What does everyone else think about the permanant tax cuts that were handed down by the president?
Do they help ya or hurt ya?
Do they help ya or hurt ya?
George and his tax cuts
- Thread starter Trippyhippy
- Start date
Permanent?
I know people generally hate being taxed, but it's required for a working government. Less revenue coming in to the system, the less there is to spend.
I know people generally hate being taxed, but it's required for a working government. Less revenue coming in to the system, the less there is to spend.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 10,286
- Main Job
- Secondary Job
- Third Job
- Server
- Quetzalcoatl
- Linkshell
- TheNameless
- FFXI
- Elemmire
They could use a little less spending in certain areas and more in others :\ anyways.. where's the Imperialist vote?! I am so outraged! :evil:
Personally, I like the tax cuts. I've always been of the opinion that the government should be minimilist, keep to the essentials, but do those really well (like military). I would prefer the tax cuts more if someone (republican or democrat) would crack down on legal loop holes to avoid paying high taxes. As it stands now those with very high incomes should be paying nearly 40-50% of their income in taxes, however they have so many little tricks too bring down their taxeble income they largely avoid it.
Beuarcracy's with too much money are a bad thing. I attend the University of Arkansas which has spent the last 10 years raising 1mill dollars (beyond normal income). Instead of using that to lower tuition rates or hirer more teachers, they are wasting it renovating, expanding, and construction classrooms which are still in good condition and we have an excess of (many classrooms go unused throughout the day due to shortage of teachers). Incidently they also feel the need to raise tuition rates now. :roll: Big organizations become wasteful when they have too much money. Less income for the government means they will be forced to use what they get more efficiently and prioritize spending.
Beuarcracy's with too much money are a bad thing. I attend the University of Arkansas which has spent the last 10 years raising 1mill dollars (beyond normal income). Instead of using that to lower tuition rates or hirer more teachers, they are wasting it renovating, expanding, and construction classrooms which are still in good condition and we have an excess of (many classrooms go unused throughout the day due to shortage of teachers). Incidently they also feel the need to raise tuition rates now. :roll: Big organizations become wasteful when they have too much money. Less income for the government means they will be forced to use what they get more efficiently and prioritize spending.
Time for me to chime in with my opinion.
"But by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." -George W. Bush
Lets Examine this statement. Those at the bottom of the spectrum for instance. I would imagine that to be the bottom 50% of earners in this country. Fair enuff?
So they get more of the tax cut at the bottom.
But wait, they get the Vast mojority, I would imagine vast majority to be around 90% or so, but I'll cut him some slack and make it 75%.
So far, we have figured out that the bottom 50% of earners recieved 75% of the money from the tax cut.
But wait! it not just the Vast Majority, it's BY FAR the vast majority. Lets call it 80% to be really fair.
So the bottom 50% of earners should recieve 80% of the money from the tax cut. Right?
Very wrong.
He failed to mention that this “relief” program would put half of the tax cut's dividends into the hands of our nation's wealthiest 5%, while 8.1 million citizens in the bottom half of the income bracket receive approximately $300 a year. Reducing tax revenues while doubling the growth rate of federal spending has caused the federal budget deficit to balloon to a projected $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
I hate people that lie to me. George W. Bush lied to me and 80 million Americans.
You can check my source for the numbers here.
"But by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." -George W. Bush
Lets Examine this statement. Those at the bottom of the spectrum for instance. I would imagine that to be the bottom 50% of earners in this country. Fair enuff?
So they get more of the tax cut at the bottom.
But wait, they get the Vast mojority, I would imagine vast majority to be around 90% or so, but I'll cut him some slack and make it 75%.
So far, we have figured out that the bottom 50% of earners recieved 75% of the money from the tax cut.
But wait! it not just the Vast Majority, it's BY FAR the vast majority. Lets call it 80% to be really fair.
So the bottom 50% of earners should recieve 80% of the money from the tax cut. Right?
Very wrong.
