Bush Tax breaks for the "rich"

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Unfortunately, with the 2 party system, I have to pick the lesser of the two evils. My views are more Libertarian, but - are you trying to say that the Dems are more supportive of personal liberty and personal responsibility? Yikes. Getting back to the main point, at least the Republicans do more to stay out of my pocket, for the time being. Until we can field some independent candidates who want to do ONLY what the constitution allows, I'll still vote Repulican

.

The Constitution allows all kinds of things. It mandates certain things, and the Bill of Rights limits the government's powers (at least, it used to but for the last 7 years it seems to have been ignored).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,433]

>Dems are more supportive of personal liberty and personal responsibility?

The democrats are more supportive of personal liberty as expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The republicans tend to rely more on personal responsibility.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

The Fairtax sounds good. But it still doesn't fix the issue of overspending. It just packages it differently. The hope that it fixes spending is when the people get upset and stop buying things above the minimum in order to show their displeasure. It'll still require lower spending and a balanced budget approach.

Do you think the government would REALLY give that much power back to the people?

The Fairtax IS good, better than the current system. It was drafted with the help of several independent economists, to be revenue neutral. It won't curb spending EXCEPT to the degree that nothing can be hidden in the tax code, and if increased taxes are easily seen, then it will be polotical folly to raise them. Also, the reason a lot of investment capital has left the US is because there is such a heavy tax on labor and income. If that is removed, the economy will definitely heat up. There are several representatives behind the bill, and it gained quite a bit of publicity because of Mike Huckabee's support. There is hope, and change I can believe in!

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

The Fairtax sounds good. But it still doesn't fix the issue of overspending. It just packages it differently. The hope that it fixes spending is when the people get upset and stop buying things above the minimum in order to show their displeasure. It'll still require lower spending and a balanced budget approach.

Do you think the government would REALLY give that much power back to the people?

The Fairtax IS good, better than the current system. It was drafted with the help of several independent economists, to be revenue neutral. It won't curb spending EXCEPT to the degree that nothing can be hidden in the tax code, and if increased taxes are easily seen, then it will be polotical folly to raise them. Also, the reason a lot of investment capital has left the US is because there is such a heavy tax on labor and income. If that is removed, the economy will definitely heat up. !

Hmmm - seems I've heard that myth before. Every time the Republicans cut taxes, we end up with record setting deficits a couple of years later. Eventually China will get fed up with lending us money because we won't pay our own way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SimonBones 1]

The current national debt is still 75% debt held by the public, leaving 25% owed to foreign countries. Of that 25%, 47% is owned by China and Japan combined. I don't think owing China is going to be a major issue that dooms the country. Angry political activists have been shouting for many many decades that this country is "all fucked up" and so on. Seems like doomsday never actually comes and Americans still have some of the best standard of living in the whole world. Even our "poor" have microwaves, cars, and televisions. Hell I just got back from Brazil... NOBODY in this country is poor. Walk through the favelas of Rio one day.

It seems like this conversation has turned pretty quickly away from the original tax brackets and turned to the usual democrats this and republicans that. It seems that a lot of people here start getting very cranky over the notion that we are just giving tax breaks to rich people (because your government is simply out to screw you right?) How much of the upper tax brackets that are getting these tax breaks are in the upper tax bracket not because they are simply rich, but because they are small business owners? I think the idea is not to give more money to Paris Hilton to run around and party on, but to encourage growth of successful small businesses. Isn't business opportunity and capitalism what this country is supposed to be about? It's not supposed to be a socialist "let's feed all the people who don't want to work hard and spend all their rent money at the bar". Sadly enough, that's where most of the voters are. It's easy to buy votes by giving low income people tax breaks and free money. Then we have a big deficit and a bunch of unjust taxing on people who do things like join the military to go to school (or work themselves through it), set up a private business and work your ass off to make it successful, or spend years being the best employee somewhere to work themselves up to a higher level supervisory position.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I'm sure there are people here that can pick this apart, and I'd like to hear from you.

Quote

Thought this was fascinating.



Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some
examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both
singles and married couples. so let's see if the Bush tax cuts only
helped the rich.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008


Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K -Tax $4,500 (46% less)
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 (11% less)
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 (19% less)
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K - tax $9,000 (46% less)
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 (11% less)
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 (19% less)

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is
amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is
screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.

