are getting at is welfare. Yes, welfare is broken. Yes, it needs to be fixed. But in my experience (which is admittedly rather limited, but still valid), I have seen conservatives try to abolish it repeatedly, without offering to replace it with anything better. It is a concept that I think we need--even you said, the idea is a good thing. Getting rid of it completely is selfish and ignorant. In my experience, that conservative teaching them how has really been more of a way of making them feel good while simultaneously getting rid of every social program on the books.

Like I said, I think that those with means have a moral obligation to help those without. Not to give them the fish every day, but to help them get out of the bottom of the barrel. They dont have to dedicate their lives to it or anything as drastic, but I do think that a small part of their paycheck should be going towards that end. Its a lofty goal that I think everyone can respect. Killing social programs off one by one, as I so often see conservatives attempting to do, is a selfish and immoral way to go about it. No good.

I also dont see why the word "liberal" has such a negative connotation. Don't forget, this country was founded on liberal concepts, the constitution was written with liberal concepts, and the whole reason this country exists is because other nations were too embroiled in their own intolerant and rather conservative beliefs. Liberality is a good thing.

My father always said, "Teach a man to spell and chances are he'll forget how while trying to make enlightened points."

liberality and someone that is labled a "liberal" are two different things. most things are good in moderation, and in the recent past "liberals" have taken their idea of liberality too far. for example MM recent bablings of how osma may not be a "bad" guy. and opposing the Patiot Act that is ment to keep us protected. don't forget that the democrats of past where more like republicans compaired to todays democrats. (see ronald reagan a previous democrat) they have just gone too far left.

I am a damned poor speller. :) Its an ADD thing, I can't type fast enough to keep up with my thoughts.

I am not for disapating the welfare program, just revamping it, its just that there may be no good way to give people free money cause it just makes them dependent and lazy. (of course there are always the few exceptions.)

Calling Osama a good guy is absurd. But yeah, I definitely oppose the patriot act in its current form. It is entirely too broad in scope. The idea is good, the implementation is horrible. Trading your liberty for a bit of protection is very shortsighted. If you want to bring terrorism into it, thats exactly what they want--get us to change our ways. Ben Franklin said it best: "He who would give up a little liberty in return for a little security deserves neither liberty nor security."

And todays Democrats really now have more of the core Republican beliefs than the Republicans themselves. Can we say smaller government? How about fiscal control? Whats your point?

Well, now we've really moved off topic, haven't we? And the rest of your post is just a diatribe about the unfairness of the progressive tax system -- something you're going to have to learn to live with. Bush is significantly cutting the tax burden of the rich and no one else; whether that's fair or not is not something we're going to agree on.

yeah sort of, I know the recent terrorist attacks have made the republicans wanting larger gorvernment envolvement. they are not for bigger governement overall. As for fiscal control, the only reason this is a point this year is because of the deficit that was created by the dot com bust and 9-11 and of course the war. spending increases and tax income decreases with poor a economy create a large deficit that is not really something the president could have avoided unless taxing the shit out of everyone. which I don't think anyone wants.

And as for my point you were saying that our country was founded by liberal ideas, well those people were mostly considered republican by todays standards.

Hold on a sec, I am easliy considered lower middle class. I am self employed and I had to pay the entire amount of social security tax that people who work for someone else has half of it paid for them and yet I managed to actually get money back. I actually "made" money on my taxes. So what are you suggesting? Am I paying too much cause I am lower middle class? Is raising the taxes on the rich while I pay nothing fair??

Do I really need more of a tax break?

phyzix, I am not suggesting anything. The numbers in the chart on the whitehouse.gov website state very clearly who is getting the larger cut of the tax break Bush is attempting to pass. Like I said previously(actually immediately after your crop point), we disagree on whether that is a good thing(or, if you like, whether or not you need more of a tax break); there can be no disagreement on the numbers.

Also, you only "made" money on your taxes if you got more money back in refund than you paid in originally -- not very likely.

