» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Meghan88 on 05/11/06 at 9:55 pm
The middle class only saving an average of $20? While the majority of the upper class is saving 3,000+ to "help create jobs, stabilize the economy", etc. You've got to be kidding me. Does anybody buy into this BS?
Here's how the cuts break down: If you earn between $27,000 and $47,000 a year, which is middle income, your tax savings will average $20.
If you earn $47,000 to $82,000, you save $115.
Those with an average income of $82,000 and over will receive savings of roughly $2,099.
But the biggest savings go to the biggest earners. The top 1 percent of wage earners will receive a $13,849, and the top 0.1 percent will save an average of $82,000, which is why this bill was so controversial.
Those who favored the bill argued it would stimulate the economy, which would in turn help reduce the $300 billion deficit.
Here's the link to the full story: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1951122&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/11/06 at 10:47 pm
We're just givin' you yer hard earned money.
::)
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: bbigd04 on 05/11/06 at 10:57 pm
Of course everybody knows those tax cuts were mainly to help the rich.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/12/06 at 12:14 am
Of course everybody knows those tax cuts were mainly to help the rich.
Just what I got thru bellyaching about on another thread.
Mort Kondrake sez, "The Democrats don't like it because they think it's a tax cut for the rich. It is a tax cut for the rich, but it will help the average person because it will encourage investment..."
This guy's nose is as long as the telephone wire, just like all the other rightwingers who have been chanting that canard for the past twenty-five years!
The folks who come away with a big enough wad of cash that would allow them to "invest in creating jobs" DO NOT "invest in creating jobs." No sir. They horde, or they invest in some corporate stock from a corporation that has done nothing for the American worker in the past twenty years. Maybe they speculate on foreign currencies. Maybe they do invest in creating jobs...in f**king Malaysia, where they can pay workers pennies for jobs American workers used to do for fifteen bucks an hour.
WAKE UP AMERICA! Don't you ever get sick of these azzh()les lying to you? Don't you ever get sick of these fatcats expecting you to say, "I'll vote Republican I promise, jus' please missuh Rich Man, please get us some jobs!" Those creepy robber barons send their media toadies out to spin lies, and they sit back in their guilded chateaus and grind their palms and cackle just like Montgomery Burns. It's time for a new economic policy in re: robber barons and Republican hoodlums. Let's call it: "UP AGAINST THE WALL MOTHER****ERS!!!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/hanged.gif
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/12/06 at 12:30 pm
^*claps* 8)
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/13/06 at 10:56 am
[quote author=
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/06 at 2:34 pm
The middle class only saving an average of $20? While the majority of the upper class is saving 3,000+
So, um...how much does the middle class pay in taxes as opposed to that upper class?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/14/06 at 2:41 pm
So, um...how much does the middle class pay in taxes as opposed to that upper class?
why does that matter? i guess the point is really, unless you're filthy rich there's no reason to care about bush's tax cuts, or see them as anything other than a reduction in government services for you. although yes, if you're rich, sure, it's great -- but i trust the rich will do fine looking after their own interests. they don't need my help, and they sure as siht ain't gonna help me any, so i have to be honest, i'm at a loss why john and jane q. public think these tax cuts are so great, unless they buy into this right-wing thing where they believe they're all privileged and THEY'RE gonna be rich someday.
which is pretty much the biggest bill of goods ever.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/06 at 3:20 pm
why does that matter? i guess the point is really, unless you're filthy rich there's no reason to care about bush's tax cuts, or see them as anything other than a reduction in government services for you. although yes, if you're rich, sure, it's great -- but i trust the rich will do fine looking after their own interests. they don't need my help, and they sure as siht ain't gonna help me any, so i have to be honest, i'm at a loss why john and jane q. public think these tax cuts are so great, unless they buy into this right-wing thing where they believe they're all privileged and THEY'RE gonna be rich someday.
which is pretty much the biggest bill of goods ever.
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; “It’s just a tax cut for the rich!”, and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.
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.
So, 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 each 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, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
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 man “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 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 the tenth man 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 didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our 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. There
are lots of good restaurants in Europe, the Caribbean and elsewhere offshore.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/06 at 4:38 pm
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim;
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/14/06 at 4:41 pm
so wait. the idea is that everybody gets the same amount of food at the same restaurant, but pays out based on their relative income? isn't that an obvious and incorrigible flaw?
i mean, for this to be accurate, the top one tenth of the top one tenth of the top one should get to actually eat at the restaurant, the vast majority in the middle should get stuck with the three-piece chicken selects meal at mcdonalds, and then poorest four out of ten should have to eat out of the dumpster out back.
and then yeah, once you figure that in, i'm sure the rest of these statistics are more or less correct.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/06 at 4:50 pm
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/hat.gif
I think it was your pal Reagan who said, "Trust but verify."
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp
"The only question we're covering about this humorous parable explaining "how taxes really work" is its authorship....."
Big deal!
Why to distract from the information written though.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/14/06 at 4:55 pm
"The only question we're covering about this humorous parable explaining "how taxes really work" is its authorship....."
Big deal!
Why to distract from the information written though.
well, false appeal to authority is a card-carrying argumentative fallacy. and in conjunction with the whole glaring thing where everybody is eating at the same restaurant (that is, the parable presumes flat-rate socialism when it comes to public benefits, but income-based distribution when it comes to tax burden) is pretty unbelievably glaring.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/06 at 5:05 pm
"The only question we're covering about this humorous parable explaining "how taxes really work" is its authorship....."
Big deal!
Why to distract from the information written though.
Yeah, that bit of economic genius is so dayum hot nobody wants to take credit for it. I mean, how can you top that gag? You'll get the Nobel Prize, then there's nowhere to go but down!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/crybaby2.gif
I mean, the whole "Supply Side Economics" theory sounds like some urban legend circulating around the internet. Of course, when Laffer & co. were pushing the Laffer Curve (which Arthur Laffer scribbled on a cocktail napkin in 1974 and then became the basis of the GOP's economic philosophy), the only people thinking about the internet were people with real brains and foresight, such as Al Gore!
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/06 at 5:07 pm
well, false appeal to authority is a card-carrying argumentative fallacy.
You focusing on it, especially after I deleted the author name, shows any real attempt to come up with any information to discredit it, at least in my opinion. It's pretty much exactly how our tax system works, and yes they are all eating at the same restaurant, the American tax system.
The poor need the rich, the rich don't need the poor. Sometimes I wish all the rich in this country would move to Hong Kong and make the people who complain about them see what it's like without them.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/06 at 5:11 pm
The poor need the rich, the rich don't need to poor.
Oh, what are you, Marie Antoinette's boyfriend?
You know what happens to the economic elites who carry on with that attitude for too long:
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/02/behead.gif
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/15/06 at 4:37 am
You focusing on it, especially after I deleted the author name, shows any real attempt to come up with any information to discredit it, at least in my opinion. It's pretty much exactly how our tax system works, and yes they are all eating at the same restaurant, the American tax system.
no, that doesn't fly. any exxon executive who gets a 400 million dollar retirement package is basically on the dole. he benefits from an unequal government system that fails to regulate opportunistic moneygrubbing that verges on legalized embezzlement, and he benefits in a way us regular schlubbs can only dream about. he's eating at the four seasons while the rest of us are eating at KFC. and the government makes it possible for him to basically fleece the rest of us.
The poor need the rich, the rich don't need the poor. Sometimes I wish all the rich in this country would move to Hong Kong and make the people who complain about them see what it's like without them.
also completely, unbelievably wrong. where would nike be without sweatshop labor? where would all those millionaires in beverly hills be without the undocumented workers they can use for domestic labor and pay three bucks an hour? the rich are rich BECAUSE of the poor.
i personally can TOTALLY live without the rich. they tend to have lucked out and do little or no real work. give me actual people who work for a living any day of the week.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/15/06 at 9:25 am
no, that doesn't fly. any exxon executive who gets a 400 million dollar retirement package is basically on the dole. he benefits from an unequal government system that fails to regulate opportunistic moneygrubbing that verges on legalized embezzlement, and he benefits in a way us regular schlubbs can only dream about. he's eating at the four seasons while the rest of us are eating at KFC. and the government makes it possible for him to basically fleece the rest of us.