He failed to mention that this “relief” program would put half of the tax cut's dividends into the hands of our nation's wealthiest 5%, while 8.1 million citizens in the bottom half of the income bracket receive approximately $300 a year. Reducing tax revenues while doubling the growth rate of federal spending has caused the federal budget deficit to balloon to a projected $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
I hate people that lie to me. George W. Bush lied to me and 80 million Americans.
You can check my source for the numbers here.
Labor 4tw!
You really need an "I'm-not-American-but-have-an-opinion-on-the-topic" choice 
Gee Rones I used to really respect your opinon. Seems like your in dire need of knowing what it is your President is doing to you.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,518
- Linkshell
- ArcaneGarden
Trippyhippy: there's one thing you're neglecting in your math. The reason that the wealthiest 5% seems to be getting such a larger cut is because they're also paying the most. Let's make up some numbers:
Last year, my husband and I together were in one of the lowest brackets for a couple filing jointly (with one child), I won't say exactly what but we were in the 30K range. Our fed taxes were in the range of ~$700.
Now, let's extrapolate that a bit. Say someone is in the highest bracket, making $30,000,000 in stead of $30,000. If taxes were flat, they'd be paying the same rate as us, and fed would take $700,000 of their 30 million. The actuality, though, is that someone with this income theoretically would be paying anywhere up to 10 million a year in taxes. (They don't, mostly because of good accountants and well-placed investments in non-taxable accounts, but that's outside our math for the moment).
Now according to that site, if I were to get a tax cut on my 30K a year equaling $350, then that would be a 50% reduction in my tax rate. But if the schmuck paying 10 million a year gets $53,000 off his taxes, then he gets a 0.53% reduction. Even assuming he's only paying 1/10 of what I've put in my example (1 mil instead of 10) it's only a 5.3% reduction.
Bottom line- the government can't refund more than what people have paid in.
Last year, my husband and I together were in one of the lowest brackets for a couple filing jointly (with one child), I won't say exactly what but we were in the 30K range. Our fed taxes were in the range of ~$700.
Now, let's extrapolate that a bit. Say someone is in the highest bracket, making $30,000,000 in stead of $30,000. If taxes were flat, they'd be paying the same rate as us, and fed would take $700,000 of their 30 million. The actuality, though, is that someone with this income theoretically would be paying anywhere up to 10 million a year in taxes. (They don't, mostly because of good accountants and well-placed investments in non-taxable accounts, but that's outside our math for the moment).
Now according to that site, if I were to get a tax cut on my 30K a year equaling $350, then that would be a 50% reduction in my tax rate. But if the schmuck paying 10 million a year gets $53,000 off his taxes, then he gets a 0.53% reduction. Even assuming he's only paying 1/10 of what I've put in my example (1 mil instead of 10) it's only a 5.3% reduction.
Bottom line- the government can't refund more than what people have paid in.
The lower class already pay hardly anything in taxes. So being upset that they are not getting much of a tax refund or cut is pretty silly. Personally I would like a flat tax percentage of income, but that would be too mean to uppper class and be seen as favoring upper class.
Glad you were so willing to explain and support your statement instead of just taking an unsupported cheap shot. :roll:
Rones said:
What makes me mad is the fact that he blantently lied about it to make the american public think that this was a plan to put money back into the pocket of the poor man.
The quote that started out my first post came from the debate with Al Gore.
But even so, people that have made their fortune in this country deserve to pay a bit more. I'm not sayin that it's their responsability to support the nation, but why should they not want to help build up the nation that made them so rich? The upper 5% of earners could give half of their income and still have more than 100x what the lower half makes.
This tax cut has helped to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
How has it made the poor poorer? I realize it was a very small amount cut for them, but still a larger percentage for them than the rich got as Fellina explains so well. Even then, how does having more money circulating in the economy make anyone poorer? I don't remember seeing their tax rate going. Also, consider what rich people do with excess money. They hire more lower class workers like maids and use services where lower class workers are common (restaurants and clothing stores). This would be the trickle down effect in practice. Even if the rich put their extra money in a savings account, that is more money banks can loan anyone. I really don't see how a tax cut can make someone poorer.
