Presidential Debate: Round 2

[kate]

I guess basicly the majority of the people see it like this: I was being critical about Bush's taxcuts and I said something about a deficit that they are convinced of not ever havin been that high (which might be true, I really can't say i was there to see the stats back then i can only rely on what I see with my eyes whichis this book and sadly enough google is being no help to find exact stats)

They also think that workers dont deserve wage taxcuts. Thats at least what I think Timberwolf meant when he asked me if a poor person ever gave me a job.. although I think my answer to that was a valid point too.. i guess we just simply dont agree.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I said "Bush & Reagans term of office" (you didnt read my simple elaborating after the sentence that you so cleverly quoted, did you?)

As a Vice President from 1981 to 1989 under Reagan and then President until 1993 is clearly more than 4 years to me.

You are spinning so wildly and out of control that you are like BJ Clinton. You claimed that the deficit was larger than $300 billion FIVE times under Reagan and Bush 41. That is a bald-faced lie. According to the source that I quoted before - The Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2004, Historical Tables (the 2005 document is now available, see below) - there was never a deficit as large as $300 billion at any time under President Reagan or under the first President Bush.

Thats all I have to say. As i stated before, this is senseless...besides that where are your weird stats from? The deficit under Reagan and Bush (so more than 4 years) was 5% of the cross domestic product..under Clinton it fell down to 2,5%.

Those "weird stats" came fron an official U.S. Government Publication that is available here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/). A few documents down you will find a link that states, "Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005". Click on that link to get a .pdf version of those tables. Then click on Section 1 to get the tables that show the deficits year-by-year. You will find that at no time under Reagan or Bush 41 was there a deficit as much as $300 billion.

[Naturalized-Texan]

What is wrong with you people then!!!! She calls for more tax cuts and you say she's wrong? What kind of conservatives are you? (maybe embassered conservatives now?)

I haven't seen anyone here who is opposed to more tax cuts, certainly not I. As I plainly stated in another thread, I agree with the newly-named Nobel laureate that Bush's tax cuts were too small. The top marginal rate should be returned to the pre-1991 level of 28% or lower. Better yet, enact a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate. Or even better, eliminate the income tax and payroll taxes altogether and enact a consumption tax.

[kate]

[QUOTE=Naturalized-Texan]I haven't seen anyone here who is opposed to more tax cuts, certainly not I.QUOTE]

Ok. If thats the case now then I don't see the need to discuss on. My whole point was that more taxcuts would be more effective. So there you go... this whole debate about deficits was totally unnecessary obviously because all I wanted to point out was that more taxcuts (and equal ones)would help the economy.

btw: The encyclopedia that states all the stats I brought up was last updated in 1994 (I just saw that) and it says that the stats are based on "prognosed" values from some Dems organisation. (All that is written in tiny letters on the inside of the cover. couldnt possibly see that)

And I would be happy if you could refrain from comparing my statements with Clinton... :unsmile: thanks.

[Naturalized-Texan]

What is wrong with you people then!!!! She calls for more tax cuts and you say she's wrong? What kind of conservatives are you? (maybe embassered conservatives now?)

Who is the "she" whom you claim is for more tax cuts? It certainly insn't kate. She has said repeatedly that she opposes the Bush tax cuts because some of those cuts go to the wealthy who invest the money saved to create jobs. Clearly she favors the imposition of higher taxes and fewer jobs on the American people.

[kate]

Who is the "she" whom you claim is for more tax cuts? It certainly insn't kate. She has said repeatedly that she opposes the Bush tax cuts because some of those cuts go to the wealthy who invest the money saved to create jobs. Clearly she favors the imposition of higher taxes and fewer jobs on the American people.
Hurm.. please look at this:


equal taxcuts:

A wage AND income taxcut would result in people consuming more goods and companies having to produce more goods. Jobs would be created and both sides could finance their way to more profit. The aim would be reached in shorter time than above. Unless the companies would decide to hire people before the actual benefit of the taxcut would be perceptable.


By "equal" taxcuts I didnt mean "equal" in money but "equal" in the sense of both sides getting a taxcut that is worth mentioning.

So.. where exactly did I say anything about rising taxes?
I think that my statements clearly show that I think MORE taxcuts on BOTH sides would turn the tide here and make the economy grow faster.

THAT is all I said.

The stuff about the deficit I took back. So answer me the following questions, please: (You can do that over PM too since it has nothing to do with the topic)

- where is your problem now?
- do you think that I am a liberal?
- do you actually remember me?

[Naturalized-Texan]

kate:
You have repeatedly stated that you opposed the Bush tax cuts because it benefitted the rich. Since you oppose those tax cuts, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that you favor higher taxes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "wage taxes." The fact is that wage taxes ARE income taxes. Granted, not all income taxes are wage taxes, but ALL taxes on wages are income taxes.