Its funny how we have a minimum wage(which is too low btw), yet when we have execs making hundreds of millions of dollars a year they sit by and do nothing.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/15/06 at 9:54 am
So, what is the "fair" solution?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/15/06 at 10:01 am
So, what is the "fair" solution?
let's just start forwarding our paychecks to millionaires. we each adopt a millionaire and give him or her all our money.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/15/06 at 10:12 am
let's just start forwarding our paychecks to millionaires. we each adopt a millionaire and give him or her all our money.
I was being serious. Everyone complains about it, but noone seems to have any "fair" solutions.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/15/06 at 10:16 am
So, what is the "fair" solution?
You wouldn't call my solution fair.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/15/06 at 10:19 am
I was being serious. Everyone complains about it, but noone seems to have any "fair" solutions.
well, we're going to need to stop deficit spending eventually. and we're going to need to have a tax burden sufficient to avoid deficit spending. so once the playtime giveaway-to-the-rich orgy is over the solution rather recommends itself. it's called pay as you go, and tax sufficient to pay for what you need. that probably means more tax burden on the wealthy. it's going to happen eventually, or the economy is going to collapse.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/15/06 at 10:25 am
Everyone looks back to the 50s as a nicer and more prosperous time- and the rate for the highest bracket of income tax was like 59% of their income.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/15/06 at 10:32 am
[quote author=
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/15/06 at 10:34 am
[quote author=
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/15/06 at 10:43 am
What was it?
A cap on wages. Why would anyone need to make more than say, $2 million a year?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: danootaandme on 05/15/06 at 10:53 am
A cap on wages. Why would anyone need to make more than say, $2 million a year?
In the law their is something called "fiduciary duty" that means in certain cases you must act in a way that is not injurious to parties involved. If someone is the Guardian of a Trust account they have a fiduciary duty not to engage in practices that would put the trust in jeopardy. I would extend that to business. Ken Lay and Co. had a fiduciary duty to conduct their business in a fashion that would not put the business and it stock holders in the position they are now in. I believe that excessive compensation for the top tier managers is also a way of negating ones fiduciary duty. The problem is in this society even the poorest look at the compensation on the richest as their due. It is collective low self esteem, "I don't have it therefore I must not deserve it, they have it therefore they must deserve it"
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/15/06 at 10:55 am
[quote author=
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: danootaandme on 05/15/06 at 2:40 pm
Can we point out that the wealthy are making out because there are major tax cuts are on unearned income. The breaks are on dividends from investments, and capitol gains(on same investments). Why the f*ck shouldn't the people who go out and actually work for a living get those taxes back on the money that they actually work for, instead of some slug who never had to work a day in his/her life?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/15/06 at 8:11 pm
i personally can TOTALLY live without the rich.
I didn't say you could not. I'm talking about people who need their government hand-outs. Who pay for those if even half the rich left this country? The top 1% pay over half of all taxes collected and the top 50% in this country pay 96.04% of all taxes collected. You think services are poor now? Imagine where they would be without funding.
That's not even including the deficit.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/15/06 at 8:55 pm
I didn't say you can. I'm talking about people who need their government hand-outs. Who pay for those if even half the rich left this country? The top 1% pay over half of all taxes collected and the top 50% in this country pay 96.04% of all taxes collected. You think services are poor now? Imagine where they would be without funding.
That's not even including the deficit.
Uhhh, last time I checked, the biggest benificiaries of "government hand-outs" were the rich themselves. So.....
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/15/06 at 9:03 pm
Uhhh, last time I checked, the biggest benificiaries of "government hand-outs" were the rich themselves. So.....
It's their money though, that's not really a hand-out.
Is it the rich or poor using free lunchs at schools, medicaid, food stamps among other things? Whose tax dollars pay for it?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/15/06 at 9:48 pm
It's their money though, that's not really a hand-out.
Is it the rich or poor using free lunchs at schools, medicaid, food stamps among other things? Whose tax dollars pay for it?
You are stuck in a Reaganomics loop-thought. You presume every rich person is a boot-strapping entrepeneur who made his money on the free market with no help from the government. Perhaps Sam Walton was an entrepeneur in 1955, but today the Waltons are one of the world's richest families and Wal-Mart is the world's biggest retailer. Yet, Wal-Mart gets billions in subsidies from the federal government, even though Wal-Mart has been a drain on the American economy. The federal government gives subsidies to McDonald's to set up outlets in foreign countries. Wal-Mart "associates" and McDonald's burger-flippers (the vast majority of the workforces of both corporations) do not make enough to live on.
Corporations get to live the lie that they are efficient, but they only appear efficient because the can shift clean-up costs. General Electric dumps some horrible poison in the rivers, taxpayers spend billions to clean up after them. That's not a "subsidy" or anything, though, right? The taxpayers should be happy to clean up the messes corporations leave behind because corporations create "jobs." Never mind that whenever they can, corporations offshore jobs safe from the American workforce that demands outrageous salaries, such as $14.00 an hour!
As David Cay Johnston shows in his book "Perfectly Legal," helping the rich dodge their taxes is a cottage industry for some of the nation's highest paid lawyers and accountants. A multi-millionaire cheating on his taxes isn't really a "subsidy," it's a crime, right? Right. But Johnston also shows how the IRS will chase you to the ends of the Earth and back if you owe ten grand, but generally lays off you if you owe a hundred million.
Is it really the "free market" talking when payroll taxes get raised to "subsidize" tax cuts for millionaires?
Whose money is it anyway? On whose dime did today's rich really get rich?
What about Wal-Mart relying on government social welfare programs in lieu of paying their workers even a modestly decent wage? Is it only the Wal-Mart "associate" who is using medicaid and food stamps, or can you argue the Wal-Mart corporation itself benefits from social welfare too?
The old Whigs of yore didn't believe the government should meddle in private enterprise at all. Today's conservatives try to say the same thing as they wantonly ignore the stupendous fortunes transferred from the poor and middle class into the hands of corporate robber barons. "Gimme your money and don't ask me to pay over 15%, or I'll leave the country," that's the motto of corporate America, that's the motto of the American rich. Entrepeneurial boot-strapping my azz!
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/
http://www.nader.org/opinions/51599.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/10/18/the_mansion_subsidy.php
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35306
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Foo Bar on 05/15/06 at 10:25 pm
[quote author=
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/15/06 at 10:34 pm
If only we could bring up children to be motivated by things nobler than greed...
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/poke2.gif
Get back to work you!
Oh, sorry, I was just daydreaming again...
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/15/06 at 10:41 pm
You are stuck in a Reaganomics loop-thought. You presume every rich person is a boot-strapping entrepeneur who made his money on the free market with no help from the government. Perhaps Sam Walton was an entrepeneur in 1955, but today the Waltons are one of the world's richest families and Wal-Mart is the world's biggest retailer. Yet, Wal-Mart gets billions in subsidies from the federal government, even though Wal-Mart has been a drain on the American economy. The federal government gives subsidies to McDonald's to set up outlets in foreign countries. Wal-Mart "associates" and McDonald's burger-flippers (the vast majority of the workforces of both corporations) do not make enough to live on.
Corporations get to live the lie that they are efficient, but they only appear efficient because the can shift clean-up costs. General Electric dumps some horrible poison in the rivers, taxpayers spend billions to clean up after them. That's not a "subsidy" or anything, though, right? The taxpayers should be happy to clean up the messes corporations leave behind because corporations create "jobs." Never mind that whenever they can, corporations offshore jobs safe from the American workforce that demands outrageous salaries, such as $14.00 an hour!
As David Cay Johnston shows in his book "Perfectly Legal," helping the rich dodge their taxes is a cottage industry for some of the nation's highest paid lawyers and accountants. A multi-millionaire cheating on his taxes isn't really a "subsidy," it's a crime, right? Right. But Johnston also shows how the IRS will chase you to the ends of the Earth and back if you owe ten grand, but generally lays off you if you owe a hundred million.