So I don't need to write it over again.
http://www.qcdn.org/viewtopic.php?t=16602&start=45
And yes Rones, I'm an ass on here when debating. Actually am in real life too, I apologize.
And eh, btw, the rich don't spend thier money they sit on it and save, thats why they rich. Thats why BUSH got rid of the inheritance tax, its to keep you poor people poor and the rich rich.
http://www.qcdn.org/viewtopic.php?t=16602&start=45
And yes Rones, I'm an ass on here when debating. Actually am in real life too, I apologize.
And eh, btw, the rich don't spend thier money they sit on it and save, thats why they rich. Thats why BUSH got rid of the inheritance tax, its to keep you poor people poor and the rich rich.
The trickle down effect dosen't work well because it depends on the rich spending their money, and that's exactly what they don't seem to be doing.
I'm not saying that they never spend any money, I'm just saying that they don't spend enough in America to make trickle down economics work.
The top 100 richest people in america control a larger % of the capital in this country than they ever have before. Out of the money they do spend, a lot of it goes to other countries, that is why we have a Record trade defecit this year.
With all the over-seas spending from outsourcing our labor, the trickle down effect is trickling to other countries, not American Workers.
All this tax did was give the rich back enuff money to buy another BMW, and give the poor back enuff money to pay the grocery bill for a week.
One could argue that they deserve it b/c they worked for it, but in most cases, that wuoldn't be true either.
The majority of the income that is made by people that gross over a million a year is from capitol gains. That money isn't taxed at all. And now that the Inheritance tax is slowly going away (until the year 2011 when it goes back to the same rate that it was in 2001), that money will NEVER be taxed.
I'm gonna stop here and give someone a chance to counterpoint.
I'm not saying that they never spend any money, I'm just saying that they don't spend enough in America to make trickle down economics work.
The top 100 richest people in america control a larger % of the capital in this country than they ever have before. Out of the money they do spend, a lot of it goes to other countries, that is why we have a Record trade defecit this year.
With all the over-seas spending from outsourcing our labor, the trickle down effect is trickling to other countries, not American Workers.
All this tax did was give the rich back enuff money to buy another BMW, and give the poor back enuff money to pay the grocery bill for a week.
One could argue that they deserve it b/c they worked for it, but in most cases, that wuoldn't be true either.
The majority of the income that is made by people that gross over a million a year is from capitol gains. That money isn't taxed at all. And now that the Inheritance tax is slowly going away (until the year 2011 when it goes back to the same rate that it was in 2001), that money will NEVER be taxed.
I'm gonna stop here and give someone a chance to counterpoint.
Trade deficits aren't really a bad thing:
I'm also curious what you are basing your judgement on that the rich only save their money. Doesn't take much effort to see much spending by the rich on mtv or vh1's, especially that 'rich and the famous show' that was on vh1 I believe a few months back. It was good at pointing our celebrities high expenditures. However, even if they do save their money like you claim, that still doesn't hurt the economy. That puts more money in banks which means banks can loan more money and at a lower interest rate which encourages more spending by people of all classes.
This is from Mr Griswold, director of Trade Policy Studies. You can read his full article here.
I'm also curious what you are basing your judgement on that the rich only save their money. Doesn't take much effort to see much spending by the rich on mtv or vh1's, especially that 'rich and the famous show' that was on vh1 I believe a few months back. It was good at pointing our celebrities high expenditures. However, even if they do save their money like you claim, that still doesn't hurt the economy. That puts more money in banks which means banks can loan more money and at a lower interest rate which encourages more spending by people of all classes.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,518
- Linkshell
- ArcaneGarden
Your logic is flawed, and contradictory.
On one hand, you say that rich people don't put their money back into our economy. Then you turn around and say that the majority of the income that they make is from capital gains. Do you even comprehend what that means?
