Ya gotta love a man that does his job well . . .

[quade 3]

This from the White House press briefing yesterday.

Quote

Q Ari, what's the President's reaction to former Vice President Gore announcing that he's not going to run?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is an internal matter for the Democratic Party, and somebody will emerge from the Democratic field who will ultimately seek to raise taxes on the American people, but that's a decision that the Democrats will make as they select a nominee.

Love it.

Ari must have stolen my FutureCam(tm) again. (I gotta get that back from him.)

He can't just say something like, "Oh really? Too bad. Woulda been fun to steal the election twice."

No. He gets in a jab while predicting the future.

Love it!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

Especially ironic considering he was discussing raising taxes on lower income people yesterday. But of course those people don't count.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

He gets in a jab while predicting the future

That's why he gets "The Big Bucks."

[BikerBabe 0]

LOL, I was thinking the exact same thing!

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[jfields 0]

Quote

But of course those people don't count.

People? I didn't think real Republicans even applied the term "people" to those not in the top income bracket.

>

[wmw999 2,121]

Quote

Especially ironic considering he was discussing raising taxes on lower income people yesterday. But of course those people don't count.

They're not likely to vote Republican, so why should they count?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

They're not likely to vote Republican, so why should they count?

So very true!!

[rhino 0]

What is a Republican?? lol

[sunshine 2]

From the subject i was thinking this was a thread about jump pilots.

___________________________________________
meow

I get a Mike hug! I get a Mike hug!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Especially ironic considering he was discussing raising taxes on lower income people yesterday. But of course those people don't count.

When did Ari discuss raising taxes yesterday? Remember, the "lower" half of the "income" base use over 80% of the social programs that are mismanaged by the governemt, while they pay less than 20% of the total income revenue to the fed. And, the low-low end, uses the lions share of the programs, and pays NO (aka: $0, goose-egg, nada, zilch) income tax whatever.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[DZBone 0]

(rich people rubbing their hands together again. Yes, yes, yes!)

_________________________________________________
If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

[billvon 2,400]

>When did Ari discuss raising taxes yesterday?

The administration did. From the washington post:

"As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers."

>Remember, the "lower" half of the "income" base use over 80% of
> the social programs that are mismanaged by the governemt, while
> they pay less than 20% of the total income revenue to the fed. And,
> the low-low end, uses the lions share of the programs, and pays NO
> (aka: $0, goose-egg, nada, zilch) income tax whatever.

I agree with your assessement, I just think it's ironic that he would attack the democrats for maybe perhaps raising taxes in the future when the republicans are discussing ways to do just that, albeit only for lower-income people.

[hagar 0]

These programs are clearly mismanaged since 20% of the spending goes to the upper half of the income base.

(Source)

---
PCSS #10

[Gawain 0]

Quote

(rich people rubbing their hands together again. Yes, yes, yes!)

I wish I was doing that, despite my not falling in the category of "upper income" I still believe in fair play...if there's going to a be a cut, it should be across the board. Even if it's tiered, the "rich" get a higher monetary break....

1,000,000/yr 33% tax br cut to 30% equals about $30K per year

100,000/yr 33% tax br cut to 30% equals about $3K
50,000/yr 27% tax br cut to 24% equals about $1500
12,000/yr 0% tax br....

I'm generalizaing greatly of course, but even using accurate information the overall results are the same. The "rich" people I know pay more in taxes than I make in a year. Their bracket is higher, their need for the services they fund is less and they still take personal accountability...just two cents...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skybytch 259]

Okay, here's a hypothetical reality check for those who really think people living below the poverty level need to be paying income tax.

Bob works really hard but doesn't make a lot of money. His annual gross income is $12000, which gives him a net take home of about $850 per month. Bob was lucky and found a cheap place to live; he's paying $300 a month in rent. He likes having lights and heat, but since he's always broke he doesn't use them much and he knows he can't afford a phone or cable or internet access so his monthly utilities run about $75. He eats pretty cheap; he spends about $150 per month on food and assorted household needs. He's paying another $100 per month in assorted other bills - perhaps a large medical bill that he incurred because he doesn't have (can't afford) medical insurance and is slowly paying off, or credit cards that with his low income level he should have never been approved for. Transportation adds another $50 per month; of course he rides the bus or his bicycle since he can't afford the maintainence and insurance for a car.

Total for all his living expenses - $675 per month. That leaves him $175 per month for everything else - entertainment, clothes, unexpected expenses, etc. Now, exactly where in his budget is Bob supposed to find the extra money to pay income taxes?

I'm not for income taxes period, but since we have them imho those who make more should pay more. You can't make me believe that the rich aren't taking advantage of every possible break to make their tax burden less...

[happythoughts 0]

Notice that Quade hasn't started a new thread in weeks. He's been just itching for BillVon to return from the 300-ways. Then, like throwing blood into a pool full of sharks, he mentions taxes. What a trouble maker that guy is.

[Sebazz1 2]

Great angle Lisa!!

[wmw999 2,121]

Gotta remember, too, that a lot of people living at or below the poverty line are those depending on Social Security. Before you talk about how we're not supposed to depend on it, consider how much someone in Lisa's post could save towards retirement. And social security is taxable.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

consider how much someone in Lisa's post could save towards retirement

I'd say that's that person's responsibility. No one else's.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Bob works really hard but doesn't make a lot of money. His annual gross income is $12000

I find it difficult that Bob is working really hard and only making $12,000.00 per year. Bob can go out and find a second job, and maybe even a third if that's what it takes to make ends meet. He certainly wouldn't be the first to do this. I can't see anyone forcing him to work part time at McDonald's.