[kate]

Just take it that you understood me wrong. I cant be bothered to explain the word "wage taxes" to you. it exists. Just probably not in America but it is not the same as income taxes. Nevermind. Basicly, now you know what I meant in the first place since I explained it good enough for Black Phoenix obviously, who did understand when I said "taxcuts for both sides" ... dont see whats there to missunderstand tbh.

And I didnt say that i opposed them because it benefitted the rich .. I said I am not too convinced of them cuz they are only aimed at the rich.

You sure do a good job twisting my words.

[oracle]

I'm not sure what you mean by "wage taxes." The fact is that wage taxes ARE income taxes. Granted, not all income taxes are wage taxes, but ALL taxes on wages are income taxes.

"Wage taxes" refers to the unescapable taxes for the liberal social progams, i.e. Social Security and Medicare.

If you cut wage taxes, then you will produce a short fall in the funding for those programs that will have to be made up by taking revenues from the general fund. This is something that should never be allowed to happen. Social Security and Medicare MUST continue to be self-funding or we are doomed. When you have SS being supplimented by income tax revenues, liberals will accept that as the only way to fix SS' impending financial problems and will never agree to the fundimental reforms that are needed.

Personally I love to see democrats complain about the burden of eage taxes when they are the ones that created those taxes to begin with.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I cant be bothered to explain the word "wage taxes" to you. it exists.
If you think "wage taxes" exist separately fom income taxes, it seems to me that you owe us an explanation. FYI, I worked as a tax preparer, tax preparation instructor, and tax preparation office supervisor for a major tax preparation corporation for 10 years and I have never seen an entity called "wage taxes" separate from income taxes. BTW, in that position, I prepared 200 to 400 federal tax returns each year.

[Naturalized-Texan]

"Wage taxes" refers to the unescapable taxes for the liberal social progams, i.e. Social Security and Medicare.

No, those are payroll taxes, not wage taxes.

EDIT:
Payroll taxes for SS and Medicare can't be cut unless those programs are radically reformed to completely privatize them. If she is mistakenly calling payroll taxes "wage taxes" then without those radical reforms, those taxes can only increase and any proposal to cut them is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

[oracle]

And I didnt say that i opposed them because it benefitted the rich .. I said I am not too convinced of them cuz they are only aimed at the rich.

You sure do a good job twisting my words.

And you are doing an excellent job of twisting Bush's tax cuts. They were not only aimed at the rich.

The first phase of the tax cuts created a new 10% bracket. This effected EVERYONE that pays income taxes. It was because of this new bracket that the rebate checks were sent out in August 2001. The 10% bracket was made retroactive to 1/1/2001, but since income taxes had been withheld using tables with 15% as the lowest bracket, this meant that too much had been withheld from everyone's paychecks and they would be getting a refund when they filed their 2001 returns. The rebate checks were sent so that the money could be put into peoples hands immediately.

The indexes for the other brackets were changed as were the rates for the brackets higher than 15%. Again, this helped all income tax payers who were in those particular brackets.

The end result of Bush's tax cuts was that several million lower income wage earners saw their income tax bill cut 100% to $0. Many other middle class workers saw an increase of several thousand dollars in their annual take home pay.

The left loves to complain about the size of taxcut that the so-called wealthy received because the upper bracket was cut from 39% to 36% but they fail to mention that these people are paying the majority of the taxes. The top 50% of wage earners are paying 96.04% of the income taxes, the top 10% are paying 64.89%, the top 5% are paying 54.25%, and the top 1% are paying 33.89%.

The whole purpose of the tax cut was to take the projected surplus and return it to the people. A surplus represents excessive income tax collections. When the wealthy are paying most of the income taxes, should a return of that excess mainly go to very people it was taken from?

The claim that the tax cuts were for the rich is one of the liberal mantras. If one doesn't want to be confused for a liberal, they should not talk like one.

[Naturalized-Texan]

oracle, kate:
http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/2004_Tax_Cut.jpg

Note that under the Bush tax cuts, the tax burden on the rich has actually increased.

[oracle]

Why are you lumping me in with kate? Are you assuming that just because I explained one of her terms that I am in agreement with her?

The reason the burden on the upper income wage earners (and middle income wage earners too) has increased is not because their taxes have increased, but because a number of low income people have had their taxes eliminated. Therefore, the income taxes that they do pay, WHICH IS AT A LOWER RATE THAN BEFORE BUSH'S TAX CUTS, represents a larger percentage of the total income taxes collected.