If any Democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax
cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above
can't wait for it to happen.

Were is the stats for the richest?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

How much of the upper tax brackets that are getting these tax breaks are in the upper tax bracket not because they are simply rich, but because they are small business owners? I think the idea is not to give more money to Paris Hilton to run around and party on, but to encourage growth of successful small businesses. Isn't business opportunity and capitalism what this country is supposed to be about? .

As a former small (very small but profitable) business owner I can assure you that there are already LOTS of breaks available to business owners that are not available to others who have the same income.

However, that not being good enough, the IRS reports that small business owners are also the biggest tax cheats.

Regardless, each time a GOP president goes on a tax cutting, "trickle down", voodoo economics spree we end up with a much increased deficit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

Regardless, each time a GOP president goes on a tax cutting, "trickle down", voodoo economics spree we end up with a much increased deficit.

And each time a dem president goes on a "let's create a surplus" spree, military families are below the "poverty" line and are receiving food stamps. I'm not saying they should have million dollar incomes, but food stamps level is just plain wrong to be putting your military members through.

But I guess we go right back to the whole democrats this and republicans that dynamic. Not really the point of the thread.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Hmmm - seems I've heard that myth before. Every time the Republicans cut taxes, we end up with record setting deficits a couple of years later. Eventually China will get fed up with lending us money because we won't pay our own way.

Actually, it's not a myth. Lower taxes result in higher revenue, because of the positive effects on the economy. Revenue has been at an all time high, but unfortunately, so has spending. Yes, the war is expensive, but so are 2 million rubbers a day shipped to Africa, and thousands of other stupid vote buying schemes. But, we're missing the point.

THe FairTax is actually being sponsored by both Dems and Republicans. It's a way to create revenue without penalizing hard work/smart work/entrepreneurial talent.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm - seems I've heard that myth before. Every time the Republicans cut taxes, we end up with record setting deficits a couple of years later. Eventually China will get fed up with lending us money because we won't pay our own way.

Actually, it's not a myth. Lower taxes result in higher revenue, because of the positive effects on the economy. Revenue has been at an all time high, but unfortunately, so has spending. Yes, the war is expensive, but so are 2 million rubbers a day shipped to Africa, and thousands of other stupid vote buying schemes. But, we're missing the point.

Revenue has been at an "all time high" IF, and ONLY IF, you do not account for inflation and population growth. (And it remains to be seen what will happen to revenue in 2008, since the government is giving back another $150Bn it doesn't have). Increased revenue - yet another myth from the right.

Deficit up under Reagan. Up under Bush 1, Up under Bush 2. That is NOT a myth, that is cold hard fact.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Seems to me that people that make over 100K a year totally 3% of the
>working population. You can't raise enough taxes off that group to do what
>the Dems want.

Why not? It's better for the economy and it gets you more money total.

Except for whole inconvenient bit about, if taxes are TOO onerous, businesses slow down and the rich shelter money / move overseas...taking away that revenue source.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The change in taxation of qualified dividends from the marginal tax rate to 15% was a signficant tax cut that certainly favored the wealthy. I think it's a good cut in that it encourages all to buy stocks in companies that pay dividends back (better than money markets given the stock growth). Everyone can benefit. But certainly it favors those with thousands of shares.

Sure, economy of scale applies - but, that cut favored anyone who had investments, so it wasn't the "only for the rich" scheme that the Dems screamed it was.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The Constitution allows all kinds of things. It mandates certain things, and the Bill of Rights limits the government's powers (at least, it used to but for the last 7 years couple of decades it seems to have been ignored).

Fixed that for ya.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Royd 0]

Quote

Regardless, each time a GOP president goes on a tax cutting, "trickle down", voodoo economics spree we end up with a much increased deficit.

It's all trickle down. It's just that when I keep the money, I can control the flow.

You demand to take 50% of my money to buy votes with, then give it to your poor, 'Less Fortunate' constituients. They turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride. How is that not trickle down?

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Regardless, each time a GOP president goes on a tax cutting, "trickle down", voodoo economics spree we end up with a much increased deficit.

It's all trickle down. It's just that when I keep the money, I can control the flow.

You demand to take 50% of my money to buy votes with, then give it to your poor, 'Less Fortunate' constituients. They turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride. How is that not trickle down?