Quote

he can't afford a phone or cable or internet access so his monthly utilities run about $75.

A telephone and internet access are luxery items. Bob can learn to use the mail, or face to face conversation to get by in his every day life, I'm not even going to comment on internet access. If Bob needs a phone to call 911 he can pick up a cell phone that only dials 911 from a charity, if that's not an option he can start banging on doors in his apartment complex.

Quote

slowly paying off, or credit cards that with his low income level he should have never been approved for.

If Bob couldn't afford these credit cards then Bob shouldn't have accepted these credit cards. We sit here all the time and cry about personal responsibility as skydivers, does the same not apply to Bob? You bet it does. His credit card bills are not my problem.

Quote

Total for all his living expenses - $675 per month. That leaves him $175 per month for everything else - entertainment, clothes, unexpected expenses, etc. Now, exactly where in his budget is Bob supposed to find the extra money to pay income taxes?

Why exactly, at his low income level, does Bob need to be spending money on entertainment? If I as a taxpayer am footing the bill he had better not be running out to the movies every Saturday, as a matter of fact he had better not be running out to the movies ever. Finally, since Bob's expenses are so high Bob should go out into the world and find himself a roommate. Bob's roommate could help to significantly cut his and his roommate's expenses.

Quote

I'm not for income taxes period, but since we have them imho those who make more should pay more. You can't make me believe that the rich aren't taking advantage of every possible break to make their tax burden less...

You're not for income taxes, but you're all for social programs? How do you propose we fund Bob's existence?

The Constitution provides no guarantees of a big house in a nice neighboorhood, it doesn't guarantee movies and jumping on the weekends, and it certainly doesn't guarantee Bob's right to live off of my prosperity.

Why should I, as one of the 'have's', be required to support Bob? Fuck Bob.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Gawain 0]

I don't have any figures, but the honest "Bob's" out there in this position also know how to responsibly use the social services available to them (i.e. food stamps, medicaid, etc.). The phone company is required by law to provide a basic measured service, if requested (avg $10.00/mo., no LD) to low income individuals/families. If service gets turned off, dial tone is still available to enable 911 calls.

I am not in favor of an income tax either (I like flat sales tax idea) and I am not in favor of the extreme low income paying a tax.

If there is going to be an income tax, and if there is going to be an income tax cut, then everyone who pays income tax should benefit from it such cuts, regardless of income. Why? Because the people that make more, already pay more (even with "loopholes") and they will continue to pay more. Even with the "big bad tax" breaks that you may hear Dan Rather whining about, the top 1% of earners (the ones with real tax shelter power) still pay over 20% of the income tax. That is disproporationate, and I don't remember this society being build upon re-distribution of wealth. Remember, we've been talk solely about income taxes here. These same "rich" folks also pay the lion's share of property taxes, luxury taxes, and because they have so much stuff (materially speaking) they buy more stuff, and thus also pay more sales taxes.

We can't escape that model...me, mister upper middle income buys a 30" TV for $600...sales tax, about $50.00... Rich dude buys a plasma 40" TV for $4500 ..sales tax about $350. The rich dude (or dudette) can afford and buys the more expensive item...more tax...

I wish I had a cure all answer, I just know that it is wholly wrong to single out any segment of population.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Although I agree with your viewpoint, slight error in your example.

Quote

His annual gross income is $12000, which gives him a net take home of about $850 per month.

Quote

Total for all his living expenses - $675 per month. That leaves him $175 per month for everything else - entertainment, clothes, unexpected expenses, etc. Now, exactly where in his budget is Bob supposed to find the extra money to pay income taxes?

He already paid them. You used net take home pay to start with. Plus if he's making $12000 a year that means he's working 40hours/week at minimum wage. I wouldn't call 45 hours a week "working really hard", that's "working average".

[jdhill 0]

I guess my question is that if he works really hard, how come he can only make $12K/year?

No skills? No education (read dropout)? Criminal background? Immigration Status? Not a people person? Not really working hard?

None of these should be a reason for not sharing in the burden...

Having said that, the administration has not said it would eliminate the 0% bracket... and it only said it MAY be necessary to shift the burden lower...

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 2,400]

>I guess my question is that if he works really hard, how come he can
> only make $12K/year?

>No skills? No education (read dropout)? Criminal background?
> Immigration Status? Not a people person? Not really working hard?

Or - IQ of 70. Fetal alcohol syndrome. Parkinson's disease. Down's syndrome.

>None of these should be a reason for not sharing in the burden...

Not everyone is born as capable as everyone else; some cannot share the burden as well as others. We recognize this as a society and make allowances for the handicapped, the blind, the incapable.

>and it only said it MAY be necessary to shift the burden lower . . .

Yes, but I still think it's funny that they attack democrats for that while they plan it themselves. Sorta like Martha Stewart starting a "wipe out insider trading" campaign.

[wmw999 2,121]

Quote

I guess my question is that if he works really hard, how come he can only make $12K/year?

Maybe he's just not the smartest cookie in the barrel, or is physically ugly enough to be off-putting in job interviews, or is a single parent who has to work their job around the available (and expensive) daycare, or he can only work part-time because of general physical frailty and ill health (either their own, or someone in the family they have to help care for).

But the first one is the most likely. Remember, there are just as many people who were graced with less than average intelligence as above-average.

Some people just by virtue of how they were made or where they were born have a harder time carrying their fair share. Trust me, being poor doesn't mean you get a free ride, unless your standards are exceedingly low indeed. Lower even than a trailer-living skydiving bum or ski bum.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't shoulder some of the social burden. But it does mean that the fair share won't be the same for everyone.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)