I'd rather go for the middle ground and give the man a fish a day as long as he's trying to learn to fish.

The PATRIOT Act made me nervous at first. I was certain that there was potential for abuse, and I hoped that it would not be abused. Then, one day, I mentioned, while on the phone, that I felt the president had committed impeachable offenses. I immediately heard a click, and a hollow sound consistent with a phone tap kicking in. Since then, I hear the same click and hollow sound, and sometimes even whispering voices when I talk on my cell phone. It never happened before that.

Sorry to get off track, but I felt that I should respond to that. To return to the topic, Bush did make a comment indicating that he feels the rich evade taxes and that the small business owners get hit hardest. As I would expect of a typical economically conservative person, he fels that this is caused by unfair (liberal) taxes, and would probably be happier with a flat tax. I feel that everyone in this country is taxed too heavily. I feel that anyone who makes under $7000 per person per household (I believe that is defined as the "poverty line") should pay a 3% income tax, and that anyone who makes more than that should pay 5% or 6%. In additio, a 3% federal sales tax would also be added to purchases. To deal with the lower income, many government functions should be privatized, and others made more efficient. Bush is cutting the tax burden mainly for the rich, while he should be cutting taxes for everyone.

Well hell! Is THAT all you want? Why didn't you say so. Here ya go.


Do what Clinton did.

Cut pork

Knock it off with giving the wealthy tax advantages that A) the non-wealthy don't have and B) the wealthy certainly don't need.


let's look at it this way.

Let's say we follow your plan and run a flat tax rate across the board. Let's set it at 50% because that makes the math really easy.

Now let's say that I make $200,000 a year and you make $20,000 a year.

After taxes, I'm sitting around with $100,000 to live on for the whole year. You, on the other hand, have $10,000. Who's gonna starve?

See, people love to say that a flat tax is fair and that the percentage is the number you want to look at. Those people are either economically deficient or they're heartless bastards. Take your pick. You can't look at the percentage that the government takes from you, you have to look at the end result.

If the end result means that certain people's lifestyles are not materially different with the tax than they would be without the tax, while other people's lifestyles are radically different with than without the tax, then something is broken and needs fixing.

If you have $20,000 to live on for the whole year, money may be tight (depending on where you live, it may be REALLY tight) but assuming you don't live in a big city you can probably get by. If you've only got $10,000 for the year, you're gonna be in the poorhouse. Your lifestyle has radically changed from being self sufficient to being dependent on financial assistance from someone (probably the government)

If you have $200,000 to live on for the whole year, you're sitting pretty. You can get pretty much anythign you need or want. If you've only got $100,000 for the whole year, you're still sitting pretty. You can get pretty much anything you need and most of the things you want (assuming you don't want stupid shit like a helicopter) Your lifestyle is not materially changed.


Yes, this is a simplistic model, but it illustrates the inequities brought about by a flat tax system.

On the other hand, the wealthy have used the resources made available to them by this country and, in fact, its system of government to make scads of money. Why should you not give more of it back than the person that has not been as fortunate as you?

well personally I don't want a flat tax system, I was just mentioning that yeah it may be a 6% decrease but thats cause they are at a higher % to begin with. I would like to see no income tax at all and go with a higher sales tax. I have looked into that a bit and I think it would make sence.

Actually I did. Because I don't have any taxes taken out of my checks I am 1099 at the end of the year. Say it adds up to 30,000. I deduct my expenses which where around 20,000 and then I am taxed on the 10,000 about 1000. I pay the self employment tax which may come out to about 1000.00. Then I have earned income credits that cover the taxes of 2,000 I paid and I end up wit about 2000 in cash when everything said and done. I paid nothing all year and I got 2K at the end. The middle class does not need a tax break.

But in all honesty if the government wants to get more money they have to tax the middle class more. the rich are smart enough to do what it takes to get out of paying taxes. The middle class don't have the means or the brains to. I don't think its right, its just fact.

No, let's tell the true story here. The middle class doesn't exploit bullshit tax loopholes that the upper class does.