On the whole I'd prefer my money to go to buy food for the poor than in outspending the rest of the world combined on weapons. That is trickle-up to the defense contractors, of course.

I can tell you how much taxpayer money goes on military spending. Can you tell me how much goes on crack?

1980 - USA is the worlds biggest creditor nation. Reagan comes to power. Voodoo economics welcomed by the right.

2008 - USA is world's biggest debtor nation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You demand to take 50% of my money to buy votes with, then give it to your poor, 'Less Fortunate' constituients. They turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride

WOW just WOW...

Thank you for validating my posts for the last 5 years.. and that statement proves Southern republican thinking at its best.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

You demand to take 50% of my money to buy votes with, then give it to your poor, 'Less Fortunate' constituients. They turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride

WOW just WOW...

Thank you for validating my posts for the last 5 years.. and that statement proves Southern republican thinking at its best.

We hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

We hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet.

Perhaps our right wing friends here would like to cut off THESE drains on our society...or is it just inner city blacks who qualify for their hatred.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June03/Features/RuralWelfareReforme.htm


Recent evidence suggests, however, that successful welfare reform outcomes may depend in part on where welfare recipients live. What has been the experience, for example, of the almost 8 million people living in poverty in rural America compared to central cities and suburban communities? In rural areas, employment is more concentrated in low-wage industries (see "Low-Skill Workers Are a Declining Share of All Rural Workers”); unemployment and underemployment are greater; education levels are lower; and work support services, such as formal paid child care and public transportation, are less available. In these less favorable circumstances, how well has welfare reform worked in moving rural low-income adults into the workforce and out of poverty?


The attached shows a whole lot of welfare going to the red states... hmmm looks like all the right wing red state votes are not exactly from people who have all that personal responsibility that they constantly whine about.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Deficit up under Reagan. Up under Bush 1, Up under Bush 2. That is NOT a myth, that is cold hard fact.

"Well, there you go again." You have to look a little deeper than who was president during growning deficits. Democrats controlled the House for Reagan's entire stay in the White House, and they outspent the budget he sent them for 7 of 8 years. They controlled the House and the Senate for Bush 41's four years. Economic conditions, which influence revenue, varied quite a bit too. Again, both parties are addicted to spending, and it will all have to end sometime. We either bite the bullet now or let our kids and grandkids do it. My fear is that one day we will no longer be the premier military superpower, because of a devastated economy. The Chinese won't come marching in with pitchforks - they are growing in military might.

This is an interesting thread. I usually work too much to spend time on the forums, but I've been a little under the weather lately..... The interesting part is the vitriol with which some make their arguments, the hatred of the party leaders, the ad hominem attacks. Eye opening.

Back to point, and then I have to get back to work. I'm feeling better. First off - Spending reform is the order of the day. Tax reduction across the board will boost the economy. "Tax breaks for the rich" is rhetoric used by some politicians seeking the vote of those who envy wealth.

Read about the FairTax bill. We only need a little more support to bring it to a vote in the House.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

The Chinese won't come marching in with pitchforks - they are growing in military might.

Why would they need to come in at all, they will OWN us soon enough at this rate. Economic might, not military might, is what counts now.

Quote

Read about the FairTax bill. We only need a little more support to bring it to a vote in the House.

Bush41 was dead right when he called Reagan's ideas "Voodoo Economics". FairTax is just another variant of Voodoo Economics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

FairTax is just another variant of Voodoo Economics.

Please explain why you think so.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet.

Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money

were they urban blacks???
I just dont picture a good ole Texas boy hangin out in da hood

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

We hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet.

Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money?

"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote".

PS I have provided links now on several occasions to the US Dept. of Justice reports (plural) that give the number of gun thefts annually. Most recent was just last week, when Marc Rush's memory failed. Is your memory really that bad? What a shame in such a young guy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,433]

>if taxes are TOO onerous, businesses slow down and the rich
>shelter money / move overseas...taking away that revenue source.

If taxes on the rich increase, they MAY move out of country.

If taxes on the poor increase, they WILL spend less money on consumer purchaes, which is what drives our economy. This means that, if the goal is to increase taxation and not affect the economy too badly, going after the rich will have the least impact.

Warren Buffet has explained this phenomenon in detail. The money he saves through reduced taxes goes into a savings account; the money the McDonald's counter guy saves goes into the local automotive repair place and the local hardware store.