The problem with the "the wealthy benefit more" nonsense is that it relies on liberal math. If when you drop the upper rate from 39% to 36%, someone making $200,000/yr gets to keep an additional $6,000 in their paycheck while someone who makes $20,000,000/yr gets to keep an additional $600,000. The left looks at this as scream that the wealthy are unfairly getting a larger share, but the fact is that both wage earners are getting proportionally equivalent tax cuts. What liberals really hate, but refuse to say so publically is that they hate the fact that someone earns so much money.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Why are you lumping me in with kate? Are you assuming that just because I explained one of her terms that I am in agreement with her?
I was merely reinforcing your point against her.

There is another, more important, reason for the larger tax burden on the rich due to tax cuts: They invest the money returned to them by the cuts to expand the economy, so they have more income as a result of the return on those investments and then pay more taxes.

[kate]

If when you drop the upper rate from 39% to 36%, someone making $200,000/yr gets to keep an additional $6,000 in their paycheck while someone who makes $20,000,000/yr gets to keep an additional $600,000. .
Yeah well, fact being is though that if you get lets say additional 1000 or whatever Dollars annually they will more likely save it than spend it. So all I am thinking about is that if they would get a sum that is worth mentioning then they would actually be able to buy more and it would be better for the economy than if the money would end up staying on their bank account or whereever.

That's of course depending on the point of view. The example above though with people that keep an additonial $6,000 in their paycheck is not bad. I mean, that ammount of money actually does make them consume more.
Lower incomes though, don't have the option to find a way to middle-class or consume more anyways.

Whatever though, I never said that the taxcuts that DID take place didn't help the economy, all I said was that FROM MY point of view higher taxcuts would have paid off quicker. And that's all I said.

[Black Phoenix]

EDIT:
Payroll taxes for SS and Medicare can't be cut unless those programs are radically reformed to completely privatize them. If she is mistakenly calling payroll taxes "wage taxes" then without those radical reforms, those taxes can only increase and any proposal to cut them is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.Pie in the sky fantasy? Why would that be? These programs need reform, they're already in dept. Perhaps payroll tax cuts would be the final straw in making people call for reform instead of more of the same, after all, cut them enough, and you know how no one has ever wins running on gauranting more tax increases. (Growing government yes, but some simple minded people just can't make the connection there.) <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Chris]

These programs need reform,
That's what he's saying.


Kate,
You're obsessed with consumption, and fail to see the economic value of investment.

[Black Phoenix]

You're obsessed with consumption, and fail to see the economic value of investmentNo actually she's several time acknowledged it, it's you guys whom don't seem to get that consumption is important to, correct me if I'm wrong, is it not an intregral part of investment? You can't separate the two in my mind. But Kate would not be the first to say Bush's tax cuts didn't go far enough. The rich still pay way more than their fair share for instance.

Edit: Okay Kate, no, I don't see how they were targeted only at the rich, mostly perhaps, but you sound convinced of more than mostly. Think I'm moving away from both camps.

[Chris]

No actually she's several time acknowledged it, it's you guys whom don't seem to get that consumption is important to, correct me if I'm wrong, is it not an intregral part of investment?

I'm referring to this BP.

"...they will more likely save it than spend it. So all I am thinking about is that if they would get a sum that is worth mentioning then they would actually be able to buy more and it would be better for the economy than if the money would end up staying on their bank account or whereever."

What exactly is "get a sum that is worth mentioning then they would actually be able to buy more"? Get from whom? A tax cut means you don't pay in as much to begin with. The "sum that is worth mentioning then they would actually be able to buy more" is up to you to save.

In the bank account is an investment, because the bank uses it/invests it in the economy. And, what's wrong with doing it the "old fashion way", saving up to buy something?

[kate]

Ok. True, saving on a bank account makes the bank invest more. That's true. I didn't think of that.

And Chris, I am not failing to see the effect of investment.
But wouldnt higher investment plus higher consumption equal an even higher positive result for the economy?

[Black Phoenix]

I would propose a total re-working of the tax system. Get rid of the income tax, originally unconstitutional. The money is yours, not the governemnt. Rework the tax code to make a more flat tax. right now, the poor, earning below 1700 a year pay 1/4 their income to the government, the middle class about 50% and the rich, oh so much more. There are many pay levels at which you actually earn more, but take home less. Talk about discouraging investment and consumption, under this system, sometimes there's no insentive to grow at all.

Make a constitutional amendment that each bill has to be voted on.

No income tax and forcing politicians to let us know directly how much money they are taking may turn the tables in favor of the tax payer for once, after all, the middle class is way over charged as well as the rich. If we all saw how much we were losing, there would no doubt be a huge change.

admission: those percentages aren't very accurate unless you include state taxes----oops! Can somone help me with finding the actual federal tax burden on each group?