If you want to really fix the system, you get rid of all those stupid loopholes and make everyone pay their fair share rather than giving the opportunity for some to get out of paying.

now that is bullshit, having worked as a mortgage broker for a couple years and not to mention other jobs, I have come to the realization that the middle class is pretty fucking dumb about money. nobody wants to pay taxes, if you knew you could get out of paying more then you need to and don't your dumb, and if you don't know how then you are just ignorant.

Those loopholes are not just for the rich. anyone can use them as I did last year to a small extent.

no, the middle class by and large can't afford a personal accountant to help them exploit loopholes. The rich can. Doesn't make the middle class dumb.

Now, you classified yourself as being above the poverty level. You also mentioned that you took $2,000 from the government last year rather than paying them anything.

Surely you're not going to sit there and tell me that that was the intention when the tax code was written. Sure, it works out great for you, but SOMEONE's gotta take up the burden. As you mentioned, it's gonna be a middle class guy because the rich (and apparantly you) have either the knowledge or the ability to hire someone with the knowledge to sluff their tax burden off on someone else.

That is bullshit, and that's where the tax reform needs to start. Close the loopholes so that at the very least the government is not paying people at tax time.

people can't pay 200 for a good accountant when it could save them hundreds if not thousands, sounds like they are poor at math.

I think the reason middle class income earners can't write off their taxes and stick their money in hidey-holes is due to the fact that they don't have capital.

Furthermore, the most damaging tax dodgers are corporations--not persons.

And I'm calling bullshit on your income figures. I do my taxes personally every year and your numbers don't pan out.

Who woulda known: Not having a lot of money leads to not knowing a lot about money.

:) Agreed. And now we have an arc. The thread got way off topic but worked it's way back. It goes back to the original intent of this thread that Bush is full of shit.

His comments about how the rich will just get out of paying taxes shows that he doesn't give a shit about making his group pay up their share. If he did give a shit, he'd close the fucking loopholes.

It's not that difficult. If an accountant can find the loopholes, then the government can. It seems like they only exist so that the rich can run around saying "look how much I get taxed" while avoiding as much tax as possible.

This is a false statement.

"There is no point taxing the rich because they just dodge their tax bill anyway, President George Bush said"

..i know you guys haven't quite figured out the meaning of "lying" yet, but i think i think we can all agree that the first sentence of the article, being that it is a deliberately false statement concocted to decieve the reader, is a lie.

The author never went to whitehouse.gov and referenced some chart that he believed was essentially Bush saying "Dont' tax the rich." He wanted to fool people into having the reaction the original poster did - "He wants the poor people to shoulder all the tax burden" (as if that were possible anyway).

Kadath - can you at least admit that.

p.s. - i win again, you lose, thread closed.

President Bush did say that, just not in those exact words. That's why that sentence was not quoted to him. Anyone who can read Bush's full statement (I quoted it for you early in the thread) and still think that President Bush is in favor of taxing the rich needs to take reading comprehension lessons.




No, he referenced Bush's own words.

That's your interpretation, not mine. See, it seems to me that Bush isn't real good about predicting the future consequences of his actions today. Case in point, he predicted a quick war in Iraq. He predicted we'd find WMD's. He predicted a largescale world support for the war. Instead he's got a quagmire in iraq, no WMD's, and he has the whole world pissed at us. The point here is not to redirect this thread into an argument over Bush's warmongering record, but to point out that Bush isn't very good at projecting consequences.

Seems to me that his goal is to reduce the tax burden on the rich. Nothing else is really entering the equation in his mind. Under his plan we'll either have to up taxes on the non-rich or we'll start losing more money, but unfortunately he hasn't considered that.

I guess what I'm saying is that we have a real simpleton at the helm right now who is unwilling (and has admitted - no, that's the wrong word - has bragged many times that he's unwilling) to inform himself to the level required to make intelligent decisions.

Man, this is turning into a good old-fashioned Politics board "discussion."