They're making so much off capital gains because they're NOT just sitting on their money- they're investing it into company stocks. Companies sell stock to raise capital to expand their business, which generally means hiring more workers. Some of them may be foreign, but certainly not all of them. You can't outsource in areas where people have to meet face to face. Sure, maybe Nike makes all their shoes in Taiwan now, but they're not bringing in taiwanese kids to sell those shoes here in the US.
I'll say again- the government can't refund more than you're paying in. If I only paid $700 in taxes, I can't expect enough back to buy a BMW. But for someone who's paying millions a year, getting a return of several thousands of dollars is really just a token refund.
On one hand, you say that rich people don't put their money back into our economy. Then you turn around and say that the majority of the income that they make is from capital gains. Do you even comprehend what that means?
They're making so much off capital gains because they're NOT just sitting on their money- they're investing it into company stocks. Companies sell stock to raise capital to expand their business, which generally means hiring more workers. Some of them may be foreign, but certainly not all of them. You can't outsource in areas where people have to meet face to face. Sure, maybe Nike makes all their shoes in Taiwan now, but they're not bringing in taiwanese kids to sell those shoes here in the US.
I'll say again- the government can't refund more than you're paying in. If I only paid $700 in taxes, I can't expect enough back to buy a BMW. But for someone who's paying millions a year, getting a return of several thousands of dollars is really just a token refund.
Ok, I normally never discuss politics/economics with people other than friends. Honestly, unless you know the person it always degenerates into a shouting match or one person just being stubborn and refusing to actually consider the other's views honestly. But I'll go against my better judgement and chime in this time.
First of all, quoting internet propaganda sites, on either side, is useless. I won't point fingers, but you can go back and read the posts for yourself if you want. You can get actual congressional accounting reports, which are posted publicly. The problem is that even these reports are somewhat biased by whomever controls the accounting office at the time (and it's not always the current administration either). So where does that leave you? You need to have a firm background in economics to strip away the BS and get the real picture, and even then you can't get 2 economists to agree on anything.
So let me give you a real quick course on Taxes in a Capitalist Economy.
It's very simple, land/businesses/business owners never pay any taxes in a capitalist society. Not because of political clout or underhanded accounting, and not because of any bleeding heart social injustice theory you can conjure up with your fertile imagination. It's simply mathmatics.
All costs to produce goods or own land are passed on to the consumer, plus a profit margin as well. Other businesses and business owners who incur these costs from another business will pass it on to their consumers, and so forth down the line. Therefore, all taxes (one of the costs of doing business) are passed on to the consumers, all the way down the line until you reach a consumer who is unable to pass on those costs. Ergo, all taxes are paid by the non-propertied class. Any tax on the "rich" is actually a tax on the poor, just with some slight of hand to make you sleep better at night.
The reverse is also true (to an extent). Reducing taxes for everyone reduces the burden on the "poor," since they will be paying it regardless. Yes, companies can choose to maintain the same price even when costs are reduced, but they compete with each other and generally will lower prices.
Now comes the question that determines if you are a capitalist or a communist: is this fair? I say Hell Yes. The "rich" who run a business? 99% work damn hard (average business owner puts in 60 hours per week) and their fortunes and futures are tied to that business. Every day is a risk that they lose money and even go broke, unable to pay the bills. Well over half of all new businesses will fail. Sure some poeple have a great money-maker just dropped into their laps and are basically leeches off of others' achievements, but I can't blame John Carry for being lucky*. As for the wealthy who don't have a business and don't own property, they pay the taxes like the non-propertied "poor". As for the workers, they earn their money and deserve fair treatment, but they don't risk their capital everyday and so the compensation is less than for the owners.
That's basically it for my opinion (at least what I can share in limited space). This is why the Kennedy's, Rockafeller's and Carry's can seem so generous when they promise to tax the rich, including themselves. They know that they'll just be passing the bill to you when you aren't looking.
*Bush was born lucky, but you have to give him credit for the smart investments he made with that money.