Is it really the "free market" talking when payroll taxes get raised to "subsidize" tax cuts for millionaires?
Whose money is it anyway? On whose dime did today's rich really get rich?
What about Wal-Mart relying on government social welfare programs in lieu of paying their workers even a modestly decent wage? Is it only the Wal-Mart "associate" who is using medicaid and food stamps, or can you argue the Wal-Mart corporation itself benefits from social welfare too?
The old Whigs of yore didn't believe the government should meddle in private enterprise at all. Today's conservatives try to say the same thing as they wantonly ignore the stupendous fortunes transferred from the poor and middle class into the hands of corporate robber barons. "Gimme your money and don't ask me to pay over 15%, or I'll leave the country," that's the motto of corporate America, that's the motto of the American rich. Entrepeneurial boot-strapping my azz!
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/
http://www.nader.org/opinions/51599.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/10/18/the_mansion_subsidy.php
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35306
Gee, imagine that....another rant on Wal-Mart. ::) I'm not saying that Wal-Mart Corp is a bunch of angels, but if it's not Wal-Mart, it'll be someone else.....
I KNOW!!! Let's close ALL the Wal-Marts....put thousands of people out of work.....make them pay DOUBLE for a loaf of bread or gallon of milk and THEN see how the economy is doing.
You accuse him of presuming "every rich person is a boot-strapping entrepeneur who made his money on the free market with no help from the government." You presume that every rich person is someone who has stolen every dime they have and earned NONE of it.....how is that any better? I know you like to demonize the "rich", but there ARE some people out there who have EARNED their $$, who haven't "lived off someone else's dime".
15%? :o I'd like to know where THAT figure comes from. We paid more in taxes last year than the "average income" in the US. Oh, I know, I should be HAPPY to have a job that pays that well, yada, yada, yada. It still doesn't negate the fact that I paid DOUBLE the amount percentage-wise than the "average American". You get rid of all of the "rich" and see how quickly this country's economy goes down the sh!thole....
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/15/06 at 11:25 pm
Gee, imagine that....another rant on Wal-Mart. ::) I'm not saying that Wal-Mart Corp is a bunch of angels, but if it's not Wal-Mart, it'll be someone else.....
I KNOW!!! Let's close ALL the Wal-Marts....put thousands of people out of work.....make them pay DOUBLE for a loaf of bread or gallon of milk and THEN see how the economy is doing.
Now, now, let's not take things to exacerbating extremes for vituperation's sake. You know I would never stoop so low!
;)
Big box stores versus mom 'n' pop shops is the subject of much debate. It warrants its own thread, if you wish. I'm not going to write a whole 'nother screed on consumer economics here.
You accuse him of presuming "every rich person is a boot-strapping entrepeneur who made his money on the free market with no help from the government." You presume that every rich person is someone who has stolen every dime they have and earned NONE of it.....how is that any better? I know you like to demonize the "rich", but there ARE some people out there who have EARNED their $$, who haven't "lived off someone else's dime".
GWB and I have been bantering on this board for a couple of years. He's tough cookie, and he's smart too. He can look after himself!
You're right I do "demonize" the rich. Part of that is a reaction to the obedient boot-licking supplication "the rich" receive from our society at large. Part of it is because it's fun. Part of it is because we have a huge problem with wealth disparity in this country. However, you might get the idea I think every rich guy is bad. It's complicated. It depends on how rich you are and how much labor you control. But by no means do I believe all rich people got there because they had it handed to them or they cheated. Dubya did both, but he's a bad example.
15%? :o I'd like to know where THAT figure comes from. We paid more in taxes last year than the "average income" in the US. Oh, I know, I should be HAPPY to have a job that pays that well, yada, yada, yada. It still doesn't negate the fact that I paid DOUBLE the amount percentage-wise than the "average American". You get rid of all of the "rich" and see how quickly this country's economy goes down the sh!thole...
This country is going down the sh!thole anyway. If we threw some of the fatcats overboard, it might slow our descent a bit! But seriously, labor versus capital is the biggest question in economics since the start of the industrial revolution. I'm not prepared to hash it all out here! As for 15%, I was referring to capital gains, and depending on your bracket, you may pay only 15% on capital gains. However, if the Republican Knights of Economic Justice cannot rescue hard-working ticker-tape watchers from the vagaries of communism, you might have to pay 35% top rate come 2008! Heaven forefend!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif
The Rich
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/15/06 at 11:29 pm
Who pay for those if even half the rich left this country? The top 1% pay over half of all taxes collected and the top 50% in this country pay 96.04% of all taxes collected.
yes, and they're also absorbing the vast majority of the nation's wealth and resources and pretty much shoving it up their nose.
is it conceivable that somebody could actually do enough work to justify a $400 million retirement package? no f**king way. you do that only if you can get away with it. and you think any of that half billion dollars is getting turned around into social programs? hell no. it's going to hummers and enormous houses on island resorts and... well, whatever, you've seen lifestyles of the rich and famous. all well and good, but does it do one whit of good for the country the right wing pretends to care so much about? hell no. it's self service, plain and simple.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/15/06 at 11:38 pm
yes, and they're also absorbing the vast majority of the nation's wealth and resources and pretty much shoving it up their nose.
is it conceivable that somebody could actually do enough work to justify a $400 million retirement package? no f**king way. you do that only if you can get away with it. and you think any of that half billion dollars is getting turned around into social programs? hell no. it's going to hummers and enormous houses on island resorts and... well, whatever, you've seen lifestyles of the rich and famous. all well and good, but does it do one whit of good for the country the right wing pretends to care so much about? hell no. it's self service, plain and simple.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/toothy9.gif
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/16/06 at 12:36 am
is it conceivable that somebody could actually do enough work to justify a $400 million retirement package? no f**king way. you do that only if you can get away with it. and you think any of that half billion dollars is getting turned around into social programs? hell no. it's going to hummers and enormous houses on island resorts and... well, whatever, you've seen lifestyles of the rich and famous. all well and good, but does it do one whit of good for the country the right wing pretends to care so much about? hell no. it's self service, plain and simple.
You're forgetting that it's there money.
I don't make all that much, but the thing is, I don't have envy of people who do or think they should share their success.
As for how much someone should make, I say 100% of their paycheck: http://www.fairtax.org/
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/16/06 at 12:54 am
You're forgetting that it's there money.
I don't make all that much, but the thing is, I don't have envy of people who do or think they should share their success.
As for how much someone should make, I say 100% of their paycheck: http://www.fairtax.org/
i actually think you do. i think subconsciously, this all comes from a belief that you're gonna be one of these rich guys someday. it's a process of identifying with them. i remember this real conservative dude in the dorms when i was in college, and he had one of these posters -- "visualize your goal" -- and accompanying it was a million dollars in cash, you know, the big brick of hundreds. from where i sit that's the be-all and end-all of conservative ideology, eventually, i'll get my due, and then i don't want some moneygrubbing jerk snatching it away from me.
anyway, the fantasy is that there can possibly be a case in which someone actually earns a $400 million retirement, or the kinds of ridiculous line-your-pocket profits that come from 4-dollar-a-gallon gas, or the sort of ridiculous profiteering that went on at enron (dubya's biggest contributor, let's not forget), or the absurd profiteering that's going on with the no-bid contracts in iraq. that's not THEIR money. they're gaming the system to get it, and it's getting to the point where there's SO much to be gamed, and the system is so corrupt and such a free-for-all, that it's happening in plain sight. it's completely embarrassing.
they're not doing anything to earn this money. they can take it because their boy is in the white house, so they take it. that's our nation's national treasure, and it's flowing in rivers to those fortunate very few who can buy the influence to receive it.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/16/06 at 3:57 pm
Taxes are the price you pay to live in a prosperous, just, safe, peaceful, humane, sane, educated, free, democratic, and healthy society. However, the Right is not interested. The countries around the world lauded by American rightwingers are:
1. Saipan (free market heaven)
2. Iraq (newly-liberated free market heaven)
3. Singapore (free market law-and-order state)
4. Israel (aggressive, miltaristic, and racist country born of imperialism)
Let's see, what else...