Guess Ill jump back in :D

Seriously, listen to yourself. You've just called an entire tax bracket stupid because they dont have the money or the knowledge to exploit the tax loopholes. You just confirmed Bush's statement--more affluent people tend to take advantage of the tax loopholes. Take care of *that* before you go bitching and whining about needing to cut taxes. Jesus :rolleyes:

Agreed.

Very much agreed. Those loopholes were pushed by and put into practice by those with the means and knowledge to exploit them. They didnt just randomly appear. Its like a private club of affluent citizens able to effect change to get themselves more money while placing more burden on middle and lower America. Thats not something I would aspire to...

Don't assume you know what my initial reaction, or reason for posting was.

I posted the link to foster debate, and it certainly succeeded.

And drop this "I win, thread closed" bullshit. We're all a bit too old for playground nonesense.


Mr Mephisto

Well i'll let the argument run it's course without any further interuptions, but...

"Who does he want to tax then? The poor?

I really can't understand how this guy's politics are so popular in America."

....in my opinion wasn't an attempt at fostering debate. Sounds more to me like a knee jerk reaction to an obviously poorly written, poorly thought out article capitalizing on a benign statement that in no way shape of form meant what the author would have you believe it meant. The debate that ensued happens to be off-topic.

You guys can't even admit the article not only sucks, but is deliberately deceitfull. Somewhat of a microcosm of why i don't give a shit anymore. Something this cut and dry is so easily convoluted, it's amazing what you guys do with topics that are inherently more complicated. David Blaine shit.

Like I said it only cost me 200 to have an accountant that was an ex-IRS agent by the way to do my taxes. No hidy holes needed. If I were "rich" I would want to protect myself under a corporation that was owned by a trust, that only cost 500-600 for the papers and lawyer to establish a corporation which would help for years to come. saving a thousand or two every year. easily making your money back. I am sticking with my original thought that people are too dumb to take advantage not too poor, and if you are too poor your not paying much taxes to begin with anyway.

Not having money is no excuse, I don't have much but I have managed to educate myself a bit about it.

Some loopholes are there to even things out with those who are self employed. If I own a business and I make a 100,000. thats not all profit, should I be taxed on all of it? those that are paid salary of 100,000 all of it is "profit" there are no expenses he needs to take out of that. As a business owner my 100,000 half of it may be to purchase supplies and other deductions that cost me to operate my business. So I should only be taxed on 50,000 which is true "profit" The problem is that a good accountant and someone that makes good records can oftentimes write off almost all of the 100,000 and only pay taxes on a very small amount. such as myself.

What he is saying is that Kerry's plan will not work the way it is set up. The rich are too smart and will get out of the extra taxation. you just continue to have a large deficit cause the rich can and will get out of paying the new higher taxes.


They have the money. they will either pay it as a tax or they pay less to an accountant, its not that hard, its just that people think that jackson hewitt and H& R bloc are good places to go.

Again I would like to see the entire Income tax thing just go away and go to a sales tax system. Only problem is too much change scares people.

And you are proud of that? Way to foist the burden off onto others :rolleyes:

Lets just get rid of all taxes for people of means because they will find ways out of it anyways. Excellent idea.

To do anything close to supporting the costs of the government, the sales taxes would have to be absurdly large. Think along the lines of 50% or higher. With rates that high, people will either

a) Not spend the money.
b) More likely, spend it under the table.

Either way, the country is now in a world of shit.

A sales tax would be the biggest scam ever put on by the rich to screw the poor and middle class.

Let's say that goes and the rate is 20% and we have two people. One makes 30k and the other makes 300k. The guy making 30k has to spend every penny that he makes to get by, therefore his tax rate is 20% of his total income. On the other hand the guy making 300k might have 100k left at the end of the year. As a result, he only spent 200k. He pays 40k in taxes, resulting in a 13.3% tax rate.