First of all, quoting internet propaganda sites, on either side, is useless. I won't point fingers, but you can go back and read the posts for yourself if you want. You can get actual congressional accounting reports, which are posted publicly. The problem is that even these reports are somewhat biased by whomever controls the accounting office at the time (and it's not always the current administration either). So where does that leave you? You need to have a firm background in economics to strip away the BS and get the real picture, and even then you can't get 2 economists to agree on anything.
So let me give you a real quick course on Taxes in a Capitalist Economy.
It's very simple, land/businesses/business owners never pay any taxes in a capitalist society. Not because of political clout or underhanded accounting, and not because of any bleeding heart social injustice theory you can conjure up with your fertile imagination. It's simply mathmatics.
All costs to produce goods or own land are passed on to the consumer, plus a profit margin as well. Other businesses and business owners who incur these costs from another business will pass it on to their consumers, and so forth down the line. Therefore, all taxes (one of the costs of doing business) are passed on to the consumers, all the way down the line until you reach a consumer who is unable to pass on those costs. Ergo, all taxes are paid by the non-propertied class. Any tax on the "rich" is actually a tax on the poor, just with some slight of hand to make you sleep better at night.
The reverse is also true (to an extent). Reducing taxes for everyone reduces the burden on the "poor," since they will be paying it regardless. Yes, companies can choose to maintain the same price even when costs are reduced, but they compete with each other and generally will lower prices.
Now comes the question that determines if you are a capitalist or a communist: is this fair? I say Hell Yes. The "rich" who run a business? 99% work damn hard (average business owner puts in 60 hours per week) and their fortunes and futures are tied to that business. Every day is a risk that they lose money and even go broke, unable to pay the bills. Well over half of all new businesses will fail. Sure some poeple have a great money-maker just dropped into their laps and are basically leeches off of others' achievements, but I can't blame John Carry for being lucky*. As for the wealthy who don't have a business and don't own property, they pay the taxes like the non-propertied "poor". As for the workers, they earn their money and deserve fair treatment, but they don't risk their capital everyday and so the compensation is less than for the owners.
That's basically it for my opinion (at least what I can share in limited space). This is why the Kennedy's, Rockafeller's and Carry's can seem so generous when they promise to tax the rich, including themselves. They know that they'll just be passing the bill to you when you aren't looking.
*Bush was born lucky, but you have to give him credit for the smart investments he made with that money.
Good post but that just justifies the need for an estate tax even more.
And who got rid of that? None other than your good buddy Bush.
Anyway what you just posted is not entirely true, but mostly yes. Many bussineses especially the bigger companies do this, but not ALL. Some simply work with too little margins and competition is too high to do what you say. If you overtaxed to compensate for these loopholes and abuses you would simply put too many bussinesses out of bussiness.
Theres only so much you can do, but ignoring the facts and trying to simply say "We can't tax them anyway so let's not" is not fixing anything.
YOu can go round and round in the poilitcal whrilwind but the bottom line is the economy works one way and its shitty in the other. (works for the time being anyway)
When was the economy good? You don't need a set of data to tell you that, or some moron trying to justify why it didn't happen during his term.
And who got rid of that? None other than your good buddy Bush.
Anyway what you just posted is not entirely true, but mostly yes. Many bussineses especially the bigger companies do this, but not ALL. Some simply work with too little margins and competition is too high to do what you say. If you overtaxed to compensate for these loopholes and abuses you would simply put too many bussinesses out of bussiness.
Theres only so much you can do, but ignoring the facts and trying to simply say "We can't tax them anyway so let's not" is not fixing anything.
YOu can go round and round in the poilitcal whrilwind but the bottom line is the economy works one way and its shitty in the other. (works for the time being anyway)
When was the economy good? You don't need a set of data to tell you that, or some moron trying to justify why it didn't happen during his term.