::)
Oh, and I tried to explain about the distribution of wealth, but all GWB can say is "it's their money." I mean, if somebody really wants to believe in UFOs, your not going to change his mind!
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/16/06 at 5:26 pm
Taxes are the price you pay to live in a prosperous, just, safe, peaceful, humane, sane, educated, free, democratic, and healthy society. However, the Right is not interested. The countries around the world lauded by American rightwingers are:
1. Saipan (free market heaven)
2. Iraq (newly-liberated free market heaven)
3. Singapore (free market law-and-order state)
4. Israel (aggressive, miltaristic, and racist country born of imperialism)
Let's see, what else...
::)
Oh, and I tried to explain about the distribution of wealth, but all GWB can say is "it's their money." I mean, if somebody really wants to believe in UFOs, your not going to change his mind!
don't forget russia. free-market posterchild.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/16/06 at 5:33 pm
Yet, Wal-Mart gets billions in subsidies from the federal government,
I have no problem whatsoever with ending corporate welfare.
Not long ago the CEO of Wal-Mart, H. Lee Scott, said something to the effect of "the state of Georgia needs to help me pay for my employees healthcare." Wal-Mart was until recently the largest business is America (now #2) and this guy wants to make the government, with our tax dollars, pay for his employees' health care when his companies makes more than enough to do that themselves? That is a joke.
Now if the people who work at Wal-Mart want to work there for the current pay and benefits, that's their choice. No one has a gun to their head. But Mr. Scott shouldn't try to say that the states should pay for his employees' health care.
The countries around the world lauded by American rightwingers are:
1. Saipan (free market heaven)
2. Iraq (newly-liberated free market heaven)
3. Singapore (free market law-and-order state)
4. Israel (aggressive, miltaristic, and racist country born of imperialism)
don't forget russia. free-market posterchild.
Umm, the country that most American conservatives point to when talking about a good example of the free market is Hong Kong.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/16/06 at 9:07 pm
I have no problem whatsoever with ending corporate welfare.
Nor does any genuine conservative. The problem is lots of conservatives go into politics objecting to corporate welfare only to end up furthering its cause. That's politics du jour. We need campaign finance reform and lobbying reform because politics du jour is all about money, who has it, and who can get the most. If you ran for the Georgia legislature on an "end corporate welfare" platform, you'd get plenty of suppoert from libertarians and paleo-conservatives, but you'd probably still lose. Some Karl Rove-type with a big pot of corporate money would obscure your message in a smear campaign. They'd probably even say nasty things about your mother. If you won a seat in the legislature and then started stumping for the end of corporate welfare, you'd only serve one term! True conservatives shouldn't have a problem with voter-owned elections and lobbying reform. Wouldn't it be great to return power from the corporations to the people?
Not long ago the CEO of Wal-Mart, Scott Lee, said something to the effect of "the state of Georgia needs to help me pay for my employees healthcare." Wal-Mart was until recently the largest business is America (now #2) and this guy wants to make the government, with our tax dollars, pay for his employees' health care when his companies makes more than enough to do that themselves? That is a joke.
That's no joke. That's Wal-Mart, the Frankenstein monster of crony capitalism. It's not even capitalism anymore. When the taxpayer's pick up the tab for business expenses and the corporate fatcats horde all the profits, it's called "fascism." Thing is, that's how business has operated in America for decades. Only now are the Scott Lees of the executive suite feeling plucky enough to be candid about it.
Now if the people who work at Wal-Mart want to work there for the current pay and benefits, that's their choice. No one has a gun to their head. But Mr. Lee shouldn't try to say that the states should pay for his employees' health care.
Yes and no. Wal-Mart is the front-runner in the race to the bottom. We live in an economy with fewer and fewer living-wage jobs. You can pull a Bill O'Reilly and blame the worker for making the wrong choices in life, but that's just making a lame excuse for social injustice. If the corporate climate is such that the worker is devalued, and there is no organized labor, the result will eventually turn into indentured servitude.
Umm, the country that most American conservatives point to when talking about a good example of the free market is Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's not a bad example. They sure got a great headstart from the British Empire!
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Satish on 05/17/06 at 8:19 am
Umm, the country that most American conservatives point to when talking about a good example of the free market is Hong Kong.
It might be a good example of the free market, but it's hardly a good example of democracy. In 150 years of British rule, they never had any elections in Hong Kong except for a few at the very end!
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/17/06 at 9:07 am
It might be a good example of the free market, but it's hardly a good example of democracy. In 150 years of British rule, they never had any elections in Hong Kong except for a few at the very end!
the two are at cross-purposes. i actually think you need a carefully regulated market in order to have democracy.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/17/06 at 10:11 am
How about we all simply pay a 100% tax?
No matter how much you make, take it all away. Then give everybody $10 an hour, and let it be said and done with. This way, the poor will be better off because they all are now making more money then they did before.
And at the same time, you will be taking away all that evil money that the rich exploited form the working people.
Oh wait, that was done before. It was called "Communism".
Honestly, I say abolish the IRS. Make it really simple.
If you make under $40,000, you pay no taxes at all.
If you make over $40,000, you pay 10% of your income. Flat. No deduction, no curve. SImply pay 10% each payday, or a flat 10% at the end of the year.
Then maybe people will shut-up about the poor being taxed. But I doubt it, cause some people always have to bitch about something.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/17/06 at 10:27 am
How about we all simply pay a 100% tax?
No matter how much you make, take it all away. Then give everybody $10 an hour, and let it be said and done with. This way, the poor will be better off because they all are now making more money then they did before.
And at the same time, you will be taking away all that evil money that the rich exploited form the working people.
Oh wait, that was done before. It was called "Communism".there's got to be a middle ground somewhere between orgiastic tax giveaways to the rich and communism.
Honestly, I say abolish the IRS. Make it really simple.
If you make under $40,000, you pay no taxes at all.
If you make over $40,000, you pay 10% of your income. Flat. No deduction, no curve. SImply pay 10% each payday, or a flat 10% at the end of the year.
Then maybe people will shut-up about the poor being taxed. But I doubt it, cause some people always have to bitch about something.
i doubt that will generate enough revenue for more than an escape-from-new-york style government.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/17/06 at 10:45 am
there's got to be a middle ground somewhere between orgiastic tax giveaways to the rich and communism.
i doubt that will generate enough revenue for more than an escape-from-new-york style government.
Do you know what the biggest "tax break" is? Ask any accountaint. It can be summed up in one word:
Deductions.
The reason that most of "the rich" get out of paying taxes is not the fault of the Republicans, no more then it is of the Democrats. And it is not "Tax Breaks" either. It is the constant changing world of deductions and exemptions. And believe me, when I owned a house, I took advantage of all of them that I could.
Back in the 1980's, you could get out of paying almost all of your taxes if you had credit cards and owned a home. This is because almost everything was deductible. Even the interest on your credit cards. Want a new riding lawn mower? It's tax deductible as "home improvement". You can even buy it on time from Sears, and the interest was tax deductible.
By the late 1980's, this came to an end. And the shockwaves resulted in a recession that lasted 6 years in some areas of the country.
If deductions are no longer a part of the tax code, you will see a large increase in tax collected. However, it will have one large downside.
Hundreds of thousands of accountaints will suddenly be out of work. Because that is all our tax system is: a work program for accountaints. Make it as Byzantine as possible, and constantly change the rules and guidelines. Only an accountaint can take the time to keep up with it all the time.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/17/06 at 10:51 am
So you're saying its not necessary to raise taxes, we just need to cut out the deductions so people actually end up paying what they are already supposed to currently?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/17/06 at 10:59 am
How about we all simply pay a 100% tax?
No matter how much you make, take it all away. Then give everybody $10 an hour, and let it be said and done with. This way, the poor will be better off because they all are now making more money then they did before.
And at the same time, you will be taking away all that evil money that the rich exploited form the working people.
Oh wait, that was done before. It was called "Communism".
Honestly, I say abolish the IRS. Make it really simple.
If you make under $40,000, you pay no taxes at all.