People making over 300k pay currently pay over 30% and they contribute over 35% of the total income tax generated. This group as a whole would have their tax rate fall to less than half of its current rate. As a result, instead of getting 35% of the taxes from the top 1%, we are getting less than 20% from them. That extra burden is therefore shifted to the middle class and poor.

this idea that we shouldn't bother taxing the rich because they will be "smart" enough to exploit loopholes is the biggest pile of bullshit I've seen pushed in this thread yet. That's like saying "I can't roller skate on the sidewalk because there's a lawn chair there." Remove the damn chair!

The solution is so easy it's not funny - Remove the damn loopholes! Doesn't matter how smart, dishonest, clever, slimy, whatever you want to call it, the rich people are, if there aren't any loopholes for them to exploit, then they can't exploit any loopholes.

Of course, the whole reason the loopholes are there and will stay there is simple too. The rich, having a lot of money to throw around, can influence the politicians by donating craploads of it to their campaigns. Easy to convince them to make a tiny little loophole if they've just donated a million dollars to the campaign.

So yes, the rich can exploit the tax system more effectively than the middle class because they can get the politicians to change the tax system to suit them.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. Affirmative on all points--you hit the nail on the head there.

Well, they were.

Knee-jerk? I don't think so. I believe everyone agrees that Bush is talking about lowering taxes, when the US has a massive deficit. What should be happening, in my opinion, is RAISING taxes for the ultra-rich, plugging loopholes and abandoning such nonesense as "trickle down" Reaganesque econominc nonesense.

Fostering debate doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.

And, finally, I've no problem in restating my comment that I can't understand why his political and economic policies are so popular with about half of the population in America. In my opinion, they are demonstrably incorrect, misguided and in many cases downright dangerous.

:-)


Mr Mephisto

Same here. I don't get why half the half of the country would be against eliminating tax cuts on people who make 10 times what they make. I could see that the top 5% would have a problem with it, but not the other 95%.

Cigarette taxes show us that people are fine with taxes as long as they don't affect their pocket. They always pass.

Look, if you can scrounge up a "Cliff Notes on Tax Loopholes for the $75,000K and Unders" I'll read it, but hiring a $300 bean counter to save $400 on taxes isn't worth it to me or a lot of other people. I do like what you're saying in principle, though: People ought to be educated about money. As it is, they're not doing it on their own, so yeah, maybe math teachers should be saddled with a little extra tax-law curriculum. Offer a few courses in the junior colleges. It's good to know these things. Of course, once it starts to put dents in the government's wallet...

Whats wrong with a flat tax rate? I don't see why just because someone earns more they also owe the government more. In alot of cases these ppl are small business owners, they have worked harder to earn that money so they should get to keep it.

Because they can afford it. The problem is that when you are making 30 grand a year and trying to support a family, you dont have as much money to give to the government as someone trying to do the same thing on 200 grand. Big difference there.

And whos to say someone who owns a small business is working harder than the high school math teacher or the janitor or the construction worker down the street? Im not saying that everyone should be paid the same, just that pay rate is not indicative of how hard someone is working.

Also, in my experience, most small business owners arent making *that* much. Many of them tend to continue owning their business because they love what they do.

I'd like to see how a CEO making 10M/yr works harder than a ditchdigger making $10/hr

I am continually baffled by the defending of the rich that goes on in our society -- people seem extremely concerned about protecting those few individuals that are making over $300,000/year and I cannot for the life of me figure out why.

I suspect that part of growing up under the american dream is the idea that any day now you too will be rich and thus people worry that tomorrow, when they make the're first million it will all somehow be taken away from them by the government.

the rich are not an exploited class in this country, they have the ears of most government officials and they do not need you or i to protect them or their money. (note that i am not advocating exploitation of the rich (soemthing our society is far far far away from ever doing), just wondering why a large portion of the middle class seems so willing to devote their time and resources to defending people who make exponentially more money then they do.)

There is a limit as to how much an individual can contribute, I think its like 2 grand or something not millions.