Ok, Dante thanks for responding. You won't find my views in any textbook, but that doesn't disqualify them. At one time everyone just knew that the earth was flat for example. However you either didn't grasp what I was saying, dodged it, or at least didn't organize it well. So let me show you how I respond to stuff like this (in a friendly fashion).
People paid taxes on their money when they earned, when they spent it, and when the saved it (because interest is taxed as well). What good will it do to tax it when they die as well? The answer you are looking for is: none. Please notice my earlier point about who really pays the taxes. If they own a business and pass that on to their heirs, then taxing the estate does nothing.
And your point is? Don't assume that I know what you mean, agree with you, or will even just concede the point. If you have something to say, say it.
Who said I recommended increasing taxes? I didn't. That's your idea, not mine. I simply pointed out how money works. But since you mention it, raising taxes is idiotic if you do it to somehow balance out financial inequalities. But if you raise or lower taxes uniformly, then all business will have a level playing ground and can change their rates knowing that their competition will do the same. Putting words in my mouth and then refuting those words to discredit my ideas is intellectually dishonest.
Fix? Fix what? Nothing is broken. If you don't like the laws of gravity, you can't fix those. If you don't like the laws of economics, too bad, you can't fix those either. Ignore? Ignore what? You don't specify, and you certainly didn't post any facts. The only ignoring that is going on is you ignoring what I have said.
Please clarify, if you can. This doesn't connect to anything else in your post and it doesn't stand alone either.
Actually, you do need a set of data to show you when the economy is good, otherwise it's just your opinion. Just because you aren't doing well, doesn't mean that no one is dong well. Unemployment is low. Businesses are expanding. Taxes have been cut, but despite that actual tax revenue to the Federal govenment has increased! If a lower percentage of the GNP equals more money (after the tax cut) than a higher percentage before the tax cut, then the GNP has increased dramatically and the economy is better by definition. Which also means that the tax cuts have done what it was claimed they would do.
So, think it through. Organize it (quotes are optional but helpful). Then respond, and please, please respond to the actual post. Do not respond to your own response to the post. I'm sorry if some of this seemed a bit like a jab, but you did irk me when you started to "refute" points I didn't even make.
People paid taxes on their money when they earned, when they spent it, and when the saved it (because interest is taxed as well). What good will it do to tax it when they die as well? The answer you are looking for is: none. Please notice my earlier point about who really pays the taxes. If they own a business and pass that on to their heirs, then taxing the estate does nothing.
And your point is? Don't assume that I know what you mean, agree with you, or will even just concede the point. If you have something to say, say it.
Who said I recommended increasing taxes? I didn't. That's your idea, not mine. I simply pointed out how money works. But since you mention it, raising taxes is idiotic if you do it to somehow balance out financial inequalities. But if you raise or lower taxes uniformly, then all business will have a level playing ground and can change their rates knowing that their competition will do the same. Putting words in my mouth and then refuting those words to discredit my ideas is intellectually dishonest.
Fix? Fix what? Nothing is broken. If you don't like the laws of gravity, you can't fix those. If you don't like the laws of economics, too bad, you can't fix those either. Ignore? Ignore what? You don't specify, and you certainly didn't post any facts. The only ignoring that is going on is you ignoring what I have said.
Please clarify, if you can. This doesn't connect to anything else in your post and it doesn't stand alone either.
Actually, you do need a set of data to show you when the economy is good, otherwise it's just your opinion. Just because you aren't doing well, doesn't mean that no one is dong well. Unemployment is low. Businesses are expanding. Taxes have been cut, but despite that actual tax revenue to the Federal govenment has increased! If a lower percentage of the GNP equals more money (after the tax cut) than a higher percentage before the tax cut, then the GNP has increased dramatically and the economy is better by definition. Which also means that the tax cuts have done what it was claimed they would do.
So, think it through. Organize it (quotes are optional but helpful). Then respond, and please, please respond to the actual post. Do not respond to your own response to the post. I'm sorry if some of this seemed a bit like a jab, but you did irk me when you started to "refute" points I didn't even make.