If you make over $40,000, you pay 10% of your income. Flat. No deduction, no curve. SImply pay 10% each payday, or a flat 10% at the end of the year.
Then maybe people will shut-up about the poor being taxed. But I doubt it, cause some people always have to bitch about something.
Some people, eh?
And you had how many beers this morning? Come on, Mush, you know better than that! You're talking like a barstool economist!
The Laffer Curve isn't called a "Laffer" for nothing, and the Steve Forbes-style flat tax is also a big joke. It would turn into an accelerated form of Reaganomics. Ten percent is of forty grand is a much bigger chunk of a person's living expenses than ten percent of four hundred thousand dollars, or four million dollars, or four hundred million dollars. Are you going to tax capital gains at a mere 10%? Oh, wait, Steve Forbes wanted to do away capital gains taxes altogher! Weren't they calling capital gains tax "double taxation," and that's not "fair"? When people who have demonstrated their philosophy of life is "take whatever you can grab" start talking about a "fair" tax plan...well, shouldn't one be a wee bit skeptical?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tard.gif
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/17/06 at 11:22 am
Some people, eh?
And you had how many beers this morning? Come on, Mush, you know better than that! You're talking like a barstool economist!
The Laffer Curve isn't called a "Laffer" for nothing, and the Steve Forbes-style flat tax is also a big joke. It would turn into an accelerated form of Reaganomics. Ten percent is of forty grand is a much bigger chunk of a person's living expenses than ten percent of four hundred thousand dollars, or four million dollars, or four hundred million dollars. Are you going to tax capital gains at a mere 10%? Oh, wait, Steve Forbes wanted to do away capital gains taxes altogher! Weren't they calling capital gains tax "double taxation," and that's not "fair"? When people who have demonstrated their philosophy of life is "take whatever you can grab" start talking about a "fair" tax plan...well, shouldn't one be a wee bit skeptical?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tard.gif
IMO, capital gains should be taxed as "income" at whatever rate that "income" is taxed at. AFA "income", someone making $40K NOW pays more than 10%. The "rich" already pay AT LEAST 2X the % of the "poor" (on income alone), what would make you happy? 3X? 4X? 5X?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/17/06 at 11:27 am
IMO, capital gains should be taxed as "income" at whatever rate that "income" is taxed at. AFA "income", someone making $40K NOW pays more than 10%. The "rich" already pay AT LEAST 2X the % of the "poor" (on income alone), what would make you happy? 3X? 4X? 5X?
when a tax cut gives middle americans 20 dollars, and millionaires 42,000 dollars, does that make YOU happy?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/17/06 at 3:24 pm
when a tax cut gives middle americans 20 dollars, and millionaires 42,000 dollars, does that make YOU happy?
If it were only THAT simple. As it has been pointed out MULTIPLE times, the "tax cut" pertains to the "capital gains tax", which doesn't apply to many "middle Americans" because they either opt to hold on to their investments or are at a lower tax % than someone who has a higher income. Let's say "middle American" Joe has a $5000 "capital gain" on an investment he cashed in and is required to pay 5% tax. "Rich American" Bob has a "capital gain" on an investment of $50000, that he is required to pay 15% on. Joe pays $250, Bob pays $7500. Now, the "tax cut" cuts the tax rate by 2%: now, Joe pays $150 ($100 savings), Bob pays $6500 ($1000 savings). Now, if you just say "With the new tax cut, Joe only saved $100, but Bob saved $1000" of course it's going to look "unfair", but when you look at the "big picture" it makes sense.
Here's another example: a few years back, everyone received a "refund" check of (I think) $300-$600. My best friend received the full 5% of her "taxable income" which was close to $600. We received $600, which was <1% of our "taxable income". How was THAT fair?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/17/06 at 5:23 pm
Here's another example: a few years back, everyone received a "refund" check of (I think) $300-$600. My best friend received the full 5% of her "taxable income" which was close to $600. We received $600, which was <1% of our "taxable income". How was THAT fair?
I remember that very well. It was in 2001.
I was living in a Veterans home at the time, and was barely making ends meet. That $300 was absolutely wonderful to me. It was over 1 weeks pay, and it let me do some much needed repairs on my car.
At the same time, Bill Gates got the same $300-600 refund. You had people screaming that it was a "tax on the poor" or "tax cut for the rich". Bah!!!
Where that money was over a week income for me, I bet Bill Gates makes more then that in one second, and probably pays that much for his socks.
And Maxwell, what is wrong with my idea? You go on and on about how the poor and middle class get taced to death. And I stated very clearly that anybody who made less then $40k paid no taxes at all. How on earth can that be construed to being a "tax on the poor"?
Let me ask this then: what tax bracket would you use to cut off all tax payments? $30k? $50k? $10k? At what point do you think that no tax needs to be paid, because the person does not make enough money? I know I get by OK, and the $40k I used as a baseline is over 3 times my current income.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/17/06 at 10:45 pm
I remember that very well. It was in 2001.
I was living in a Veterans home at the time, and was barely making ends meet. That $300 was absolutely wonderful to me. It was over 1 weeks pay, and it let me do some much needed repairs on my car.
At the same time, Bill Gates got the same $300-600 refund. You had people screaming that it was a "tax on the poor" or "tax cut for the rich". Bah!!!
Where that money was over a week income for me, I bet Bill Gates makes more then that in one second, and probably pays that much for his socks.
And Maxwell, what is wrong with my idea? You go on and on about how the poor and middle class get taced to death. And I stated very clearly that anybody who made less then $40k paid no taxes at all. How on earth can that be construed to being a "tax on the poor"?
Let me ask this then: what tax bracket would you use to cut off all tax payments? $30k? $50k? $10k? At what point do you think that no tax needs to be paid, because the person does not make enough money? I know I get by OK, and the $40k I used as a baseline is over 3 times my current income.
I just...AAAARRRGHHH! I hate to use simplistic examples to illustrate things, but here goes:
I'm the government.
You have a thousand dollars to your name. Pay me a hundred dollars.
You have a hundred thousand dollars to your name. Pay me ten grand.
Either way you pay ten percent. HOWEVER,
Is life easier with $900 dollars to your name, or with $90,000 to your name?
That's why those flat taxes are easy on the rich and tough on the poor and middle class.
I believe everybody should pay some tax regardless of income. Taxes are what we pay to live in a decent society. However, I believe in very progressive taxation. Anyway, I know you're not going to buy my arguments, so....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/17/06 at 11:12 pm
If it were only THAT simple. As it has been pointed out MULTIPLE times, the "tax cut" pertains to the "capital gains tax", which doesn't apply to many "middle Americans" because they either opt to hold on to their investments or are at a lower tax % than someone who has a higher income. Let's say "middle American" Joe has a $5000 "capital gain" on an investment he cashed in and is required to pay 5% tax. "Rich American" Bob has a "capital gain" on an investment of $50000, that he is required to pay 15% on. Joe pays $250, Bob pays $7500. Now, the "tax cut" cuts the tax rate by 2%: now, Joe pays $150 ($100 savings), Bob pays $6500 ($1000 savings). Now, if you just say "With the new tax cut, Joe only saved $100, but Bob saved $1000" of course it's going to look "unfair", but when you look at the "big picture" it makes sense.
Here's another example: a few years back, everyone received a "refund" check of (I think) $300-$600. My best friend received the full 5% of her "taxable income" which was close to $600. We received $600, which was <1% of our "taxable income". How was THAT fair?
i'm not sure i follow here. doesn't the mere fact that it's directed toward capital gains rather than, say, payroll tax, make the point that this is pretty much another handjob for the rich? i didn't file any capital gains, i'm ready to guess you might not have, no one i know did. but you can be damn sure every last one of the campaign contributors to the administration did. so how is this not just getting what you pay for? put bush in office, and he'll pay you back out of the federal coffers.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/18/06 at 10:15 am
I just...AAAARRRGHHH! I hate to use simplistic examples to illustrate things, but here goes:
I'm the government.
You have a thousand dollars to your name. Pay me a hundred dollars.
You have a hundred thousand dollars to your name. Pay me ten grand.