Also just because the rich are getting a tax break does not mean that the middle class has to foot the rest of the bill, they are getting a 3 % tax break also. So that argument does not hold any water. The government needs to simply stop wasting money. If you get rid of failing programs and privitize others and just overall spend less, everyone would have less taxes to pay.

I don't think its a matter of physical work, but more mental. Its hard running a small business no less a multi million dollar one that has 1000's of people depending on your decisions. A ditchdiggers responsibilites are to keep that ditch straight. hardly worth millions.

So you're in favor of campaign finance reform, and banning soft money? I applaud that.

So then, while everyone (God willing, some are less fortunate) is born with a body that will grow strong enough in adulthood to dig a ditch, not everyone is born to parents who can afford to put their child through 4 years of college for an MBA. Are you also in favor of allowing universal higher education, to level the playing field?

Uh, yeah it does. Do you really think its the schoolteacher or the ditchdigger that is getting these loopholes put into place? Absolutely not--it is people with the money and the means to get the politicians' ears. If you want to lower taxes, get all this crap fixed *first*. Its like running up a credit card bill--we cant afford to be cutting taxes, why the hell are we doing it? Once it has been shown that the loopholes are closed and waste is minimized, then we can start talking about cutting taxes.

Well said, Journeyman.

There are ways around that and you know it. Stop pretending to be dense just so you can stick to your argument, I refuse to believe you have that little comprehension of how this stuff works.

it's a $2,000 individual limit to a specific candidate. Then you can give $20,000 to the Republicans. THEN you can set up a PAC and give $5,000. THEN you go to those $1,000 a plate dinners and "buy" a dinner, so you've contributed even more. Then you donate in the name of your wife and do all that all over again.


You say this, yet support Bush's policies? The man spends money like it's going out of style. Hell he wants to sink umpteen million into going to mars - hardly something that should be a priority right now. The deficit is the size of Mars and it keeps growing. If you want someone to stop government waste, it sure isn't gonna be Bush.

If you paid attention, you'd see the thread has moved beyond what was written in the article. If you choose to continue to harp on that point, you are welcome to it -- there is no one to argue with you. Thank you for your continual announcements about how you don't give a shit and how "us guys" are twisting everything. Put up or shut up.

feel better?

I believe there is an even playing field. My wife for instance was a foster kid and she aplied for something called OLAP here in OK and she had her entire college tuition paid for 5 years. plus with financial assistance, we don't even need to take out loans. So the only reason people are not able to go to college is that they are too dumb to get in or too lazy to find out how.

Do you even know what these so called evil loopholes are? You can't get rid of them. as I explained earlier as a small business owner they must be in place.

Why not? My lord, a couple of posts ago, you were just saying lets clean up government waste--now you are once again contradicting yourself to say that we should leave the loopholes in place. And, no, you didnt give any good reason as to why they must be there.

For someone who spouts off about people not thinking for themselves, your continued contradictory posts arent making you look so good...

Agreed, well put Shakran

Yeah and I'm sure all "good" accountants are the same price. Pay 200 to save 300 or 400, that's great and plus the gas it took me to get there, and time off work and so on and so on, suddenly the cost is over 200.

So now the middle class is dumb sorry "pretty fucking dumb about money", well at least the middle class can stick to one road in an argument, I mean you are balancing so much on the fence that I'm waiting until you fall to one side or the other to get more involved in this thread.

Me too.

Government waste is spending, not the taxation, if you stop spending so much you can get away with a 10% flat tax and it does away with all loopholes. If supposedly the rich don't have to pay taxes cause of loopholes then a flat tax would be good at least they would be paying a set %.




umm yeah i did.

You are making contradictions that are not there, compairing apples to oranges, loopholes and governemnt spending are too different beasts.

UPS, FedEx, my accountant is in DC I am in OK, I do nothing but put it together and send it off. simple. 10.00 for shipping maybe a gallon of gas to get to the store. point is it is easier to do then people think. and as I said it saved me thousands last year.

And how is letting people pay less taxes than they are supposed to not waste? Its costing you money. You like economics, have you ever heard of opportunity costs?

No one has seen it here, and you still havent given one. Sheesh :rolleyes:

Again, the government granting ways out of taxes to certain special interest groups (be them industry *or* people of means) is no different than spending excess money. It would be as if you are running your small business and decide to let some friends pay you less for what you sell and then bitching when you go under. Thats not the way you run a business, and thats not the way the government should be run either.

Do I need to recap? there is no fence leaning here. I think the loopholes are needed the way things are set up now. If you want to get rid of them then make a flat tax of 10-20% that would eliminate all "loopholes". The tax cuts for the rich will help the economy and with time the middle class too. the tax cuts are also for the middle class, but not as much because they pay less to begin with. Kerry's plan will not work the way it sits because the rich will not pay his new taxes he proposes cause they are too smart. All he is doing is appealing to the middle class to get their votes knowing he himself can get out of paying them. Government spending is too high, but that happens in a time of war. Revamping the welfare and social security programs is more in line with the spending that I am thinking about. Please I would like to see where i am balancing on the fence? just because I support some things the pres. does, does not mean I agree with everything. my original point in this thread was that you people disagree with him everytime whether or not the message he says is good or bad. you are blinded by your hatred which causes you to make biased judgments.

I cut and pasted it, since you obviously did not read it I will say it again. As a small business owner I make 100,000 for the year. but I have expenses for running that business. they come out to 50,000. therefore I have made a profit that year of 50,000 for which I should be taxed. the same 100,000 made as a salary does bnot have operating costs and should be taxed on the whole amount. now that is en example of a "loophole" as you call it. it is needed and must stay in place or you put all small business under.



Look at it this way, if a corporation needs help from the governement in terms of less taxes so they can build another factory that will employ thousands of people, which the government would then make the money back by taxing the company on payroll and the employees income, then it makes sence to me to do it.

Neither of those are the types of loopholes that I am referring to, and you know it. There is a huge difference between a tax incentive and a tax loophole. An incentive is like what you said--a state, or county, or city providing a tax break to a factory that will provide jobs and boost the economy. I dont have a problem with that. It is better for the economy, and in the long run, brings in more money than is lost.

What I do have a problem with is, say, saying that hog farmers now have to pay lower taxes than, say, beef ranchers. *That* is a tax loophole put into place through special interest groups. Or getting out of paying taxes on profits made by foreign workers by claiming they were "foreign profits."

Furthermore, reporting your $50,000 profit isnt a tax loophole--its simple economics. Your profit was $50,000, the guy with a $100,000 salary had $100,000 in profit. Both should be, and are taxed accordingly.

Look, you have been asked to stop making personal attacks a couple times already. It is cause for being banned--it says this clearly in the rules at the top of the forum.

You seem to think you know an auful lot about people who hate Bush, but look at it this way the same can be said people like you who support Bush will do so through thick and thin, Iraq i proving that.

Now was that really called for? I mean jesus you know nothing about the person and the only thing you know is what you think is right, maybe hopping down off that high horse you are up on might help you to make your point without being a dick.

Yeah yeah being a dick is more fun. :)

SETTLE DOWN BEAVIS!!!!

we're all supposed to be civil....no need for name calling and hair pulling.

Tell ya what, I need to do more research on corporate taxes and incentives before I comment on them. So I have to stick with personal and small business. And I was referring to someone telling me that it was wrong that I was able to write off most of my earnings and not paying taxes on them. maybe the word loophole was not used then, but I know what his point was. But as for the hog farmers getting tax breaks the beef farmers do not get, I have to say how long has that been going on? I mean is all corporate incentives a product of republicans?

I do know that the top 10% erners and corporations pay 80% of the taxes, so I have to say the middle class is getting a pretty fair shake.

Another question I have is why the liberals are trying to create division by getting the poor mad at the rich. They play to peoples emotions to get votes but more often then not they are not the "people's kinda man" that they make themselves out to be.