Either way you pay ten percent. HOWEVER,
Is life easier with $900 dollars to your name, or with $90,000 to your name?
That's why those flat taxes are easy on the rich and tough on the poor and middle class.
I believe everybody should pay some tax regardless of income. Taxes are what we pay to live in a decent society. However, I believe in very progressive taxation. Anyway, I know you're not going to buy my arguments, so....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif
This is rather interesting. You actually want to tax everybody, no matter what they make. I am willing to let people making less then $40k a year pay nothing.
And the tax would be with no deductions. No little "escape clauses" to skip out paying it.
Now how can this possibly be taken as "taxing the poor in favor of the rich"? I just don't get it.
And let me ask again: what would you think is a fair point that people should not pay tax?
And remember, I am only talking about Federal Income Tax. People would still have to follow whatever State, County, and Local taxes according to where they live and work.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: deadrockstar on 05/18/06 at 12:02 pm
I've gotta side with Mushroom on this. I think it would be a good idea to eliminate the federal payroll tax for those who make under a certain amount of money a year. I'm not really sure what that amount should be, but it makes sense.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Rice_Cube on 05/18/06 at 12:40 pm
i'm not sure i follow here. doesn't the mere fact that it's directed toward capital gains rather than, say, payroll tax, make the point that this is pretty much another handjob for the rich? i didn't file any capital gains, i'm ready to guess you might not have, no one i know did. but you can be damn sure every last one of the campaign contributors to the administration did. so how is this not just getting what you pay for? put bush in office, and he'll pay you back out of the federal coffers.
I filed capital gains/losses. Even us po folk have to retire by beating inflation, y'know.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/18/06 at 12:50 pm
I filed capital gains/losses. Even us po folk have to retire by beating inflation, y'know.
well, that's one. outta however many hundred. i still say that anyone who's pretending cuts on capital gains taxes aren't going to be heavily skewed toward the wealthiest in society... i mean, i really can't believe i'm even having this conversation.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Rice_Cube on 05/18/06 at 1:14 pm
well, that's one. outta however many hundred. i still say that anyone who's pretending cuts on capital gains taxes aren't going to be heavily skewed toward the wealthiest in society... i mean, i really can't believe i'm even having this conversation.
Why? Are you actually surprised that people, even poor people, know how to take advantage of the stock market? My own illiterate grandmother from Hong Kong got out of poverty by making wise investments in the Hong Kong stock market with the money her five children (including my mother) gave her once they were of working age. Why is it rich people's fault that most Americans are either too ill-informed or too apathetic to care how their money works? Why shouldn't Bill Gates reap the benefits of a product that, more than likely (unless you're one of those Linux hermits) you are using right now? Why shouldn't the Waltons be rewarded for building a retail empire that attracts consumers like locusts to crops? There is no incentive for ANYONE to go into business and to provide services to consumers if people who think like you get their way.
While I didn't directly sell anything, I have helped many friends find the right avenues to get their money into the stock market for their retirement. By taking advantage of the American economy, even during sharp declines (see: Great Depression, Black Monday 1987), they not only beat inflation, they destroy it. Why wouldn't YOU want to invest in the stock market, especially when lower/middle-income mutual funds and money market funds will let you invest for as little as $25 a month? Why can't you find $25 a month to take advantage of the American money-making machine?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/18/06 at 2:15 pm
Why? Are you actually surprised that people, even poor people, know how to take advantage of the stock market? My own illiterate grandmother from Hong Kong got out of poverty by making wise investments in the Hong Kong stock market with the money her five children (including my mother) gave her once they were of working age. Why is it rich people's fault that most Americans are either too ill-informed or too apathetic to care how their money works? Why shouldn't Bill Gates reap the benefits of a product that, more than likely (unless you're one of those Linux hermits) you are using right now? Why shouldn't the Waltons be rewarded for building a retail empire that attracts consumers like locusts to crops? There is no incentive for ANYONE to go into business and to provide services to consumers if people who think like you get their way.
While I didn't directly sell anything, I have helped many friends find the right avenues to get their money into the stock market for their retirement. By taking advantage of the American economy, even during sharp declines (see: Great Depression, Black Monday 1987), they not only beat inflation, they destroy it. Why wouldn't YOU want to invest in the stock market, especially when lower/middle-income mutual funds and money market funds will let you invest for as little as $25 a month? Why can't you find $25 a month to take advantage of the American money-making machine?
sorta missing my point. yes, statistically some poor and middle-income people might have capital gains, but if you want to have a tax cut and you want to direct it toward the rich more or less exclusively, make your cuts in capital gains. the point i'm trying to make is not that only rich people have capital gains, but simply that the tax cuts are directed toward the rich and this is because the vast majority of capital gains tax cut benefits will benefit the rich. and this is so obvious it's hardly worth pointing out. responding my saying, well, SOME poor and middle class people have capital gains seems a bit of a distraction.
to have capital gains you first have to have disposable extra income and THAT'S who this tax bill is directed toward. and the more disposable, extra income you already have, the more the tax cuts are going to give you. which means, if you're rich you get massive benefits. if you're poor or middle class, you get virtually nothing -- particularly in comparison with if the tax cuts were directed toward necessities -- say a sales tax cut, or a heating oil tax credit, or a payroll tax cut.
i mean, i'm sure it's great for the rich that they're gonna get all this extra money but i'm hardly gonna get real excited about it. and i'm at a loss to understand why any regular folks would. it's like a vicarious thrill, or something?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/18/06 at 2:18 pm
vis-a-vis bill gates, he's a funny example because he benefits from a government that's so free-market extremist that he's basically allowed to maintain a monopoly. back before the reagan era of deregulation he never would have been allowed to do what he's doing now -- monopolize both the home computer market AND the internet market -- because it's intrinsically unfair. there's no one who can really compete with him, which makes him less like a business and more like a quasi-governmental organization, like a Ministry of Information Technology.
so how much is a conciliatory government like that worth to bill gates? should he be allowed to get it free, and the rest of us subsidize it, while being basically forced to use his products in a noncompetitive environment? i dunno, that don't seem so equitable to me.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/18/06 at 11:56 pm
[quote author=
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/19/06 at 7:50 am
well, that's one. outta however many hundred. i still say that anyone who's pretending cuts on capital gains taxes aren't going to be heavily skewed toward the wealthiest in society... i mean, i really can't believe i'm even having this conversation.
I did too. And, I don't think anyone's saying it's NOT skewed toward the rich, but if it's not "hurting" the poor (as in "costing them MORE $$"), what's the big deal? The other part of the tax bill will help many "middle Americans" avoid paying the AMT so they will benefit as well. I guess we should get rid of that part as well because it's not favorable to the "poor" either. ANY "tax cut" is going to benefit the "rich" unless you specifically state "this cut ONLY applies to anyone making <$X".....otherwise, the rich will ALWAYS save more $$ because they're being taxed on more $$.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/19/06 at 8:46 am
I did too. And, I don't think anyone's saying it's NOT skewed toward the rich, but if it's not "hurting" the poor (as in "costing them MORE $$"), what's the big deal? The other part of the tax bill will help many "middle Americans" avoid paying the AMT so they will benefit as well. I guess we should get rid of that part as well because it's not favorable to the "poor" either. ANY "tax cut" is going to benefit the "rich" unless you specifically state "this cut ONLY applies to anyone making <$X".....otherwise, the rich will ALWAYS save more $$ because they're being taxed on more $$.
well, i already suggested ways of making it more equitable -- directing toward payroll, fuel expenses, etc., things everyone has to pay for, not just the privileged few.
i suppose the question is whether we can afford to pay off massive tax cut bribes to the rich when the nation's infrastructure seems to be breaking down... you know, america's train system has been basically gutted, just about every city in the country is a blast zone -- at least the manufacturing base, detroit etc. -- 40 million americans have no health care, the list goes on and on. little known fact: in many cities the piping in sewer and water systems hasn't been updated in decades, meaning we run greater risk of having impurities in our water.
and so in such an environment, can we really afford to be playign around with tax cuts for billionaires and pouring all of our resources into the military? (which, in many ways, is another way of gaming for the rich -- the fraud going on in the contracts in iraq isn't even funny.)