I don't want to bring Iraq into this, but yes there are somethings I wish would have been handled differently. Like I said before, not everything Bush has done I think is great, its just overall I think he has done a good job with what has been put infront of him.

if it doesn't stop i'm gonna break out the gag balls

I know you said this awhile ago bu tI missed it. As for "giving" the rich more money, well we both know thats not what happens, they just get to KEEP their money, which I think they deserve. If the rich don't buy expensive yahts, you won't have the middle class being paid to make them. it just they way things work.

I knew this would get thrown out there eventually. It's the classic Rush approach, throw a number out with no context and talk about how the middle class and poor are getting some free ride from the rich. The truth is much different than what Rush tells you.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Looking at 2001 numbers only, you see this (I know it's hard to read but I can't get the columns to line up):

class, tax share income share adj gross income
top 1%, 33.89% 17.53% 293k
top 5%, 53.25% 31.99% 128k
top 10%, 64.89% 43.11% 93k
top 25%, 82.90% 65.23% 56k
top 50%, 96.03% 86.19% 28.5k

Those numbers are high because each class includes now look what it's like if you remove the tier above:
group tax share income share income range
0%-1% 33.89% 17.53% 293k < income < infinity

1%-5% 19.36% 14.46% 128k < income < 293k

5%-10% 11.12% 11.64% 93k < income < 128k

10%-25% 18.01% 22.12% 56k < income < 128k

25%-50% 13.13% 20.96% 28.5k < income < 56k

Things get even really fast. Two groups pay more than their proportional share of the tax burden, the ones making more than 99% of all Americans and the ones in the 95-99 percentiles. The people in the 95-99 aren't even paying that much more, compared to their income, and since their is such a large gap between the bottom and top of those groups, most of the disproportionality comes from those closer to the top 1%. Once you fall to the 5-10 percentile, you are already paying a tax rate that is nearly perfectly proportional to your income.

Looking at it this way, how is our current system THAT unfair? The only ones getting huge breaks are those making less than 28.5k per year. Should we really risk economic havoc so that people making over 300k can have it easier?

Give me some time to get back to you on this point, because I do want to , I just don't have time right now. tonight I will be back, but what I read does make good sence initially......but.....

The problem is the people that get the benefits are so small in number, the economic effect is miniscule. OK, so the people making over $300,000 get an extra $10,000 after taxes and decide to go put that down on a car--thats a *very* small number of cars, and certainly not enough to generate an upswing in the economy.

Let's assume it's true that the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes. Assuming the top 10% are in the top marginal tax bracket, they pay 35-40% in taxes. If you instituted a flat tax at even 20% across the board, you lose 40% of your tax income right there. With the flat tax the federal government has basically half as much to work with -- that's a lot of "wasteful" spending to get rid of.

I'm disheartened by your generalizing of all non-college graduates as being "dumb" and "lazy," but encouraged by your wife's story. You are in favor of universal, paid-for college to those who can't afford it, then? Sort of like an educational welfare, yes?

This may be the socialist in me but if you look at the model of our wages, it is a pyramid with a small group on top making the largest amount of money. Those are the people that employ almost everyone else. They set the wages and keep them as low as competition allows so that they can hoard their money. Keeping that in mind, I don't see how it is so wrong that the tax model can't be the same.

Well, this thread has certainly engendered quite a bit of discussion.

I'm pleased.

Mr Mephisto

Bush is right... when you tax the rich, it's the poor who end up paying. On the other hand, if you stop confiscating their money, the rich will create new businesses, new jobs, and improve the life of everyone.

This rabid, frothing insistence that we punish wealthy people for being successful is the misguided result of bitter jealousy from people who have given up on ever wanting to make something of themselves, and have decided to punish those who have.

Just as the rabid, frothing insistence that supply side economics actually work is the result of either insecure rich folks who somehow think they should get even more money or confused middle class folks who like to think that they will one day be rich.

Yes, yes it has! :)

Hahaha.... Best. Comeback. Ever.