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/19/06 at 9:30 am
well, i already suggested ways of making it more equitable -- directing toward payroll, fuel expenses, etc., things everyone has to pay for, not just the privileged few.
i suppose the question is whether we can afford to pay off massive tax cut bribes to the rich when the nation's infrastructure seems to be breaking down... you know, america's train system has been basically gutted, just about every city in the country is a blast zone -- at least the manufacturing base, detroit etc. -- 40 million americans have no health care, the list goes on and on. little known fact: in many cities the piping in sewer and water systems hasn't been updated in decades, meaning we run greater risk of having impurities in our water.
and so in such an environment, can we really afford to be playign around with tax cuts for billionaires and pouring all of our resources into the military? (which, in many ways, is another way of gaming for the rich -- the fraud going on in the contracts in iraq isn't even funny.)
Again, the problem with cutting taxes on ANYTHING is that the "rich" get more benefit from it than the poor (if you're looking strictly at the amount of $$ saved). I've heard I don't know how many people say that the "rich" with their "gas-guzzling SUV'S" use more fuel than the average Joe driving a Honda Civic....in turn, if you cut the tax on gas, the "rich" get more benefit because they are using more. Payroll? Obviously, the "rich" make more $$ (hence the being "rich" part ;)) so they would benefit more from a payroll tax cut. The list goes on and on.....
Personally, I say leave ALL taxes where they currently are. Probably the only thing I would change is to raise the "poverty level" so people who are living below it pay little or no taxes. Of course, then you'll have the people b!tching that "they're not paying taxes but they're using the 'resources' (i.e. welfare, medicaid, etc.) that the tax $$ pays for"....it's a no-win situation.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/19/06 at 9:41 am
well, that's one. outta however many hundred. i still say that anyone who's pretending cuts on capital gains taxes aren't going to be heavily skewed toward the wealthiest in society... i mean, i really can't believe i'm even having this conversation.
Well, that rather goes without saying. After all, only the wealthiest normally have to even worry about "capitol gains taxes".
That is rather like saying "cuts on the luxury taxes on yachts would benefit the rich more then the poor". Well, duh! How many poor people own yachts?
I am 41 years old, and have never paid or had to worry about capitol gains taxes in my life. Why? Well, because I am poor, and never bought or sold anything in my life where they would become a factor.
And here is another amazing statistic: any reduction in taxes benefits the rich more then the poor, if you are talking in pure dollar amount. However, when you talk about percentage of income, the poor benefit more.
This goes right back to things that were stated earlier. If everybody gets an extra 1% income returned, that tends to benefit the poor more. Why? Because they more often are the ones living on the egde of their income. If somebody makes $10k, an extra $100 looks pretty good.
Now let's look at somebody like Bill Gates. His annual income is roughly $7.8 billion. His net worth is in excess of $100 billion dollars.
When you think about that, do you really think he would notice an extra $78 million dollars? To you and me it is a huge amount of money. But to Bill Gates? he already donates 2/3 of his income to charity as it is. That to him would simply be more to give away.
That shows exactly the paradox that drives people to distraction. Of course when you look at sheer numbers, the rich benefit more. They pay more money, so of course they get more back if taxes are cut. That is simply math and logic.
What is missed is the effect that small of a cut would make on the income of the people in question.
And the same goes when you look at my suggestion of excuseing $40k of income for paying taxes. For the poor, that cuts all of the tax burden on them. For somebody that makes $50k, they only have to pay taxes on $10 of income, since the other $40k is excused.
Then when somebody like Bill Gates pays his taxes, do you think his accountaints would even bother excuseing the first $40k? When your income is that large, $40k is nothing.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/19/06 at 9:52 am
Again, the problem with cutting taxes on ANYTHING is that the "rich" get more benefit from it than the poor (if you're looking strictly at the amount of $$ saved). I've heard I don't know how many people say that the "rich" with their "gas-guzzling SUV'S" use more fuel than the average Joe driving a Honda Civic....in turn, if you cut the tax on gas, the "rich" get more benefit because they are using more. Payroll? Obviously, the "rich" make more $$ (hence the being "rich" part ;)) so they would benefit more from a payroll tax cut. The list goes on and on.....
again, misses my point. i'm not saying if you have a tax cut you SHOULDN'T benefit the rich, but seeing to it that virtually ONLY the rich benefit seems to me pretty messed up. and that's what a capital gains tax cut, as opposed to payroll etc., does.
Personally, I say leave ALL taxes where they currently are. Probably the only thing I would change is to raise the "poverty level" so people who are living below it pay little or no taxes. Of course, then you'll have the people b!tching that "they're not paying taxes but they're using the 'resources' (i.e. welfare, medicaid, etc.) that the tax $$ pays for"....it's a no-win situation.
well, the reason why people complain isn't because of the tax policy per se, but because the infrastructure in america is so messed up. so, yse, until that's fixed it will be a no-win situation for the people in power, because they haven't addressed the problem.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/19/06 at 9:58 am
When I refer to "capital gains," I'm not including things like, say, the money you get from selling your house. Neither are the plutocrats always beating the drum for "capital gains tax cuts." It's about windfall investment dividends. A guy who sells his only house for $200K and needs the money to buy his new house, that's chump change, and the fatcats couldn't give a rat's azz.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/19/06 at 10:06 am
I just thought of a way that can make everybody understand what I am talking about.
Everybody in here buys gas. In fact, a lot of people in here are going nuts over the price of gasoline. In many areas of the country, it is over $3 a gallon.
But ya know what? It is making almost no impact on my life. You see, gasoline takes less then 2% of my monthly income. And when something is that fractional, it simply makes little or no impact on your life.
I commute an average of 4 miles every day. That is a total of 2 trips to and from work (I drive home for lunch). And since I drive a motorcycle, I can drive an entire month on $10 of premium. I also put between $5-10 a month in my car, which is used an average of once a week to go to the supermarket to get groceries. One trip a month I double up and do my laundry on a supermarket run.
So when compared to my normal monthly gas expense, an increase of even 50% has very little impact on my life.
So all of you that drive the monster SUVs that pay $200+ a month for gas, I really don't care. After all, it is not my fault you have to pay so much. But I am comming out ahead, because I am paying less then you are. So should I have to pay a surcharge, simply because I am paying less per month for gasoline then everybody else?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/19/06 at 10:20 am
I just thought of a way that can make everybody understand what I am talking about.
Everybody in here buys gas. In fact, a lot of people in here are going nuts over the price of gasoline. In many areas of the country, it is over $3 a gallon.
But ya know what? It is making almost no impact on my life. You see, gasoline takes less then 2% of my monthly income. And when something is that fractional, it simply makes little or no impact on your life.
I commute an average of 4 miles every day. That is a total of 2 trips to and from work (I drive home for lunch). And since I drive a motorcycle, I can drive an entire month on $10 of premium. I also put between $5-10 a month in my car, which is used an average of once a week to go to the supermarket to get groceries. One trip a month I double up and do my laundry on a supermarket run.
So when compared to my normal monthly gas expense, an increase of even 50% has very little impact on my life.
So all of you that drive the monster SUVs that pay $200+ a month for gas, I really don't care. After all, it is not my fault you have to pay so much. But I am comming out ahead, because I am paying less then you are. So should I have to pay a surcharge, simply because I am paying less per month for gasoline then everybody else?
Uh, I think it sucks that I have to pay $36 per tankful when it was $20 just a few years ago. Granted only some of that increase is tax. Some legislators here in Mass. wanted to suspend the gas tax for temporary consumer relief. The idea didn't get very far, and the nitwit Mitt Romney (a conservative Republican) said he'd nix the bill if it got to his desk. High gas prices don't strain the budgets of people as rich as Mitt and his friends. The gas tax is a regressive tax, and that's the kind of tax rich Republicans prefer.
::)
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/19/06 at 10:23 am
again, misses my point. i'm not saying if you have a tax cut you SHOULDN'T benefit the rich, but seeing to it that virtually ONLY the rich benefit seems to me pretty messed up. and that's what a capital gains tax cut, as opposed to payroll etc.,
But, it doesn't only benefit the rich. My parents (who are FAR from rich) both get stock as part of their retirement plans (as do many retirees from large companies). When they sell that stock, that is a capital gain and they get taxed on the ENTIRE amount as they paid nothing for it. The 2% they could save would have a rather large impact on them.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/19/06 at 10:25 am
But, it doesn't only benefit the rich. My parents (who are FAR from rich) both get stock as part of their retirement plans (as do many retirees from large companies). When they sell that stock, that is a capital gain and they get taxed on the ENTIRE amount as they paid nothing for it. The 2% they could save would have a rather large impact on them.
it's about as close as you can get to only benefiting the rich. maybe if there was a tax exclusively on golf clubs you could cut, or on undocumented domestic workers.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/19/06 at 10:33 am
I just thought of a way that can make everybody understand what I am talking about.
Everybody in here buys gas. In fact, a lot of people in here are going nuts over the price of gasoline. In many areas of the country, it is over $3 a gallon.
But ya know what? It is making almost no impact on my life. You see, gasoline takes less then 2% of my monthly income. And when something is that fractional, it simply makes little or no impact on your life.
I commute an average of 4 miles every day. That is a total of 2 trips to and from work (I drive home for lunch). And since I drive a motorcycle, I can drive an entire month on $10 of premium. I also put between $5-10 a month in my car, which is used an average of once a week to go to the supermarket to get groceries. One trip a month I double up and do my laundry on a supermarket run.
So when compared to my normal monthly gas expense, an increase of even 50% has very little impact on my life.
So all of you that drive the monster SUVs that pay $200+ a month for gas, I really don't care. After all, it is not my fault you have to pay so much. But I am comming out ahead, because I am paying less then you are. So should I have to pay a surcharge, simply because I am paying less per month for gasoline then everybody else?
You are in a unique situation. For most people, the increase in gas prices DOES have a HUGE impact on their lives as there are probably very few who work as closely to home as you do. You also live in an area where driving a motorcycle year-round is an option and are fortunate enough to be able to afford both a motorcycle and a vehicle. Not to mention, you have no children to tote around. For the "average American family", the gas price increase is having a major impact on their lives. I drive a "monster SUV" and pay less monthly than some people I know who drive smaller, more energy efficient vehicles simply because I drive less. In metropolitan areas such as Chicago, it's not unheard of to have a 20-50 mile commute every day because housing prices closer to the city are outrageous and they simply cannot afford to live closer to work (for example, if I were to move my house/yard 2 towns over, it would cost twice as much.....closer to the city, 3-4 times as much.....IN the city, you're talking $1million +). Tell me the gas price increase isn't having a negative impact on them....
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/19/06 at 10:44 am
You are in a unique situation. For most people, the increase in gas prices DOES have a HUGE impact on their lives as there are probably very few who work as closely to home as you do. You also live in an area where driving a motorcycle year-round is an option and are fortunate enough to be able to afford both a motorcycle and a vehicle. Not to mention, you have no children to tote around. For the "average American family", the gas price increase is having a major impact on their lives. I drive a "monster SUV" and pay less monthly than some people I know who drive smaller, more energy efficient vehicles simply because I drive less. In metropolitan areas such as Chicago, it's not unheard of to have a 20-50 mile commute every day because housing prices closer to the city are outrageous and they simply cannot afford to live closer to work (for example, if I were to move my house/yard 2 towns over, it would cost twice as much.....closer to the city, 3-4 times as much.....IN the city, you're talking $1million +). Tell me the gas price increase isn't having a negative impact on them....
gas doesn't affect me much either, cuz i don't have a driving commute. i take the bus.
i wasn't exactly clear why mushroom's post was related to tax cuts. maybe i'm just obtuse.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/19/06 at 10:58 am
Uh, I think it sucks that I have to pay $36 per tankful when it was $20 just a few years ago. Granted only some of that increase is tax. Some legislators here in Mass. wanted to suspend the gas tax for temporary consumer relief. The idea didn't get very far, and the nitwit Mitt Romney (a conservative Republican) said he'd nix the bill if it got to his desk. High gas prices don't strain the budgets of people as rich as Mitt and his friends. The gas tax is a regressive tax, and that's the kind of tax rich Republicans prefer.
::)
OK, now how is it regressive? Everybody pays the exact same ammount, depending on how much they use. If you use a lot of gas, you pay a lot. If you use very little gas, you pay little. If you use no gasoline at all, you pay nothing.
Or do you think that there should be a requirement to tell your income when you pay for your gasoline, so that rich people can pay more for their gasoline then the poor people?
With gas tax, everybody pays equally, depending on the amount they use. I see absolutely nothing regressive in that, other then you are unable to charge the rich more money. I guess being fair is "regressive".
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Tia on 05/19/06 at 11:00 am
OK, now how is it regressive? Everybody pays the exact same ammount, depending on how much they use. If you use a lot of gas, you pay a lot. If you use very little gas, you pay little. If you use no gasoline at all, you pay nothing.
Or do you think that there should be a requirement to tell your income when you pay for your gasoline, so that rich people can pay more for their gasoline then the poor people?
With gas tax, everybody pays equally, depending on the amount they use. I see absolutely nothing regressive in that, other then you are unable to charge the rich more money. I guess being fair is "regressive".
regressive taxes aren't tied to income, progressive taxes are, yes?
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: Mushroom on 05/19/06 at 11:10 am
You are in a unique situation. For most people, the increase in gas prices DOES have a HUGE impact on their lives as there are probably very few who work as closely to home as you do.
Oh trust me, I was not always this lucky. When I moved from LA in 2003, roughly 25% of my income went to gasoline. That was one of the major incentives to my leaving the state.
i wasn't exactly clear why mushroom's post was related to tax cuts. maybe i'm just obtuse.
Here is the point I was making: it is all about percentages.
If you have to pay 10-20% more, something impacts you. If you get 10-20% more income, that is a good thing that impacts you.
If you pay .5% more, it becomes a "so what" issue. And there comes a point where more (or less) simply makes no difference. For those that are paying 20% of their income in fuel, an additional 50% cost is a lot. For somebody who payss 1% of their income in fuel, an additional .5% is nothing.
And the same thing goes with taxes. I am all for having the lower classes paying absolutely nothing. Zip, zilch, nothing. I would also like to see a system for the rich that removes all of the deductions that they use to avoid paying taxes. That would place 100% of the tax burden on those in the "upper middle class" and higher. And without those damned deductions, they would have no way of avoiding paying taxes.
Subject: Re: $70 Billion tax cuts
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/19/06 at 11:38 am
Oh trust me, I was not always this lucky. When I moved from LA in 2003, roughly 25% of my income went to gasoline. That was one of the major incentives to my leaving the state.
Here is the point I was making: it is all about percentages.
If you have to pay 10-20% more, something impacts you. If you get 10-20% more income, that is a good thing that impacts you.
If you pay .5% more, it becomes a "so what" issue. And there comes a point where more (or less) simply makes no difference. For those that are paying 20% of their income in fuel, an additional 50% cost is a lot. For somebody who payss 1% of their income in fuel, an additional .5% is nothing.
And the same thing goes with taxes. I am all for having the lower classes paying absolutely nothing. Zip, zilch, nothing. I would also like to see a system for the rich that removes all of the deductions that they use to avoid paying taxes. That would place 100% of the tax burden on those in the "upper middle class" and higher. And without those damned deductions, they would have no way of avoiding paying taxes.
So, what do you consider "upper middle class and higher"? Someone making $100K? $200K? Do you also take into account where they live? Someone could be considered "upper middle class" making $50K in Alabama, but they're barely getting by in New York or New Jersey or California. Are you going to remove ALL deductions, including mortgage interest for everyone or just the "rich"? (since there already ARE deductions that you can only take if you make < a certain amount) Why should someone making $50K be able to deduct mortgage interest when someone who makes $100K can't? What if the person who makes $100K has 4 kids and the person making $50K has none, will that be taken into account?
I liked your "over $40K flat tax with no deductions" idea better.....